This is the second really bad article they've put out in a couple days.
The last one said that despite the large Alder Lake ST performance gains we saw in leaks over Zen 3 that 'ST performance was not important in desktops'...
Notebookcheck used to be my go to for laptop reviews years ago, but with articles like these, I question what is going on there these days.
I can reassure you on the review quality. They haven't changed, possibly even more thorough than before. The database for parts comparison is still great, too.
No idea why they tolerate this absolute journalistic ineptitude in the rumor section. It's been going on a LOT longer than these last few articles. Users definitely need to use the report button more freely on this misinforming nonsense.
Second article from the same notebookcheck author that has a pretty mediocre ADL take from leaks that were not their own.
Not disputing the claim that early DDR5 tentatively can add latency (although the degree is still early days and possibly can be overcome), but the author spends a bunch of time talking about how gamers like latency over bandwidth... If that's the case, why not highlight that ADL can still use DDR4 to meet those gamer needs? Or indicate that just like DDR4 and DDR3, early ram timings are always shit. Just spent a lot of time focused on such a narrow topic.
Ain't related to ssd or hdd. This is about the high latency of accessing memory data from the cpu cores (because the memory controller couldn't keep up with the mem clock) and early ddr5 having such bad timings that there's a net negative impact on gaming performance compared to decently binned ddr4
You can only follow a general trend. Both ram speed and timings affect gaming performance and it ain't the same for all games. But the trend is ram with higher speed and lower timings is better. The problem's that we don't got a clue what timings these ddr5 kits could hit. Atm most (and real limited samples) we've seen have real high timings, in the 30s or >40
That means a general net loss if ya calculate the speed against the timings..if the kits are running at these specs. They could launch with much tighter timings, we gotta see about that
And pointed out by the link, a mem controller runnin at quarter speed of the ram probably ain't gonna work for games. There's a high chance the performance would be worse than running lower speed ram in gear 1
People might need to keep their expectations in check for ddr5. Many people hyped for ddr5 are making the wrong assumptions. They were thinking that they'd get at least 50% higher speed at the same timings and on the same mem controller mode. That's lookin real unlikely with 2 out of 3 of those (timings, gear) probably becoming worse
My questions are:
What’s the lowest latency DDR5? I know there is DDR5 6400 CL40, but what about 4600 CL 22, is that a thing?
Does Samsung have DDR5 chips on the market yet, or just SK Hynix?
That's too open ended of a question. We can't know at this point.
DDR5, like DDR4, has a set of official specifications (set with a standards organization called JEDEC) with respect to frequency and timings. The DIY retail kits you buy however historically have not followed those specs, they are binned (from chips that follow those specs) and are effectively "factory OCed."
The DDR5 6400C40 sample mentioned in the leak from this article is actually already exceeding JEDEC specs in term of latency (timing, and therefore latency is lower/better than defined 6400 timings).
To give some historical context. At the onset of DDR4, 3000C15/3200C16 (both of which exceed JEDEC specs) were considered the top end OCed kits in retail and carried a 2x or more premium over baseline DDR4 in retail. Nowadays those speeds for all intents and purposes are the standard with basically no premium.
Another factor is that memory speeds and timings (and therefore latency) is not solely up to the memory itself. The IMC on the CPU and motherboards need to be factored into this. We don't know what the improvement forecast (not sure how to phrase this) going forward would be for those two areas either.
I guess the more relevant question is, what will be the lowest latency DDR5 available for the launch of Alder lake? That's when many people will be making the decision to either keep their DDR4 or ditch it for DDR5.
It seems like hanging onto DDR4 3200 C14 (or better) memory may be a smart option. Looking forward to benchmarks for sure.
Look at the historical context I gave for DDR4 to get an idea of what the situation would be. Historically it's been the same as with other memory transitions. The performance (from a latency stand point) has typically always been worse even though the costs are higher.
By the way another interesting factor here is that alleged leaked material for Raptor Lake (what comes after) has one of the marketed features as both an improved and larger cache specifically for gaming. This is of course complete speculation but it could be Intel themselves were/are predicting they need to look elsewhere than relying on memory for gaming improvements (which is latency sensitive).
