bit-tech.net

Kingston launches 2800MHz HyperX memory

Kingston launches 2800MHz HyperX memory

Kingston's latest HyperX Predator XMP modules boast an impressive 2,800MHz frequency at a CAS latency of 12.

Kingston Technology has officially launched its fastest-ever memory modules via its HyperX Division, hitting an impressive 2,800MHz on the top-end Predator XMP Series.

Designed for gamers and overclockers, and sporting the 'aggressive design' Kingston apparently believes is a requirement of those markets, the latest HyperX Predator XMP modules are available in speeds of up to 2,800MHz - the fastest Kingston has yet released. At those speeds, buyers of the flagship 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 kit can expect a CAS latency of 12 - the trade-off required of bumping up the frequency of the modules.

'We are proud to offer our flagship 2800MHz memory kits to overclockers, benchmarkers and system builders throughout the world,' crowed Lawrence Yang, Kingston's business manager for the HyperX division, at the unveiling. 'Our HyperX engineers will continue working hard to improve high-speed yields to get faster product in the hands of our customers.'

The latest modules join the company's existing HyperX Predator XMP family, the latest models of which include 1,866MHz at CL9 or CL10 (4GB or 8GB modules respectively) and 2,133MHz, 2,400MHz, and 2,666MHz at CL11 with only the highest-frequency 2,800MHz modules requiring a CAS latency of 12.

Thus far, the company has only announced the singular 8GB dual-module kit for its 2,800MHz modules with no word of a 16GB dual- or quad-module kit in the works - the former being unlikely given the sacrifices typically made in producing such high-density memory modules. As usual, all modules in the HyperX Predator XMP range support Intel's eXtreme Memory Profiles and include a lifetime warranty.

The first retailer to go live with pricing on the Kingston HyperX 8GB 2,800MHz kit is Bradford-based CCL, which has the modules on pre-order for £191.21 including VAT - a significant premium over the 2,400MHz version at £81.55.

10 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Jimbob 26th November 2013, 11:21 Quote
Bought the 2400Mhz ones when they first came out and they have (typically Kingston) been flawless. However, I struggled to OC them much further than another 80Mhz or so but that may be a mobo problem more than the RAM.
Gareth Halfacree 26th November 2013, 11:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbob
Bought the 2400Mhz ones when they first came out and they have (typically Kingston) been flawless. However, I struggled to OC them much further than another 80Mhz or so but that may be a mobo problem more than the RAM.
I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't a result of binning: I'm guessing that there's no physical difference between, for example, the 2,400MHz modules and the 2,666MHz modules other than the latter being stable at a higher speed. If the 2,400MHz modules could be overclocked to 2,666Mhz stably then the chances are Kingston would sell them as 2,666MHz modules - meaning that, for any given speed of Kingston RAM, you can expect very little overclocking headroom from the officially rated speed. Except, possibly, on the 2,800MHz modules - 'cos there's no bin above that for Kingston to assign the modules to.

That's just conjecture, though, and I'm happy for someone to prove me wrong.
digitaldunc 26th November 2013, 11:47 Quote
Do they really need those ridiculously large heat spreaders?
Corky42 26th November 2013, 12:08 Quote
Its a shame that they probably wont bring much of a performance increase.
Or at least that's what i was led to believe when going from 1600Mhz to 2400Mhz
Jimbob 26th November 2013, 12:42 Quote
"I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't a result of binning:"

2400Mhz was the fastest they made at the time.
Pete J 26th November 2013, 12:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Its a shame that they probably wont bring much of a performance increase.
Or at least that's what i was led to believe when going from 1600Mhz to 2400Mhz
That's ultimately the truth about RAM, isn't it? Gaming wise, you'll probably get at most 1%* extra performance when the RAM speed goes beyond 1600MHz.

*Personal estimate.
Gareth Halfacree 26th November 2013, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbob
2400Mhz was the fastest they made at the time.
No: 2,400MHz was the fastest they sold at the time. Imagine you make memory modules: 60% of those modules run happily at 1,600MHz; 20% run at 1,866MHz; 10% run at 2,133MHz; 5% at 2,400MHz; 4% at 2,666Mhz; and 1% at 2,800MHz. Here's what you do: you sell your 60% immediately 'cos you've got loads of 'em; a while later, when you've built up inventory, you launch a faster 1,866MHz family; it then takes twice as long to build up 2,133MHz inventory - but this accelerates over time as the yields improve and the quality of your parts go up, meaning a larger percentage bins at the higher speed - but once you've got a warehouse-full you launch those too. Repeat until all modules are on the market.

Again, this is conjecture - but if you think Kingston had a bunch of chips that would happily do 2,800MHz but released them onto the market at 2,400MHz prices then I'd say you're mistaken; likewise the thought that these new 2,800MHz modules use chips that don't come from the same production line as the 2,400MHz modules.
azazel1024 26th November 2013, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Its a shame that they probably wont bring much of a performance increase.
Or at least that's what i was led to believe when going from 1600Mhz to 2400Mhz
That's ultimately the truth about RAM, isn't it? Gaming wise, you'll probably get at most 1%* extra performance when the RAM speed goes beyond 1600MHz.

*Personal estimate.

It seems to be a little more than that. Anandtech has done a few articles that have examined faster memory on Ivy and Haswell systems in the past. IIRC the general take away is that 1866mhz memory is the best bang for the buck.

In most things, the jump from 1333mhz to 1600mhz seemed to net 1-3% gains and roughly the same again jump from 1600-1866. After that, going up to 2666Mhz (I think that was the highest speed they had tested) gets around -1 to 2% in performance (not per tier, that is the difference between 1866 and 2666Mhz).

Memory bandwidth is a lot higher, there is just almost nothing that needs bandwidth that high.

I think the ONLY exception are some games using the iGPU on Ivy/Haswell. Even then, the gains were modest. I think 1333 to 1866 was around a 5-8% gain in frame rates and 1866 to 2666 was only 2-5%.

Its a lot of money to pay for very, very modest gains. Considering the excessively higher prices paid as you jump up in speed tiers, best bang for the buck is probably 1600 or 1866mhz memory. Even if ultimate performance is your goal, probably 2000 or 2333mhz is your best bet as some things showed decreased performance at higher speeds (maybe as a result of having to increase the CAS to meet those speeds, I don't really know). Anything over 2333mhz is DEFFINITELY just for bragging rights.

At least as it stands today. With DDR4 and a reworked memory controller, that might change things.
Pete J 26th November 2013, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel1024
Its a lot of money to pay for very, very modest gains. Considering the excessively higher prices paid as you jump up in speed tiers, best bang for the buck is probably 1600 or 1866mhz memory.
Totally agree. Better to funnel the extra money into a better GPU/CPU!
Yslen 27th November 2013, 11:29 Quote
I tried to buy 1600Mhz Corsair when I upgraded my PC, thinking I'd be sensible and go for the cheaper option that was more likely to work without issues. Went through three sets and none of them could hit 1600Mhz without crashing left right and centre.

Gave up, spent ~£10 extra and got a G.Skill 2133MHz set (Ripjaws X). They've been happily chugging away at 2133MHz since I installed them, getting on 18 months ago now.

Based on that experience I'm inclined to spend a bit more on memory to avoid the faff of returning several sets to find a stable one. Could just be Corsair, I suppose...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums