Crucial BLS8G4D240FSA 8GB DDR4 £59.89 Delivered from Alternate.co.uk
29°Expired

Crucial BLS8G4D240FSA 8GB DDR4 £59.89 Delivered from Alternate.co.uk

8
Found 16th Jun 2015
DDR4 prices have fallen dramatically recently; it's now about half the price it was six months ago, and only slightly more expensive than similar-speed (i.e. considering both latency and rated clock speed) DDR3.

So if you were putting off an i7-5xxx/X99 system because of the cost of DDR4, that's no longer a good reason.

Alternate are currently the cheapest, but delivery is another £9.90. Amazon are slightly more expensive at £57.08 per 8GB module with free delivery, unless you're only buying a single module (why?!?)

8 Comments

CL16/2400Mhz....hmmmmm
Good price though, it's just such low spec stuff.
Edited by: "robo989" 16th Jun 2015

Original Poster

robo989

CL16/2400Mhz....hmmmmmGood price though, it's just such low spec stuff.



Relative to other DDR4, or older standards? If the latter, remember that CL16/2400MHz is 7ns, whereas CL10/1600MHz (i.e. a common DDR3 combination) is only 1ns quicker at 6ns.

Also, legitreviews.com/cru…3/3 found they could overclock to CL12/2666MHz, i.e. about 5ns.

CL9 1600mhz is more common. And that can overclock too.

This is pretty low spec.

Original Poster

thetwistedblue

CL9 1600mhz is more common. And that can overclock too. This is pretty … CL9 1600mhz is more common. And that can overclock too. This is pretty low spec.



Fair enough (and 5.625ns stock), but then DDR3 only has dual channel operation vs. DDR4's quad channel operation.

But latency and clockspeed are minor tweaks in terms of overall system performance (e.g bit-tech.net/har…/11); IMHO there are better places to spend extra money than on high-end performance memory.

cowbutt

Fair enough (and 5.625ns stock), but then DDR3 only has dual channel … Fair enough (and 5.625ns stock), but then DDR3 only has dual channel operation vs. DDR4's quad channel operation.But latency and clockspeed are minor tweaks in terms of overall system performance (e.g http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/08/29/intel-core-i7-5960x-review/11); IMHO there are better places to spend extra money than on high-end performance memory.



You can't use dual channel or quad channel with a single stick like this though.

I wouldn't disagree that there are better ways to spend your money than on high performance RAM. But the first comment in this thread said this stick was good value, just low performance.

Then you that argued that performance was high enough. And now that performance doesn't matter.

Let's face it; it's good value, but low spec.

Original Poster

thetwistedblue

You can't use dual channel or quad channel with a single stick like this … You can't use dual channel or quad channel with a single stick like this though.



To be expected. You also can't run DDR3 in dual channel with a single stick. My point is that DDR3 limits you to a maximum of dual channel regardless of how many sticks you buy. DDR4 doubles that limit if you're prepared to buy four modules (whether these 8GB modules, or smaller modules - personally, I think 8GB modules are the best use of a slot; I started with 2x8GB six months ago, and added two more now the price has halved).

I wouldn't disagree that there are better ways to spend your money than … I wouldn't disagree that there are better ways to spend your money than on high performance RAM. But the first comment in this thread said this stick was good value, just low performance. Then you that argued that performance was high enough. And now that performance doesn't matter.Let's face it; it's good value, but low spec.



But low spec compared with what? Four channels of admittedly slightly (~24%) higher latency DDR4 is still faster than two channels of lower latency DDR3. And, if you want an i7-5xxx, you have no choice of running DDR3 even if you wanted to. And, to repeat myself, memory performance is only a tiny aspect (<5-10%) of overall system performance.

Edited by: "cowbutt" 17th Jun 2015

cowbutt

DDR3 only has dual channel operation vs. DDR4's quad channel operation


cowbutt

DDR3 limits you to a maximum of dual channel regardless of how many … DDR3 limits you to a maximum of dual channel regardless of how many sticks you buy. DDR4 doubles that limit



You seem to think the channels are a big deal, a selling point. RIP the channel argument. If you want to run in quad channel, you should buy a quad channel kit to begin with. Suggesting people buy one stick for the future possibility of going quad channel is bad advice, someone with a good knowledge of computers would know this. Sometimes sticks bought separately just don't play well together even if they're the same brand. Yes, often it's fine and you got lucky with your kits, but stop advising people to do the same.

cowbutt

But low spec compared with what?



Why do you keep asking this? It's low spec compared with everything available on the consumer market. It's one of the slowest DDR4 kits available. Look at the product choices on the site you linked to. It's no faster than DDR3 kits. There's not much else to say. It's low spec.

Original Poster

cowbutt

DDR3 only has dual channel operation vs. DDR4's quad channel operation

cowbutt

DDR3 limits you to a maximum of dual channel regardless of how many … DDR3 limits you to a maximum of dual channel regardless of how many sticks you buy. DDR4 doubles that limit

If you want to run in quad channel, you should buy a quad channel kit to … If you want to run in quad channel, you should buy a quad channel kit to begin with. Suggesting people buy one stick for the future possibility of going quad channel is bad advice

, someone with a good knowledge of computers would know this. Sometimes … , someone with a good knowledge of computers would know this. Sometimes sticks bought separately just don't play well together even if they're the same brand. Yes, often it's fine and you got lucky with your kits, but stop advising people to do the same.

cowbutt

But low spec compared with what?



No, that's "RIP buying high-end RAM has a significant effect on overall system performance" (something we agree on). Once again, if you want an i7-5xxx, you need X99, which in turn requires DDR4. So very little point in buying more expensive DDR4 than this DDR4.



Where did I recommend that?

Hint: I didn't. In fact, that's what I was getting at with:

"Amazon are slightly more expensive at £57.08 per 8GB module with free delivery, unless you're only buying a single module (why?!?)"

in the deal text.



Not (entirely) luck; planning - I bought not only the same brand, but exactly the same part, and in a period of time that I judged it would be unlikely the underlying specification would have changed. With DDR4 prices like this, though, it's probably not even worth that gamble for the sake of a ~4x£20=£80 likely maximum saving over the very long run.

Why do you keep asking this? It's low spec compared with everything … Why do you keep asking this? It's low spec compared with everything available on the consumer market. It's one of the slowest DDR4 kits available. Look at the product choices on the site you linked to. It's no faster than DDR3 kits. There's not much else to say. It's low spec.



I keep asking because it's the key question.

And a) It's irrelevant if it's no faster than DDR3 if you have a chipset that requires DDR4, b) quad channel DDR4 memory performance is still faster than dual channel DDR3 memory performance (by a factor of two, unsurprisingly), but c) memory performance doesn't matter much to overall system performance anyway.

To me, "low spec" in this context would be anything from skinflint.co.uk/?ca…192 (i.e. DDR4, <2400MHz, CL15) and some of that is more expensive than this (EDIT: incidentally, 2133MHz is the fastest memory clock speed officially supported by the i7-5xxx memory controller, so even the "low spec" memory this deal is about is overkill if you're not going to overclock).
Edited by: "cowbutt" 18th Jun 2015
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text