Memory prices were still on the decline last month

Well, I guess you don’t need to worry about finding cheap RAM for your next upgrade. According to DRAMeXchange findings quoted by DigiTimes, contract prices for DRAM inched downward in the second half of last month due to "weak PC sales."

The research firm has reportedly found that average contract pricing for 4GB DDR3 memory modules slipped to $18, while 2GB modules slid down to $10.25 over the same time period. That means slapping together 4GB and 8GB kits should only cost PC makers about $20.50 and $36, respectively, which is awfully cheap. Remember, a look at our past system guides shows 4GB kits were priced in the neighborhood of $40 just last summer.

Today, a quick peek at Newegg shows the cheapest 8GB DDR3-1600 memory kit retailing for $36.99 with free shipping. The most affordable 4GB DDR3-1600 bundles are available for $24.99, also with shipping covered free of charge.

DigiTimes quotes DRAMeXchange as saying DRAM makers are using diversification to "mitigate the adverse impact" of falling prices. Major manufacturers are reportedly allocating more of their production capacity to server and mobile memory. Nanya Technology, for one, plans to re-focus onto "specialty DRAM and other niche-market memory chips." However, smaller memory makers are reportedly being hit harder and forced to "brace for further losses."

Comments closed
    • anotherengineer
    • 7 years ago

    At these prices I wouldn’t mind grabbing a 16GB kit for a future build. Thing is by that time DDR3 will probably have been replaced by DDR4

    🙁

      • Bauxite
      • 7 years ago

      DDR4 is going to be a slow deployment, 3 has legs left for awhile.

      • Joe Miller
      • 7 years ago

      That’s exactly what I did 🙂 You better grab cheap ddr3 now, next year they would start ddr4, and ddr3 would get expensive, like now is ddr2.

        • Bauxite
        • 7 years ago

        DDR4 won’t start in any meaningful way until at least 2014.

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    yeah no kidding! i bought 8gb 1600mhz kingston hyperx for $15AR from TD last month!

      • sherlock
      • 7 years ago

      Could be Two things: Manufactures are clearing the Deck for 8GB Modules(for those wanting a large Ram Disk) or doing so for [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cadence-ip-ddr4-memory,17396.html<]DDR4-2400 modules[/url<] depending on whether Z87 chipset supports it.

    • Bauxite
    • 7 years ago

    If you are into memory density, 8GB ddr3 dimms are getting pretty cheap too, should eventually approach price parity with 4GB versions. 1600 of a lot of brands is really close to 1333, and no reason to bother looking at 1066 these days.

    I saw some 8GB [b<]ECC[/b<] unbuffered dimms for ~$62, thats crazy awesome.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    I hope the rumors that Nanya is planning to exit the DRAM business aren’t true. That could raise prices. For us consumers that’s obviously not going to be beneficial.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 7 years ago

      Everyone doing the same thing isn’t beneficial. That’s not what makes a competitive market.

      I hope they’re [b<]all[/b<] exiting, in favor of alternatives to the antiquated concept of spread out chips, built with outdated manufacturing processes, that plug into a socket detached from the combined CPU, GPU, and memory controller. Stack a memristor chip on top of the memory controller, and then we can start talking about the prices.

        • Bauxite
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]built with outdated manufacturing processes[/quote<] Uh no. Samsung sells 30nm chips and full modules, they are cheap, plentiful, and draw less power by running at lower voltages. Also good for overclocking going by threads on various forums. They plan to ship 20nm in near future. FWIW not being on a separate PCB can really suck, QED: apple.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        It’s not beneficial if you or I can grab DRAM for less than 15% of what it’s worth two years ago?

    • Anarchist
    • 7 years ago

    it used to be that every new version of window required doubling of processing power and amount of RAM, thus driving the CPU/RAM market. However window-7 was the first time new version of windows required less ram and processing power than the previous version. It looks like the trend will continue with windoz-8. It’s a desperate time for RAM makers. They will have to somehow flush the 4GB modules from the retail channel and force people towards 8G modules to increase the profit potential but how many people need 16GB in their PC?

