32GB DDR3 1866 vs 16GB DDR4 2133

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

wrightcolin

Commendable
Aug 11, 2016
10
0
1,510
Me and a friend have been in a competition we know as "Build wars" for years. Every couple of years, we both go through a major upgrade. This time around, we've had a disagreement. He believes that his 16GB kit of DDR4, clocking at 2133 MHz will outperform my 32GB Kit of DDR3, clocking at 1866. While I am aware of all the THEORETICAL benefits of DDR4 over DDR3, I want to know for practicality. Please keep in mind, that we will both be running in dual-channel mode. He will not be taking advantage of quad-channel in his rig for some unknown reason but hey, I'm not going to correct him. Basically the question here is, is it better to have the 32 ddr3 or the 16 ddr4? I would like to find the answer to this before I go and blow $160 on overclocked ram. For his processor, he's going with the i7 6700K, and I'm going with the FX 9590, if that makes a difference.
 
Solution
filippi
i74790K and i7-6700K are both great for overclock: A mild-good Z97/Z170 motherboard and a big 50 bucks air cooler will give you the edge here (best possible price/performance now a days).
Go Skylake if possible (i7-6700K).
Sort by date Sort by votes
Tradesman1

Tradesman1

Legenda in Aeternum
Jun 5, 2013
67,883
40
126,960
FOr overall system performance I'd go the 32GB over 16GB -1866 vs 2133 isn't that big of a difference and the CL on DDR4 tends to run higher than DDR3 which can further negate the difference of the wider bandwidth. It will of course depend on what you are doing, the 1866 will perform better in some things while the 2133 will be better in others
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
LilDog1291

LilDog1291

Honorable
Jan 9, 2013
313
0
10,960
Yeah filippi is right. His machine will be in a whole other class than yours. RAM twice as fast as the set you picked out wouldn't help you catch up to him with that much CPU performance difference between you.

EDIT: If you look at passmark scores you wouldn't think so but most games rely on 1 or 2 core performance and how well the processor handles Inter Process Communication (IPC). Not to mention investing a new build into old DDR3 technology by going with AMD just doesn't make fiscal sense. If you are going to rebuild then move forward in technology so that you can delay having to upgrade again longer.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3502vs1812
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bigpinkdragon286

Splendid
Oct 3, 2012
4,648
35
28,590
If you need more than 16 GB RAM, you pretty much win automatically. If you want to have some fun with extra RAM you aren't already using, you can make a much more practical RAM drive than can your friend. While a lot of new games don't always fit in a RAM drive, you can run with parts of them there, and some games still fit in their entirety. Running from a RAM drive you can store those games on a HDD rather than an SSD, and still come out ahead of the curve.

Something else to keep in mind, the memory controller in FX CPUs is not very good, and I'm actually surprised to hear your 32 GB RAM is running at full 1866 MHz. I would also be surprised if you could get that much memory to run significantly faster, so may end up wasting any money you spend on a higher speed kit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
W

wrightcolin

Commendable
Aug 11, 2016
10
0
1,510


Well to be honest the 9590 isn't set in stone yet, but one of my friends has an AM3+ board that he's selling for $15, so I figured I'd save some money and go that route, but if it's really that bad of a processor I might go for a 4790K. Either way, this question is strictly about memory performance, not CPUs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bigpinkdragon286

Splendid
Oct 3, 2012
4,648
35
28,590
So, you haven't yet actually confirmed that your 9590 will even run 32 GB of RAM, much less verified it at 1866 MHz? That's a bit of a gamble, given the poor nature of the FX's memory controller.

The 9590 isn't a bad CPU, but in comparison to many other CPUs, it's a bad value.

Be wary of any AM3+ board you put a 9590 into, or you could end up with dead components. I would verify that the motherboard is on the Official List of boards that support such a high power draw CPU, or exceeds the ratings of the boards that are on the list.

The 9590 is a tad troublesome to keep cool, unless you're willing to spend the money necessary to pair it with a cooler that is rated high enough to cope. This added lack of value, the need for such expensive cooling, easily pushes the 9590 into an area where you can afford to go with a better performing Intel setup for equivalent money.

Also the AM3+ platform has been dead for years. AM4 is mere months away, although there may be some APU boards floating around with it already, there is no forward path for your system beyond the 9590. Only you can decide if this is an issue though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
W

wrightcolin

Commendable
Aug 11, 2016
10
0
1,510


At this point, I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't just scrap this entire build and start over with the 4790K. Also, as far as AM4 goes, I really would like to avoid an APU if at all possible. I don't need or want integrated graphics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
filippi

filippi

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2012
4,047
0
18,960
i74790K and i7-6700K are both great for overclock: A mild-good Z97/Z170 motherboard and a big 50 bucks air cooler will give you the edge here (best possible price/performance now a days).
Go Skylake if possible (i7-6700K).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom