Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Advice on RAM upgrade

Last response: in Memory
Share
July 31, 2013 6:58:37 AM

Hey guys,I am looking to go from my normal 8GB ram to 16GB and needed some more information and help deciding what to get.I am on the X79 platform with a SB-E i7 3820 with a AMD 7870. So need Quad Channel Ram, I have these 2 options avilable to me. I need to know if1600Mhz CL9 is better or the 2133Mhz CL11

Corsair Memory Vengeance Racing Red 16GB DDR3 2133 MHz CAS 11-11-11-27 XMP Quad Channel Desktop - CMZ16GX3M4X2133C11R - Scan.co.uk

vs

Corsair Memory Vengeance Blue 16GB DDR3 1600 MHz CAS 9 XMP Quad Channel Desktop - CMZ16GX3M4A1600C9B - Scan.co.uk

I do mostly gaming but do however use Photoshop and Adobe software quite a bit also. I will also be upgrading my GPU to a GTX780 or similar if that changes anything.Thank you im advance!

More about : advice ram upgrade

a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2013 7:43:19 AM

The benefit from going higher than 1600 MHz DRAM is negligible. If you can get 2133 MHz memory for the same price, go for it. But it's really not worth paying extra for - you won't notice the difference.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 8:36:51 AM

The 2133 provides much higher bandwidth, so if you do a lot of multi-tasking, multiple windows, use memory intensive apps like video, images, CAD, GIS, VMs, etc it's well worth it
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2013 9:05:32 AM

Tradesman1 said:
The 2133 provides much higher bandwidth, so if you do a lot of multi-tasking, multiple windows, use memory intensive apps like video, images, CAD, GIS, VMs, etc it's well worth it


The real-world benefits are shown to be marginal, however. The increased bandwidth looks great on paper and in memory-only benchmarks, but in any real application the difference is unnoticeable without a stop watch.

It's simply not worth the premium you have to pay for it, as the performance increase is in no relation to the price increase.

m
0
l
July 31, 2013 9:16:28 AM

I just purchased a GTX 770 so would the higher speed make any difference to the GPU. Will the 2133mhz run stable with the i7 3820 cpu, I read that it offically supports upto 1600mhz, being the ideal speed. I can purchase both the 1600mhz CL9 ram and 2133mhz CL11 ram for the same price of £70. My current ram is just some normal Samsung 8gb quad channel with CL11 timings. So what I really want to know is.. with my cpu/x79 mobo will the 1600 CL9 ram run better/more stable or the 2133 CL11.

I am worried that the 2133mhz might run unstable on my system due to the CPU not officially supporting it. It's running stock for now btw.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 9:17:45 AM

It's great in REAL WORLD, but their are no BMs for real world use so it's not SHOWN as you say, it's an assumption that is in effect a myth, all these expert writers, most of which are not heavy PC users, multitasking and running multiple memory centric apps see slight differences in their BMs (most of which have little to do with DRAM usage, and just come to that conclusion.... I like to set people down at two identical systems and have them run through their paces with what they do in a real life scenario and thaen simply ask - did you prefer one rig over the other - with them having no knowledge if their even is a difference between the two....over 85% select the system with the faster DRAM...to me that's REAL WORLD
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2013 9:22:08 AM

SulZero said:
I just purchased a GTX 770 so would the higher speed make any difference to the GPU.