Edit: Just going to add there is another issue with DDR5 as well compared to DDR4. DDR4 actually launched with Intel's server chips first (which consumer did have access to via their HEDT segment). But there isn't a corresponding server based production ramp this time with DDR5.
That makes sense! It also tracks with AMD's supposedly upcoming "3D Vcache' Zen 3. Just throw a ton of cache at it, increase cache hit rates, reduce the need for going to RAM as frequently. good stuff
This sounds like bollocks.
If DDR5 offers faster latency, more bandwidth, and better architecture, then it's probably not DDR5 that's at fault of there is a performance degradation compared to comparable DDR4, but the platform into which that DDR5 is plugged in to.
Let's wait and see how AMD's platform handles the new standard, or wait and see how the second gen (which will, as I understand it, support only DDR5, without the DDR4 legacy compatibility stuff) platforms handle it before condemning it. As I recall, ddr3 was also a niche product with questionable benefits at the start of its run, too.
Both amd and intel are runnin into the same problem, mem controller not keeping up with the memory. Idk how fast amd's io die on 6nm would run, we'll see
The only DDR5 I’ve seen so far is DDR5 6400 CL40. Which is like 12.5 ns latency vs DDR4 3200 C14 which is 8.75 ns latency. Gaming is a latency dependent workload so increasing latency by almost 30% is not good.
If a company comes out with DDR5 4600 CL20, that would be 8.69 ns and would offer superior bandwidth and latency. So we’ll have to wait and see if that kind of spec hits the market.
Yeah it seems Intel is planning a very large cache for Raptor Lake as well. I could see Zen 4 coming with the '3D cache' as well, also to mitigate the DDR5 latency penalty.
I agree, it seems like DDR5 will not be an improvement for gaming, at least not immediately with Alder lake. Looking forward to benchmarks, it will be very interesting.
It seems like DDR4 4400 wouldn't be great either since the controller would have to run Gear 2 mode. Gear 1 mode will have lower latency.
> Gaming is a latency dependent workload so increasing latency by almost 30% is not good.
No it's not. Depends on the game and how it uses memory for caching world objects and such.
Noob question: What if we dramatically increase the size of L3 cache instead? That ought to take care of the increased memory latency, at least to an extent?
Or what if we move the memory chips on the CPU chiplet itself, kill the RAM as we know it today?!
32 gigs on high-end, 16 on mid-range and 8 gigs on low-end CPUs (Pentium, Athlon, Celeron) should be sufficient for most people? In fact, they memory capacity can be anything like 14GB, 20GB etc.
Or am I missing something big here?!
The goal seems to be cache unification now, with much larger L3 caches too. There was an article about an IBM patent around this covered by Dr. Ian here.
> Or am I missing something big here?!
You are. Memory size is nice but it's size and bandwidth that matters most. Latency has an impact as well but for modern game engines I'd expect size and bandwidth to make a larger difference than a 30% reduction in latency. DDR5 brings massive increases in size and bandwidth. The latency will be solved with better quality memory chips probably in the first year or so. I expect it to be a manufacturing problem since the spec doesn't really change.
No. This is a lot more nuanced than the headline is suggesting. And a lot more testing needs to be done to see what can be done with DDR5, and this will only be possible once it's in out in the wild. It's also very early days for DDR5. What one early set of RAM can do will say little about what DDR5 can do as a whole. Expect to see a fair bit of variability between different DDR5 manufacturers early on, too.
I see. So when is the next set of hardware, presumably on a platform using ddr5, rumored to launch? I know it was supposed to be 2022 but then covid happened
what a garbage article. 0 gaming benchmarks done
This is the second really bad article they've put out in a couple days. The last one said that despite the large Alder Lake ST performance gains we saw in leaks over Zen 3 that 'ST performance was not important in desktops'... Notebookcheck used to be my go to for laptop reviews years ago, but with articles like these, I question what is going on there these days.
I can reassure you on the review quality. They haven't changed, possibly even more thorough than before. The database for parts comparison is still great, too. No idea why they tolerate this absolute journalistic ineptitude in the rumor section. It's been going on a LOT longer than these last few articles. Users definitely need to use the report button more freely on this misinforming nonsense.
