Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

G-Skill 1866 or 2133

Last response: in Memory
Share
March 11, 2012 11:19:53 PM

Trying to free up space for a better sound card in the budget. I currently am choosing only between:
- 2 x G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133 for $319.98
- 1 x G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (8 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 for 244.99

Wife does allot of video editing with 3ds max, after effects, and premier, so I was wondering if there will be a noticeable difference on the following notable editing specs if I choose the 1866 over the 2133 ram:

1 x Intel 520 Series Cherryville 240GB
2 x GIGABYTE GV-R795WF3-3GD Radeon HD 7950 3GB
Intel BOXDX79SI LGA 2011 Intel X79 w/Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition

If I go with the 1866 instead of the 2133 (which I feel really attached to at the moment) I will be able to upgrade from the;

HT | OMEGA STRIKER 7.1 to the ASUS Xonar Essence STX Virtual 7.1

What would you do and why forum?

More about : skill 1866 2133

a b } Memory
March 11, 2012 11:26:44 PM

I would get the 1866 as they run at 1.5v (SB recommended voltage) and have tighter timings, which should yield about the same performance. The 2133 would probably only be a bit quicker.

Also, if you don't have the video cards yet, go for an Nvidia card because they have CUDA which helps in video editing.
Score
0
Related resources
March 11, 2012 11:45:33 PM

HostileDonut said:
I would get the 1866 as they run at 1.5v (SB recommended voltage) and have tighter timings, which should yield about the same performance. The 2133 would probably only be a bit quicker.

Also, if you don't have the video cards yet, go for an Nvidia card because they have CUDA which helps in video editing.


I have 2560 x 1600 resolution 3011 Dell monitors which aren't supported by NVIDIA's card resolutions just yet, but thank you for the notable suggestion.

I do see that the newer 580's do have some support, but they just don't keep up too well on the frame rate and they seem too overpriced.
Score
0
March 11, 2012 11:55:28 PM

sonexpc said:
you won't get significant performance gain in either memory....

You can get 2x http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... is good enough

and put the money you save in other stuff..


Would you happen to know what type of loss in performance we'd be talking about? Lets say we have a video that is taking about 1 hour to render out on the 2133, are you saying it would be instead of a lets see... a 15 minute difference it will be like a 5 minute difference?
Score
0
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 12:40:06 AM

simplytechnical said:
I have 2560 x 1600 resolution 3011 Dell monitors which aren't supported by NVIDIA's card resolutions just yet, but thank you for the notable suggestion.

I do see that the newer 580's do have some support, but they just don't keep up too well on the frame rate and they seem too overpriced.

Nvidia cards support that resolution.... I don't know where you heard that. Nvidia for video-editing, for gaming, AMD offers great stuff though.

Check it out, even the 4xx series supports it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I would suggest dual GTX 570s

EDIT: I would get these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... for the extra VRAM

They would be cheaper too.
Score
0
March 12, 2012 1:17:48 AM

HostileDonut said:
Nvidia cards support that resolution.... I don't know where you heard that. Nvidia for video-editing, for gaming, AMD offers great stuff though.

Check it out, even the 4xx series supports it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I would suggest dual GTX 570s

EDIT: I would get these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... for the extra VRAM

They would be cheaper too.


Hopefully we get a definite answer on when Kepler is coming out tomorrow after the NVIDA conference, I have to make up my mind by the 29th of this month.
Score
0
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 1:29:30 AM

simplytechnical said:
Hopefully we get a definite answer on when Kepler is coming out tomorrow after the NVIDA conference, I have to make up my mind by the 29th of this month.

Why? Kepler won't be out by then and Nvidia has the CUDA and can power those monitors, so what is the problem?
Score
0
March 12, 2012 1:33:47 AM

HostileDonut said:
Why? Kepler won't be out by then and Nvidia has the CUDA and can power those monitors, so what is the problem?


They were suggesting that Kepler would hit the 23rd of the month, but tomorrows meeting will likely narrow in on a better answer. I'm liking the vram on the 7000 series (3gb) while I do understand that the mercury engines on NVIDIA cards will give some boost when it comes to adobe, but how much of a boost are we talking about?
Score
0
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 1:35:34 AM

simplytechnical said:
They were suggesting that Kepler would hit the 23rd of the month, but tomorrows meeting will likely narrow in on a better answer. I'm liking the vram on the 7000 series (3gb) while I do understand that the mercury engines on NVIDIA cards will give some boost when it comes to adobe, but how much of a boost are we talking about?

