Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Corsair vs. kingston hyperx: why does it matter

Last response: in Memory
Share
March 26, 2009 7:25:39 PM

hi, i am buying a new computer and really need some help here. i am trying to decide between:

6GB DDR3/1600 mhz -- kingston hyperx OR
12GB DDR3/1600 mhz -- corsair OR

darkhorse: 12GB DDR3/1800 mhz -- corsair

I am using i7 940 overclocked to 3.61 ghz and gtx 295 if that matters

my first 2 options are the same price (third is 200 more)

my big question: why is kingston hyperx only giving me 1/2 the GBs for the same price...is it really a huge difference

I would love some opinions:
which of the 3 of those would be the BEST performer?
I don't care about if any of these are overkill or whatever, i just want to know which is best and i will go with that

also, i suppose 6GB of the hyperx now with upgrade to 12 later is possible (but i really dont want to spend that kind of money in total)

any info is VERY appreciated, thanks a lot

a b } Memory
March 26, 2009 9:37:50 PM

The best?

This:
https://shop.corsair.com/store/

Of course, it's a fortune. As for slightly more realism, the Corsair 12GB/1600MHz kit will be the one to choose of the ones you listed. You won't notice a massive difference in performance due to memory speed, so the main thing to care about is quantity. 12GB vs 6GB is a much more noticeable difference than you will ever see due to timings or a slight memory clock difference.
March 26, 2009 9:50:20 PM

i really appreciate that cjl, i was skepticle that doubling the price for kingston could be worth it, but i had to make sure.
Related resources
a c 97 } Memory
March 26, 2009 10:03:52 PM

The difference between corsair and kingston is slightly better latency.
The i7 onboard memory controller is very good. It seems to be able to feed the cpu well regardless of the ram speed.
I would agree with cjl to get more vs. faster.

With 12gb, I speculate that all the OS and your current game will stay in ram once you load it.
Don't power off when you are done, just sleep instead.
March 27, 2009 3:23:40 AM

I realize this is a very stupid question, but i have never owned a desktop. Is it okay to just never turn it off (sleep instead)? Are you saying that powering it off will pretty much wipe what is currently in ram?
by the way, thanks for adding to what cjl said...i love to get the same conclusion twice (makes me feel secure)
a c 97 } Memory
March 27, 2009 3:42:08 AM

lations said:
I realize this is a very stupid question, but i have never owned a desktop. Is it okay to just never turn it off (sleep instead)? Are you saying that powering it off will pretty much wipe what is currently in ram?
by the way, thanks for adding to what cjl said...i love to get the same conclusion twice (makes me feel secure)

There are several low power states.

Hibernate writes the contents of ram to the hard drive. With 12gb, that could take some time, perhaps 30 seconds. The pc then powers down to almost nothing.
With sleep, the contents of ram are not written out, so just the ram is powered. It is still very low power consumption.
I don't think a desktop is any different from a laptop, but the laptop user needs to conserve battery more.

Restarting should be faster than a clean boot.

Wickipedia should have a better explanation.
!