Anyone have any idea when Corsair or other vendors will offer 4GB DDR3 sticks?

When I build my P6T system, I would rather use a 12 GB kit now, rather
than a 6 GB kit now that I would have to replace in several years.

-AH

I don't know. None of the usual suspects list 4 GB unbuffered DDR3 DIMMs
yet, although I believe it will be available soon. (Expensive for early
adopters, I'd bet.)

However, a 6GB kit (3 X 2GB) of PC3-12800 (DDR3 1600) currently costs about
$100US at Newegg.

It may be cheaper to buy a 6GB kit now, and wait six months or a year for
12GB. If you need 12GB now, I suggest buying two 6 GB kits. That's what I
have in my P6T Deluxe (not V2), although I had to play with the RAM timings
and voltages to get it running reliably at DDR3 1600 with all six memory
slots populated.

HTH.

"Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
...
When I build my P6T system, I would rather use a 12 GB kit now, rather
than a 6 GB kit now that I would have to replace in several years.

-AH

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:17:28 -0400, "Bob Knowlden"
wrote:

I don't know. None of the usual suspects list 4 GB unbuffered DDR3 DIMMs
yet, although I believe it will be available soon. (Expensive for early
adopters, I'd bet.)

I'll bet!

However, a 6GB kit (3 X 2GB) of PC3-12800 (DDR3 1600) currently costs about
$100US at Newegg.

It may be cheaper to buy a 6GB kit now, and wait six months or a year for
12GB. If you need 12GB now, I suggest buying two 6 GB kits. That's what I
have in my P6T Deluxe (not V2), although I had to play with the RAM timings
and voltages to get it running reliably at DDR3 1600 with all six memory
slots populated.

Corsair also sells a 12 GB kit (6 x 2). They claim that they
guarantee the operation of all the memory sticks at rated specs, but
warn you that combining 2 6 GB kits may not work.

How much did you have to change the timings and voltage to get all six
memory sticks to work together?

-AH

HTH.

"Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
.. .
When I build my P6T system, I would rather use a 12 GB kit now, rather
than a 6 GB kit now that I would have to replace in several years.

-AH

There is no guarantee that the chipset in any given current system will
support memory modules larger than those which existed not even now, but
back when the chipset was being designed. There is more to this than
total memory size.


Andrew Hamilton wrote:
When I build my P6T system, I would rather use a 12 GB kit now, rather
than a 6 GB kit now that I would have to replace in several years.

-AH

Barry Watzman wrote:
There is no guarantee that the chipset in any given current system will
support memory modules larger than those which existed not even now, but
back when the chipset was being designed. There is more to this than
total memory size.

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/FileList/...8-ud3r_1.6.pdf

Tested with 3x4GB sticks in this line of the PDF.

S10D1 4GB Samsung M378B5273BH1-CF8 DS Samsung K4B2G0846B HCF8 v 3PCS

Listed here for $287 a stick.

Samsung DDR3-1066 4GB CL7 Original Memory M378B5273BH1-CF8

http://www.ewiz.com/query.php?categry=675&brand=Samsung

I recommend checking the Samsung site itself, for more worthy
examples.

Anandtech mentioned the possibility of using 48GB with Core i7, but
I'm not wasting my time researching that :-)

And if you were serious about that much memory, there is always
stuff like this. The Xeon LGA1366 products.

http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=633

The S7025 has a nicer set of PCI Express slots.

http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=641

Paul



Andrew Hamilton wrote:
When I build my P6T system, I would rather use a 12 GB kit now, rather
than a 6 GB kit now that I would have to replace in several years.

-AH

That does not entirely address the issue.

The fact that your motherboard works with SOME 4GB modules does not mean
that it will work with all of them (I am talking about INTERNAL
architecture, not subtle timing issues (which can also be an issue,
however)).

Don't know if you go back that far, but the old "BX" chipset worked with
16-chip 256MB modules, but not 8-chip modules. The problem was, 256MB
modules didn't get cheap until the 8-chip modules came out, and it was
hard to find "old" 16-chip modules (which carried a premium price).