I can't comment on the rest, but no, it makes no difference for the GPU. The GTX 770 can't access system RAM.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 9:37:48 AM

And is this the GPU can't access system DRAM something new - might try this:

Right-click on the Desktop and click Personalize.
Click Display in the bottom left corner of the Window.
Click the Change display settings on the left column.
Click the Advanced settings

and may well be surprised - called shared system memory
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2013 9:03:06 PM

Tradesman1 said:
And is this the GPU can't access system DRAM something new - might try this:

Right-click on the Desktop and click Personalize.
Click Display in the bottom left corner of the Window.
Click the Change display settings on the left column.
Click the Advanced settings

and may well be surprised - called shared system memory


I stand corrected. However the speed of the system memory is still irrelevant for the performance of the GPU because it can't utilize it nearly at its full bandwidth.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 9:15:06 PM

OK, though I don't ever remember saying a single word about DRAM memory or it's freq having a single thing to do with the performance of a GPU - did I? I'm on the forums for two primary reasons, the first being selfish, as a builder I want to keep up with all the hardware out there, the second is to help anybody I can (just a me thing) and one way is dispel others of all the myths and long accepted thoughts that simply aren't true...
m
0
l
July 31, 2013 9:20:16 PM

Also the "Intel supports 1600Mhz only" or "1.65v will kill my IMC" are just utter bullshit, how many thread have you seen of people having dead IMCs becaise of 1.65v? the answer is ZERO, NONE!

and Intel Officially supports and certifies RAM that is MUCH MUCH FASTER than 1600Mhz ... Here is the proof

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/gaming-co...

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/xmp-for-c...


A Direct quote from this Intel page about RAM "Some Limits are Made to be Broken"!!!


EDIT: also lets think about it, it does not make sense to me when people spend a 1000 bucks on a Graphics card, and i don't know how much on CPUs, Mobos, Water Cooling kits, overkill PSUs, and end up installing 1600Mhz RAM in that same system because they think it does not make a difference? it just does not make sense, does your extra 500watts in your PSU make a difference? or your 6 cores CPU? or your water-cooling solutions for cards that don't produce much heat or noise to begin with?

Damn it, it is a shame that such super high performance systems don't get high performance RAM, when the difference in prices is just coffee money :D 
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 9:37:18 PM

I agree, though...I don't advise 1.65 for DRAM that is 1600 or even 1866 is it's running a staid CL9, many claim to be performance DRAM, but if they need 1.65 to run 1600/9 that's normally indicative of cheap or weak ICs, for 1.65 at stock I only start at 2133...........spread the words Bro ;) 
m
0
l
July 31, 2013 9:42:36 PM

Tradesman1 said:
I agree, though...I don't advise 1.65 for DRAM that is 1600 or even 1866 is it's running a staid CL9, many claim to be performance DRAM, but if they need 1.65 to run 1600/9 that's normally indicative of cheap or weak ICs, for 1.65 at stock I only start at 2133...........spread the words Bro ;) 


Exactly, i never related 1.65 to 1600Mhz kits :) 

I am talking in general terms, usually it takes 1.65 volts to go up to 2133 @ a decent latency, CL9 to be specific, and some people are afraid to use 1.65v kits even though they would otherwise want to have such performance because they have been told that it will kill or "stress" their IMC .. LOL, and yet there not a single report of a "killed" IMC because of 1.65v or even 1.7v .. i wonder where they got this from LOL :D 


EDIT: also why would Intel officially certify a ton of 1.65v modules, unless they are 100% safe for their MCs?

BTW Tradesman1 i see you are a moderator here, why don't we make a sticky about this one since it is the most frequently asked question in the RAM section and there is no single place that has a no nonsense complete argument for faster RAM? how about we settle this once and for all in a sticky and get it over with? i myself would have like to have such a thread when i was selecting my modules, would have saved me weeks of research.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 9:58:30 PM

Approach I tke (it was a hint from a couple friends at Intel) is always try to keep the IMC voltage (memory controller) within 0.6 of the DRAM voltage (on Intel anyway for the SB, IB and Haswell's) which is pretty much what I was doing anyway, according to them a wider range will weaken the MC....also if there was any truth to the 1.65 crap does ANYBODY really think all the DRAM companies would be putting out these 2133-3000 sets at 1.65 if they could be held liable... The 1.5-1.55 is based on the CPU at stock settings
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2013 10:31:17 PM

Tradesman1 said:
OK, though I don't ever remember saying a single word about DRAM memory or it's freq having a single thing to do with the performance of a GPU - did I?