      • DancinJack
      • 7 years ago

      What?

      [url<]http://windows.microsoft.com/is-IS/windows7/products/system-requirements[/url<] [url<]http://windows.microsoft.com/is-IS/windows-vista/products/system-requirements[/url<]

        • forumics
        • 7 years ago

        well to be fair, when vista came out and really pushed the limit after 10 years, people thought that vista is a resource hog. so by the time everybody started spending money to upgrade their systems, windows 7 came about.
        when their new systems got up and running, they immediately got it running windows 7 which of course, feels like a breeze on modern hardware.

        so nobody really knew that 7 is actually more of a resource hog than vista ever was.

        • travbrad
        • 7 years ago

        Whatever the requirements claim it has been widely experienced that Win7 uses a bit less memory than Vista. Not that it really matters when you have 8GB+ of memory.

        A lot of the Vista/7 memory usage is from prefetch as well (if you aren’t using a SSD), so if you actually need that memory for an active application the memory management will make room for it.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 7 years ago

        MS letting OEMs put Vista on computers with 512mb of ram is a crime worthy of a flogging.

        • Malphas
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, but Microsoft’s stated system requirements differ from fact. One of the reasons Vista was recieved so poorly upon release was that Microsoft understated the requirements to appease Dell, HP, etc. In reality Vista and 7’s memory requirements are basically the same, with 7 being slightly better optimised.

      • sircharles32
      • 7 years ago

      I see a problem with that.
      I know for a fact that Microsoft has placed an artificial limit of 16GB of RAM when used in a system running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. Unless they’ve bumped it to 32GB (4x8GB) in the Home version of Windows 8, that would have the potential of causing headaches for people that think they can upgrade their computers because there are 2 “empty” memory slots. Now, obviously, in the OEM world, they could just make sure that every “Home” version system only has a motherboard with 2 memory slots, populate them with 8GB Dimms, and be done with it. However, that is still a royal pain for the DIY crowd.

      Just a thought.

        • Majiir Paktu
        • 7 years ago

        The DIY crowd can handle it. If people can know what kind of DIMMs to buy, they can know how many to stick in for a given OS. The 4GB-on-a-32-bit-system issue was much more confusing, and people still managed to understand that.

      • flip-mode
      • 7 years ago

      I would tell you about my need for 16+ GB of RAM (I’ve got 24 installed now) but every time I do I get downvoted.

        • Anarchist
        • 7 years ago

        it’s ok … I got 32G in my box.

          • Bauxite
          • 7 years ago

          ECC or go home

    • henfactor
    • 7 years ago

    How much is the 8GB upgrade option in a MacBook Pro again?

      • internetsandman
      • 7 years ago

      The 8GB options on the iMac and Mac Pro are more insulting, because there literally all that happens is someone takes off a panel, unwraps a package and sticks the contents of the package into the computer, and puts the panel back on. With the MBP, the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard. I’m aware this isn’t a 200 dollar process though, and it bites even more cause it’s not upgradeable.

        • FuturePastNow
        • 7 years ago

        It’s soldered in on the Retina MBP, still upgradeable on the one with the low-res screen.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Apple should patent “Method for gouging users by integrating memory on board”, so Samsung et al. wouldn’t be able to reap the benefits

    • NeelyCam
    • 7 years ago

    Maybe I should buy some SODIMMs for an inevitable HTPC build sometime in the future

    Frizt

      • shaq_mobile
      • 7 years ago

      Post if youre gonna build it. I’d be interested in seeing what stuff you chose.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        I’ve been eyeing AsRock Vision X barebones system:

        [url<]http://www.asrock.com/nettop/Intel/VisionX%20Series/[/url<] I'm thinking using some fast memory, a 120-160GB SSD and a high-capacity laptop HDD

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This