Which is better RAM

slimyrock · Feb 7, 2015

Money is no object here so I don't need any "better bang for your buck" comments lol. Simply put, which is faster better RAM between these two.

The Corsair Vengeance Pro 16gig 1866 with a cas latency of 9 and a timing of 9-10-9-27

OR

The Corsair Dominator Platinum 16gig 1600 with a cas latency of 7 and a timing of 7-8-8-24

Was curious if I would see a bigger performance boost from the 1866 speed with higher timing or the 1600 speed with fast timing.

Thanks in advance peeps!

brispuss · Feb 7, 2015

Basically, the 1600 MHz Corsair is a bit faster than the 1866 MHz Corsair.

slimyrock · Feb 7, 2015

Just because of the better timing? the 1866 vs 1600 isn't a deal breaker?

HEXiT · Feb 7, 2015

the difference between the 2 is marginal at best. less than 1%.
the lower latency gives faster access times but the the extra speed of the 1866 will make up for it in productivity situations. in gaming though the 1600 is the better option.

when i say faster access time im talking maybe 3 nano seconds which i think is 3 billionths of a second.

slimyrock · Feb 7, 2015

Now one follow up question. Going from this - Corsair Vengeance 8GB 1600 cas letency 9 and timing of 9-9-9-24 to the dominator kit of 1600 and good timing, how big of a performance increase will I see?

HEXiT · Feb 7, 2015

there would be no discernible difference between ddr3 1600 9-9-9-24 and 1600 9-10-9-27.
defiantly not worth the outlay other than having more available ram.
if you have 2 spare ram slots i would recomend you just get another 2x4gig of the ram you already have. you will get pretty much exactly the same performance for half the outlay.

if your just gaming your best off sticking to 8 gig as even the most demanding games have no use for more than 6 and wont for the next 4 years + (depending on how fast they replace the consoles)

slimyrock · Feb 7, 2015

Except its not 16GB 1600 9-10-9-27, its 1600 7-8-8-24. So going from 8GB 9-9-9-24 to 16GB 7-8-8-24

HEXiT · Feb 7, 2015

ah rite sorry i misunderstood...
the performance gains like i said would be minimal in gaming. maybe 1% like i said. which is 1/2 to 1 fps gain depending on the game. even then it will depend on how optomized the game is. most of the time you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all.
in benches you might if your lucky get an extra 100 3dmarks and maybe 100th of a second difference in something like rar archiving or movie trans coding of a 4 gig file.

if you need the extra ram for legit purposes and not just so you can say you have 16 gig then go for it. but if you think its gonna give you more gaming performance then the answer is it wont at least not in any meaningful way.

Tradesman1 · Feb 7, 2015

If you were to downclock the 1866/9 to 1600 it will normally run 1600/8 and vice versa if you decided to OC the 1600/7 it should run at 1866/8 easily - the 1600/7 set is the better performance wise

slimyrock · Feb 7, 2015

Got ya, Yeah the extra RAM is basically upgrading two computers. My sons' computer will get my 8 GB and mine will get the 16GB. I'm just being petty and I don't want my son having more RAM

HEXiT · Feb 7, 2015

good enough reason for me so go for it.

Pinhedd · Feb 7, 2015

slimyrock :

When paired with a good memory controller (such as Intel's), higher data rate trumps lower latency.

If money is not an obstacle, I would recommend Mushkin Redline. The are excellent high performance DDR3 kits

I have two sets of these in my PC

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226566&cm_re=Mushkin_Redline_DDR3_2133-_-20-226-566-_-Product

slimyrock · Feb 7, 2015

Eh, thanks for the thought. But I stick w/ Corsair. Thanks though

Tradesman1 · Feb 7, 2015

Pinhedd :

______________________

It still comes down to being a combination of the two - here the 1600 /7 will easily run 1866/8 which is better than the native 1866/9 the sets use differently binned chips as well as in this particular case, I believe different chips. 1866/8 will outperform 1866/9

HEXiT · Feb 7, 2015

Pinhedd :

in productivity work thats true, in gaming the extra bandwidth makes zero difference but higher response rate does.
anantech did some very indepth benchmarks that show as much...

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

Pinhedd · Feb 7, 2015

HEXiT :

Pinhedd :

in productivity work thats true, in gaming the extra bandwidth makes zero difference but higher response rate does.
anantech did some very indepth benchmarks that show as much...

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

Those benchmarks show one thing and one thing only, when paired with a good memory controller, higher data rate wins out.

Tradesman1 · Feb 7, 2015

All I can suggest is try it sometime 1866/8 or 9 vs 2133/11 2133/9 vs 2400/11 I've often seen the lower data rate DRAM w/ tight timings outperform the high data rate with looser timings. You will generally see a slight performance gain as each data rate and CL step up

i.e. 1600/9 to 1866/10 to 2133/11 etc

it get's better yet if maintaining the same CL i.e CL9 at all three rates. In testing I recently did with a 8 sets of 2400 DRAM (32GB sets) at stock all the sets at CL10 (three, Tridents, VP and Xtreem) outperformed 2133/9 (Tridents, RJ X, RJ Z) sets, yet the same 2133/9 sets outperformed the 2400/11 sets (ADATA, AMD, Savage, Snipers, Mushkin Black). In the cases of the Snipers and Mushkin Black that could run 2400/10 at stock voltage they then eased ahead slightly of the 2133/9 sets. It was also true when running only 2 sticks (16GB) of each

Which is better RAM

Reputable

Splendid

Reputable

Champion

Reputable

Champion

Reputable

Champion

Legenda in Aeternum

Reputable

Champion

Champion

Reputable

Legenda in Aeternum

Champion

Champion

Legenda in Aeternum

Share this page