Speed vs. latency?

Well its a matter of taste really,some users prefer higher timings and some prefer higher speeds but DDR3 1600 is a good speed,i don't think you will need more than that unless you want to overclock your CPU to an insane speed

What type of application are you going to be running the most often - or what application do you care the most about? Check the reviews for similar apps on your platform and see what your app performs better with. Tell us what rig you're looking at and what type of application you care most about and we'll try to point you in the right direction.

Building a general-purpose rig for gaming, general productivity, and occasional video encoding. I only build a new system every 5 years or so, with some interim upgrades along the way, so longevity is key. I haven't done any OCing yet, but will probably give it a try with the new build. Just want to get the most for my money, and I noticed that some of the DDR3 2000 memory (with slower timings) was priced about the same as DDR3 1600 memory (with faster timings). I realize that faster speed AND low CL is the ideal, but between the two which is better? Or, based on the articles, perhaps I'm splitting hairs?

You're probably better off with 1600 and tighter CLs. On some platforms it's hard to hit 2000 MHz. Some even require you to OC to hit 1600 MHz - the i3 and i5 CPUs are an example of this.
There' very little difference in incremental steps up in speed, outside of synthetic benchmakrs. If you haven't seen these articles, they may be helpful:
Memory with socket 1156: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-870-1156,2482.html
Memory scaling on Core 2, Core i7 (socket 1366), and Phenom II (the first page has links to individual articles for each platform): http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/511-memory-scaling-ddr3.html

src1425 said:

Building a general-purpose rig for gaming, general productivity, and occasional video encoding. I only build a new system every 5 years or so, with some interim upgrades along the way, so longevity is key. I haven't done any OCing yet, but will probably give it a try with the new build. Just want to get the most for my money, and I noticed that some of the DDR3 2000 memory (with slower timings) was priced about the same as DDR3 1600 memory (with faster timings). I realize that faster speed AND low CL is the ideal, but between the two which is better? Or, based on the articles, perhaps I'm splitting hairs?

Can you post the full specs of both ?

First up, thanks for all the feedback - learning a lot! Not a lot of options from my QVL for 1600 with 7 CL:

OCZ Platinum 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model OCZ3P1600LV4GK
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227482

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL7D-4GBRH
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231279

G.SKILL ECO Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL7D-4GBECO
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231321

Or for CL 8 there's:

CORSAIR DOMINATOR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMD4GX3M2A1600C8
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145265&Tpk=CMD4GX3M2A1600C8

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL8D-4GBRM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231278&Tpk=F3-12800CL8D-4GBRM

Kingston HyperX 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104141&Tpk=KHX1600C8D3K2/4GX

Kingston HyperX T1 Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model KHX1600C8D3T1K2/4GX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104142&Tpk=KHX1600C8D3T1K2/4GX

OCZ AMD Black Edition 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model OCZ3BE1600C8LV4GK
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227496&Tpk=OCZ3BE1600C8LV4GK

Any suggestions?

Isn't necessary that the RAM that u buy is listened in the QVL.

From ur links I would go with the ECO series or THIS one.

In that list,I would go for this one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231279&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-RSSDailyDeals-_-na-_-na&AID=10521304&PID=3463938&SID=
because of having a good combination of timings and speed

What motherboard and CPU are you getting?

ekoostik said:

What motherboard and CPU are you getting?

Depends on which day you ask!

I'm still debating between a 965BE or 1090T (due to the $50 discount on the latter at MicroCenter) and either an ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3 or the Crosshair IV Formula. The 1090T and Crosshair IV are admittedly more than I need, but I don't might spending a little more up front if it helps extend the life of the system, and since it's unclear whether Bulldozer will be compatible with AM3 I'm tempted to get the 1090T.

In the tech world, the life of a gaming rig is 2 years max because always comes out new components with better features and a better price/performance.

Now, all this AMD processors are 45nm and as far as I know the 32nm processor of AMD comes out the next year with the new ATI GPU generation.

The 1090T and the Crosshair IV are very good options, but if u want safe a little more u can go with the same 1090T and the Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5.

I'm not a hardcore gamer (a wife and kids preempt that!) so upgrading every 2 years just isn't practical. Would rather get a system that will last me a good while, with a new CPU or GPU after 2 or 3 years. Will check out the 890FXA-UD5 though!

That's a very good reason (I have the same reason too).

In that order, AMD offer the best price/performance and future upgrades.

Check out the Gigabyte that have a very similar performance that the Crosshair IV.

Best answer selected by src1425.