Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
32 GB (4 x 8 GB) DDR3 SDRAM Memory Kits from G.Skill Review

Started by: beenthere | Date 04/03/13 06:53:37 AM
Comments: 27 | Last Comment:  06/26/16 06:53:00 PM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


No disresepct but this review is laughable!

This is nothing more than a paid commercial endorsement of GSkill Ram and poor value high frequency, high capacity RAM in general.

As testing has shown - with real applications there is little to no system performance gains with RAM faster than 1600 Mhz. for current desktop PCs other than those with an APU and in most cases no tangible gains with more than 4 GB. of RAM unless you have a very specific application that is properly designed to use high quantities of RAM such as CAD, modeling and other professional business oriented application software. For 99% of consumers including PC enthusiasts 4GB. of RAM is plenty and 8 GB. of RAM is a luxury. Anything beyond 8GB. is basically wasted money. With an APU system RAM above 2000 MHz. showns minimal gains.

As far as testing goes the RAM benches exaggerate the actual system gains people see because the RAM benches assume saturation of the RAM 100% of the time, which never happens in any PC. When you use real apps, even RAM intensive apps like video games and such you see that going from 1333 MHz. to 2000+ MHz. with an overclocked CPU, provides no significant system performance gains. As an example of the above point a video game that runs 33 FPS with 1333 MHz. RAM ran 36 FPS with 2000 MHz. RAM - both with an OC'd CPU. It's also worth noting that CAS latency and other timings on DDR3 RAM above 1600 MHz. make even less inprovement in system performance than the higher frequency or higher capacity RAM kits, so it's really dumb to pay extra for faster timing RAM.

Numerous PC hardware review sites have tested various quantities of RAM and found that more than 4 GB. of RAM is a waste for the majority of people except those using professionals apps as described above. The fact that GSkill and other RAM suppliers are trying to convince people that they need 32GB. is laughable. Then to try and convince people they should buy (4) DIMM kits for dual channel systems is a joke when they don't need (4) DIMMs and when it places more stress on the IMC. This silly review of (4) DIMM high frequency GSkill RAM kits is just duping of the technically challenged. The test results prove this.

Naturally GSkill and the other RAM makers don't want consumers to understand these facts as this will reduce sales of cash cow products like over-priced, high frequency RAM kits that provide no tangible increase in system performance. Those who don't know any better will rush out and buy high frequency RAM kits or 16+ GB. of RAM only to learn that it doesn't provide any real system performance benefit over 8GB. of 1600 MHz. RAM, even with overclocked CPUs. That won't stop the RAM makers from supplying RAM kits to get positive reviews for meritless products, however.

If people want to buy faster RAM or more RAM for bragging rights, that's up to them. If they are buying it for increased system performance they are going to be woefully disappointed as it's a complete waste of money for 99% of PC users.

BTW I own GSkill, Mushkin, Corsair and other brands of RAM so this is not an indictment of GSkill but instead of the farce that is perpetuated by all of the RAM makers that people need more than 8GB. of DDR3 RAM or faster than 1600 MHz. RAM. It just does not produce tangible benefits and is a waste of money for most people. It's pretty unscrupulous of these companies and hardware reviewers to deceive the technically challenged.
0 1 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 04/03/13 06:53:37 AM]
- collapse thread

As an example of the above point a video game that runs 33 FPS with 1333 MHz. RAM ran 36 FPS with 2000 MHz. RAM - both with an OC'd CPU.

If program constrained mainly by GPU (as contemporary video games are) shows 9% higher performance due to faster RAM it rather proves something opposite to your conclusion.
0 0 [Posted by: KonradK  | Date: 04/03/13 07:21:15 AM]
Yep, but you got to admit that these Ram sticks are quite nice to look at; all shiny... nice colors... manly looking heat spreaders...
1 0 [Posted by: MHudon  | Date: 04/03/13 08:55:31 AM]
beenthere, you certainly won't ever become a diplomat, but I had to write my thanks. Taking the time to share your opinion and writing about it brings "color" to Xbit. You base your opinions on facts explain your point of view in detail where so many would have write useless babling. You got my respect!

Also, the fact that Xbit let's it's readers comment and so openly criticize it's reviews is one of the reason why I value this site so much. They provide numbers, share their opinions, let us share ours. Feels like home to me!
0 0 [Posted by: MHudon  | Date: 04/03/13 02:05:35 PM]

I've found 32gb handy having 8gb of memory and a 24gb ram disk for video editting.
2 0 [Posted by: Zimanodenea  | Date: 04/03/13 11:15:16 AM]
- collapse thread

Indeed, Adobe After Effect CS5/6 will use these 32gb when rendering 3D and complex compositions. Upgrading also helped in Premiere even if, spec wise, this much is not necessary (just my impression tough). That's precisely why I have some shiny, good looking sticks in my machine.

But like beenthere took the time to explain (I admire his professionalism), this is far from being useful for casual PC users or gamers.

Still, they rrreeaally look good! You can choose some that match the color of your mobo's heat sinks. Soooo awesome!
0 0 [Posted by: MHudon  | Date: 04/03/13 01:51:04 PM]

It would have been better had the reviewer used a CPU with a 4 channel memory controller, like one of the Xeon's of the same generation, to compare the 2 and 4 sticks of RAM.

Comparing 2 and 4 sticks with only a 2 channel memory controller and not finding much difference isn't very helpful. Seems obvious it's the memory controller maxing out, and not the memory's fault.
0 0 [Posted by: MatthiasF  | Date: 04/08/13 10:48:01 AM]

Totally depends on the user. A power user doing audio visual work needs ALL the ram he can get.
1 0 [Posted by: beck2448  | Date: 04/10/13 07:13:47 PM]

Virtual machines also need RAM, especially if running more than one.

...but yes, I do get the point that the average Joe really doesn't need more than 4-8 GB of RAM.
0 0 [Posted by: killerb255  | Date: 04/25/13 11:01:26 AM]

What wimpy OC settings!! Here's my CL11 2133's getting over 29800 Mb/s @ 2200. 1.65V.


I've had them faster, but this is 100% solid.
0 0 [Posted by: Adam Nixon  | Date: 07/07/15 01:45:09 AM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment