[HN Gopher] Asgard launches world's first DDR5-9600 DIMMs
___________________________________________________________________
Asgard launches world's first DDR5-9600 DIMMs
Author : apsec112
Score : 75 points
Date : 2024-09-18 02:56 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| pureheartlover wrote:
| China based firm named Asgard with product names like Thor? Whats
| going on here?
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| This is happening a lot in many product categories as a way to
| market effectively for international audiences, without some of
| the mistakes Chinese firms have historically made. Borrowing
| from other cultures is easier. For example in audio, Hifiman is
| a Chinese audio company that previously used alphanumeric names
| for their headphones but now uses various Hindu or Sanskrit (?)
| words to name their headphones and give them more of a "theme".
| guruprasadah wrote:
| From a quick glance at the website, the only two such
| products I can see are the "Susvara" (meaning "with notes")
| headphones and "Deva" (meaning "god") series headphones. Both
| of those words are Sanskrit. Their hindi equivalents are
| quite similar sounding (Susvar and Dev).
| govg wrote:
| They also sell/have sold the Arya, the Sundara, and the
| Ananda.
| stepupmakeup wrote:
| I assumed it's to attach to the "as" naming prefix, asus,
| asrock, asmedia, etc.
| PokemonNoGo wrote:
| What does that prefix mean?
| Veliladon wrote:
| Nothing. It's Pegasus with the first two letters removed so
| they'd be at the top of the phone book when we used phone
| books way back in 1989.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| It's a big step up from names like FDSOOJVX.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Heck, If I look real hard I might even find some California
| based companies that don't pull exclusively from ancient
| Californian lore.
| deaddodo wrote:
| The US can trace its lineage directly back to Europe. And
| many of the companies in the US are founded by recent
| immigrants (0-2 generations, worldwide), so it makes sense
| that it would have a varied history to pull from that
| includes European mythology. The same can't really be said of
| China.
|
| That being said, ancient mythology isn't something worth
| gatekeeping. And anyone who gets _real_ uppity about
| (specifically) Norse or Celtic mythology instantly starts
| triggering "closet/academic racist" vibes.
| voytec wrote:
| Stargates and wormholes.
| zo1 wrote:
| Marketing... These not-so-famous-yet Chinese firms have picked
| up what the West has been doing and are trying to cut out the
| middle-man. Essentially the West's MO has been to buy cheap no-
| name generic stuff from china, have them
| colored/branded/packaged, and then slap on all the necessary
| product packaging stuff on the packaging (including a "Name").
| Essentially acting as a middle-man that doesn't actually
| produce the product, barely does any QA and just adds a thin
| veneer of this being an actual "company" that manufactures and
| sells this product. Sometimes they use a fancy term like "white
| labeling".
|
| Here is such a company in the South African context that's
| super obvious about it:
| https://www.loot.co.za/search?cat=b&brandcode/leisurequip
| nicman23 wrote:
| they are sg1 fans
| ac29 wrote:
| What goes unsaid in the article is that this will likely only
| work with Intel's Arrow Lake? Arrow Lake isnt being launched
| until next month though, so official specs are not available yet.
| And the full 9600 speed will very likely require overclocking.
|
| It doesnt appear Zen5 can get anywhere close those speeds.
| wtallis wrote:
| These are part of a new generation of DDR5 modules that add a
| clock driver to the module itself, rather than relying entirely
| on the clock signal coming all the way from the CPU's memory
| controller. That is expected to _significantly_ change the game
| for DDR5 overclocking, and expectations based on the
| limitations of configurations lacking the clock drivers may not
| be accurate. I expect we 'll see 6+ months of firmware tuning
| before we have a clear picture of what each platform is
| ultimately capable of, but early on the focus will be on Intel
| platforms.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| How does that work? I imagine you now have the feed to clock
| from ram back to the CPU? Or does it synchronize two local
| clocks somehow?
| Gracana wrote:
| The clock redriver uses a phase locked loop to generate a
| few identical clock signals for use by the DRAM chips on
| the module. This same tech is also used for clock
| multipliers and dividers throughout digital systems.
|
| Rambus has details on their "DDR5 client clock driver"
| here: https://www.rambus.com/memory-interface-
| chips/ddr5-client-di...
| Numerlor wrote:
| This anandtech article seems to be a decent summary of what
| it's doing, the JEDEC JESD82-531A.01 spec is also freely
| available (with registration) if you're feeling adventurous
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/21455/making-desktop-
| ddr5-eve...
| packetlost wrote:
| I could see this maybe reducing latency, but wouldn't you
| still be limited by the memory bus speed regardless of how
| high you could clock the DDR?
| wmf wrote:
| The bus clock and memory clock are the same.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Not an expert, but Zen 5 desktop feels like it is being held
| back by memory bandwidth. Several tests show there is no real
| benefit in >6000 DRAMs.
