AMD starts selling Radeon-branded DDR3 memory

Printable View

08-07-2011, 08:24 PM
Philip_J_Fry

2 Attachment(s)

AMD starts selling Radeon-branded DDR3 memory

http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/h...ed-ddr3-memory

Quote:

According to AMD's website , three 2GB long DIMMs are being (initially) released as part of the Radeon memory line, and each one caters to a certain segment. There's the 'Entertainment' memory which runs at 1333 MHz (9-9-9 latencies), the 'Ultra Pro Gaming' DIMM working at 1600 MHz (11-11-11) and last we have the 'Enterprise' memory which doesn't have finalized specs.

The DDR3-1333 module has already found its way into Japanese stores and can be bought for about $20. No word though on when we'll get to buy some Radeon Ultra Pro Gaming memory.

Attachment 118741
Attachment 118742

edit: origin here:
http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...6/etc_amd.html
08-07-2011, 08:26 PM
OCX600RR

OMG 1600 11-11-11 shoot me now..that just screams Ultra Gaming Memory lol
08-07-2011, 08:29 PM
CedricFP

Wow @ timings on that 1600 stick. I find it very difficult to believe it couldn't do 1600 9-9-9-24.
08-07-2011, 08:30 PM
Philip_J_Fry

lol give em sometime, but yeah that is quite slow/relaxed timing
08-07-2011, 08:37 PM
bamtan2

april fools?
08-07-2011, 08:52 PM
LagunaX

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCX600RR

OMG 1600 11-11-11 shoot me now..that just screams Ultra Gaming Memory lol

This is the same kind of cr@p that OCZ used to pull with it's gaming ram and Fatal1ty ram...who sells CL11 DDR3 1600 when everyone else is CL9 or lower?
08-07-2011, 08:56 PM
Mungri

That ram has useless specs for 'gaming ram'.

My 2 Gb modules from several years ago do Cas 6 1700 Mhz with 6 dimms installed.
08-07-2011, 09:05 PM
~CS~

Perhaps they are concentrating on stability,above marginal performance increase,from having tighter timings. Any chips on the market should be able to do 9-9-9 at this point,so it's a safe assumption.

I wonder what is the actual involvement of AMD,when it comes to manufacturing these,not just branding.
08-07-2011, 09:23 PM
PatRaceTin

Funny why AMD need to doing this?
08-07-2011, 09:25 PM
Mungri

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~CS~

Perhaps they are concentrating on stability,above marginal performance increase,from having tighter timings. Any chips on the market should be able to do 9-9-9 at this point,so it's a safe assumption.

I wonder what is the actual involvement of AMD,when it comes to manufacturing these,not just branding.

I've not had any stability problems on sticks with lower timings. You can get fully stable 4 Gb modules these days that do 1600 Mhz, 9-9-9-24 timings at just 1.25v.
08-07-2011, 09:29 PM
~CS~

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I've not had any stability problems on sticks with lower timings. You can get fully stable 4 Gb modules these days that do 1600 Mhz, 9-9-9-24 timings at just 1.25v.

Perhaps the error rate is lower,with more relaxed timings,that's what I meant by stability.

Another thing,it's hard to know the RMA and failure rate of faster modules,it could be AMD is just going for a reliability image. Slower modules is what people buy most,they care more about reliability and price of course. And it's not like the marginal performance difference matters for most tasks.
08-07-2011, 09:43 PM
>HyperlogiK<

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

That ram has useless specs for 'gaming ram'.

My 2 Gb modules from several years ago do Cas 6 1700 Mhz with 6 dimms installed.

Useless? Are there actually any games other than source engine ones which gain more than a couple of FPS from tight timings or higher speeds? My brother and I have almost identical i7 systems, but he has a set of Ripjaws at 1600 8-8-8-24 while I have some crappy 1066 8-8-8-20 Elpida pulled from a dead Alienware system and though we aren't big benchers there doesn't seem to be much difference and none that is subjectively noticeable while gaming.
08-07-2011, 09:48 PM
Chrono Detector

Would have preferred to see at least 2x4GB memory sticks instead and added a heatsink to the RAM.
08-07-2011, 10:30 PM
Mungri

Quote:

Originally Posted by >HyperlogiK<

Useless? Are there actually any games other than source engine ones which gain more than a couple of FPS from tight timings or higher speeds? My brother and I have almost identical i7 systems, but he has a set of Ripjaws at 1600 8-8-8-24 while I have some crappy 1066 8-8-8-20 Elpida pulled from a dead Alienware system and though we are big benchers there doesn't seem to be much difference and none that is subjectively noticeable while gaming.

It is useless when Cas 9 1600 Gb sticks are already as cheap as they are.

And yes on SB, ram clocks up to 1866 Mhz and even higher have been shown to improve FPS significantly when the CPU is also overclocked.

On X58 it hardly matters because you have triple channel, and the CPUs still arent fast enough to remove the bottleneck on the memory bandwidth.
08-08-2011, 12:08 AM
chew*

I think the point you guys are missing is when AMD claims this memory to do what it does it works 100% in all situations with there APU. Thus the tag "radeon memory"

Try a few sets of ram on there APU before you pretend to know what the deal is.

Certain IC's are failing at stock rated in 3dmark at even stock clocks.........much less games, oh and the failure is an artifact ;) to name a couple I know of Micron D9KPT, Elpida Hypers.

System wise no failures are noticeable, APU wise however is a diff story.
08-08-2011, 12:34 AM
wez

Perhaps we'll see sticks in the future that caters to the enthusiasts as well? That run flawlessly on AMD systems at rated specs :)
08-08-2011, 01:08 AM
K404

The 11-11-11 timings are easy to explain. "The numbers go to 11..... right across the board. It's....1 (bigger) isn't it? Most blokes playing at 10..... all the way up- where can you go from there? If we need that extra push over the cliff, what we do.... put it up to 11!"
08-08-2011, 01:15 AM
Mungri

Quote:

Originally Posted by chew*

I think the point you guys are missing is when AMD claims this memory to do what it does it works 100% in all situations with there APU. Thus the tag "radeon memory"

Oh right, its Llano ram ..... Why would I want Llano, ewww :p
08-08-2011, 01:27 AM
undone

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Oh right, its Llano ram ..... Why would I want Llano, ewww :p

From your avatar I guess you prefer some washing powder rather than APU or any ATI product lol.
08-08-2011, 01:58 AM
Mungri

Quote:

Originally Posted by undone

From your avatar I guess you prefer some washing powder rather than APU or any ATI product lol.

I've owned more ATI products than any other brand, but AMD CPUs are weak sauce. My avatar was a joke at AMDs removal of the ATI branding ages ago.
08-08-2011, 03:07 AM
FlanK3r

Maybe for the future...AMD kits could be great choice
08-08-2011, 06:16 AM
zalbard

I don't understand why, DRAM market is not really profitable any more...
08-08-2011, 06:33 AM
Lightman

Quote:

Originally Posted by K404

The 11-11-11 timings are easy to explain. "The numbers go to 11..... right across the board. It's....1 (bigger) isn't it? Most blokes playing at 10..... all the way up- where can you go from there? If we need that extra push over the cliff, what we do.... put it up to 11!"

It seems only me got your pun ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll7rWiY5obI

Great analogy!!!
08-08-2011, 07:27 AM
JkS

It is so nice to see AMD expand their markets, more competition is always welcome and hopefully they will create some awesome kits.
I would love to see AMD enter the SSD market aswell, that would be awesome!
08-08-2011, 07:58 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by JkS

It is so nice to see AMD expand their markets, more competition is always welcome and hopefully they will create some awesome kits.
I would love to see AMD enter the SSD market aswell, that would be awesome!