So in a year or two there might be lots of cheap 4GB modules, which 2010
and 2011 motherboards will work with. But the architecture of those
modules may preclude using them in "old" 2009 motherboards. Yes,
modules that do work in those "old" 2009 motherboards will exist; but
they may be so expensive that buying a new motherboard will result in a
lower total system cost than buying that somewhat exotic memory that
works in those older motherboards.

[of course all of this is conjecture about the future]


Paul wrote:
Barry Watzman wrote:
There is no guarantee that the chipset in any given current system
will support memory modules larger than those which existed not even
now, but back when the chipset was being designed. There is more to
this than total memory size.

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/FileList/...8-ud3r_1.6.pdf


Tested with 3x4GB sticks in this line of the PDF.

S10D1 4GB Samsung M378B5273BH1-CF8 DS Samsung K4B2G0846B HCF8 v 3PCS

Listed here for $287 a stick.

Samsung DDR3-1066 4GB CL7 Original Memory M378B5273BH1-CF8

http://www.ewiz.com/query.php?categry=675&brand=Samsung

I recommend checking the Samsung site itself, for more worthy
examples.

Anandtech mentioned the possibility of using 48GB with Core i7, but
I'm not wasting my time researching that :-)

And if you were serious about that much memory, there is always
stuff like this. The Xeon LGA1366 products.

http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=633

The S7025 has a nicer set of PCI Express slots.

http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=641

Paul



Andrew Hamilton wrote:
When I build my P6T system, I would rather use a 12 GB kit now, rather
than a 6 GB kit now that I would have to replace in several years.

-AH

Barry Watzman wrote:
That does not entirely address the issue.

The fact that your motherboard works with SOME 4GB modules does not mean
that it will work with all of them (I am talking about INTERNAL
architecture, not subtle timing issues (which can also be an issue,
however)).

Don't know if you go back that far, but the old "BX" chipset worked with
16-chip 256MB modules, but not 8-chip modules. The problem was, 256MB
modules didn't get cheap until the 8-chip modules came out, and it was
hard to find "old" 16-chip modules (which carried a premium price).

So in a year or two there might be lots of cheap 4GB modules, which 2010
and 2011 motherboards will work with. But the architecture of those
modules may preclude using them in "old" 2009 motherboards. Yes,
modules that do work in those "old" 2009 motherboards will exist; but
they may be so expensive that buying a new motherboard will result in a
lower total system cost than buying that somewhat exotic memory that
works in those older motherboards.

[of course all of this is conjecture about the future]


You could start at page 31 here. This defines the dimensioning
of DDR3.

http://www.jedec.org/download/search/JESD79-3C.pdf

Now compare to the register definitions in the second of the
Core i7 documents on the Intel site.

The largest Jedec defined chip of interest, is 8Gbit density (1Gbit x 8).

8Gbit chip Core i7
Row A0 - A15 2^16 rows (just fits)
Column A0 - A9, A11 2^12 columns (i.e. one bit left over)
Internal Bank BA0-BA2 8 bank Up to 16 bank (i.e. one bit left over)
Ranks --- irrelevant --- (Quad rank likely only on Xeon LGA1366)
(Most likely dual rank on desktop i7)
(Quad rank is for registered memory.)

None of the above means anything, but it does leave the door open,
to a single sided 4GB module working with ease. So my glass
is "half full", while yours is "half empty".

The Intel documentation is "architectural" rather than "implementation", which
is why you cannot conclude anything from it. For example, the "registers"
document includes mention of ECC, but there is no ECC on the desktop
Core i7.

There are five pages in the back of this Xeon LGA1366 document, which
are an additional strip tease. After you read it, you still won't know
anything... They couldn't put a section like this in the desktop
Core i7, because then they'd risk giving out useful information.

http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/321322.pdf

Paul

"Paul" wrote in message
...
Barry Watzman wrote:
That does not entirely address the issue.

The fact that your motherboard works with SOME 4GB modules does not mean
that it will work with all of them (I am talking about INTERNAL
architecture, not subtle timing issues (which can also be an issue,
however)).

Don't know if you go back that far, but the old "BX" chipset worked with
16-chip 256MB modules, but not 8-chip modules. The problem was, 256MB
modules didn't get cheap until the 8-chip modules came out, and it was
hard to find "old" 16-chip modules (which carried a premium price).

