Holy Moley 16GB OCZ for $430 shipped (4x4GB!!)

S

SirKronan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
4,730
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227353

For all you RAM fans out there, this is the cheapest I've seen 4 gig sticks, and they're even 800MHz at CAS 5!!

That's only 108.25 or so per 4GB stick. Last time I checked it was like 500 bucks for 8GB (4x2) This kit is going to give you probably WAY more RAM than you need ... 16GB. Sheesh.

Still hot in my book, and virtual machine runners, video editors, and serious multitaskers are gonna have a lotta fun with this!

EDIT:

2x4GB costs $220 right now here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227354

Makes it $440 for a set, not quite as good, but close.

Edit: Currently OOS - recommend "Auto Notify"

Thanks to [H]unter for the link.
 
lol I just went to 8 and now there is 16 for a decent price.
 
I remember about 5-6 years ago, when I bought my corsair twinx, low latency, 2x512mb, I paid $475:eek:

If I have the funds and a wife that understood my needs for lots of ram, I'd prob snag this....
 
9mmx19 said:
How much do the 64bit OSes support anyway?
Click to expand...

Haha, wow...if my calculations are correct, 64 bit OS's support up to 16,777,216 TERRABYTES!!! Madness...have I miscalculated this? If not I see it being a considerable time before we're worrying about upgrading to 128 bit OS's!
 
1) Poor latency.
2) Speed is slow
3) DDR-II is on its way out the door. (DDR-III)

- End of story
 
I'm pretty sure if your gunning for 16GB of memory, gaming probably isn't the first thing on your mind.

EDIT: I just saw their caption (Gaming memory), was I asleep when the world went retarded?
 
Well, there is one niche I can think of in the gaming world where this might make sense. You might have heard of people who 'multi-box' in World of Warcraft for example. They have more than one PC, and have elaborate setups with KVMs, custom code, etc in order to run their own 5-man group so they don't need to rely on other individuals. Well, if you have a beefy enough PC (I'm thinking 3 GX280s with 16GB RAM), then you could easily run multiple copies of the same game on the same PC, which would significantly reduce your hardware investment verses multiple computers. Not my cup of tea, but I know people do this.

Other than that, this would be good for workstation class people, who do intense video editing (you can never have too much ram when video editing).
 
liquidtrance123 said:
I'm pretty sure if your gunning for 16GB of memory, gaming probably isn't the first thing on your mind.

EDIT: I just saw their caption (Gaming memory), was I asleep when the world went retarded?
Click to expand...

Hey, with that amount of memory, you could use a RAMDisk to load in an entire game at one time. The performance gains from that would surely be more noticeable than the few FPS lost by its higher latencies.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Hey, with that amount of memory, you could use a RAMDisk to load in an entire game at one time. The performance gains from that would surely be more noticeable than the few FPS lost by its higher latencies.
Click to expand...

LOL, good point, sorry I forgot what forum I was on for a second. :p
 
nice price for alot of ram, but yeah DDR II is on its way out soon.
 
Wow... I have absolutley no need for that much ram, but...... why do I want it so bad none the less?
 
That is a great deal. I may have to get a set.
 
Here's a use:
I Had a customer that was running several virtual machines at once on his system: XP, Vista, Linux and OSX all at once. With 16gb of ram you could assign 4 gb to each!
 
Modred189 said:
Here's a use:
I Had a customer that was running several virtual machines at once on his system: XP, Vista, Linux and OSX all at once. With 16gb of ram you could assign 4 gb to each!
Click to expand...

+ 1 that would be awesome. Dividing up a measly 2GB sucks. :(
 
To bad Gigabyte's i-ram doesn't support DDR2. What ever happened to the DDR2 version?
 
slugger_2003 said:
Haha, wow...if my calculations are correct, 64 bit OS's support up to 16,777,216 TERRABYTES!!! Madness...have I miscalculated this? If not I see it being a considerable time before we're worrying about upgrading to 128 bit OS's!
Click to expand...

Vista and XP x64 have artificial memory limits though. Home Basic is limited to 8gb, Home Premium will use 16gb, and all higher versions of Vista and XP x64 are limited to 128gb.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
 
Robstar said:
I have not had any issues with PAE under freebsd-32 bit or linux 32bit

Edit: P43/P45 chipset ONLY

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_6400_vista_upgrade_16gb_quad_kit
Click to expand...

Yeah. There are many boards on the egg that say they support 16GB. They'll run these 4GB chips just fine. And the latencies are actually fine for a chip that dense. You wouldn't get these for gaming. (but OCZ calls everything they make "for gaming"). Only buy this if you will benefit from the ram, i.e. Ramdisk, virtual machines, video editing ... WOW. With all the AVCHD crap out there and the resources it gobbles up to edit AVCHD (sony, panasonic, and some new cheaper canon cameras) 16GB actually makes a ton of sense. Bring you that much closer to realtime. AVCHD is good quality, and space efficient, but takes more horsepower to decode and render than HDV. 16GB could be supremely beneficial to anyone using a sony, panasonic or canon that uses HDV.

