Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

2000 vs 1800 vs 1600. Please help?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
March 6, 2010 5:07:57 AM

Hi, it seems like I am able to run my OCZ3P1600LV RAM at:

1600 w/ 7-7-7 rest auto, vtt 1.41

1800 w/ 8-8-8 rest auto, vtt 1.41

2000 w/ 11-11-11 rest auto, vtt 1.48

I was wondering what you all think about in terms of which one would be the fastest?

I am using an Intel Core i7-920, ASRock X58 Motherboard, Sapphire ATI HD 5770 graphics card.

What does everyone think? Hope to hear soon! Thanks so much :) 

Update: I think 2000 w/ 10-10-10 rest auto, vtt 1.48 might be working too..so please consider 11-11-11 first, but you can include your thoughts on 10-10-10 as well!!

More about : 2000 1800 1600

a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 6, 2010 5:26:20 PM

ie going from 1600 Cl7 -> 1800 CL8.

If my fuzzy math applies, you would be increasing the "speed" by 11.1 %, but you decrease the "work done" by 14.2 %

As I said " if this math applies" then the 1600 w/CL 7 would be slightly faster.

Added
(1/1600 MHz) x 7 = 4.375 nanoSec Vs (1/1800) MHz x 8 cycles = 4.444 nSec (Less is better)
m
0
l
March 6, 2010 5:31:49 PM

at first you said 1800 w/ CL8...but then you said CL 7...which one? Oo

from my experience so far it does seem like 1800 w/ 8-8-8 is faster than 1600 w/ 7-7-7

that being said..what about 1800 8-8-8 vs. 2004 10-10-10?

thanks!
m
0
l
Related resources
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 6, 2010 5:45:44 PM

Opps I corrected it, and added a little.

Comparison for 1600 @ CL7 vs 2004 @ CL10

(1/1600 MHz) x 7 Cycles = 4.4375 nSec = Fastest
(1/1800 MHz) x 8 Cycles = 4.4444 nSec
(1/2004 MHz) x10 Cycles = 4.990 nSec = Slowest

Added
(1) I think there was a article that supported this.
(2) there are some other factors such as Bandwitdth
(3) Would you see a difference in real life - probably not, only in benchmarking
m
0
l
March 6, 2010 6:08:31 PM

okay thanks! :) 

does anyone else have any input on this? i would love to get a few opinions on the matter!

1600 7-7-7

1800 8-8-8

2000 10-10-10

Which one is the fastest? Thanks so much! Hope to hear soon!
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 6, 2010 6:11:02 PM

Neither will give you very much added performance. I would take the lower timings though.
m
0
l
March 6, 2010 6:17:35 PM

I know the differences are very slight... I'm really just very curious to know which is the actual fastest setting to choose. I know that if I can somehow get 2000 to run at 9-9-9 I'll definitely go for that. Right now I'm running 1800 w/ 8-8-8. For some reason 1800 8-8-8 seems faster than 1600 7-7-7

If anyone else has an opinion on this please let me know!!

1600 7-7-7

1800 8-8-8

2004 10-10-10

Which do you think is the fastest? Thanks!!
m
0
l

Best solution

a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 6, 2010 6:22:31 PM

Actually, i take that back... i would take the 1800 or 2000 mhz, both should give similar performance...

toms has an article on this .
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...
Share
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 6, 2010 8:21:40 PM

overshocked, good read - It does look like speed trumps CL for the i7 systems - With some cavets.
Although it limited to DD3 1600 at top end ie dated - can draw some conclusions from it.
It seems that it is dependent also on the app.
I looked elsewere and could not find any "good" comparisions, using OPs speed/CL

Did some cherry picking ( not a good think, but did to only point out)

Quotes from articile:
Left 4 Dead scales better with increased memory speeds. However, low memory latencies are much more important here, as you can see by the fact that DDR3-1066 at CL6 timings is faster than DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600 at relaxed timing settings.
3DS Max benefits from low latency memory, but it can also take slight advantage of high clock speeds. If you have to choose, pick the lower latency RAM.
WinRAR is very memory sensitive, and delivers nice time savings with faster memory. For this benchmark, high memory speed is more important than tight timings.
From Conclusion:
Knowing all of these results, it is obvious that highest speed DDR3 memory only makes sense for serious enthusiasts, or for those with unlimited budgets. Everyone else should focus on mainstream clock speeds of DDR3-1066 or DDR3-1333, and go for a trustworthy brand and the quickest timings their budget allows.
m
0
l
March 6, 2010 8:45:40 PM

Cool. Those charts to help A LITTLE. However since we are talking about speeds which they are not testing it does make it a little hard to tell still..

I too think I should stick with 1800 or 2000. Only question is 1800 vs. 2004 (2000) at that point.

If anyone else wants to chime in please do!! I appreciate as many inputs as I can get about this topic. Thank you so much!!

1600 7-7-7

1800 8-8-8

2004 (2000) 10-10-10

Which do you think is the fastest? Thanks again everyone! Hope to hear back some more opinions! :) 
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 6, 2010 8:48:16 PM

They are going to be incredibly close man... you arnt going to see an FPS difference in games between the two.

Why are you so considered with such a small difference in system speed?
m
0
l
March 7, 2010 12:26:25 AM

I guess I can give it a rest for now.. I just really want to know that's all. I want to set my RAM to the fastest stable setting possible.. I guess I am a little power hungry with this new system I built :p 
m
0
l
March 7, 2010 12:26:56 AM

Best answer selected by trancetunes.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b K Overclocking
March 7, 2010 12:34:48 AM

Ya man, i obsses about system spead as well... I bench with ln2 abd dry ice. I gotta ba particular.

But the difference between the 1800 and 2000 is so close i dont know what i would do for 3d tests.
m
0
l
March 7, 2010 5:17:27 AM

turns out 1920 is seeming to run fine at 8-8-8. looks like i have a winner.

i have almost no doubt this is the best and fastest setting to choose as long as it stays stable. :D  thanks again!
m
0
l
March 7, 2010 7:58:20 PM

update: 1920 did not work at 8-8-8 ..so i am still unsure..but for now im using 2004 at 10-10-10 =X
m
0
l
!