Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

which ram is the best of these?

Tags:
  • Mushkin
  • G.SKILL
  • RAM
  • Corsair
  • Memory
Last response: in Memory
Share
August 31, 2014 9:39:04 PM

g skill ripjaws 8 gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

mushkin enhanced redline 8 gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

corsair vengeance 8 gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

im assuming the mushkin one is the best because of the timings and ram speed but it only has one review so im not really sure how good it is
also will these fit under a noctua nh-d15 because i dont know the heights of each of these modules
thanks!

More about : ram

a c 2285 } Memory
August 31, 2014 9:49:55 PM

The Mushkins are the best 1866/8 is far better than 1600/9 and yes should be fine with the Noctua, think the Mushkins are like 26-27 mm tall where the Noctua has about a 32mm clearance
m
0
l
a b } Memory
August 31, 2014 9:51:37 PM

The Mushkin is definitely the fastest. Higher clock speed and lower CAS Latency.

Also, thats a pretty big cooler. It depends how you have it set up. not sure if you're able to rotate it around if it ends up getting in the way of the DIMM slots.

Whats your motherboard model? Maybe I can make a guess from looking at it.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 31, 2014 9:57:21 PM

We don't even know his PC hardware to know how relevant 1866 memory would be to his install. Do you plan to overclock? Is this purely for gaming? Chances are, the differences between any of these sticks will be negligible for your intended purposes.

I'd personally go for something you know will fit and has good timings with low voltage.

And so, I'd direct your attention here..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That's my opinion. Good luck.
m
0
l
a c 2285 } Memory
August 31, 2014 10:05:10 PM

Knowing the hardware would help yes, but think it's safe to assume a decent CPU, be it Intel or AMD with the cooler mentioned, so 1866 is viable.....and really no different then suggesting 1600 site unseen (and the 1.35 may be more problematic as many mobos have problems w/ low voltage DRAM)
m
0
l
August 31, 2014 10:17:18 PM

I agree, it can be, but the lower voltage leaves a lot of available headroom for adjustment, if needed. The low profile aspect, for me, is always appreciated.

For these reasons, I find them to be an extremely system friendly memory.
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 1:50:12 AM

Dayvy said:
We don't even know his PC hardware to know how relevant 1866 memory would be to his install. Do you plan to overclock? Is this purely for gaming? Chances are, the differences between any of these sticks will be negligible for your intended purposes.

I'd personally go for something you know will fit and has good timings with low voltage.

And so, I'd direct your attention here..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That's my opinion. Good luck.


my current parts are this: (i havent actually built it yet, or bought the parts just fyi)
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B9H6NG
EDIT: i forgot to mention that yes, i am going to overclock, and its going to be mostly used for gaming
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 3:07:10 AM

Overclocking the memory isn't going to affect gaming. If you were doing something data intensive, then higher frequency would take precedence over tighter timings.

Selection is dependent on your end goal.
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 12:23:01 PM

Dayvy said:
Overclocking the memory isn't going to affect gaming. If you were doing something data intensive, then higher frequency would take precedence over tighter timings.

Selection is dependent on your end goal.


i must have misunderstood your question about overclocking. to clarify, i am going to overclock my cpu and gpu. (but then i realized that this had nothing to do with the thread).
but why do higher frequencies trump tighter timings?
m
0
l
a c 2285 } Memory
September 1, 2014 12:50:33 PM

It's actually a combination of BOTH freq and timings, and generally look at the two as going hand in hand - for each step up in freq you take a step up in CL to achieve a small gain i.e. 1600/8 is beaten a little by a 1866/9 set though they tend to be basically even overall performance wise at 1600/8 and 1866/10, going further 1866/11 loses to 1600/8. For performance DRAM look to

1600/7 1866/8 2133/9 2400/10 2666/11

more basic DRAM is often seen as

1600/8-9 1866/9-10 2133/10-11 2400/11-12

I wouldn't use higher CL than those in the second set with the given freqs
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 1:22:39 PM

I meant that, if you are overclocking for performance numbers (long synthetics), high frequency would yield a larger gain over tightly timed memory.

The sticks that'll suit your install best will be a balance of timings, voltage, frequency and overclocking ability, all while fitting into your desired budget.
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 6:54:20 PM

well, considering my build, should i got for a high speed ram like 2400/10 or a slower one like 1600/9, or in between with 1866/9
m
0
l
a c 2285 } Memory
September 1, 2014 7:09:20 PM

I'd go and suggest higher, I use 1866/9 as entry level when I build (trying to look ahead), yes 1600 is sufficient for gaming, but I have few to none (clients) that strictly use their rigs for gaming. Another reason is price of DRAM which I don't see as going down - DDR4 is coming in so production will rise on that and gradually drop on DDR3, while production drops, demand won't for a while yet so may see prices continue to increase (look at DDR2, rather expensive) and while most everybody continues to say 8 GB is more than enough, 2 years ago 4GB was touted as "you'll never need more than that", before that around 2009 "2GB is more than you'll ever use" - 8GB has been the standard for quite a while now, most prebuilts even come with 6-8GB and they are stingy wanting you to buy upgrades, so 16GB is a good starting point
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 7:10:50 PM

Again, it depends on your end goal. Nothing over 1600 is going to enhance your gaming frames per second to any meaningful amount. Heck, it won't even affect everyday computer tasks.

Higher frequency memory is more relevant for data intensive, long duration tasks. Doing some 15 minute long video transcoding? If not, just take a quality 1600 kit.

It's hard to recommend something when you don't fully know someone's goals or budget.

m
0
l
September 1, 2014 8:31:18 PM

im going to use it mostly for gaming, with a bit of video recording/editing, but nothing too big.
my budget is about 2.2-2.3k
m
0
l
a c 2285 } Memory
September 1, 2014 8:33:03 PM

I'd look to 1866/9 or 2133/9 or better depending on availability ;) 
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 8:38:40 PM

my suggestion is that you should go with "g skill ripjaws 8 gb" because it is the single module and will work faster than others and also consumes less power.
m
0
l
a c 2285 } Memory
September 1, 2014 9:09:59 PM

hackerk said:
my suggestion is that you should go with "g skill ripjaws 8 gb" because it is the single module and will work faster than others and also consumes less power.

______________________

Dual channel (a 2x or 4x) is always faster than single channel, power is negligible
m
0
l
September 1, 2014 9:16:18 PM

Yep, what Tradesman1 said.

If it factors into your budget and you don't mind putting out the extra coin, get some CL9 2133 RAM with 1.5v. I'd drop it in and leave it as is.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

*check for clearance with your heatsink
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 5:22:48 AM

thank you guys for the info.. :) 
m
0
l
September 7, 2014 9:07:01 PM

thank you! youre all very helpful
m
0
l
!