Corsair is now using Chinese DRAM in its DDR5 kits. Memory prices could finally drop.



TL;DR

Corsair DDR5 modules spotted with Chinese CXMT chips as AI demand starves PCs of DRAM. Prices may fall in H2 2027.

Corsair, one of the most recognisable names in PC components, is shipping DDR5 memory modules built with DRAM manufactured by ChangXin Memory Technologies, China’s largest memory chipmaker. Screenshots posted on X by hardware enthusiast @wxnod show a Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 module, part number CMK5X16G3E60C36A2, with CPU-Z and HWiNFO64 identifying the DRAM manufacturer as ChangXin Technologies rather than Corsair’s usual supplier, Micron. The module runs at 6000 MT/s with CL36 timings at 1.35V, supporting both Intel XMP and AMD EXPO overclocking profiles. The specifications are mainstream, indistinguishable from equivalent Samsung or SK Hynix-based kits.

The shift matters because it signals that the AI-driven memory shortage has pushed Western brands to diversify their supply chains toward Chinese manufacturers. Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have redirected the bulk of their production capacity toward high-bandwidth memory for AI accelerators, leaving the consumer PC market chronically undersupplied. DDR5 prices have risen sharply throughout 2026 as a result. Samsung and SK Hynix jointly warned in late April that AI-driven memory shortages are expected to persist through 2027 and beyond, with hyperscalers booking supply years ahead. For PC builders, the situation has been punishing.

CXMT is positioned to exploit the gap. The company holds approximately 7.7% of the global DRAM market and counts Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance among its customers. It offers DDR5 dies in 16 Gb and 24 Gb configurations with speeds up to 8,000 MT/s. Its Q1 2026 revenue surged to 50.8 billion yuan ($7.4 billion), up 719% year on year, and it posted net profit of 33 billion yuan ($4.4 billion), compared with a loss of 2.83 billion yuan in the same period a year earlier. The company is reportedly preparing for a listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange later this year.

Kye-hyun Kyung, a former head of Samsung’s chip and display division, said at an engineering forum in Korea that Chinese companies are aggressively expanding their memory production capacity and that relief could come in the second half of 2027. Both CXMT and YMTC, China’s leading NAND flash manufacturer, are expected to roughly double their wafer output capacity through what the industry has described as an “Epic Expansion” initiative. Other Chinese players including Jiahe Jinwei are also ramping production of DDR5 RDIMMs for data centre and server deployments.

The critical question, as Tom’s Hardware noted, is whether cheaper sourcing translates into cheaper retail prices. Corsair may be sourcing CXMT DRAM at a lower cost but selling the finished modules at the same inflated rates that the shortage supports. Until Chinese supply reaches a scale that creates genuine downward pressure on the broader market, the benefit to consumers may be limited to availability rather than price.

There are structural reasons to believe the price effect will come, just not quickly. CXMT’s current monthly wafer output is approximately 240,000 units, roughly half of SK Hynix’s capacity and about a third of Samsung’s, according to market research firm Omdia. That is not enough to flood the market. But the trajectory is steep, and CXMT has a structural advantage the Big Three do not: it has no AI contracts to service. Unlike Samsung and SK Hynix, whose production lines are committed to HBM4 and LPDDR5X for Nvidia, AMD, and the hyperscalers, CXMT’s capacity is available for the consumer PC memory that nobody else wants to make right now.

Samsung’s labour dispute adds another layer of uncertainty to the supply picture. The company’s largest union is threatening an 18-day strike from 21 May, which South Korea’s prime minister has warned could cost up to $668 million per day. If the strike materialises, Samsung’s already constrained consumer DRAM output would tighten further, accelerating the shift toward Chinese alternatives.

The geopolitical dimension is unavoidable. The US has restricted the export of advanced chipmaking equipment to China, specifically EUV lithography tools from ASML, which means CXMT cannot manufacture the most cutting-edge memory nodes. But consumer DDR5 does not require EUV. The memory that goes into a gaming PC or a workstation can be made on older process nodes that CXMT already possesses, and at volumes that the export restrictions do not materially constrain. The irony is precise: US sanctions designed to slow China’s semiconductor industry are accelerating Chinese dominance in exactly the market segment that the sanctions do not cover.

The DDR5 price crisis is already visible in consumer hardware. The ROG NUC 16, Asus’s flagship gaming mini PC launched this week at $4,400, represents a $1,200 price increase over last year’s model, partly attributable to rising memory costs. PC builders who have been waiting for prices to normalise will need to wait longer, likely until the second half of 2027, according to the former Samsung executive’s timeline. But the Corsair-CXMT module is the first tangible sign that the supply chain is diversifying, and that Chinese memory is no longer a hypothetical alternative but a product sitting inside retail kits from one of the world’s biggest component brands.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link