Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which setting is faster for DDR3 1866 vs. 1600?

Last response: in Overclocking
February 27, 2010 12:33:45 PM

Hi everyone, I have a rather simple question here...

I am using OCZ3P1600LV6GK RAM. I have two settings saved which seem to be stable, but I have no idea which one is actually faster.

First setting: 7-7-7, rest auto, command rate 2t @ 1600


Second setting: 9-9-9, rest auto, command rate 1t @ 1866

As of right now when I load websites, the 1866 seems a littttle faster. Does anyone know for sure which one would be though?

My system:
-Intel Core i7-920
-ASRock X58 Extreme Motherboard
-Sapphire ATI HD 5770 Graphics Card

What do you think? Aside from personal knowledge, what program can I use to literally see for myself which one is working faster?

Thank you!! Hope to hear soon :) 

NOTE: In case it makes a difference, I just want to let you know that I actually only have 4GB in my machine at the moment. The third stick is coming back from RMA. So it WILL BE 6GB again very soon!

Thanks again! :) 
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
February 27, 2010 3:02:19 PM

The more aggressive timing should be faster you can always test it with PCmark05
February 27, 2010 3:08:55 PM

Thanks SAAIELLO, if anyone else has any knowledge/input on this please do tell!!

1866 @ 9-9-9 rest auto, command rate auto


1600 @ 7-7-7 rest auto, command rate 2t

Which do you think is faster?
Related resources
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
February 27, 2010 3:49:36 PM

With the 1866 what is the command rate it is using ?? Auto will select either 1T or 2T - most likely the 1600 @ 7-7-7-?-2t will be slightly more throughput - have you tried 1866 @ 8-8-8-24-2T ?
February 27, 2010 6:21:29 PM

Hi, I tried using settings with 8-8-8-24 and they did not work with 1866..

So once again if anyone can please give some input on the following settings and which one they think is faster..

1866 @ 9-9-9 rest auto, command rate 1t


1600 @ 7-7-7 rest auto, command rate 2t

Thanks so much! I appreciate it :) 
a b K Overclocking
February 28, 2010 2:48:36 AM

saaiello said:
The more aggressive timing should be faster you can always test it with PCmark05

+1 from me.
a b K Overclocking
February 28, 2010 3:20:20 AM

You can have a look at THIS. You can also google memory benchmark and get loads of programs, like everest, that will give you idea of how fast your memory is running. I really don't think you will be able to tell in day to day use if you have 1600 or 1866 setting either to their lowest clock settings and both at 1t.
February 28, 2010 4:12:04 AM

It depends on the task you are doing. If you're doing one continuous task for maximum speed, then 1866MHz is better. If you're doing more, smaller tasks, the lower latency of the 1600MHz RAM is better. Personally, I would choose the 1600MHz with 7-7-7-2X timings. My RAM is rated for 7-7-7-24, but I can run 7-7-7-22 1T @ 1600MHz or PC2-12800. I hope this helped.
February 28, 2010 9:11:58 AM

Alright, after hearing a few opinions here it seems that most of you can agree the lower timings at 1600 are better overall than the higher timings at 1866. As of right now I have left it at 1600 with the lower timings (7-7-7-20-59 rest auto, 2T).

If anyone else can chime in I will still appreciate it..The more opinions I get the more reliable the decision I make :) 

1866 @ 9-9-9, command rate 1T


1600 @ 7-7-7, command rate 2T

Which is faster?

ps: Don't worry I will choose a best answer soon.. I just want to see if anyone else has anything to add for a couple days and finalize my choice! :) 

Best solution

February 28, 2010 10:40:37 AM

There is no difference whatsoever in day to day tasks, for example surfing the web. For games you will not notice any difference except in benchmarks:,2...

There is an interesting sentence at the conclusion of the article:

"The results are obvious: going from one memory speed to the next, e.g. from DDR3-1066 to 1333, does not provide major benefits. Even the replacement of slow DDR3-800 RAM by DDR3-1600 memory will mostly yield disappointing results. While the performance advantage is measurable, it is never noticeable."

I think performance-wise you will not notice any differece at all between the two settings, but I'd probably go for the lower latencies.
February 28, 2010 10:55:10 AM

Best answer selected by trancetunes.