4 ms·
I think what he is trying to say is there isn’t a lot of DDR4 out there at 3200mhz with tight timings like there is with non-ECC memory, not just that ECC vs no
by eightysixfour 9y ago
I think what he is trying to say is there isn’t a lot of DDR4 out there at 3200mhz with tight timings like there is with non-ECC memory, not just that ECC vs non-ECC at the same specs is 10-30% slower.
- keldaris 9y agoThat's right, I'm sorry if I worded it ambiguously in my previous posts. ECC RAM is considerably slower than non-ECC RAM, but nowadays it's mostly because of looser timings and lower frequencies. I'm well aware that there are people who claim that frequencies beyond the ECC standard are liable to cause data loss (for reasons usually left unspecified), but I've never seen any reliable data to support that claim, as long as the frequencies and timings tested by the manufacturer are maintained (not to be confused with people who overclock RAM way beyond its tested specification and experience instability). On a further note, while the implementation of ECC itself is very fast for modern RAM, the same is not true of VRAM on GPUs. At least as implemented in NVidia Tesla GPUs, enabling ECC has a huge performance penalty by itself. [1] [1] http://geoceano.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cpu-gpu-lbm-in-heterogeneous-clusters.pdf http://geoceano.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cpu-gpu-lbm-in...
- Retric 9y agoI think some of this breakdown is from motherboard support. You can MB that supports a single CPU and 128GB for DDR4 4400 which is significantly higher than ECC. When you start looking at multi CPU computers with 1+TB of ram the story changes. PS: Some of this stuff is also really hard to test. Without ECC it's hard to data in terms of stability for petabytes of ram over years. And no extrapolations don't work very well.