Corsair Releases 24GB Dominator Memory Kit

[Rob Williams]

In our forums last week, I posed a simple question. For your next PC build or upgrade, how much memory will you be installing? If you're taking the Core i7 route, then you're likely to choose either 6GB or 12GB, and for everything else, 4GB seems to be the most common option, with 8GB being the choice for most higher-end enthusiasts. But just how much memory is overkill for most people? If you're using your computer for the more casual reasons, even if it includes gaming, having a ton of memory isn't going to help you out too much.

​

You can read the rest of our news post here.

 

[Psi*]

I don't see this kind of RAM to be of much interest for enthusiasts. No help for any game. Although I believe that there are people "out there" that are into running their machines for "folding" & to help NASA analyze deep space images ... for free to NASA. But I don't think needs very much RAM ... don't really know tho.

For the software that I use, there are licensing options that distribute large problems over any number of networked computers with any kind of system design ... meaning multicore multiple CPUs as well as and/or GPGPUs. For that software technology you no longer need 32 GB, 64 GB or even 128 GB for bruit force methods ... that is so "yesterday"!

I am building my current computer with 12 GB & would have liked 16 GB ... but that need is rare. While writing this reply, I checked out 'egg for server DDR3 RAM pricing & see that ECC registered RAM is about 1/3 of "enthusiasts" grade ... a little over $400 versus around $1K for 3 sticks of 12 GB RAM. I definitely was not going to pay ~2K for 24 GB RAM! I would have built another computer & "distributed" the work which actually is in the 2 or 3 month plan.

Off topic as much of this post is, but as mentioned on other threads ... will gaming software ever catch up to the capability of current hardware??? Imagine *a* virtual world running 24x7 across many systems on the net ... something more sophisticated that WoW. In my wildest imagination I cannot envision needing 24 GB RAM in one system except for the rarest of occasions.

 

[Tharic-Nar]

Quoted from X-bit Labs...

Although Dominator branding suggests that the 24GB kit is aimed at performance enthusiasts and even overclockers, the new set is designed for workstation users. Firstly, not a lot of consumer applications can take advantage of 24GB of memory; secondly, not a lot of enthusiasts can pay $1349.99 for a memory kit.

So either the kit is $1350.... or it was a general observation that enthusiasts have difficulty paying that much. Either way, a server with the same quantity of ECC memory won't necessarily be cheaper for the same performance on a per app basis. You could make it massively threaded with 2 or 4 CPU's, but single core and limited multi core apps would be kind of pointless. But i would agree with the pricing that this is more of a Workstation setup than an enthusiast. Finance and 3D would easily consume this kind of memory. But still.... ECC is cheaper, as well as having the bonus of error correction, ECC may be slower by 300mhz, but sometimes quantity is more important.

I think the kit is more suited for upgrades rather than new builds. If a company has already invested into an i7 rig for 3d work or some such, trying to get a workstation on the cheap, but still needs the ram, they'd go for the kit (and pay more in the long run). If they were going for a new build, they'd probably go for a dedicated workstation and go with ECC and dual or quad socket rigs.

However, when economies of scale kick in, the price will drop... maybe.

If there wasn't a need for high density ram, no one would make it.... then there wouldn't be 64GB dimms on the market (well, predicted, but finding them is not so easy).

Edit: It was MetaRam.... using some electro trickery to allow more chips per module, effectively doubling or quadrupling the amount of memory per module...

 

[Rob Williams]

For the software that I use, there are licensing options that distribute large problems over any number of networked computers with any kind of system design ... meaning multicore multiple CPUs as well as and/or GPGPUs. For that software technology you no longer need 32 GB, 64 GB or even 128 GB for bruit force methods ... that is so "yesterday"!

Yes, that's absolutely true, haha. I'm not quite sure what scenario requires so much RAM, to be honest. I'd assume ultra-large production studios that handle memory-heavy uncompressed textures constantly, but for anything based around mathematical computation, I can't see huge amounts of RAM doing anyone any good.

