Is 2133 mhz ram worth it?

What do you plan to be doing? What mobo and CPU? Not all X79 mobos can run 64GB of 2133 also what CPU, need an unlocked one for this combo. Sorry, but if you want a recommendation and explanation need the additional info, otherwise you prob won't be happy

Why do you need 64gb of RAM?
Any particular reason?

And no, the general consensus is that 1.5V, CAS 9, 1600mhz RAM is the sweet spot... 8gb of it.

With 64gb you might as well install the OS on the RAM, lol.

Actually you can, in a way, build a RAMDisk, and run another OS in a VM....I pull Win8 up in a VM for providing support, had a system dedicated to it, but can't stand it...lots you can do with lots of DRAM....

not sure if you're drunk posting or serious, but it's not worth it...anything over 1866 really has diminishing returns. As stated; 1600 is the sweet spot. Also, unless you're heavy into video editing anything over 8gb will be a waste. so newegg has the Vengeance 32GB kits for $334...64GB is $544!!!...you are throwing money away at this point...

Japps2

It all depends on what you do and how you do it....For many I know, if they dropped to 32GB and slower DRAM it costs them money, in slower productivity. I'm not saying it's for everybody, but for many higher freq DRAM and more DRAM can show definite productivity increases...

Just because you've never encountered an instance where it is needed or even required, making a blanket statement such as yours is irresponsible.

Then plenty of DRAM may well be in order, what CPU and what mobo? Not all combos can handle 64GB of 2133

Problem there is you say benchmark, I'm thinking real world computing with numerous windows, numerous apps running, VMs, etc - you see benchmarks published - that's it - that's all that's running, with more going on DRAM really get's used, in a benchmark it's basically just passing data....if your ever slaving away and have a number of windows open maybe a virus scan going on etc, and you sit back and notice your HD LED blinking, it's prob because your short on DRAM and the system is reading and writing to the page file to keep track of everything

Tradesman...are you implying that 99.99% of users would use more than 16GB of ram? Unless you're using After Effects 64-bit, you won't come close to using 64 GB of ram. And even if you did have 20 tabs open and 10 programs running...I still just don't see the need for 64gb. As for the speed...Tom's and Anandtech had articles where they ran different ram through the paces and there was no real benefit to faster ram with ivy bridge

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-10.html

And honestly...look at the OP...do you really think that sounded like a serious post? "just like these smiles"? no specs on the system...no list of programs...

I simply answered the question...I never implied you're ridiculous claim of 99.99 percent would ever use or even need 16 GB, and yes, they ran RAM, they ran benchmarks, which is not real world...and fine...you don't see the need for 64, you prob don't see the need for 32 and apparently not even 16....that makes it YOUR opinion which doesn't agree with that of those that DO use the DRAM or simply want it...I don't find it MY place to play GOD and tell people what to do (as many do here) I can only offer suggestions, based on experience and what it's like in the real world, not the BM world and let them decide based on their budgets what THEY want to do

So do you see the need for ram faster than 1600 or 1866? do you see the need for 2133?

I never said that 16gb, 32gb or 64gb is never needed...just that it's highly unusual. I was asking for more information before I made a suggestion. I really think that you and I are arguing the same point. Come on...quit being passive-aggressive...you've been around here longer than that. Look at the original post. Most people post "I want 32gb (or 64gb) of ram to speed my system up" and they have no idea that for their applications it would make a difference.

good CPU and motherboard...what videocard are you thinking? what time frame are you going to buy?

It may just be the way we are word-smithing back and forth, I'm simply saying that their are many that can easily use large amounts - I'm often up well over 20GB in use, and After-effects yes, but many image and video, programs, CAD, GIS and others can....it can also get into how you use your DRAM. As for 64GB, extremely few have a need, but I have one lady, who works for a defense contractor that has 2 X79s loaded with 64GB, on the first she listen to the experts and went with 1600 DRAM, on the second, I built it with 2133 DRAM, and the first, which also has the better CPU most often sits or does the odd ball stuff, for her simulation work and even everyday work she goes with the one with the faster DRAM says it has way more Zip to it. (Works for me, the first one is always (almost) available for me when I need a Bigboy and 64)

Tradesman...this article from Anandtech covers the speed question...1333 all the way to 2400:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6372/memory-performance-16gb-ddr31333-to-ddr32400-on-ivy-bridge-igp-with-gskill

I would say that the CPU and harddrive have more to do with the snappy feel than the ram. unless it's an older CPU (LGA 775) the on-CPU memory controllers are so efficient now that the faster ram plays much less of a part. Trust me...I'm as big a geek as they come and I so badly wanted faster ram (or more expensive motherboard) to make more of a difference. but the truth is a SSD or better videocard will make much more difference.

I agree that there are some who truly use that much ram...but they are very few. At work (I'm an engineer) we have CAD machines I configured and they all have 8gb or 16gb of 1600 ram and Quattro K5000 videocards. running AutoCAD Civil 3D we never come close to saturating the ram...and we have 20+ drawings open at once.