No, but the OP did. He asked whether it makes a difference to the GPU, my reply that it didn't was meant for him.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
July 31, 2013 10:53:31 PM

My bad, thought it was directed to me, since you had my reply in your response sorry ;) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 12:00:04 AM

MyNewRig said:
This bad old advice of sticking with 1600mhz RAM claiming that there is no real-world difference needs to stop forever ... Here is why http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1749795/ram.ht...


Sorry, but I just didn't see much solid evidence in that post beyond the performance increase for IGPs. A lot of speculation about possible future benefits and unsubstantiated claims of slightly better FPS in games, but that really wasn't the evidence to end all discussion you made it out to be. Actual application benchmarks continue to show the benefit to be largely marginal, so disproving them would need more than that.

I'm not against buying faster RAM if it doesn't cost much more, obviously. I'm only arguing that paying a huge premium over something that gives you little benefit is not money well spent.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 12:00:31 AM

Tradesman1 said:
My bad, thought it was directed to me, since you had my reply in your response sorry ;) 


No harm done. :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 2:56:25 AM

Just to illustrate the price differences on Amazon.com:

Corsair, Kingston or G.Skill 8GB kit of 2133MHz DDR3 costs roughly 85-87 USD. 1866MHz is not at all cheaper.

Meanwhile you can get the same amount of 1600MHz DDR3 from Kingston at 59 USD, or at around 65 USD from Corsair or Crucial.

For some that price difference may be entirely irrelevant, but it does represent a 40% increase in price. Does it improve your real-world performance by 40%? Not even in theory, much less in practice.

On the other hand you could get a 16GB kit of 1600MHz DDR3 from Patriot or Corsair for 115-125 USD. That's at most a 50% increase in price over the 2133MHz kits, but with 100% more memory. That's a piss-poor value for money for the 2133 MHz kits. Oh, and going for a 2133 MHz kit in 16GB is going to set you back by a further 20-40 USD, or more. That is a significant amount of money that could already be spend on a faster CPU or GPU, both more consequential for your overall performance than the memory you'd save it from.

Until I see a benchmark that shows a performance increase anywhere near the price increase of 1866/2133 MHz memory compared to 1600 MHz memory, I will continue to advice against the "faster" RAM.
m
0
l
August 1, 2013 4:53:53 AM

LoL it is really interesting to see how people compare things from the two extremes just to prove a point, it seems that you are comparing high quality 2133 CL9 modules with 1600 CL11 or 10 @ 1.65 volts from kingston, when you check the price gab between 1600 CL8 or 9 good quality modules, the difference would not be that wide because also the kingstons 2133 and 2400 11-13-13-31 are cheap modules but at a much higher latency.

I would not buy poor quality 1600 CL11 or 10 @ 1.65 modules any day so to be realistic i would bring this gab to $15 ... now what would you do with $15 elsewhere? i have a GTX 780 for example it would take much more to go to a Titan or buy another 780, i have 4670K CPU i would have to pay 10 times that extra money i put on faster RAM to go for 4770K etc .. i see that $15 extra to get the fastest RAM possible which you would most probably use for many years is a well worth while investment, RAM does not get outdated fast like Graphics Cards for example do, you would probably change your RAM with your CPU which a lot of people do that every 5 years or so, with 2 or 3 GPU upgrades in between.

Also with 2400 CL10 modules you have top quality ICs, i believe you could do 1600 CL7 on those or 1866 CL8 and so on, it is just a very nice thing to have when the difference is so little.

going for 16GBs of RAM over 8GBs is even much more useless than going for faster RAM for most people, yesterday i tried testing how much memory my system uses while insanely unreasonable amount of apps are open in the same time, i ended up opening 100 browsing tabs, two different browsers in the same time, all office, adobe, media player apps i have in the system all at one, i tried opening any apps i found in my way, 3DMark, Editors etc... and then ran a demanding Game on 3 Monitors 4K resolution..

After doing all that i only managed to utilize 4.6GB (58%) of my system memory, i would never usually have this much apps open all at once .. so what is the value of 16GB RAM for most? it is to me less than the value of faster RAM!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 5:08:44 AM

MyNewRig said:
LoL it is really interesting to see how people compare things from the two extremes just to prove a point, it seems that you are comparing high quality 2133 CL9 modules with 1600 CL11 or 10 @ 1.65 volts from kingston, when you check the price gab between 1600 CL8 or 9 good quality modules, the difference would not be that wide because also the kingstons 2133 and 2400 11-13-13-31 are cheap modules but at a much higher latency.


No. I'm comparing a quality mainstream 2133 CL11 1.5v Corsair Vengeance to a quality mainstream 1600 CL9 1.65v Kingston HyperX Blu. They are entirely comparable in performance and quality apart from the memory clock speed.

And that pretty much makes everything else you said moot.

The 2133 might give a few FPS more in some games, and none at all in others. Whether that is worth the extra $20 to $40 it costs is of course up to you.

MyNewRig said:
going for 16GBs of RAM over 8GBs is even much more useless than going for faster RAM for most people


For most, yes. But not for all. Photoshop and other professional applications can easily take advantage of more than 8GB of memory. For gaming 8GB is more than sufficient, but you'll note that OP was going for 16GB. That makes going for 2133 MHz all the pricier - the difference to 1600 MHz is easily $40. For that money you can, for instance, double your GPU VRAM from 2GB to 4GB or buy a larger SSD. Both offer a better return for your investment than the increased memory bandwidth in most cases.
m
0
l
August 1, 2013 5:31:09 AM

I would not use 1.65v for 1600Mhz, i know that the 1.65v kingstons are cheap, but why would i want to go over the standards specifications of 1.5v for standard performance? i would not go for less than Vengeance, G.Skill or Kingston 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24 @ 1.5v please use these as a standard for price comparisons and the gap would not be as high as you calculate it.

At this point and with differences not being that high especially here in Europe i think this is a very subjective decision, some people like me would not be happy with 1600Mhz modules, i like to have the fastest and have more flexibility in my system when overclocking or playing with different values and settings for CPU, RAM, Clocks and voltages, if it is just for the fact that 2400Mhz modules enable me to utilize my overclocking settings to the max and play with much more parameters when overclocking my system, this RAM gives me much more options to play with, this is an enthusiast kit and thus discussing small $ differences when it comes to them is really pointless..


Sure if you are not an enthusiast and would like to count every single dollar you spend on your build then maybe 1600 kits are good for you.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 6:17:59 AM

MyNewRig said:
I would not use 1.65v for 1600Mhz, i know that the 1.65v kingstons are cheap, but why would i want to go over the standards specifications of 1.5v for standard performance?


Because it doesn't matter. 1.65v is perfectly fine if you don't plan to OC by increasing voltage. I've been running 1.65v Corsair Dominators on my i5 for years without any adverse effects, and none are to be expected. I haven't checked with OPs system, but that is easily enough checked. Also a 1.5v 1600 MHz RAM is still considerably cheaper than 2133 MHz, especially at 16GB.

MyNewRig said:
i think this is a very subjective decision, some people like me would not be happy with 1600Mhz modules, i like to have the fastest and have more flexibility in my system when overclocking or playing with different values and settings for CPU, RAM, Clocks and voltages, if it is just for the fact that 2400Mhz modules enable me to utilize my overclocking settings to the max and play with much more parameters when overclocking my system, this RAM gives me much more options to play with, this is an enthusiast kit and thus discussing small $ differences when it comes to them is really pointless..


Don't assume the OP or everyone else has the same priorities as you do. I assure you most people are more concerned with getting good value for their money than with getting the fastest parts possible at any cost, despite marginal gains.
m
0
l
August 1, 2013 7:19:35 AM

Like you said to each their priorities, like not everyone gets high end GPUs, or i7s or SSDs etc... faster RAM is maybe not for everyone, but it definitely has its advantages and to many including myself the benefits are well worth the small price difference.

The point from all this being that the "STANDARD" do not get faster RAM advice should also not be "STANDARD" to everyone, when people ask for advice, pros and cons of both situations should be better highlighted in a balanced way, the only con of faster RAM is higher cost, for me going from the Vengeance 1600 9-9-9-24 1.5v to TridentX 2400 10-12-12-31 1.65v was exactly a 20% increase in price, which is really less than what i pay for a meal in McDonalds for me and my wife and i find that to be a good investment for all the reasons stated above, others might think that they should stick with entry level 1600Mhz and save a few bucks to spend somewhere else but they also should be told what they would be missing on by getting the slower RAM so they can decide for themselves what they would like to do.
m
0
l
a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
August 1, 2013 8:05:41 AM

MyNewRig said:
Like you said to each their priorities, like not everyone gets high end GPUs, or i7s or SSDs etc... faster RAM is maybe not for everyone, but it definitely has its advantages and to many including myself the benefits are well worth the small price difference.

The point from all this being that the "STANDARD" do not get faster RAM advice should also not be "STANDARD" to everyone, when people ask for advice, pros and cons of both situations should be better highlighted in a balanced way, the only con of faster RAM is higher cost, for me going from the Vengeance 1600 9-9-9-24 1.5v to TridentX 2400 10-12-12-31 1.65v was exactly a 20% increase in price, which is really less than what i pay for a meal in McDonalds for me and my wife and i find that to be a good investment for all the reasons stated above, others might think that they should stick with entry level 1600Mhz and save a few bucks to spend somewhere else but they also should be told what they would be missing on by getting the slower RAM so they can decide for themselves what they would like to do.

____________________________
+1 Well put!

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 10:41:26 AM

MyNewRig said:
Like you said to each their priorities, like not everyone gets high end GPUs, or i7s or SSDs etc... faster RAM is maybe not for everyone, but it definitely has its advantages and to many including myself the benefits are well worth the small price difference.

The point from all this being that the "STANDARD" do not get faster RAM advice should also not be "STANDARD" to everyone, when people ask for advice, pros and cons of both situations should be better highlighted in a balanced way, the only con of faster RAM is higher cost, for me going from the Vengeance 1600 9-9-9-24 1.5v to TridentX 2400 10-12-12-31 1.65v was exactly a 20% increase in price, which is really less than what i pay for a meal in McDonalds for me and my wife and i find that to be a good investment for all the reasons stated above, others might think that they should stick with entry level 1600Mhz and save a few bucks to spend somewhere else but they also should be told what they would be missing on by getting the slower RAM so they can decide for themselves what they would like to do.


Agreed. I try to present the facts without personal bias as best I know how, or failing that at least being clear about what my bias is.
m
0
l
August 3, 2013 3:00:08 PM

Well this escalated quickly, I have read up on what most of you guys said and it is true. Firstly 16GB of Ram for me personally is useless. I also tested this theory of wanting more RAM by opening open a hundred tabs and multiple apps and games and could not get above 40-50% usage. So I am not going to buy 16GB of Memory but rather use that money to buy the best quality 8GB kit with the lowest latency possible at 2133Mhz.

Do you guys have any suggestions for a very good 8GB Quad channel kit or even Dual channel, I can always buy 2 kits to get 4x2GB modules. The G.Skill Ripjaws Z and Trident X look appealing and the Mushkin Redline.

Btw, you have all helped me greatly and wanted to thank you all for contributing.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 203 U Graphics card
a c 2179 } Memory
August 3, 2013 4:55:46 PM

A man after my own heart, that was to be my next suggestion since no budget was out there, there's 2400 sets also, but you'd need a X model CPU to carry 2400, most 3820s can carry 2133 and these have a nice tight CL9
Share
!