Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the RAM suitable?

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 19, 2009 9:48:29 AM

Hello,

I'm going to build a desktop this saturday. The specifications intended are:

CPU: Phenom II x4 955
Motherboard: MSI 790FX GD-70 (AMD 790FX Chipset)
RAM: Kingston HyperX KHX16000D3T1K2/2GN DDR3 2000MHz Timing 9-9-9-9-27 Voltage: 2V*
HDD: Seagate 1.5 TB
PSU: Corsair TX850
GPU: Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X in Crossfire (X2)

* I have question regarding the RAM. Is the RAM suitable for this build? Is there any concerns regarding the voltage or the clockspeed or something? Or anything I have to be concerned about?

More about : ram suitable

August 19, 2009 11:02:54 AM

it might be suitable but its crap

the timings are lousy and the voltage is enough to melt a small ice berg

have a look at the memory scaling article
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-ddr3,2319...

The best buy is 1333 MHz low latency and its not worth buying faster RAM if the timings are slacker

Can you even clock the phenoms memory as high as 2000MHz ?
August 19, 2009 11:49:23 AM

Yeah I don't know how to choose RAMs...

How about:

KHX13000D3LLK2/4G 1625MHz Timing 7-7-7-7-20

What do you mean by:

"Can you even clock the phenoms memory as high as 2000MHz ? "
Related resources
August 19, 2009 12:06:52 PM

you can change the effective speed of your RAM by manually entering frequency and voltage settings, as opposed to accepting what RAM is defaulted at. Generally, going way above factory specs is not a good idea unless you spent a lot of money on high quality RAM. Also, the CPU and motherboard FSB and chipset factor in to how high of a memory bandwidth you can support. Since I haven't really worked with the latest AMD boards, I don't know what the max bandwidth for RAM is either.
August 19, 2009 12:09:35 PM

I'm going for stock clock only...How about the RAM above?
August 19, 2009 12:44:57 PM

that Kingston memory at 1625MHz is better, but if you look at the voltage requirement, it's 1.9V. This means it will run much hotter than RAM that does not have such a high voltage requirement at stock speed. I also looked at your motherboard you picked out, if you look at the detailed specs, all the RAM frequencies above 1333Mhz are done through MSI's on-board overclock. 1333Mhz is the highest "official" bandwidth for this chipset, though it's not uncommon for motherboard manufacturers to do this.

Here's some pretty good 1333Mhz RAM, notice the lower voltage requirement:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
August 19, 2009 3:11:45 PM

G.Skill is seriously difficult to find here if there's any... Does putting fast RAM with high voltage affects other components on my motherboard?

how about this ram:

Kingston HyperX 1375MHz, 7-7-7-7-20, 1.7V
August 19, 2009 3:24:04 PM

If you are going for stock clocks only just get 1333MHz ram, other than that you have to go into bios and manually set timings. Why the kingston obsession? Check out patriot, i know they have some reasonably inexpensive CL7 kits at 1333MHz.

Can someone tell me what in the hell happened to all the DDR3 ram supplies?
August 19, 2009 3:28:40 PM

it's not obsession...it's availablity ...
August 19, 2009 4:29:19 PM

I've been playing around with some new system configs online, and the lack of DDR3 options is painful. Newegg is still better than most places out there, Microcenter has just a handful of unimpressive DDR3 kits, only one is a triple channel kit.

I think we were a bit spoiled with DDR2 RAM supplies since manufacturers ramped up production for Vista anticipating demand for memory, though Vista's unpopularity didn't do much to diminish supply. Then with the crappy economy, and still too high DDR2 supplies, DDR3 production was probably scaled way back.
August 19, 2009 6:03:38 PM

ddr2 is so damn cheap now...

So what's the verdict guys?

HyperX 1625MHz 7-7-7-7-20 at 1.9V

or

HyperX 1375MHz 7-7-7-7-20 at 1.7V
August 19, 2009 6:19:45 PM

I would go with the 1375MHz with the lower voltage. As Hunter said, if you are keeping all your frequencies at stock anyway, overclocking the RAM doesn't do a whole lot for you. Also if you did want to overclock at some point, starting with a lower volted RAM will give you more room to increase voltage to improve stability at higher frequencies.
August 19, 2009 6:23:43 PM

both of the ram above are stock clocked...

Anyways, how bout performance?
August 19, 2009 6:53:08 PM

The detailed specs are so close, it's really hard to say which ones are "better" from poking around kingston's website, it seems that the 1625Mhz versions were spec'ed and built in 2007, the 1375Mhz versions were spec'ed and built in 2008. The only physical difference between the two sets is the 1625Mhz ones use 8 banks of 128M chips, while the newer 1375Mhz use 16 banks of 64M chips.

From a performance standpoint at stock operation, the 1625Mhz will run slightly faster, but they will also operate at a higher temperature. It's probably only going to be a tiny difference in performance too.
August 19, 2009 7:03:18 PM

Then 1375 it's gonna be.... Actually building three rigs this saturday... Can't afford to make any mistake...

Any other problems with the hardwares above?
August 19, 2009 7:26:09 PM

Just a small possible issue with the Seagate 1.5 TB. Find out if that drive is a 7200.11 or not. I think it probably is since I wasn't aware of any other Seagate drives with that capacity. The 7200.11 generation were the ones that had the very severe problems with firmware. Seagate supposedly fixed the issue on drives manufactured before a certain date, and the later drives shouldn't have had the issue at all. Still, a lot of people lost important data, and I wouldn't be anxious to get a 7200.11 while there are better performing alternatives that don't have past issues. The 1TB 7200.12s are supposedly fine, and Caviar Black 1TB or Samsung F2/F3's are great choices too.
August 19, 2009 8:08:30 PM

There isn't anything wrong with the article, but it's not that hard to beat a velociraptor, this has been the case since the last generation of 7200 RPM hard drives, so all they achieved with the testing is beating a dead horse (or velociraptor in this case). Seagates own 7200.12 1TB drive beats the 7200.11 in every single benchmark as on the Tom's hardware charts. In terms of raw read/write speeds, the seagates do very well, though look at the benchmarks that pertain to application, gaming, and workstation usage: the WD Caviar Blacks do better than the Seagates. So if all you do with your drive is move files back and forth, yes the Seagate 7200.11 and even more so, the 7200.12 is faster. The Caviar Black still holds an advantage in more real world situations.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-har...[2362]=on&prod[2370]=on&prod[2367]=on&prod[2365]=on

Personally I'd choose either a 7200.12 or Caviar Black for my next build... haven't made my mind up yet though.
!