This review compares how DDR4 ram preforms in Handbrake for UHD. I gotta say I am fairly impressed assuming it is a 60 fps video that they are getting close to real time encodes using x264.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/ddr4-haswell-e-scaling-review-2133-to-3200-with-gsk...-and-crucial/4
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread
-
-
DDR4 is definitely the future, not only is the base speed higher but the bandwidth is higher as well.
It is costly though, 32GB fast DDR4 memory sets you back about $1000.
You can have the fastest memory in the world but if the CPU is the bottleneck it does not make any difference.
Until we get faster CPUs I'd say right now the DDR3 route is still more cost efficient. -
Definitely the early days but in some ways feels like baby steps at best.
-
Did you look at the DDR3 vs DDR4 comparison in those tests? DDR4 was generally worse in video encoding, particularly with Hybrid using the X265 encoder: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/ddr4-haswell-e-scaling-review-2133-to-3200-with-gsk...-and-crucial/8
-
Yes I read the whole thing I think the main take away is that the improvement right now is marginal and we may need to wait a while before the performance to price ratio becomes compelling. But this was the first comprehensive review I have seen that benchmarks encoding.
-
That review is meant to show scaling of different DDR4 ram speeds, not how much of a speed up DDR4 offers over DDR3. There is only one platform that currently uses DDR4, namely Haswell-E so one would expect to see impressive looking benchmark numbers. But the speed you see is not attributable to DDR4, it's attributable to the overall architectural improvements of Haswell and the increased number of cores. -
Did you happen to read this:
Overall, comparing DDR4 to DDR3, there is little difference to separate the two. In a couple of small instances one is better than the other, but on those edge cases it might be prudent to say that we cannot make a final decision until we can synchronize the rest of the system, such as the size of CPU caches. When we can perform such tests, we will run some more numbers. -
^ Yes I read the article. And they acknowledge the limitations of their current test in that article several times.
But overall, DDR4 is not very compelling in and of itself at this time. We can't avoid the change, any more than we could going from DDR2 to DDR3, but since I upgrade piecemeal, this just means more expense on the next computer build. -
Originally Posted by wikipedia
...Doesn't this same thing happen every single time a new technology comes out, people completely missing the point and comparing them on faulty bases? Let's all go back to SD-RAM, it's faster! -
^Having spent time in the capital of Chad, I find ur handle very interesting.
-
I like consonants.
here we go:
www.powerlogix.com/downloads/SDRDDR.pdf
Combining all of these factors, and comparing real-world results, we find that although some data can be delivered faster from a DDR L3 cache than SDR L3, in practice, the DDR advantage is practically non-existent.
Careful analysis of the design and operation of the of the 7450 L3 cache interface shows this, but most convincingly, it is evidenced by the benchmarks and real-world applications.
The same thing happened with PCI-E, it's not constructive and I'm sick of listening to it.
The important questions surrounding DDR4 include "which platforms are supporting it?" and "when are they going to be released?" -
-
The DDR4 modules are slowly coming down in price.
Still not low enough to load up to 64GB (or even 32GB) IMHO.