DailyTech - OCZ Raises The Bar With New DDR3 Modules

Submit News

Hardware OCZ Raises The Bar With New DDR3 Modules
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - July 19, 2007 3:53 PM

38 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on Jul 24 at 3:03 PM

OCZ PC3-14400 memory modules (Source: OCZ Technology)

New OCZ PC3-14400 modules raises the bar to 1800 MHz

OCZ Technology today announced new PC3-14400 DDR3 memory modules. The new PC3-14400 modules raise the bar to 1800 MHz, up 200 MHz from Super Talent’s previously announced offering. OCZ rates the new PC3-14400 modules with 8-8-8 timings, higher than Kingston’s CL5 memory modules.

“OCZ is excited to release the world’s first 1800MHz DDR3 solution, which offers consumers not only the fastest production specification, but has additional headroom for enthusiasts to go on and break records,” said Dr. Michael Schuette, VP of Technology Development at OCZ Technology. “Following on the heels of the 1600MHz release of OCZ DDR3 comes the 1800MHz DDR3 series with a peak bandwidth of 14400MB per second and latencies comparable to the fastest offerings of DDR or DDR2.”

The new PC3-14400 modules feature OCZ’s platinum-mirrored Xtreme Thermal Convection, or XTC, heat spreaders. OCZ claims each module is hand-tested to ensure operation at the rated speeds and compatibility with DDR3 platforms.

OCZ sells the PC3-14400 modules in single modules and dual channel kits. Expect the dual channel kits to retail for around $700 and $350 for individual modules. All OCZ PC3-14400 memory kits feature lifetime warranties.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Eh, big deal

By mdogs444 on 7/19/2007 4:01:34 PM , Rating: 2

As cool as high speed memory is, especially at 1800MHz, I dont see it as anything special becuase most of us either A)can't afford it, or B)wouldn't be dumb enough to pay $700 for that dual channel kit.

When are these going to go down in price? And how can DDR3 be so expensive when its been being utilized on video cards for quite some time. Maybe im incorrect in that statement as im not sure if GDDR3 and DDR3 are entirely different or not.

RE: Eh, big deal

By maevinj on 7/19/2007 4:11:15 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
im not sure if GDDR3 and DDR3 are entirely different or not

Very different from my understanding, which is very limited

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By omnicronx on 7/20/2007 9:03:30 AM , Rating: 2

not as different as you would think, ddr2 was alot more different than gddr2 because they left the voltage at 2.5v i think which lead to heat issues and the quick release of gddr3 which can run at low voltages getting rid of the heat issues. I am pretty sure gddr3 can run as low as 1.8v (which is what i have seen in some of the earlier ddr3 kits) but can go as low as 1.5v i am pretty sure

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By semo on 7/19/2007 4:14:23 PM , Rating: 1

c)increase in memory clock is the last place you should spend money when building a pc

and yes gddr3 and ddr3 are very different. ddr3 didn't even exist when gddr3 cards were mainstream. also, who said gddr3/4 is cheap anyway?

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By slayerized on 7/19/2007 4:17:03 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
and yes gddr3 and ddr3 are very different.

a simple wiki search reveals the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By mdogs444 on 7/19/2007 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 2

Well in relation, you can get a 256MB GDDR3 video card for ~ $60 like i did on the 7600GT. So take away the processor and rest of the stuff and that would leave about what - $30 for the memory? And thats retail cost, not production cost.

Just a thought.

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By DeepBlue1975 on 7/19/2007 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 5

I guess this is for the symetric FSB - CPU, purist overclocking community out there.

Been there, done that. I've learned my lesson the hard way and will never ever again bother spending big bucks on just faster RAM sticks.
The performance gain only shows in synthetic benchmarks and in real world usage you barely get more than 5% difference for, what? a twofold increase in price?

No thanks. :)

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By awer26 on 7/19/2007 6:05:37 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
When are these going to go down in price?

Give it time! DDR3 has barely been released to the consumer market and already the price complaints!

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By Dactyl on 7/19/2007 11:17:45 PM , Rating: 4

What could be less original than whining about the price of some new enthusiast tech component?