So in a year or two there might be lots of cheap 4GB modules, which 2010
and 2011 motherboards will work with. But the architecture of those
modules may preclude using them in "old" 2009 motherboards. Yes, modules
that do work in those "old" 2009 motherboards will exist; but they may be
so expensive that buying a new motherboard will result in a lower total
system cost than buying that somewhat exotic memory that works in those
older motherboards.

[of course all of this is conjecture about the future]


You could start at page 31 here. This defines the dimensioning
of DDR3.

http://www.jedec.org/download/search/JESD79-3C.pdf

Now compare to the register definitions in the second of the
Core i7 documents on the Intel site.

The largest Jedec defined chip of interest, is 8Gbit density (1Gbit x 8).

8Gbit chip Core i7
Row A0 - A15 2^16 rows (just fits)
Column A0 - A9, A11 2^12 columns (i.e. one bit left
over)
Internal Bank BA0-BA2 8 bank Up to 16 bank (i.e. one bit
left over)
Ranks --- irrelevant --- (Quad rank likely only on Xeon
LGA1366)
(Most likely dual rank on
desktop i7)
(Quad rank is for registered
memory.)

None of the above means anything, but it does leave the door open,
to a single sided 4GB module working with ease. So my glass
is "half full", while yours is "half empty".

The Intel documentation is "architectural" rather than "implementation",
which
is why you cannot conclude anything from it. For example, the "registers"
document includes mention of ECC, but there is no ECC on the desktop
Core i7.

There are five pages in the back of this Xeon LGA1366 document, which
are an additional strip tease. After you read it, you still won't know
anything... They couldn't put a section like this in the desktop
Core i7, because then they'd risk giving out useful information.

http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/321322.pdf

Paul


Paul:

Step away from the books and look at the real world. You are caught up in
the minutia of memory timing while not seeing the overall market trends of
consumer mother boards. In other words you are not seeing the forest for
the trees. You are doing the same thing to Barry that you did to me a few
months back.

Now, I happen to enjoy detailed information about anything that has to do
with electronics, and appreciate any pointers to good information, (which is
why I like you.) It's almost like a fix to me. I eat it up. HOWEVER Barry
is making an observation that pertains to the practicality of the mobo and
memory as it stands in cost-benefit ratio of the moving market for consumer
computers and happens to be spot on in his assessment.

You have only thrown dust up in the air. Good dust, but dust non the least.
I do enjoy what you have to say, but it is of no value to the subject
posted.

William

This is the RAM I'm using:

http://www.ocztechnology.com/product...triple_channel

I'm using two kits of it, purchased months apart.

Timings are manually set to 9-9-9-24. The DRAM voltage is set to 1.66V (1.65
isn't an option in my BIOS.) The QPI voltage was raised to 1.35V. Supposedly
it's OK to go over 1.65V on the RAM if the QPI voltage is less than 0.5V
removed from it. (It's not the RAM, but rather the memory controller on the
X58 chipset, that is at risk.) My FSB is 200 MHz; I've had to back the CPU
multiplier to 19. (Pfui. I'd prefer 4.0 GHz. I'm air cooled, though.)

You may want to look he

http://i4memory.com/wp/article/327

"Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:17:28 -0400, "Bob Knowlden"
wrote:

(snip)

How much did you have to change the timings and voltage to get all six
memory sticks to work together?

-AH

HTH.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:52:39 -0400, "Bob Knowlden"
wrote:

This is the RAM I'm using:

http://www.ocztechnology.com/product...triple_channel

I'm using two kits of it, purchased months apart.

Timings are manually set to 9-9-9-24. The DRAM voltage is set to 1.66V (1.65
isn't an option in my BIOS.) The QPI voltage was raised to 1.35V. Supposedly
it's OK to go over 1.65V on the RAM if the QPI voltage is less than 0.5V
removed from it. (It's not the RAM, but rather the memory controller on the
X58 chipset, that is at risk.) My FSB is 200 MHz; I've had to back the CPU
multiplier to 19. (Pfui. I'd prefer 4.0 GHz. I'm air cooled, though.)

Thanks.

For all who replied, I didn't realize that a "simple" question would
have such as "complex" answer.

-AH