Now, here is my situation. I bought 8 GB DDR3 2133 for 59$ on amazon, but the stupid stuff wouldn't ship for a full week, so I bought 16 GB corsair PC3 1600 mhz for 67$. I thought it would be a heck of a buy, even though CAS timings are 10-10-10-27
I repeatedly read articles that showed CAS latency makes little performance difference due to Ivy bridges excellent memory controller.
Most techs I read say that DDR3 has little impact on gaming FPS BUT I must say that article above shows difference of 10-15 FPS which in my opinion is substantial.
That said, I think most people will agree that PC3 1600 is adequate, and the difference will come from a better GPU.
You guys think 8GB 2133 for 50$ is smarter for gaming, or 16 GB 1600 for 67$ better for future proofing, and buying a new GPU would forever be the better investment?
I only ask because I only upgrade once every 5 years or so, and this was a really big spend for me.. Its not too late to switch the ram, I can't tell whether to be paranoid and go for the 2133 or just be happy with the 1600
Honestly, I read that review and I'm a bit skeptical on it.
Try taking a peak at this review. That xbitlabs review just poked me the wrong way if you know what I mean. I don't believe their review as far as I can throw them in other words. Just seemed a little lacking on information and looked like it was just thrown together.
As most of the people here will tell you, the price/gain point of going much higher than 1600 or 1866 just doesn't justify the additional costs. Also, remember that they ran these tests on the integrated graphics processor on the CPU. That means the actual ram was used as the video memory. So this really shows how much of a difference the ram's speed can make. A dedicated GPU on the other hand has it's own memory it uses.
Thanks for posting. I actually read that review as well. Gaming with on-board GPU is a cliche.
I do appreciate the fact that it shows the gains more clearly that most other real-world tests.
Fact is, I haven't found a conclusive review that shows for instance a 3770K with crossfire 7950s strickly for the purpose of seeing if ram bandwidth would have any difference.
Passing that much information to and from the GPU to CPU - I can't help but wonder how much FPS increase you would see...
Honestly I am a dedicated Tom's fan and have my fingers crossed they they will do test like I mentioned above.
The collective reviews I have seen lead me to the following conclusions:
* Ivy bridge benefits more from higher bandwidth memory than Sandy bridge, even if only in synthetic tests
* Ivy bridge benefits little from CAS timings, seems bandwitdth is more important
* Unless you are running really slow crappy ram, ram will not be your bottleneck
* Once you are in the 4 ghz CPU with minimum 8 GB DDR3 1600 range, the video card will be your biggest bottleneck no matter what (at least with current hardware)
The one thing that still bugs me, and it just a theoretical was of time :
Say the next gen graphics card suddenly turn your CPU/Memory into your bottleneck (which won't happen because the planned obsolescence factor, and corporate greed, even if it were possible).... How much difference would that high bandwidth ram make... hahah
One last question... Anyone have a link to any article showing that CAS timing makes any difference whatsoever on Ivy Bridge? I have read some very compelling articles showing that it makes very little difference.