AMD-branded memory coming to the US

[Shawn Knight]

Advanced Micro Devices has announced that they will be bringing company-branded memory modules to the United States. The brand will be introduced with two strategic launch partners: Patriot Memory and VisionTek.

AMD has been supplying and validating memory for Radeon graphics cards for years and they feel that jumping into the volatile system memory market is a clear opportunity for the company. They have used the AMD OverDrive performance optimization tool to test and optimize DRAM in conjunction with their APUs, CPUs, GPUs and chipset platforms. Such insight is now helping them create memory modules for other manufacturers as well.

AMD hopes to take the guesswork out of selecting memory by introducing three different performance tiers. All modules will be available in 2GB, 4GB and 8GB capacities. The Entertainment level will feature 1333MHz and 1600MHz speeds designed for quiet home theater PC applications. AMD’s Performance category will support speeds up to 1600MHz in matched pairs with low latency. The top-end Radeon Edition modules will run at 1866MHz and are tuned, tested and certified for specific AMD platforms.

AMD Memory will be available through major retails including Amazon.com, Bestbuy.ca, Fry’s, Memory Express, Micro Center, NCIX, Newegg, Tiger Direct, VIP Computers (UK) and others in the near future. There’s no word on module pricing but given the state of the market, we don’t expect them to carry much of a premium (if any) over existing kits. AMD has been selling similar kits in Japan dating back to August, albeit under different performance categories.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/46441-amd-branded-memory-coming-to-the-us.html

 

[Guest]

oh boy!! but i guess this is a logical move, seeing how they are "defaulting" out of the CPU market; to stay relevant, not only in the tech industry, but also in the public eyes, they are setting up a safety net in the "start-up" segment.

 

[Mister_K]

Guest said:
oh boy!! but i guess this is a logical move, seeing how they are "defaulting" out of the CPU market; to stay relevant, not only in the tech industry, but also in the public eyes, they are setting up a safety net in the "start-up" segment.

They aren't going anywhere.

They still got the GPU market, their APUs and now this etc...

 

[oldikes]

Yey! i like the idea of keeping everything in my rig AMD.

 

[Guest]

Actually there is word on pricing - http://www.rage3d.com/index.php?cat=75#newsid33984273

AMD Memory, Entertainment Edition | 2GB | 1333 | 9-9-9 | 1.5v | $12.99
AMD Memory, Entertainment Edition | 2GB | 1600 | 9-9-9 | 1.5v | $13.99
AMD Memory, Entertainment Edition | 4GB | 1333 | 9-9-9 | 1.5v | $22.99
AMD Memory, Entertainment Edition | 4GB | 1600 | 9-9-9 | 1.5v | $24.99

 

[LinkedKube]

If you can't beat em. Do something else! AMD's new philosophy.

 

[oldikes]

Except that AMD beats intel at gaming. Well. With the nicest PHIIs anyway.

 

[Guest]

Dude, have you checked any review at least in techspot? Even Phenoms have a hard time beating a Core 2 Duo. And don't come with the same old bad argument of the "integrated graphics processor" in both Intel (Sandy Bridge, Arrandale) and new AMD's APUs. If you pair an Intel CPU and an AMD CPU with the same GPU you'll have a big surprise fanboy [and no, I'm not an Intel fanboy -I hated all SK478 and non-Core 2 SK775 processors]. You just give unfundamented opinions.

 

[ihaveaname]

^Dude, 'unfundamented'? 'Unsubstantiated' maybe, or 'unwarranted' at a stretch ... you've just lowered my opinion of anti-fanboys.

 

[LinkedKube]

^Dude, 'unfundamented'? 'Unsubstantiated' maybe, or 'unwarranted' at a stretch ... you've just lowered my opinion of anti-fanboys.

Maybe the wrong use of a word, but his point is still valid, and factual.

 

[DokkRokken]

I suppose RAM that has Overdrive profiles will make for simpler overclocking. But that's all I can really see it being advantageous for.

 

[Arris]

Maybe he meant "Except that AMD beats intel at gaming in terms of bang for buck performance"?

 

[gwailo247]

Arris said:
Maybe he meant "Except that AMD beats intel at gaming in terms of bang for buck performance"?

AMD does beat Intel in bang for buck for a non-gaming computer, but in my experience when putting together a hard core gaming rig, AMD doesn't usually keep up.

 

[Burty117]

I've just jumped off the AMD band Wagon and gone intel.

I've gone from a Phenom II x4 3.4Ghz to an Intel Core i7 2600K and I can tell you now the Intel beats the old Phenom Hands Down and a little bit more.

I can't see myself changing back any time soon.

 

[oldikes]

Arris said:
Maybe he meant "Except that AMD beats intel at gaming in terms of bang for buck performance"?

^

 

[Burty117]

ikesmasher said:

Arris said:
Maybe he meant "Except that AMD beats intel at gaming in terms of bang for buck performance"?