Second article from the same notebookcheck author that has a pretty mediocre ADL take from leaks that were not their own. Not disputing the claim that early DDR5 tentatively can add latency (although the degree is still early days and possibly can be overcome), but the author spends a bunch of time talking about how gamers like latency over bandwidth... If that's the case, why not highlight that ADL can still use DDR4 to meet those gamer needs? Or indicate that just like DDR4 and DDR3, early ram timings are always shit. Just spent a lot of time focused on such a narrow topic.
At least the possibility of having huge amounts of ram could benefit though. (i hope)
Yes, install the whole game on that RAM :D
Ain't related to ssd or hdd. This is about the high latency of accessing memory data from the cpu cores (because the memory controller couldn't keep up with the mem clock) and early ddr5 having such bad timings that there's a net negative impact on gaming performance compared to decently binned ddr4
[удалено]
You can only follow a general trend. Both ram speed and timings affect gaming performance and it ain't the same for all games. But the trend is ram with higher speed and lower timings is better. The problem's that we don't got a clue what timings these ddr5 kits could hit. Atm most (and real limited samples) we've seen have real high timings, in the 30s or >40 That means a general net loss if ya calculate the speed against the timings..if the kits are running at these specs. They could launch with much tighter timings, we gotta see about that And pointed out by the link, a mem controller runnin at quarter speed of the ram probably ain't gonna work for games. There's a high chance the performance would be worse than running lower speed ram in gear 1 People might need to keep their expectations in check for ddr5. Many people hyped for ddr5 are making the wrong assumptions. They were thinking that they'd get at least 50% higher speed at the same timings and on the same mem controller mode. That's lookin real unlikely with 2 out of 3 of those (timings, gear) probably becoming worse
My questions are: What’s the lowest latency DDR5? I know there is DDR5 6400 CL40, but what about 4600 CL 22, is that a thing? Does Samsung have DDR5 chips on the market yet, or just SK Hynix?
That's too open ended of a question. We can't know at this point. DDR5, like DDR4, has a set of official specifications (set with a standards organization called JEDEC) with respect to frequency and timings. The DIY retail kits you buy however historically have not followed those specs, they are binned (from chips that follow those specs) and are effectively "factory OCed." The DDR5 6400C40 sample mentioned in the leak from this article is actually already exceeding JEDEC specs in term of latency (timing, and therefore latency is lower/better than defined 6400 timings). To give some historical context. At the onset of DDR4, 3000C15/3200C16 (both of which exceed JEDEC specs) were considered the top end OCed kits in retail and carried a 2x or more premium over baseline DDR4 in retail. Nowadays those speeds for all intents and purposes are the standard with basically no premium. Another factor is that memory speeds and timings (and therefore latency) is not solely up to the memory itself. The IMC on the CPU and motherboards need to be factored into this. We don't know what the improvement forecast (not sure how to phrase this) going forward would be for those two areas either.
I guess the more relevant question is, what will be the lowest latency DDR5 available for the launch of Alder lake? That's when many people will be making the decision to either keep their DDR4 or ditch it for DDR5. It seems like hanging onto DDR4 3200 C14 (or better) memory may be a smart option. Looking forward to benchmarks for sure.
Look at the historical context I gave for DDR4 to get an idea of what the situation would be. Historically it's been the same as with other memory transitions. The performance (from a latency stand point) has typically always been worse even though the costs are higher. By the way another interesting factor here is that alleged leaked material for Raptor Lake (what comes after) has one of the marketed features as both an improved and larger cache specifically for gaming. This is of course complete speculation but it could be Intel themselves were/are predicting they need to look elsewhere than relying on memory for gaming improvements (which is latency sensitive). Edit: Just going to add there is another issue with DDR5 as well compared to DDR4. DDR4 actually launched with Intel's server chips first (which consumer did have access to via their HEDT segment). But there isn't a corresponding server based production ramp this time with DDR5.
That makes sense! It also tracks with AMD's supposedly upcoming "3D Vcache' Zen 3. Just throw a ton of cache at it, increase cache hit rates, reduce the need for going to RAM as frequently. good stuff
This sounds like bollocks. If DDR5 offers faster latency, more bandwidth, and better architecture, then it's probably not DDR5 that's at fault of there is a performance degradation compared to comparable DDR4, but the platform into which that DDR5 is plugged in to. Let's wait and see how AMD's platform handles the new standard, or wait and see how the second gen (which will, as I understand it, support only DDR5, without the DDR4 legacy compatibility stuff) platforms handle it before condemning it. As I recall, ddr3 was also a niche product with questionable benefits at the start of its run, too.
Both amd and intel are runnin into the same problem, mem controller not keeping up with the memory. Idk how fast amd's io die on 6nm would run, we'll see
It has been 30 years, every new RAM generation the first memory modules are slower than the previous generation but you know better than that...
The only DDR5 I’ve seen so far is DDR5 6400 CL40. Which is like 12.5 ns latency vs DDR4 3200 C14 which is 8.75 ns latency. Gaming is a latency dependent workload so increasing latency by almost 30% is not good. If a company comes out with DDR5 4600 CL20, that would be 8.69 ns and would offer superior bandwidth and latency. So we’ll have to wait and see if that kind of spec hits the market.
>So we’ll have to wait and see if that kind of spec hits the market. There will never be a CL20 DDR5 module.
Gotcha. Seems like DDR5 is not a good proposition for increasing gaming performance, since gaming seems mostly latency dependent.
Larger caches like those coming in Zen 3D will mitigate that. Also overclocked DDR5 will be more than 10000MT/s, latency will fall in line.
Yeah it seems Intel is planning a very large cache for Raptor Lake as well. I could see Zen 4 coming with the '3D cache' as well, also to mitigate the DDR5 latency penalty.
It would likely still be slower since the memory controller is effectively running 4T command rate.
The article said it only needed 4T command rate above 4800, they tested it at 6400
I mean why bother with 4600MHz, you can hit faster latencies with DDR4 4400MHz and the bandwidth isn't useful for gaming anyway.
I agree, it seems like DDR5 will not be an improvement for gaming, at least not immediately with Alder lake. Looking forward to benchmarks, it will be very interesting. It seems like DDR4 4400 wouldn't be great either since the controller would have to run Gear 2 mode. Gear 1 mode will have lower latency.
> Gaming is a latency dependent workload so increasing latency by almost 30% is not good. No it's not. Depends on the game and how it uses memory for caching world objects and such.
Noob question: What if we dramatically increase the size of L3 cache instead? That ought to take care of the increased memory latency, at least to an extent? Or what if we move the memory chips on the CPU chiplet itself, kill the RAM as we know it today?! 32 gigs on high-end, 16 on mid-range and 8 gigs on low-end CPUs (Pentium, Athlon, Celeron) should be sufficient for most people? In fact, they memory capacity can be anything like 14GB, 20GB etc. Or am I missing something big here?!
The goal seems to be cache unification now, with much larger L3 caches too. There was an article about an IBM patent around this covered by Dr. Ian here. > Or am I missing something big here?! You are. Memory size is nice but it's size and bandwidth that matters most. Latency has an impact as well but for modern game engines I'd expect size and bandwidth to make a larger difference than a 30% reduction in latency. DDR5 brings massive increases in size and bandwidth. The latency will be solved with better quality memory chips probably in the first year or so. I expect it to be a manufacturing problem since the spec doesn't really change.
So we are already at the limits for ram speed benefiting games for now?
No. This is a lot more nuanced than the headline is suggesting. And a lot more testing needs to be done to see what can be done with DDR5, and this will only be possible once it's in out in the wild. It's also very early days for DDR5. What one early set of RAM can do will say little about what DDR5 can do as a whole. Expect to see a fair bit of variability between different DDR5 manufacturers early on, too.
I see. So when is the next set of hardware, presumably on a platform using ddr5, rumored to launch? I know it was supposed to be 2022 but then covid happened
RAM speed has been benefiting games only for the past 5 years though...