Get over it. There are so many great bargains out there, yet some people get hung up over the things they can't have.

How do high prices here hurt you? They don't. And whatever's expensive now will be dirt cheap in 2 years. That's why you should care about this--or at least have the decency to ignore it.

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By sxr7171 on 7/20/2007 12:07:27 AM , Rating: 2

So well written that I logged in just to say so.

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By mdogs444 on 7/20/2007 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 1

In case you didnt read the entire post, or maybe you are retarded and failed to notice the reason i asked about price, it was because i didnt know the difference between DDR3 and GDDR3 were that drastic.

So next time, instead of thinking someone in whining, about the price of components, maybe you should stick to answering their question at hand, or just keeping your mouth shut.

Did i say the price hurts me? Did i say i couldnt buy it? No, to either of them. Do I think it would be stupid and serve to purpose? absolutely.

Next time read the thread its in entire length before you attempt to bash questions because you do not know how to tell context.

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By SmokeRngs on 7/23/2007 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 1

Since you knew there was a chance at DDR3 and GDDR3 being different, it was in your best interest to check into the differences before posting.

The person you replied to was not attacking the DDR3 vs GDDR3 comments. He was attacking the fact that someone was bitching about the price of a new and basically cutting edge technology. New and cutting edge have always been and for the foreseeable future be expensive. This has been the case with every new memory standard. Due to new technology and new processes required for production, yields are low. Also, there are few motherboards that currently accept DDR3 which keeps the volume low for the memory. Economy of scale needs large volume along with mature processes and neither of those requirements have been met.

Parent

RE: Eh, big deal

By DeepBlue1975 on 7/24/2007 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 2

Why could anyone down rate the post just above mine?
Cutting edge has always been hell-expensive, and will always be that way.
Not just for the initial low shields, though, but also for a question of marketing.
Flagship products always get marked up to the skyes, it's a known marketing strategy for highest end products "If we are selling the best out there, it has to be among the most expensive ones in its class, or otherwise the target public for this product will be distrustful and will end up buying the more expensive stuff elsewhere"

Parent

Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By AggressorPrime on 7/19/2007 5:06:32 PM , Rating: 2

As I approach the day in which I will buy a notebook, this serves as another reminder of the performance difference between notebooks and desktops. While notebooks are plagued with a maximum of 667MHz DDR2 for the Santa Rosa platform, we are already seeing desktop platforms reaching almost 3x this speed. In fact, this speed is getting very close to that found on high end video cards.

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By TomZ on 7/19/2007 5:15:37 PM , Rating: 2

That's not really true - there are no processors that support 3x667MHz FSBs even in the roadmaps. New processors coming out in the next year have 1066 and 1333MHz FSBs, and few desktop processors today are that fast.

But your point is basically right, in that desktop computers generally always have higher performance than notebooks. The question is, will a given notebook have enough performance for what you want to use it for? If it does, then the convenience of portability of a laptop might outweigh the incremental performance difference between laptops and desktops.

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By sxr7171 on 7/20/2007 12:10:57 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah pretty much. When building a desktop, I want it fast. When buying a laptop, I'll take a slower low-voltage CPU and integrated graphics so it can be less than 2.7lbs and less than an inch thick. It will run pretty much anything I really need to run just fine and it break my back when I carry it which is almost everywhere.

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By Treckin on 7/20/2007 4:05:23 AM , Rating: 2

basically true, with the exception: As processes shrink, so do voltages, in both memory and CPU's. In a desktop this is not a paramount concern, as in notebooks. The gap should ultimately shrink, eventually leaving all but the highest end parts out of the grasp of notebooks battery life. Id be interested to see some numbers later in the year about how SSD's will effect the watt-draw of storage. Currently besides the screen and sometimes even more than the CPU the HDD draws the the most juice

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By TomZ on 7/20/2007 10:44:28 AM , Rating: 2

Good point, and I do think you see that gap shrinking. I would guess that laptops today are only 1 or 1½ years behind current desktop tech. I think that was probably 2 or 2½ years five years ago.

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By SmokeRngs on 7/23/2007 11:49:05 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
That's not really true - there are no processors that support 3x667MHz FSBs even in the roadmaps. New processors coming out in the next year have 1066 and 1333MHz FSBs, and few desktop processors today are that fast.

I agree to a certain extent. You are missing one critical word from your statement. There are no processors that officially support higher than 1333mhz FSB.

Overclocked, my C2D is running a 1700mhz FSB as it is 425x4. Yes, that is run out of spec, but it is still running that speed. I do not foresee myself buying DDR3 running at a similar speed just to sync up with the FSB. The chances I would have any noticeable performance increase with that RAM is slim to none. If anything I would be more likely to lose some performance with it being a newer memory technology. My system is not currently bandwidth limited with what I do so it's unlikely DDR3 would help me at all.

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By Scabies on 7/19/2007 5:18:46 PM , Rating: 2

mmm..... I'm thinking processor and disk speeds are keeping you down more than anything. Incendiary RAM wont help much with that. The price-per-performance-increase favors CPU and HDD (speed, not size) upgrades when building laptops

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By RussianSensation on 7/19/2007 5:32:57 PM , Rating: 3

That's not an accurate comparison to videocard memory. Speed alone doesn't mean anything. 1800mhz desktop memory on C2D platform implies what, a maximum bandwidth of 14.4gb? 1800mhz x 384-bit 8800GTX on other hand is 86.4gb. Having said that, memory bandwidth also doesn't mean anything if it isn't the limiting factor (see HD 2900XT's GPU speed and its astounding memory bandwidth that amounts to nothing today).

In a similar manner, 1800mhz memory speed today is overkill for C2D and we have already seen that with barely any performance improvement from 1066 FSB (DDR2 533) to 1333FSB (DDR2 667) which in theory is a whooping 25% improvement that amounts to 2% real world difference.

If I had to guess, DDR3 1800mhz would be more suitable sometime in 2009, for a 16-core cpu.

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By Dactyl on 7/19/2007 11:08:30 PM , Rating: 3

The RAM is not the limiting factor on Intel's notebook platforms.

Dual-channel 667MHz DDR2 is more than enough to feed an 800MHz FSB, even if you're using integrated graphics/turbo cache.

Parent

RE: Difference Between Notebooks and Desktops

By Assimilator87 on 7/20/2007 2:51:41 AM , Rating: 2

I think people these days get stuck up on the Mhz numbers instead of the bandwidth. For example, a 1333Mhz FSB only needs 667Mhz memory in dual channel. The Mhz of the RAM and FSB don't have to be 1:1, just the bandwidth. If you want to run single channel, that's when high speed memory comes in handy because 1333Mhz memory in single channel is probably much more efficient than 667Mhz memory in dual channel.

Parent

Size?

By webdawg77 on 7/19/2007 4:09:50 PM , Rating: 2

What size are the sticks? What am I getting for $350 (1) / $700 (2)?

Not that I am going to buy. LOL ... I still have good S939 CPUs (DDR RAM) in my machines.

RE: Size?

By webdawg77 on 7/19/2007 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, I know that I could click the link to OCZs site, but it wouldn't hurt to put that info in the article :).

Parent

RE: Size?

By Dianoda on 7/19/2007 5:28:35 PM , Rating: 2

In case you read this thread and still don't want to click the link to OCZ's website:

$700 gets you 2*1GB sticks
$350 for 1*1GB sticks

Parent

RE: Size?

By TomZ on 7/19/2007 6:03:34 PM , Rating: 3

That seems freakishly expensive. Oh well, I guess I'm not in the target market.

Parent

RE: Size?

By Hare on 7/20/2007 11:46:28 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
That seems freakishly expensive. Oh well, I guess I'm not in the target market.

Aaah, I see. Your sudden calm attitude is because this product doesn't have an Apple logo, right? iPhone is expensive crap but when OZ releases "the latest and greatest" the price is justified because it's a high end product and nobody is forced to buy it.

This wasn't a direct reply to you TomZ despite the quote. I just find it funny that the same people complaining about the iPhone's price seem pretty reasonable now that we are not talking about Apple.

Parent

RE: Size?