Yes I know all the hardware also, been in computers for 33 years and building PCs for over 20, the 775s are ancient news and the systems I was referring to are X79s, socket 2011 with X CPUs....articles and BMs have their place, me I prefer real world - I love to run blind tests on people (many are techies, geeks, gamers, high end users - folks that really USE their computers, multi-task, etc) and set them down to run 2 identical systems (except for the DRAM) through their paces....over 85% always prefer the system with the faster sticks....without even knowing what the difference is between them

honestly...setting someone down with two identical systems would be intriguing...that would be a good/fun test. And X79's are a good test bed...the memory controller is much better on the Sandy-E chips. Although the Ivy-E chips are supposedly better...and from what my buddies say the next CPU is a tick and a tock. I live a couple of miles from the Intel plant in Folsom, CA...so everyone around here (but me) works for Intel it seems.

I would say that there are a lot of factors playing into what 'feels' faster though...including windows OS. we have several (21) machines that are identical hardware wise and windows 7 wise that run very differently. Some of it might just come down to different silicone.

I also have fallen victim to the placebo affect in wishing I spent money well and my system is faster...but fraps and actual BM's usually don't lie. I mean fraps will tell you what frames per second you're getting in a game...even though I might 'feel' that something is smoother or not...the empirical data doesn't lie.

I agree with you completely, BMs have a place, and that sets a baseline between (here) different sticks....but there is just so much more that needs to be taken into effect...and sadly isn't. And that's a whole nother story....who writes all these reviews and articles on DRAM?? Writers do, the boss comes in and says need an article on this new line of sticks, here's some to compare, here's the benchmarks you run, here's the rig you use, etc...who knows their experience with DRAM (and I know a few that have written these things, and talked to others) and how deep it goes, generally not real far - they've read a bunch of articles also and read the eternal truths of the GODs, --- higher freq doesn't mean anything...and they go in with that assumption....they see minor differences in the results and follow the edicts of the philosophy that higher freq is worthless....but what are they seeing - run a BM, 1 core doing 1 thing, maybe 2 cores involved doing basically a single thing...

But see, to me, the results show little difference, but it's the context of the article and what the writers say that intrigues me.....Quite often look at the sticks they use, they'll be all over the board 1600/9, 1600/8, 1866/10, 2133/12, 2133/10, etc....why? If they compare like sticks of 2133/10 they will see almost nil difference - and to be honest when they compare say 1600/9 vs 2133/11 they see little because there is little (I wouldn't buy 2133/11), people don't seem to understand that DRAM and it's potential is a combination of BOTH the Freq and the CL, the above mentioned 1600/9 vs 2133/11 you have more bandwidth from the 2133, but with the slower CL it's less operations, if they were both CL9 you'd see more of a difference and in particular with memory centric operations.

But I also read them for the humor, because many don't have a clue about DRAM - you see things like

"when installed the DIMMs didn't set themselves to their 1866 spec" - duh, the mobo always sets new DRAM to it's (the mobos default. or

"XMP didn't set the proper timings in the BIOS" - again duh, the XMP info on the sticks is just that 'info', it's up to the mobo to take that info and use it it correctly, which all to often it doesn't do because it hasn't been programed to deal with that particular set of timings, so it adapts and get's as close as possible. This is why you see so many BIOS updates, generally about 50-75% of most BIOS updates tend to deal with DRAM issues, and why you ask, they have tested extensively and even published a QVL - ha ha! read my info thread here:

http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=10566

One of my favorites "according to CPU-Z the MAX BANDWIDTH of this set of 1866 is 1333, so these are 1333 DIMMs you are OCing to 1866" - duh, the MAX BANDWIDTH is nothing more than the boot value of the sticks to match of to the mobo - on this see more in my info thread here:

http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=10565

and this is just a few things, it's obvious many have no idea what they are doing or dealing with

ah...you are a true memory master!

and don't forget the pains of explaining to people the differences in DDR3 2.0v, 1.65v and 1.5v ram and the effects it has on your memory controller. Intel advises not to go over 1.5v for Ivy Bridge CPU's, but there is a ton of higher MHz ram that is 1.65v...it will just overtax your CPU...

and I'm sure you're old enough too to remember CAS of 2 and 2.5...now we're happy to get a CAS of 9

Yep, all is very familiar - Intel likes 1.5 as it wants to keep a level balance between MC (memory controller) and DRAM voltage (which is why I utterly hate these 1.6 and 1.65 1600 sticks I see) generally up into the upper freqs is where you see 1.6 and 1.65, and to run those requires an OC of the CPU, so vCore normally up a little and MC (memory controller) voltage also is up, and the balance is maintained....Don't laugh now, but I remember back to mobos having 9 banks of 8 chips to add up to 64K of DRAM (and yeah I know 9x8 =72 ----- the extra bank of 8 was for parity - (there's times I wonder how I remember a lot of this junk - config.sys and configuring extended memory - great fun