Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Do you think there would be any noticeable, significant performance increase between 1600MHz, 1866MHzz or 2133MHz DDR3 RAM? Looking at pricing a rig together but can't decide on RAM speed...
SHimmer45 Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 if your benchmarking it then you would see an increase, in day to day running (depending on what your actually doing) maybe less so. and to be fair alot of the lower speeds can be tweaked to run slightly faster if you required it.
Michael Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Check whether your motherboard actually supports the higher clocked memory first, unless you're planning on overclocking the faster rated memory may come in handy. 1600MHz and 1866MHz are going to be priced similar, but it really depends how much more 2133MHz memory is. 1
sonofsanta Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) It makes bugger all difference in real world terms. Timings are more important, although their impact is still not that great, and sheer capacity is most important of all. Get the fastest you can within reasonable expense because hell, you may as well, but there's no point in spending extra on fancy looking RAM with weird heat-spreaders (that might interfere with any CPU cooling towers) and supposed overclockability. Better spending the money on your CPU/GPU/SSD (you are getting an SSD, right?) Sources: AnandTech - Sandy Bridge Memory Scaling: Choosing the Best DDR3 Conclusion : Tom's Ultimate RAM Speed Tests http://techreport.com/review/20377/exploring-the-impact-of-memory-speed-on-sandy-bridge-performance/4 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2011/01/11/the-best-memory-for-sandy-bridge/12 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/sandy-bridge-ddr3_8.html#sect0 - relevant quote there would be "we believe that inexpensive DDR3-1600 SDRAM with not very aggressive timings would be the most reasonable choice for contemporary LGA1155 systems: in our opinion, memory like that offers the best price-to-performance ratio today." Edited January 30, 2013 by sonofsanta Extra articles 1
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 Check whether your motherboard actually supports the higher clocked memory first, unless you're planning on overclocking the faster rated memory may come in handy. 1600MHz and 1866MHz are going to be priced similar, but it really depends how much more 2133MHz memory is. It's an extra £50 roughly between 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 4GB DDR3 2133Mhz. Just over £25 to between 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 4GB DDR3 1866Mhz.
sonofsanta Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 It's an extra £50 roughly between 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 4GB DDR3 2133Mhz. Just over £25 to between 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 4GB DDR3 1866Mhz. For that money, 1600MHz is plenty, your £25 is better spent on improving other components. Use it to justify getting a decent PSU or case instead. 1
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 Thought as much, thanks for the conformation. And yes, SSD is on the cards.
Michael Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 It's an extra £50 roughly between 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 4GB DDR3 2133Mhz. Just over £25 to between 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz and 4GB DDR3 1866Mhz. If in doubt, just go in the middle with 1866MHz I agree with the above though that the saved cash may go towards a better CPU or GPU. 1
SYNACK Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 If using Intel you need a K series CPU and non business chip set like the z77 to actually really use it, as above timing is more important but the whole lot is unimportant if the rest of your system is not up to driving it fast enough.
chazzy2501 Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 if you have CPU graphics the RAM speed can help the graphics card alot. (I noticed huge changes on the AMD IGPs; 1333 vs 1600)
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 if you have CPU graphics the RAM speed can help the graphics card alot. (I noticed huge changes on the AMD IGPs; 1333 vs 1600) No, will be running an Nvidia card of some sort.
featured_spectre Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Difference between 1066 and 1333 is barely noticable Difference between 1333 and 1600 is noticable Difference between 1066 and 1600 is very noticable Difference between 1600 and 1866 is barely noticable Difference between 1866 and 2133 is barely noticable Difference between 1600 and 2133 is noticable I would say the performance vs price, it is better economy to get the 1600mhz RAM compared to any other, but RAM cooling also makes a difference IMO, but that is only if you are using RAM intensive programs such as Photoshop, CAD/CAM, Video Rendering ETC. If you are doing those, also worth remembering that GPU and GDDRx RAM on the GFX card is also of importance for performance. A 512MB GDDR5 Graphics card will outperform a 2GB GDDR3 Graphics card. Hope that helps! 1
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 Difference between 1066 and 1333 is barely noticable Difference between 1333 and 1600 is noticable Difference between 1066 and 1600 is very noticable Difference between 1600 and 1866 is barely noticable Difference between 1866 and 2133 is barely noticable Difference between 1600 and 2133 is noticable I would say the performance vs price, it is better economy to get the 1600mhz RAM compared to any other, but RAM cooling also makes a difference IMO, but that is only if you are using RAM intensive programs such as Photoshop, CAD/CAM, Video Rendering ETC. If you are doing those, also worth remembering that GPU and GDDRx RAM on the GFX card is also of importance for performance. A 512MB GDDR5 Graphics card will outperform a 2GB GDDR3 Graphics card. Hope that helps! It will be a rig for gaming mainly so my main focus will be on the CPU and GPU choice.
OB1 Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 The graphs on this page make for interesting viewing. Every 100 points is a 10% performance difference. There's not a lot in it, and it's not something you're going notice. I'd get more slower ram rather than less faster ram. 1
sonofsanta Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Post your speculative spec on here when you have it settled, then, I want to live vicariously through your new build
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Post your speculative spec on here when you have it settled, then, I want to live vicariously through your new build Starting build as it stands at the moment: Case: CoolerMaster Elite 310 Mid-Tower Gaming Case (Blue Colour) CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.50 GHz Eight-Core AM3+ CPU 8MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology Cooling Fan: CoolerMaster Hyper TX3 with 3 x Direct Contact heat-pipes CPU Cooling Fan Motherboard: ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 AMD 760G (780L) Chipset, Micro-ATX mainboard w/ 2 RAM slots, 7.1 Audio, GbLAN, USB3.0, SATA-II, 1 PCIe X16, 1 PCIe X1, & 2 PCI Memory: 8GB (2x4GB) PC12800 DDR3/1600mhz Dual Channel Memory (Kingston HyperX Blu w/Heat Spreader) Hard Drive: 120GB Kingston HyperX 3K SATA III Gaming MLC Solid State Disk Optical Drive: 24X Double Layer Dual Format DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE. Thinking of taking my existing 1000w PSU from my current rig. Also undecided on GPU but it will be a Nvidia card. Right now, I'll be happy just having dynamic shadows in DayZ! Existing rig: Case: Big broken thing with door cover hanging off CPU: AMD Athlon X2 5200 @ 2.60GHz Motherboard: ASUS M2N4-SLI Memory: 4GB (4 X 1GB) DDR2 RAM HDD: 70GB Hitatchi SATA @ 7000RPM GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 280 Edited January 30, 2013 by Rawns
CHR1S Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Wouldn't choose anything over a K series i5/7 CPU Wouldn't choose anything less than a 256Gb SSD (Trust me you will fill it very fast - and you need 10-20% free space to see speed gains long term) Would choose a Mobo with SATA3 - No point having a SATA3 SSD on a SATA2 Mobo Edited January 30, 2013 by CHR1S 1
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 Wouldn't choose anything over a K series i5/7 CPU I prefer AMD's. Intel CPU's seem to be rather expensive in comparison. Wouldn't choose anything less than a 256Gb SSD (Trust me you will fill it very fast - and you need 10-20% free space to see speed gains long term) It will only be for the OS and some software. Will be getting a separate 1TB drive for Steam/Games. Would choose a Mobo with SATA3 - No point having a SATA3 SSD on a SATA2 Mobo Doh! Misred that as SATA-III!