I definitely was not going to pay ~2K for 24 GB RAM!

Yeah, really. That's getting into Mac Pro territory

Off topic as much of this post is, but as mentioned on other threads ... will gaming software ever catch up to the capability of current hardware?

The more the days pass, the larger my doubts are about this. Look at all of the games we benchmark with today. Most mid-range cards handle all games at 2560x1600 with relative ease, which usually means the same card will run any current game on the market at 1080p with 4xAA. Most games seem to be console ports lately, because it's been clear that the vast majority of gamers don't care about anti-aliasing, or extreme detail, probably because they just don't want to spend $1,000+ on a gaming machine, when a new console costs less than half that. I hope I'm wrong, though. Game developers need to give people a reason to go from their consoles to a PC.

So either the kit is $1350.... or it was a general observation that enthusiasts have difficulty paying that much.

*chokes on drink*

Whew, I didn't clue into the fact that the kit was quite so expensive, geez.

However, when economies of scale kick in, the price will drop... maybe.

What I find interesting is that 4GB modules don't seem to be going down in price much at all. When 2GB modules hit the market, they were priced high, but it didn't take all too long for the pricing to become reasonable. The same really can't be said about 4GB modules. I guess it really is that much more difficult to create such high density memory chips. Of course, it's not like it matters. The companies that tend to require so much memory tend to have the money to afford it.

 

[Tharic-Nar]

What I find interesting is that 4GB modules don't seem to be going down in price much at all. When 2GB modules hit the market, they were priced high, but it didn't take all too long for the pricing to become reasonable. The same really can't be said about 4GB modules. I guess it really is that much more difficult to create such high density memory chips. Of course, it's not like it matters. The companies that tend to require so much memory tend to have the money to afford it.

4GB DDR2 modules did fall in price, but that was largely to do with servers, but DDR2 is a lot more mature and has even hit 8GB modules, a 64GB kit (8x8GB) from HP is ~$6000. But as memory manufactures predicted (or dare we say, causing), DDR2 is being phased out of production so they can switch over to DDR3 exclusively. Originally, the only place to get a 4GB DDR3 Module was from Kingston, as part of a tri-channel kit for $1200. That's been on the market for months, probably around July-August, don't know the specific date. Now 3 other manufacturers join the fray with their own kits and surprise surprise, they're the same price. My guess is, the price is artificially high, supposedly due to low production, but that argument won't hold up now that there are 4 companies making 4GB modules.

If they could get the speed up to something in the 1600-1866 range, then enthusiasts would take it, since they could then plonk the modules into SFF and 1156 systems for 8GB of ram in 2 slots, then they could overclock them without the worry of matching 4 slots.

 

[Rob Williams]

That's been on the market for months, probably around July-August, don't know the specific date. Now 3 other manufacturers join the fray with their own kits and surprise surprise, they're the same price. My guess is, the price is artificially high, supposedly due to low production, but that argument won't hold up now that there are 4 companies making 4GB modules.

That's a very good point. But, even if four different companies make 4GB modules, that's not entirely a reason for prices to go down, because the demand just isn't there. I think for most, they produce it just to produce it, because if they didn't, people would wonder why they don't have it, and people would doubt their capabilities. Chances are good that these 4GB modules use the exact same chips, as well. Prices will only go down when it becomes commonplace that people need so much RAM.

If they could get the speed up to something in the 1600-1866 range, then enthusiasts would take it, since they could then plonk the modules into SFF and 1156 systems for 8GB of ram in 2 slots, then they could overclock them without the worry of matching 4 slots.

I agree, but that's a mere dream at this point in time. It's far, far harder to get such speeds out of higher density chips. In fact, I just don't think it's possible to see speeds on such chips, and by the time that we could, we'd probably be using DDR4 or DDR5.