/ Sign-up
Your question

DDR3 2000 for new i7 920 build?

  • Build
  • DDR3
  • Intel i7
  • Systems
  • Product
Last response: in Systems
November 10, 2009 11:51:28 AM

Hey guys,

I have been stressing looking over a few different ram kits for my upcoming i7 920 build.

I guess my first question is is DDR3 2000 worth it? There are a few kits out there that cost relatively the same as many of the DDR3 1600 kits.

Here is what I was looking at

DDR3 2000 G.Skill Ripjaw Cas 9

Mushkin DDR3 2000 Cas 8

The reviews on these kits are basically non existent. Am I better off just going with some DDR3 1600 cas7 kit? I have a budget around 200 dollars.


More about : ddr3 2000 920 build

November 10, 2009 12:47:03 PM

The timings are too high. Better off with 1600. Look for 7-7-7-28 or something near there
November 10, 2009 2:57:07 PM

Here's an article talking about memory speeds for DDR2: There's a similar one for DDR3, but I can't seem to find it right now. Basically, the conclusions were that the DDR3-2000 kits had too slow timings and didn't help except in very specific situations like WinRAR. In games, the differences were 1-2%, and it actually depended on the game as to whether faster timing/1333 or 2000 kits resulted in better frame rates.

This is definitely one of those areas where if you have to ask, you don't need it (even if you're a hardcore gamer). The differences in performance are small, and unless you have very specific needs (I'm a photographer dealing with 200 photoshop files a day and I need my RAM to do x), you're not going to be able to even tell the difference. If it were me, I would go with the faster timings on a 1600 kit.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 10, 2009 3:08:20 PM

I guess my question is why go for DDR3 1600 when DDR3 2000 are similary prices? Will the timings make a more noticeable difference?

Also can someone reccomend some good DDR3 1600 kits with decent times? I wanted that CAS6 Mushkin but it has been out of stock for a while.

Best solution

November 10, 2009 4:37:50 PM

I would just do the math:

9 CAS @ 2000mhz = 4.5 microseconds actual latency
8 CAS @ 2000 = 4.0

7 CAS @ 1600 = 4.3
6 CAS @ 1600 = 3.7

So an 8 at 2000 is actually slightly better than 7 at 1600, as far as timings. But at the end of the day, no, none of this will make much of a measureable difference, much less a noticeable one. Changes in CPU speeds will drown out any of these differences in memory, so just pick a rough "best" of the ones that are actually available and don't sweat it.