SYNACK Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Personally I'd go for 16GB and a full atx motherboard, ram is cheap and I have found full atx boards way more reliable under any form of load. 1
CHR1S Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I prefer AMD's. Intel CPU's seem to be rather expensive in comparison. No personal favouring, just think for the price you get better performance, I always went AMD, but lately I have no experience other than reviews etc. It will only be for the OS and some software. Will be getting a separate drive for Steam/Games. Ye, I said the same, until you see the speed difference when you palm off steam games to a mechanical drive 1
sonofsanta Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Definitely go for SATA3 - the speed difference on an SSD is noticeable. You'll never quite get the snap with a SATA2 connection. The AMD chip should be fine for gaming, the i5-3570K is an exquisite CPU but you can get by with a Core-i3 or an AMD chip. Higher power consumption than the equivalent Intel chip though. I'd say the 660Ti is the best GPU to aim for on the nVidia side of things - note the Ti, the plain 660 is a different card (nVidia love playing name games). To be honest. though, you could probably do plenty well with a 280 for now. This article may well be of interest - compares 64 GPUs from the last few years, including the GTX280 and the current gen of nVidia hardware, so you can see how much gain you're actually getting. Battlefield 3, for example, still runs at 42.3 FPS on a 280 (although the 660Ti does manage >100, to be fair). 128Gb SSD is fine just for OS + Apps, it's what I run with Steam on a 640Gb Caviar Black; you can have games install on either these days, and there are apps that let you move files between them. I'd go for a Samsung SSD personally, though, they're fantastic performers and not extortionately expensive. 1
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) No personal favouring, just think for the price you get better performance, I always went AMD, but lately I have no experience other than reviews etc. I know what you mean, from reading up, everyone raves about Intel CPU's these days and how i5 and i7's are the bomb. But an 8 core AMD CPU at 3.5GHz and 16MB cache is £130 quid. I can't seem find anything Intel-wise that comes close to that price in the same area. If anyone wants to suggest some similar options, by all means, I'll take them. Ye, I said the same, until you see the speed difference when you palm off steam games to a mechanical drive My current O/S HD is 70Gb. I 'could' get away with a 64Gb SSD (as I'm only using 50Gb for the O/S and a few apps) but to play it safe, more is required methinks. I'd love a SSD for my games too (my current game HD is 300Gb with only 30Gb free). To get an SSD the size is too pricy for my liking, and to be honest, my Steam library size will only grow so a 1TB drive seems like a sensible solution. Now steam allows you to install games on different drives, I could put one or two onto the OS SSD drive. Edited January 30, 2013 by Rawns
CHR1S Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I know what you mean, from reading up, everyone raves about Intel CPU's these days and how i5 and i7's are the bomb. But an 8 core AMD CPU at 3.5GHz and 16MB cache is £130 quid. I can't seem find anything Intel-wise that comes close to that price in the same area. If anyone wants to suggest some similar options, by all means, I'll take them. I run a i5 2500k - Intel Sandybridge i5-2500K Unlocked Core i5 Quad-Core Processor (3.30GHz, 6MB Cache, Socket 1155): Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories im sure it can be sourced for cheaper. Now steam allows you to install games on different drives, I could put one or two onto the OS SSD drive. I use steam tool to move games from SSD to 2Tb mechanical. Bit of a faff but at least your current games are on the faster drive. 1
Rawns Posted January 30, 2013 Author Posted January 30, 2013 Right, revised spec: CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.50 GHz Eight-Core AM3+ CPU 8MB L2 Cache & Turbo Core Technology Mobo: Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 Socket AM3+ 7.1 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard RAM: Crucial 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600Mhz Ballistix Tactical Memory Kit CL8 (8-8-8-24) 1.5V OS HDD: OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 Max IOPs SSD SATA-III 2.5" Read 550MB/s Write 500MB/s 85,000 IOPS Steam HDD: Seagate 1TB Barracuda 3.5" SATA-III Hard Drive - 7200RPM 64MB Cache
Arthur Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 RAM speed does matter if you use the integrated GPU on AMD APUs such as the A10-5800K. Just saying. http://i.imgur.com/ampSYbg.png OS: OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 Max IOPs SSD SATA-III 2.5" Read 550MB/s Write 500MB/s 85,000 IOPS Getting an OCZ SSD is asking for trouble. Spend the extra on a more reliable SSD from Samsung, Intel or Plextor. Steam HDD: Seagate 1TB Barracuda 3.5" SATA-III Hard Drive - 7200RPM 64MB Cache A 2TB HDD is only £12.54 more?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now