Review: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 16GB DDR4-3000 (F4-3000C15Q-16GRR)

Conclusion

G.Skill sets the pricing and performance gauntlet down with the release of an aggressively-priced pack of DDR4 3,000MHz memory.

G.Skill understands that making a mark with DDR4 memory is a good way of drawing attention to the rest of its voluminous arsenal of DDR RAM.

Suitable for Intel's X99 platform at the outset, G.Skill has kits that cover practically all capacities, speeds and budgets. We're impressed that the 3,000MHz CL15 kit, presented as four 4GB modules, is priced at aggressive levels - £230 is the lowest we've seen for a 16GB pack of this ilk.

Memory frequency and timings don't make a huge difference even when run on an top-of-the-range processor that's overclocked. Real-world gains are in single-digit territory, highlighting just how effective Intel's quad-channel memory architecture and cache-laden CPUs are.

Reviews need to evaluate all products into context. The trio of cheapest Core i7-5xxx processor, motherboard and 16GB of DDR4 memory costs almost £700. Adding a further £60 on top, substituting generic memory for some super-fast G.Skill, isn't a huge outlay, especially when other similar kits are so much more expensive.

G.Skill sets the pricing and performance gauntlet down with the release of an aggressively-priced pack of DDR4 3,000MHz memory. Want the best performance from the shiny X99 platform? G.Skill's Ripjaws 4 16GB 3,000MHz pack goes to the top of our list. Recommended.

The Good

Cutting-edge DDR4 speeds
Good aesthetics
Excellent pricing
Low latencies for DDR4

The Bad

X99 platform mitigates DDR4 potential
Requires base-clock adjustment to work correctly

HEXUS.awards

G.Skill Ripjaws 4 3,000MHz CL15 DDR4 16GB (4x4GB)

HEXUS.where2buy

The G.Skill Ripjaws 4 3,000MHz DDR4 memory is available to purchase from Novatech.co.uk.

HEXUS.right2reply

At HEXUS, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any company representatives for the products reviewed choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!

Would've loved to see more games that like RAM. Source engine games generally tend to fare better with better RAM, so I think it would've been nice and a big visual representation perhaps using some source games.

robb213
Would've loved to see more games that like RAM. Source engine games generally tend to fare better with better RAM, so I think it would've been nice and a big visual representation perhaps using some source games.

The only Source game I play is Day of Defeat and it barely ever uses 4GiB out of my 8GiB of 1333MHz DDR3. I doubt more RAM would help it tbh and ‘faster’ RAM I reckon wouldn't even show up on benchmarks….

Would a jump from 1333 DDR3 to even double or more that DDR4 really make any difference to such old engines as Source? :undecided ….maybe on APUs?

Pleiades
robb213
Would've loved to see more games that like RAM. Source engine games generally tend to fare better with better RAM, so I think it would've been nice and a big visual representation perhaps using some source games.

The only Source game I play is Day of Defeat and it barely ever uses 4GiB out of my 8GiB of 1333MHz DDR3. I doubt more RAM would help it tbh and ‘faster’ RAM I reckon wouldn't even show up on benchmarks….

Would a jump from 1333 DDR3 to even double or more that DDR4 really make any difference to such old engines as Source? :undecided ….maybe on APUs?

It's possible I was mixing up stuff in my head where TomsHardware did a VRAM benchmark including L4D, but I was positive I saw more on it before, and with different images than what was shown there too.

So the only thing I could find was: http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/J/213067/original/019_left_4_dead.png but that's involving Core i7 first generation memory scaling and not exactly what I was looking for. Oh well, I'm confusing myself more nonetheless now :s

Edit: Found this too concerning LGA1156 benchmarking, but still isn't what I was looking for: http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/5/231017/original/019_left_4_dead.png

Pleiades
The only Source game I play is Day of Defeat and it barely ever uses 4GiB out of my 8GiB of 1333MHz DDR3. I doubt more RAM would help it tbh and ‘faster’ RAM I reckon wouldn't even show up on benchmarks….

Would a jump from 1333 DDR3 to even double or more that DDR4 really make any difference to such old engines as Source? :undecided ….maybe on APUs?

64-bit is a consideration here. Remember, 32-bit games can't use more than a couple of gig of RAM

directhex
64-bit is a consideration here. Remember, 32-bit games can't use more than a couple of gig of RAM

Oh good point, are any Source titles 64-bit? It really is an ancient engine by PC standards :shocked2:

Robb: Those figures do show some improvement with reduced latency, actually more than I would've expected. However as RAM speed increases, so does CL timing and these DDR4 chips would perform worse in that regard (extrapolating those figures)…