That'd be interesting.
Intel vs AMD in yet another market.
So far Intel owns in CPUs but loses in GPUs. Could be fun! :D
I wonder if GloFo can manufacture Flash chips (or perhaps already does)?
08-08-2011, 07:59 AM
FU1G0R

What the hell is grong with thos nasty latency numbers :( Radeon ? Really? No need to relate that loved name with 11 11 11 disgustin latency times :( WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WHITH THEM SHEEESH
08-08-2011, 09:03 AM
>HyperlogiK<

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

I wonder if GloFo can manufacture Flash chips (or perhaps already does)?

They did some years ago, but it was spun off as Spansion during one of AMD's many periods of financial trouble. I'm always amused at peoples' suggestions that AMD enter 'new' markets be it Flash, RISC processors, ultra mobile/embedded SOCs, or DSPs, because they used to make all of that stuff years ago but were forced to sell it off.
08-08-2011, 03:08 PM
Hans de Vries

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip_J_Fry

http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/h...ed-ddr3-memory

Attachment 118741

edit: origin here:
http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...6/etc_amd.html

DDR3 1333-9-9-9 and 1600-11-11-11 are exactly the standard speeds of all
the DRAM manufacturers under standard conditions and standard voltage.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...1&xFmly_id=690
http://www.elpida.com/en/products/ddr3module.html
http://www.micron.com/partscatalog.h...RAM/ddr3_SDRAM
http://www.hynix.com/inc/pdfDownload...M(Rev.0.3).pdf

AMD has a GDDR5 brand as well.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/techn...cs-memory.aspx

Seifert used to be COO and CFO of Qimonda in Dresden. They made some real good GDDR5:

http://www.pclaunches.com/other_stuf..._available.php

Hundreds of Qimonda engineers went to Globalfoundries but I expect that they are
now just reselling DRAMs from the big DRAM manufaturers

Regards, Hans
08-08-2011, 03:17 PM
jimbo75

AMD entered a non-competition agreement with fujitsu and spansion in 2005 http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=2583, preventing AMD from making standalone flash memory devices, so we wont see SSD's until that is over at least.
08-08-2011, 05:59 PM
verndewd

I see no one has a thinking cap on today :P
wheres the corporate announcement stating GF was making these or tsmc?
Who is really making these? there should be an investors news brief about it but there isnt.
08-08-2011, 06:02 PM
verndewd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans de Vries

DDR3 1333-9-9-9 and 1600-11-11-11 are exactly the standard speeds of all
the DRAM manufacturers under standard conditions and standard voltage.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...1&xFmly_id=690
http://www.elpida.com/en/products/ddr3module.html
http://www.micron.com/partscatalog.h...RAM/ddr3_SDRAM
http://www.hynix.com/inc/pdfDownload...M(Rev.0.3).pdf

AMD has a GDDR5 brand as well.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/techn...cs-memory.aspx

Seifert used to be COO and CFO of Qimonda in Dresden. They made some real good GDDR5:

http://www.pclaunches.com/other_stuf..._available.php

Hundreds of Qimonda engineers went to Globalfoundries but I expect that they are
now just reselling DRAMs from the big DRAM manufaturers

Regards, Hans

i would say thats spot on.
They can do a lot for thier product in assembling the pcb and chips but seeing no corp news on it , its unlikely that they are etching the chips or designing them. Not that they couldnt because node transitions depend on successful dram circuits being made first for cache memory.
08-08-2011, 06:55 PM
jstutman

No one has got ahold of the chips and figured out who actually makes the chips? I almost believe its AMD as crappy as they are. lol
08-08-2011, 06:58 PM
verndewd

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstutman

No one has got ahold of the chips and figured out who actually makes the chips? I almost believe its AMD as crappy as they are. lol

:rolleyes: yup so crappy they are the number 2 chip maker in the world. seriously dewd. i dont know what youre submerged in but it cant be good.
08-08-2011, 06:58 PM
G0ldBr1ck

Quote:

Originally Posted by chew*

I think the point you guys are missing is when AMD claims this memory to do what it does it works 100% in all situations with there APU. Thus the tag "radeon memory"

Try a few sets of ram on there APU before you pretend to know what the deal is.

Certain IC's are failing at stock rated in 3dmark at even stock clocks.........much less games, oh and the failure is an artifact ;) to name a couple I know of Micron D9KPT, Elpida Hypers.

System wise no failures are noticeable, APU wise however is a diff story.

I think everyone needs to see this post again ^. It seems some folks still dont understand the need for this ram.
08-08-2011, 07:07 PM
verndewd

http://chipdesignmag.com/display.php?articleId=2488

heres a clue
08-08-2011, 07:30 PM
Philip_J_Fry

so is this real or not? i mean its spreading around most tech news sites
08-08-2011, 08:00 PM
verndewd

http://www.synopsys.com/Solutions/In...s/default.aspx

looks like synopsis bought virage

so heres my take. AMD gets synopsis to design a memory with the consideration of APU through put.
take some DDR3 adust a few things here and there and slap a brand on it becuase at some level AMD had to make design proposals and changes. They didnt have to reinvent the wheel they just went to a wheel maker with some design modifications.
either that or its quimonda :D Its very hard to find tsmc memory partners.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=tsmc%20...B&PC=BB07&QS=n

http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/...deal&num=12621
qualcomm partners with GF for memory at smaller nodes.

http://www.globalfoundries.com/design/memory_ip.aspx

virage in both camps.
08-08-2011, 09:15 PM
HKPolice

Wow you guys are all over analyzing this.

AMD has extra DDR3 chips lying around from the production of low end video cards that still use DDR3. Especially with the current low price of memory, AMD killed 2 birds with one stone: make some quick cash by producing desktop dimms as well as expanding their product line at the same time.
08-08-2011, 09:21 PM
verndewd

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248493-30-gddr
uhm no
http://forums.hardwarelogic.com/showthread.php?t=13860
and no
08-08-2011, 09:53 PM
HKPolice

Quote:

Originally Posted by verndewd

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248493-30-gddr
uhm no
http://forums.hardwarelogic.com/showthread.php?t=13860
and no

ATi employee told me himself, analyze all you want, believe what you want, it doesn't change the truth.

BTW did you even check Video card specs on AMD's website? The low end 6000 series radeons all use DDR3 OR GDDR5, NO mention of GDDR3 anywhere. :rolleyes:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/deskt...verview.aspx#2
08-08-2011, 11:47 PM
STEvil

how about both of you bother reading each others posts a bit closer so I dont have to toss you both out of news for calling each other tards?
08-09-2011, 12:31 AM
Poci

Me want!!!!
08-09-2011, 02:48 AM
Mungri

Ok, for people who think that ram timings dont make any difference for gaming, I did this test for you all:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/7087/ramcompare.png

Lets say I'm not putting my Corsair Vengeance sticks back into my PC. I did multiple runs, and my average frame rate is consistently up by 4-5 FPS with the faster 2 Gb modules.
08-09-2011, 02:54 AM
zalbard

Why do you have a lot lower max framerate, then? The benchmark simply appears to be inconsistent.
08-09-2011, 03:00 AM
Mungri

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Why do you have a lot lower max framerate, then? The benchmark simply appears to be inconsistent.

The max framerate is always a 'blip (or blimp?) on the radar' in this benchmark. In triple runs with the slower ram, the max framerate would be anywhere between 110-150ish. Its normally just a freak frame where the performance spikes up or something, and doesnt make as much difference as average FPS does. Average framerate always remains consistent across multiple tests though, and never varies by more than 1 FPS.

I was actually running it for a Vram rest not for the ram modules, and I noticed it being so much higher now (I was already planning on selling my Vengeance modules because they didnt even manage to run at cas 8 and swapped them out yesterday).
08-09-2011, 04:53 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

The max framerate is always a 'blip (or blimp?) on the radar' in this benchmark. In triple runs with the slower ram, the max framerate would be anywhere between 110-150ish. Its normally just a freak frame where the performance spikes up or something, and doesnt make as much difference as average FPS does. Average framerate always remains consistent across multiple tests though, and never varies by more than 1 FPS.

That makes sense. :up:
It'd be also interesting to see Crysis 2 DX11 test of this. Its benchmarking software is quite good. Getting 15% performance increase just due of timings seems to be a situational thing (I'd expect 5% on average, perhaps up to 10%).
08-09-2011, 04:58 AM
eXa

Corsair Vengeance can do thoose timings on AMD, on intel they should do much better than that...
08-09-2011, 05:11 AM
Mungri

Quote:

Originally Posted by eXa

Corsair Vengeance can do thoose timings on AMD, on intel they should do much better than that...

There was a thread in the ram section where I posted about this ram -

There are two versions of it, Ver 5.11, and Ver 2.12.

Early sticks that were released and also sent to reviews were ver 5.11, these consistently managed Cas 8 1600 Mhz, and even Cas 10 2000 Mhz. After a while however corsair sneakily replaced these modules with Ver 2.12, which is what I and a few other people got. This version only goes up to 1500 Mhz Cas 8, hardly much over 1600 Mhz cas 9, and only up to around 1800 Mhz on Cas 10.

The older Ver 5.11 sticks have been rebranded and are being sold for an inflated price in the new Cas 10 2000 Mhz kit:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=8&subcat=1392

I bought the 1600 Mhz sticks based on reviews of the PC12800 kit using ver 5.11 sticks, and I got ver 2.12 sticks instead.

Finding good ram is too difficult to do. I already have 12 Gb of perfect 2 Gb sticks though, so I shouldnt bother with trying slower 4 Gb sticks again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

That makes sense. :up:
It'd be also interesting to see Crysis 2 DX11 test of this. Its benchmarking software is quite good. Getting 15% performance increase just due of timings seems to be a situational thing (I'd expect 5% on average, perhaps up to 10%).

I think its because this benchmark uses up well over 1 Gb of Vram at maximum settings. Extra Vram info is going into the shared memory, and lower timings are going to reduce the latency on shared ram. But I've been comparing to a result on a pair of 2 Gb GTX 560s and my results are always higher due to the overclocks. Exceeding 1 Gb Vram in small amounts doesnt appear to degrade performance (apparantly this benchmark uses up 1.3 Gb vram on 2 Gb cards).

If you get 2 Gb GTX 560s and overclock them and the CPU to same amount, then Vram timings probably wont make any difference. But I'm not 100% certain about this, just guessing based on what I can think would make sense.
08-09-2011, 11:11 AM
Darxide

M'eh. I've had Radeon branded RAM for years :-)

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/o...9022009026.jpg
08-09-2011, 12:50 PM
BoredByLife

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Ok, for people who think that ram timings dont make any difference for gaming, I did this test for you all:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/7087/ramcompare.png

Lets say I'm not putting my Corsair Vengeance sticks back into my PC. I did multiple runs, and my average frame rate is consistently up by 4-5 FPS with the faster 2 Gb modules.

By changing sticks you ruined the comparison. Just up the timings of your first 6*2GB set for a fair comparison. And make the axis equal between the 2 settings.
08-09-2011, 01:06 PM
eXa

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

*snip*

Aha, i see.

Both the 1866 vengeance kit i have here is v5.11 :)
08-10-2011, 09:56 AM
SKYMTL

Statement directly from AMD. They ARE NOT making these but are treating their distribution as a litmus test for the possibility of expanding the product range:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/...-some-answers/
08-10-2011, 06:29 PM
MpG

Not to be a nitpicker, but depending on which date format (MM/DD/YYYY or DD/MM/YYYY) is being used in those runs, there's either 2 days or 2 months between the runs. The latter pretty much completely invalidates any usefulness of comparisons, since it's entirely possible for game patches to change performance, while the former just makes me want to verify that you didn't use the new 280.26 drivers that just came out on the 8th.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:09 PM.

XtremeSystems