By TomZ on 7/20/2007 1:19:14 PM , Rating: 2

I'm always calm. :o)

I think the amount of outrage is proportional to the degree of the deception. The iPhone is basically a mediocre product surrounded by tons of undeserved hype. The memory that is the subject of this article at least delivers performance, even though it is a bit expensive, and the hype factor is pretty low.

And for the record, I would also characterize the iPhone as being freakishly expensive. My new cell phone that I got last weekend has most of the capabilities of the iPhone, plus additional features beyond the iPhone, and it cost me $0.

Parent

RE: Size?

By Hare on 7/20/2007 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 2

Sure it does... I bet it's just as responsive, has multitouch, tilt sensors, full blown MP3 player with great usability not to mention the GUI which is just as good or the overall user experience... Somehow I doubt it. I personally would not recommend the iPhone to anyone because the product is basically not done yet. The software is maybe 50% of what it should be (updates will propably fix this though).

iPhone outrageously expensive? How would you categorise let's say Nokia E90 ~800€ without a operator deal. Nevermind, let's not drift away from the subject as boring as it is (OCZ memory).

Parent

Why?

By Xerio on 7/19/2007 4:03:35 PM , Rating: 1

I am seriously curious as to who whould need this type of performance? Or is it more to be "future-proof"? At this point no software (except for high-end graphics or analytical software) is keeping up with hardware that is being produced. Or am I off my rocker?

RE: Why?

By therealnickdanger on 7/19/2007 4:08:57 PM , Rating: 2

Because it's there! Because it can be done!

Parent

RE: Why?

By Xerio on 7/19/2007 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 2

I see. So this is like "Build it and they will come" or "Build it and someone might be able to use it, but it is more than likely going in some rich guys box so he can brag to his rich friends that he has the best RAM in the world".

Parent

RE: Why?

By Scrogneugneu on 7/20/2007 1:12:01 AM , Rating: 3

Would you create a software that needs RAM that isn't available on the market?

Hardware has to come first. Hardware that's too fast can still operate slower. Software requiring fast hardware can't run on slower hardware.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Spivonious on 7/20/2007 9:43:25 AM , Rating: 2

Are you sure you're at the right website? Enthusiasts only want the bleeding edge of technology. Sure, there is some concern over price, and I personally would never spend $700 on memory, but just look at the people who bought their 8800GTX SLI configurations. There is always a market for the latest and greatest.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Scabies on 7/19/2007 5:12:15 PM , Rating: 2

yarly. I have a socket A xp3200+ Barton that still keeps pretty good pace with standard computer needs (pretty snappily, things like office, browsing and media playback) and acceptable gaming demands. The limiting factor has been the x800 AGP (they make a x1950 AGP these days, I hear) and the fact that it's a single-core. Otherwise you have to go out of your way to make it sweat.
no DDR2, no PCI-E, sata150... The system was about $5-700 when it was new, and for about $5-700 you would get pretty similar performance two (or three) generations ahead.

Parent

I want to watch it break

By TimberJon on 7/19/2007 4:09:41 PM , Rating: 2

Dish out all that cash for the compatible mobo and processor and all that memory, and watch it break.

I do video streaming, editing, graphic design, billboard sized crap, and CAD rendering for buildings from an outhouse to an airport.

I don't need all that damn memory. Im happy with my Hyper X, yea its probably really old by now, but where t-F am I going to get the extra dough for that kind of system that might not even be stable??

The last thing I need is my system locking up while in the middle of a critical process on a large art file.

If memory maker's want to capture my attention

By just4U on 7/21/2007 12:26:44 AM , Rating: 2

I am really not impressed with any of this to be totally honest. I mean have you all used high speed memory? Can you see a difference? I can't. DDR to DDR2 .. oh big leap in performance there right? (yeah ok) then all the different speeds of ddr2 .. such impressive gains that we really notice!!! (yeah ok)

They would impress me more with cas 2-2-2 timings. Or maybe go for that unreachable cas 1.5 Now there would be a accomplishment.

Memory is so stupidly fast right now you just can't gauge it's performance by using it. At least that's my opinion after going from PC2700 DDR to PC8800 DDR2 (and everything in between)