| Numerlor wrote:
| Bandwidth is currently limited by the infinity fabric
| implementation on consumer AMD CPUs, 6/8 core CPUs with s
| single CCD top out bandwidth quite early and improvements
| from higher clocks are minimal even from like 5600, assuming
| timings are overclocked similarly and beyond basic xmp/expo
| smolder wrote:
| See my top level post for more on this. It's not that there
| is _no_ benefit to higher frequency memory on AM5, but that
| there is a penalty introduced above 6000 MT /s which isn't
| easily outweighed by further raising the memory speed.
| Numerlor wrote:
| Granite ridge can currently do 8000-8400 when overclocked at a
| 1:2 ratio of memory controller clock to memory clock, though
| with some work needed to get it working.
|
| The 9600 may be possible with DIMMs using the clock driver even
| on granite ridge
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _It doesnt appear Zen5 can get anywhere close those speeds._
|
| Looks like it can get to DDR5-8400:
|
| > _Finally, we have some absolutely killer RAM. The G.SKILL
| Trident Z5 RGB series is one of that vendor 's top brands, and
| this is among the top models that it offers. Clocked at a
| scorching 8400 MT/s with a CAS latency of just 40 cycles, this
| is the fastest RAM we can reasonably recommend for Ryzen 9000.
| It comes in the form of a pair of 24GB modules, and using it
| with Zen 5 could be as easy as just flicking on that XMP
| switch._
|
| * https://hothardware.com/news/zen5-ddr5-memory-guide
|
| Does that count as "anywhere close"?
| qingcharles wrote:
| I assume the 285K will be able run these at their full 9600?
| tapper wrote:
| I think Asgard is VCuller.
| fecal_henge wrote:
| I'd love to see their test fixture for binning the chips.
| gryn wrote:
| did they also make a compatible motherboard ? because I can't get
| mine to go past 4800Mhz when my RAM is rated for 6400Mhz with AM5
| CPU.
|
| for those who hadn't done this for a while, PSA: motherboards
| these days have a RAM compatibility list on their product page,
| check it before overspending on RAM.
| Numerlor wrote:
| The motherboard QVLs aren't particularly useful, the higher
| tier kits can often just not work as they're currently more
| often than not limited by the CPU memory controller quality
| instead of purely motherboard or RAM ICs.
|
| Did you try 6200/6000 for the kit? 6400 is up there for speeds
| that may not work on AM5 with synced controller and memory
| clocks without tuning it yourself, or working at all. Or is
| that 4 DIMMs
| Szpadel wrote:
| I had similar issue with my 3950x I had stability issues with
| 3600MT, so I optimized clicks instead (I loaded XMP profile and
| then changed clock to lower value before tightening clocks with
| memtest runs in between) What people often don't realize that
| dimm quality allows you to get lower absolute time before data
| is available for system. So when you lower clocks, you don't
| need to wait that many cycles for the data. In that case you
| might not get that much bandwidth that you would have
| originally, but you can get the same or similar latency also
| changing order of dimms on board can somehow alter how low you
| can get (I have 4 dimms and swapping 2 on the same channel
| improved significantly clocks that I was able to achieve - no
| idea why)
| zalebz wrote:
| Make sure you're on the latest BIOS as many improvements have
| been made since early AM5.
|
| Anecdata: I just bought a used AM5 mobo and threw in this
| memory kit CMK64GX5M2B6400C32; hitting 6400 was as simple as
| turning on XMP and that's it.
| ourmandave wrote:
| I haven't done this for a while, but every time I come back
| around the new specs with even basic hardware blow the doors
| off my old rig.
| zamadatix wrote:
| More than the specific list of which RAM is compatible check
| the table of how many slots/GB is supported at which speed. 1x
| 8 GB DIMM is a lot easier to drive than 4x 48 for example. Also
| keep in mind a lot of it depends more on the CPU than the
| motherboard itself, though both play a part, and the QVL should
| be a "safe bet". Particularly if you're willing to throw a bit
| of extra voltage at the RAM.
|
| CUDIMs should help a bit with those scaling tables due to
| having the clock redrivers, but we'll have to see to be certain
| how much.
| J_Shelby_J wrote:
| And they're often not stable even with the given XMP
| profiles. All of my XMP profiles throw errors and require
| backing off speed by a few hundred hertz to be stable.
|
| Worth though. Much cheaper way to get a few extra percentage
| points than custom liquid cooling. And since every game where
| you would care about max FPS is bound by single threaded
| performance fast RAM is it.
| wtallis wrote:
| > 1x 8 GB DIMM is a lot easier to drive than 4x 48 for
| example.
|
| That's a bit of an exaggeration. What matters are DIMMs _per
| channel_ , and ranks per DIMM. Consumer systems have at most
| two memory slots per channel, so 2x 8GB modules installed
| correctly is just two separate instances of one DIMM per
| channel, and 4x48GB is two separate instances of two DIMMs
| per channel, with each module being dual-rank.
|
| The best configurations for overclocking are supposed to be
| motherboards with only one memory slot per channel, so that
| when operating with one DIMM per channel there are no empty
| slots providing stubs of wiring that degrade signal
| integrity. But very few motherboards restrict themselves like
| this for the sake of memory overclocking.
| Numerlor wrote:
| > But very few motherboards restrict themselves like this
| for the sake of memory overclocking.
|
| Though I'd hope they'd finally start doing it considering
| the per DIMM capacities DDR5 brings (32 GB, with 64 GB
| planned), and most consumers really not going for
| capacities that'd require 2 DPC (DIMM per channel).
|
| 1 DPC should've been the default by now with the amount of
| 1 DPC and 2 DPC boards swapped, as it's just making things
| worse in the most common use case
| zamadatix wrote:
| A lot of consumers care more about either of total
| capacity or the concept of "I can just double my cheap
| RAM later" than care about ~10% differences in RAM clock
| speed. The latter is for those that really know what
| they're doing to eek out a couple more percentage points
| in benchmarks or non-consumer use cases, the former
| appeal to both budget users and prosumers alike (just not
| OC enthusiasts).
|
| From that angle I don't necessarily disagree with 4
| channel boards being more common than 2 channel boards,
| even though I personally lean more towards a 2 channel
| board myself (well, depending how well CUDIMMS scale I
| may change my opinion).
| zamadatix wrote:
| 4x 8 GB is still a lot easier to drive at high speed than
| 4x 48 GB, but yes, one factor in the above comparison is
| indeed the number of DIMMs per channel. Ranks per DIMM is
| definitely a factor as well, though on large capacity DIMMs
| that tends to be a one sided story. Another factor in the
| rabbit hole is banks, tying it all back.
|
| The other part of 2 DIMM boards is the trace lengths can be
| that much shorter (they need to be the same length so fewer
| slots means less max length to match to).
| dannyw wrote:
| Your issue is more with AMD CPUs having poor quality memory
| controllers; not the motherboard.
| tredre3 wrote:
| > PSA: motherboards these days have a RAM compatibility list on
| their product page, check it before overspending on RAM.
|
| That's a valuable PSA, but FYI it's been that way since the
| 80s. I've been bitten by compatibility issues at least once a
| decade since the 90s myself, and the answer from forums or
| support is always "did you check the compatibility table tho?".
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| People should be much more sceptical than they are being here.
| Setting the xmp profile of Hynix or Samsung memory chips is right
| up there with formatting usb keys way over spec. Did you know
| Hynix or Samsung already binned these themselves and set them to
| a lower spec?
|
| The number of performance memory chips I've had that had to be
| downclocked from their xmp profile for stability is ridiculous.
| It's gotten to the stage where I'd recommend only buying memory
| from the first party suppliers (eg. only buy Samsung or Hynix
| memory). The gaming companies like the above are simply taking
| that memory and overwriting the xmp profile while adding some
| flashy but useless heat spreaders.
| wtallis wrote:
| > Did you know Hynix or Samsung already binned these themselves
| and set them to a lower spec?
|
| Hynix, Samsung, and Micron bin the chips for what speed they
| can operate at with a 1.1V supply. These enthusiast modules are
| using chips binned for the speed they can hit with 1.4V. The
| XMP/EXPO profiles don't come from Hynix, Samsung, or Micron.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| Also, the vendors announcing these things so far are ones I've
| literally never heard of before. I'd still be a bit skeptical,
| but I think it would actually mean something if Kingston,
| G.Skill, Corsair, or Teamgroup announced this product. As it
| stands, I have no reason to think that I'll ever be able to
| actually buy this product.
|
| > flashy but useless heat spreaders
|
| The funny thing about heat spreaders on SDRAM is that they
| originated as a skeuomorph of RDRAM modules from the early
| Pentium 4 days, but everyone's pretty much forgotten that by
| now, so the market is essentially flooded with "retro" memory
| for no obvious reason except "everybody else does it".
| homebrewer wrote:
| Stability problems might very well come from incorrect
| voltages. Since XMP profiles do not contain settings for most
| voltages, they're set by the motherboard firmware, and those
| values are often too high. I use XMP/EXPO profiles as a
| starting point, they're almost always terrible by themselves.
| smolder wrote:
| I am only hypothesizing here, but I do not expect these to be
| useful on AMDs current AM5 platform due to the design of the
| memory controller.
|
| The reason is there is currently a drop off in memory subsystem
| performance when you go above DDR5-6000 speeds on Ryzen 7x00 (and
| AFAIK Ryzen 9x00), because above that, the memory controller
| inside the chip can't run in lock-step with the memory frequency.
| Much of the enthusiast memory out there that is capable of higher
| speeds already, like say DDR5-7200, doesn't pair well with AMD
| chips as a result, as in that case the memory controller is
| forced to work at a 1:2 instead of a 1:1 ratio, introducing
| latency into the memory subsystem that results in overall worse
| performance.
|
| On the other hand, if these CUDIMMs can hit high enough
| frequencies (like 10k+ MT/s,) it's possible that the benefits
| will outweigh the negative related to this quirk of the memory
| controller. Until I see this tested or someone with more
| expertise clarifies this point, it's hard to say. Perhaps
| DDR5-9600 will result in better performance than the current
| DDR5-6000 "sweet spot".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-18 23:02 UTC)