^

But thats not true? a Core i5 for instance beats everything AMD has to offer and is cheaper (at least in the UK) than the FX top end chips? Bang for Buck wise, the Core i5 is best?

 

[Guest]

...Bulldozer armed with radeon memory.. yes, perfect couple

bulldozer + radeon memory + radeon vga card = very hardcore three some

 

[mailpup]

bulldozer + radeon memory + radeon vga card = very hardcore three some

add an AMD motherboard chipset.

 

[Burty117]

mailpup said:

bulldozer + radeon memory + radeon vga card = very hardcore three some

add an AMD motherboard chipset.

So a Foursome?

 

[mailpup]

For now, yes. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch of the imagination for AMD to get into the SSD business one day. Then you'd have a ... fivesome.

 

[red1776]

So a Foursome?

well of course , if you have the chipset +AMD CPU and....OH you minx!:wave:

 

[dividebyzero]

For now, yes. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch of the imagination for AMD to get into the SSD business one day. Then you'd have a ... fivesome.

That kind of presupposes that GloFo gets it act together. Intel, Micron and Samsung are already at 20nm for NAND. I'd much prefer AMD to sort out their s&#+ with the first component of the "foursome" before venturing off into new territory.

As for the vRAM (don't know why this wasn't reported)- it makes sense if AMD can leverage buying quantity to attain some design enhancement, or as a springboard to other avenues (XDR2 ?)... The desktop DIMM's - not really- low margin- average speed and timings- rebranded Patriot IC's.
Are AMD offering the lifetime warranty afforded by standard Patriot kits? (and Corsair, Kingston, G.Skill etc.) ?
Why not include 16GB kits ?
Why not include DDR3-1866/2133+ now? AMD systems (noteable Llano and BD) seems performance sensitive with regards memory bandwidth, why handicap the ensuing review rigs?

On the other hand, the red heatspreaders are simply diiiiiivine, a definite must for people who really need to colour co-ordinate!

/Carson Kressley'ed

 

[red1776]

On the other hand, the red heatspreaders are simply diiiiiivine, a definite must for people who really need to colour co-ordinate!

I'll say! I am relegated to using Corsair blue with my red rig!, It's horrible I tells ya! ...horrible!

 

[oldikes]

burty117 said:

ikesmasher said:

Arris said:
Maybe he meant "Except that AMD beats intel at gaming in terms of bang for buck performance"?

^

But thats not true? a Core i5 for instance beats everything AMD has to offer and is cheaper (at least in the UK) than the FX top end chips? Bang for Buck wise, the Core i5 is best?

Its the first set of CPUs on their first new architecture in a while. Give them a year or so, and chances are, they will be better.

Oh, and it is still better. You could get a quad core 3.3 GHz, or a eight core, overclocked probably around 4.4 GHz.

And might i ask, it is known that intel is faster, but why? on paper, the main difference I noticed between a phenom II 955 and some i5 (cant remember which) was that the i5 has the bigger L3 cache...but does that really make it faster?

 

[dividebyzero]

Its the first set of CPUs on their first new architecture in a while. Give them a year or so, and chances are, they will be better.

Sorry. You get your chance when you're good enough to compete, not on what might be, could be and maybe. People are generally fickle and impatient...and they've already spent 4+ years waiting for the promised performance. BD now can't compete with Sandy Bridge, and in a year?....well, AMD will be looking at competing with Haswell -the refined Ivy Bridge on a mature 22nm process

Oh, and it is still better. You could get a quad core 3.3 GHz, or a eight core, overclocked probably around 4.4 GHz.

Not much help when Helen Keller could OC a 2500K/2600K to 4.7+ with a press of a button and gain better performance.....and still use markedly less power.

And might i ask, it is known that intel is faster, but why? on paper, the main difference I noticed between a phenom II 955 and some i5 (cant remember which) was that the i5 has the bigger L3 cache...but does that really make it faster?

Basically it comes down to a number of factors
-It's the architecture that AMD chose for future computing and thread scheduling...not the architecture for today.
-Cache latency and performance
-Immature process node for AMD's foundry partner meaning too many design targets missed ( clockspeed, power requirement)
-CPU that wasn't designed with desktop applications in mind. Server orientated (although that remains to be seen)
-While not necessarily bad, the competition is good...very good, and they have the resources (manpower and money) to stay good.
This article -and the links within (esp. the Dave Kanter articles at RWT) - at ArsTechnica breaks down the hits and misses.

If you're looking for some straight-up confidence from AMD in their own design...here it is. You may need to find an BS to English online translator. Hopefully the next time they are asked questions....they'll answer them. If this is the best they can do with cherry-picked questions and weeks of preparation I don't hold out much hope for a miracle leap in IPC and overall performance....but we'll see. AMD are locked into BD, and it's still better than what they had previously...it just isn't good enough in any recognizable metric to trouble Intel.