G.Skill on Friday announced its new top-of-the-range DDR4 memory kit for dual-channel PCs running Intel’s Kaby Lake processors. The new Trident Z kit for operates at 4333 MT/s (DDR4-4333), though it requires a bit of extra voltage to get there. In addition, the company said that it was working on even faster DDR4 DIMMs.

The new G.Skill Trident Z memory modules are based on Samsung’s 8 Gb DRAM ICs (B-die, 20 nm), which also power other high-end DIMMs from the company. The 16 GB kit (F4-4333C19) consists of two 8 GB modules rated for DDR4-4333 operation with CL19 19-19-39 timings at 1.4 V, which is above the standard high-performance voltage setting for DDR4 (1.35 V) and is considerably higher than JEDEC-specification of 1.2 V. Just like the rest members of the Trident Z family, the new DDR4-4333 kit comes with aluminum heat spreaders (so, no RGB LEDs just yet) as well as SPDs with XMP 2.0 settings.

G.Skill is the Trident Z DDR4-4333 kit for use with Intel’s Z270 platforms and Kaby Lake processors. So far, G.Skill has only validated its F4-4333C19-8GTZ modules on the ASUS ROG Maximus IX Apex motherboard and the Intel Core i5-7600K processor, but expect the list of compatible mainboards to expand over time.

In addition to announcing the new DDR4-4333 kit, G.Skill also teased DDR4-4400 (F4-4400C19-8GTZ) and even DDR4-4500 (F4-4500C19-8GTZ) 8 GB memory modules working in dual-channel mode. The company is still working on such DIMMs and finalizing their specifications (timings, voltages, etc.), so do not expect them on the shelves for a bit.

It should be noted however that this week's announcement is just that: an announcement. The actual product release will come later. G.Skill has not yet announced when that will be; presumably the company is still binning chips and building up a launch supply. We'd also expect the retail price of the kit to be announced at that time. At present, a dual-channel 16 GB DDR4-4266 kit costs around $250, so it's reasonable to assume the new DDR4-4333 kit will be priced above that.

Related Reading:

Source: G.Skill

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • HomeworldFound - Saturday, April 15, 2017 - link

    I'd take them in quad channel and in titanium white.
  • Chriz - Saturday, April 15, 2017 - link

    Shouldn't memory for Kaby Lake systems be able to run on Ryzen systems too? Both chipsets/cpu's support dual channel DDR4, same number of channels, max memory, etc.
  • ZeDestructor - Saturday, April 15, 2017 - link

    Apparently XMP support is iffy on AMD's end of things...
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, April 17, 2017 - link

    XMP is Intel developed; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_presence_dete...

    AMD should obviously not be at the same level of XMP support as Intel. It's like expecting OpenOffice to be able to render .docx Word documents as well as Microsoft Office's Word application, especially when both .docx files and XMP aren't necessarily open standards.

    Yes, AMD has some issues with supporting DRAM at speeds over 3000MHz, but in reality, the bulk of DDR4 memory sales are (ECC or Non-ECC) memory ranging from speeds between 2133 -> 3000MHZ anyways, and they capture the majority of users in that range.

    Would it be nice to be able to run DDR4 4000MHz+ memory on an AMD platform? Sure. But likewise I'd also enjoy being able to use ECC memory on a Z270 platform, which isn't something Intel supports.

    If I'm going to make an expensive memory purchase, this is my personal preference on order of importance:

    ECC > Capacity > Speed

    For example, if I can budget $200 for memory on a specific PC build, I'd rather go for ECC memory first, then in the highest capacity I can find, then at the best speed I can find.

    AMD's memory platform works just fine for me, but I know other users have different preferences for memory and would rather splurge big bucks for lower capacity, non-ECC, RAM rated for high speeds.
  • HomeworldFound - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    It all sounds like excuses to me. XMP or no XMP there's no excuse not to handle the higher clock speeds particularly with a newer product on the market.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    Wanna let me know Intel's "excuse" for not supporting ECC on their mainstream product line for over a decade? Because the technology's there, they're choosing not using it.

    Meanwhile, AMD's basically trying reverse engineer how Intel's XMP works and trying to get to the same level of DDR4 support from where before they had been stuck at DDR3 RAM in their previous chipsets.

    You might think I'm being an AMD apologist here for explaining how the XMP situation is in reality, but you really need to take a look at team blue (intel) here and look at what apologist still thinks it's OK that ECC memory isn't supported across all their platforms in the year 2017.

    AMD could do ECC memory support on mainstream platforms, why can't Intel?
  • Strunf - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    ECC memory costs more with no added benefit for most users...
    Most users care about capacity then speed, even if ECC was an option it would come last.

    XMP is just a table with some more parameters than SPD, nothing extraordinary... AMD wants to use it cause it's already here and AMD doesn't have enough market share to make memory makers adopt it.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    >ECC memory costs more with no added benefit for most users...

    Look, two can play that game.

    >Faster memory costs more with no added benefit for most users...


    It's been said again and again and again that faster DRAM speed has negligible results for PCs.


    Likewise, once you can fully saturate the program's needs for memory, capacity doesn't matter, either. (16GB is plenty for just about any application today, and you could argue that 8GB is plenty, too, but has a bit more issues when dealing with concurrency with lots of applications open at a time, while 32GB or more is overkill unless you _KNOW_ you're running a memory-intensive application.)


    Meanwhile ECC memory, when utilized, gives a system rock-solid stability against memory-based errors. This can prevent a random application crash that happened out of the blue, or a random system hangup, internet browser that suddenly became unresponsive, blue screen, etc.


    Educate yourself.

    Those who haven't used ECC don't understand its importance over speed and capacity and somehow continue to perpetuate this meme that DRAM speed offers tangible benefits to gamer FPS/$ ratios, when you should just be spending that extra money you're wasting on faster DRAM on a faster processor or GPU instead.
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    *mic drop*
  • Strunf - Wednesday, April 19, 2017 - link

    "It's been said again and again and again that faster DRAM speed has negligible results for PCs."
    That's why I put memory capacity first... negligible is better than NOTHING, also for gamers it MAKES a difference albeit small.

    I watch Linus on Youtube too... that test compared RAM speed on a GPU bond environment, I could bet that if he switched the I7 for an I3 we would still see no difference on games at least.
    Anyways the benefit from faster RAM depends on the system and game... but it clearly exists. Also what about people that are using iGPU and hence using the main memory for graphics too?...

    When I say capacity I don't mean have as much as you can... but have at least the minimum you NEED.

    My PCs have a rock solid stability without ECC. Most sources of instability on a system are due to software/hardware problems and there's nothing ECC can do about it. ECC only protects the RAM against bit flip due to external forces (cosmic rays and what not) and internal RAM problems.
    Your Pugget link compares the quality of ECC against non-ECC Ram, ECC is designed to be used on critical systems so I guess RAM producers will go an extra mile checking the Ram sticks, it's like comparing budget RAM against premium (this assuming premium is not just the price). They don't really show any data on how ECC makes a difference.
    From your source "So while ECC RAM is certainly important for servers and systems with high-value data, non-ECC RAM is more than stable enough for use in most home or work systems."

    People don't care about ECC cause people don't really get the problems ECC is supposed to address.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now