High capacity DDR3-2000 cometh
WHILE ITS PRICING slowly comes down to earth, DDR3 memory is still way more expensive than its older, just a bit slower DDR2 cousins. Now, if it's high-end users buying those DDR3 DIMMs due to the price, it would mean the memories go into the high-end PC boxen.
And, this year, such systems start at 4 GB RAM - before long, you'll see more of them with 8 GB, and then, with Nehalem's triple channel config, even 12 GB.
So, what's the point then of overpaying for, say, a Nforce 790i Ultra mobo with two 9800GX2 or GTX280 cards and then, just plug in two equally expensive 1 GB DDR3-2000 sticks when Vista GUI alone will eat all of that? Your games will start swapping in no time.
Yes, you can put four instead for double the price - at the added cost of closed-off future memory expansion.
This Computex, high-density DDR3 will finally catch up in speed with those less useful low capacity ones: the few biggies of the enthusiast memory, inclusive Corsair, Kinston, OCZ and a few of the local players, are expected to show the first samples of DDR3-2000 grade 4 GB kits, that is 2 GB per DIMM.
Corsair has just announced its offering, with expected shipping later in summer. Be ready to spend $1,300 or so for 8 GB of this pretty stuff, or nearly $330 per 2 GB DIMM.
Now that you could fill your mobo to the max capacity brim with 8 GB of the highest-bandwidth DDR3-2000 memory in your expensive Nforce 790i or X48 system, without any speed sacrifices, you may see some brand new specs of the upcoming gaming machines. Maximum memory matched 1:1 with the FSB, and that FSB at the 2000+ mark - sounds great? Oh, the only thing to complain about, it's still over triple the price of the best similar DDR2 memory... µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Is 2gb really high capacity in this day and age ? (:
"the few biggies of the enthusiast memory... are expected to show the first samples of DDR3-2000 grade 4 GB kits, that is 2 GB per DIMM."
----------------------------------------------
And that's always the problem. Why the nickers doesn't anyone create large capacity memory to fill a 4bank mobo up to 16GBs? Heck, if they're really that 'big' then why don't these manufacturers show some balls and output some single DIMM 8GB modules -- even of DDR2 then since 3 would kill us!?

So, you have mobos out there that support this much memory but no god-damn mem-facturers that can do crap to fill the need. Even if it's expensive, people will buy! (plus, religious Apple-like fanboys are in every industry - they'll ensure sales aplenty :)
http://traavelwithus.webs.com/
Now would Gigabyte please show some work done and update their i-RAM to support DDR2 and DDR3 for the REAL enthusiasts and business users to be able to have their primary partition HDD using 4x4GB DIMMS or bigger? Now THAT's performance increase. And a bit more battery time, of course.

It's hard to understand why so many so-called enthusiast websites don't put more pressure on Gigabyte, or even why there is no other company planning to provide any competing product.
The ideal product for 2008/9 would support up to a total of 32 GBs, would have a battery capacity to hold the data of at least 72 hours (so you can enjoy an extended weekend once and a while away from your machine), a software option to keep the battery always powered even with the machine turned off (still sucking power from the power supply) in case there is a business need to prevent the data from being lost beyond the battery's capacity, and a software option to backup a clone of the partition without needing to enter the OS on a different partition in case of an unpredicted battery depletion.

Seriously, I start to think that there's a lobby by HDD manufacturers to prevent such technology for the masses, regardless of price. So I expect The Inq to dig a little more on this issue, and use its influence to get Gigabyte to move their engineers' butts.
Please. :)
My 2GB of DDR1-400 on my socket 939/Opteron 185 works just fine for me on XP. If you ask me it sounds like any one spending money on this might as well just light their wallet on fire and enjoy the fire show.

Besides, what nutjob would want to run Vista? I've got the skin working just fine in XP. I've yet to use more then 1.4GB. Plus what noob still leaves the page file on? Newer isn't always better.