People running several editing programs at once would benefit greatly, too, i.e. Premiere, photoshop, and after effects at the same time.
 
slugger_2003 said:
Haha, wow...if my calculations are correct, 64 bit OS's support up to 16,777,216 TERRABYTES!!! Madness...have I miscalculated this? If not I see it being a considerable time before we're worrying about upgrading to 128 bit OS's!
Click to expand...

Your theoretical calculation of 16.8 million terrabytes is correct.

Vista 64 bit can only "see" 128gb of ram anyway.

Even if you had a motherboard that supports it, most of the processors have artifical limits on top of that. For example, the Athlon X2 has a 40-bit address bus and recognizes only 48 bits of the 64-bit virtual address
 
Maddie said:
1) Poor latency.
2) Speed is slow
3) DDR-II is on its way out the door. (DDR-III)

- End of story
Click to expand...

As will DDR3 once it becomes standard. I dont know why people would rather wait for DDR3 because it ill be standard, look at the crazy prices for DDR1 right now, it seems to go up in value :)
 
Hmm... seems it's sold out. I was thinking of buying this and sitting on it for a year then trying to sell it at DDR1 prices :p
 
slugger_2003 said:
Why would they go to the bother of limiting it? Would it mean extra coding for them or something?
Click to expand...

I am guessing it is extra coding. Look at how the lower editions of XP support less. I think this is mostly planned obsolescence and/or forcing people to higher versions. Look at the 2008 server. It wouldn't be uncommon now to see a server with 32gb of ram, and setting the limit there requires any system over that to go with Enterprise. Microsoft does the same thing with processors. Windows XP Home does not support 2 processors (cores don't count) where XP Pro does. The server versions of course support even more.
 
Maddie said:
1) Poor latency.
2) Speed is slow
3) DDR-II is on its way out the door. (DDR-III)

- End of story
Click to expand...

1) You won't notice a difference between CL4 and CL5 (at least on Intel platforms), unless you're running benchmarks (and even then, the difference is negligible), so don't pay a huge price premium for lower latency. CL6 would be better qualified for the "poor latency" status over CL5. CL5 seems average, and adheres to the JEDEC specs. TRCD, TRP, and TRAS aren't as important as CL.

2) DDR2-800 is good enough for most good OC's, especially with a Q6600 or E7200.

3) While it is on the way out, the alternative, DDR3, is still much higher priced. And since computer parts simply depreciate, why buy DDR3 right now over DDR2, even when current platforms show negligible performance increase? -- DDR3 is just not worth it right now.

- End of counterstory.
 
9mmx19 said:
How much do the 64bit OSes support anyway?
Click to expand...
A better question is how much memory can a 64-bit x86 processor directly address. Intel and AMD x86-64 CPUs can address 48-bit flat memory address space directly (256TB). There is an extra 4-bits with available in virtual address space (like PAE on 32-bit processors) that increase that range by 16 times (4PB).

Even if mainstream memory size doubled every other year starting with 4GB today, it would take 10 years to reach Vista's (higher) desktop OS 128GB limit and 32 years to max out a 48-bit flat address space.
 
wow nice price. i'd get it once its a bit cheaper and split between 2 rigs :D
 
Blue Fox said:
Physical Address Extension (PAE). It has its quirks, so I wouldn't recommend it for home users. (I had 12gb of RAM on a 32bit system earlier this year)
Click to expand...

We have lots of 32 bit servers with more than 4GB, mostly running SQL.

What quirks?? PAE works fine, at least on HP servers.
 
enginurd said:
1) You won't notice a difference between CL4 and CL5 (at least on Intel platforms), unless you're running benchmarks (and even then, the difference is negligible), so don't pay a huge price premium for lower latency. CL6 would be better qualified for the "poor latency" status over CL5. CL5 seems average, and adheres to the JEDEC specs. TRCD, TRP, and TRAS aren't as important as CL.

2) DDR2-800 is good enough for most good OC's, especially with a Q6600 or E7200.

3) While it is on the way out, the alternative, DDR3, is still much higher priced. And since computer parts simply depreciate, why buy DDR3 right now over DDR2, even when current platforms show negligible performance increase? -- DDR3 is just not worth it right now.

- End of counterstory.
Click to expand...

AMEN.
 
siliconnerd said:
I am guessing it is extra coding. Look at how the lower editions of XP support less. I think this is mostly planned obsolescence and/or forcing people to higher versions. Look at the 2008 server. It wouldn't be uncommon now to see a server with 32gb of ram, and setting the limit there requires any system over that to go with Enterprise. Microsoft does the same thing with processors. Windows XP Home does not support 2 processors (cores don't count) where XP Pro does. The server versions of course support even more.
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't say it cause's an increase in the amount of code required. XP probably has the ability to support 2 processors and vista 64-bit probably does have the ability to support 16.8 million TB of RAM, they simply limit the lower versions of OS. By this I mean the OS's such as XP home and pro contain the same code but home has parts of code turned off. It is still there but it's just not activated.
This is a technique some software companies use, I know this as I work for one as a developer. I'm not saying this IS exactly how it is in the OS's, I'm just saying I personally believe it's more likely to be like this, rather than, for example, MS having to add additional code to XP home to support XP pro features.
So I suppose in a way, it may require extra code but it won't require any more time devoping and planning, just changing the value of a variable limiter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top