All I know is that CUDA helps a lot when processing video editing and things like that. I would go for the Nvidia in this situation, but I guess if Kepler is right there, go for that.
Score
0
a b å Intel
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 1:41:18 AM

All modern graphic cards for the past couple of years support 2560x1600, even my integrated intel graphics can run that res. But the issue may lie in the connection, you'd need hdmi 1.4, dual link dvi, or displayport. More ram is better than faster ram. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-channel-ddr3-m... Edit oops wrong link.
Score
0
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 2:36:04 AM

simplytechnical said:
Would you happen to know what type of loss in performance we'd be talking about? Lets say we have a video that is taking about 1 hour to render out on the 2133, are you saying it would be instead of a lets see... a 15 minute difference it will be like a 5 minute difference?


I would say for 1 hour Video Render it will less than 30 second or less different even you increase from 1600 to 2133 memory...Yes I say that ... you can do the test if you not believe.

and if you really find there has more then even 5 minute different ... please let me ...I also want to know..
Score
0
March 12, 2012 2:53:17 AM

sonexpc said:
I would say for 1 hour Video Render it will less than 30 second or less different even you increase from 1600 to 2133 memory...Yes I say that ... you can do the test if you not believe.

and if you really find there has more then even 5 minute different ... please let me ...I also want to know..


Seriously!? That's crazy, I'm at a loss for words because no one else has come to me with stats to the fact except that it would be better to get a 1.5 voltage set vs a 1.65 which is completely understandable when it comes to the longevity of the processor. If you know this for a fact I guess there's no need to waist money.
Score
0
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 3:18:21 AM

if you have some exist system ... you can try to reduce the memory speed see what performance you will loss for video rendering..
Score
0
a b å Intel
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 3:35:18 AM

If you didn't notice, just a heads up I edited my post with the correct link. You can see from 1600 to 2133 is not even notable in 3ds max. *Graphs have a typo, it's render time not fps.

Score
0
March 12, 2012 3:45:28 AM

k1114 said:
If you didn't notice, just a heads up I edited my post with the correct link. You can see from 1600 to 2133 is not even notable in 3ds max. *Graphs have a typo, it's render time not fps.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/J/G/319516/original/image015.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/J/A/319510/original/image009.png


Thank you for the assist! I see I really don't have an excuse to aim too high in the area of ram speed. What about the voltages though? I've heard 1.65 is pretty well handled on the sandy bridge-e.
Score
0
a c 146 } Memory
March 12, 2012 5:02:08 AM

simplytechnical said:
Thank you for the assist! I see I really don't have an excuse to aim too high in the area of ram speed. What about the voltages though? I've heard 1.65 is pretty well handled on the sandy bridge-e.

1.5V is the sweet spot!
Score
0
a b å Intel
a b } Memory
March 12, 2012 5:10:58 AM

http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+System+recom...

The above is really long, but skimming it and by going with what I already know my recommendations are this:

1) 16GB of 1600MHz RAM
(I don't think RAM speed will be your bottleneck. Look for 1600MHz with lower latency, i.e. 7-8-7-24 rather than higher speed with higher latency. This is by far the best value.)

2) NVidia Kepler graphics card.
Spend about $500 on one of the new cards as these cards will be supported by CUDA.

*I don't understand why you're getting two AMD cards for video editing. Adobe Premier only supports Quadra cards and the GTX5xx series, and the upcoming Kepler. Several other programs are the same.

I believe there is some limited amount of speed advantage by DECODING using AMD cards but that uses the section that hardware accelerates video. There's no speed advantage on more expensive cards for that feature either.

**Eventually video editing programs will support OpenCL but there's no clear time line for this. Both modern NVidia and AMD cards support OpenCL, however only NVidia has CUDA support which is used now.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 102 } Memory
March 13, 2012 3:50:54 PM

The DDR3-1866 kit would be ideal. You can run into issues with your first option of using two separate kits instead of a single 32GB kit. The DDR3-1866 kit can also be overclocked, so you can surely achieve outstanding performance.

With the money saved, it would also be very beneficial to invest in a decent aftermarket CPU cooler that will keep the system nice and cool during long editing sessions. With full slots of memory (even 1.50V), it will increase your CPU temps, so to protect that expensive CPU, a ~$40 investment in a CPU cooler is a great idea. Not to mention you could do some overclocking to CPU and memory to drastically improve render time. :) 

DRAM Voltage 1.65V is no problem, but with full slots, it is highly recommended to use an aftermarket CPU cooler to provide the proper cooling. Keep in mind that the Intel CPU cooler was designed with DDR3-1333 CL9 1.50V memory in mind. Some people can get away without one if they built such a good system for gaming, but if the system is used for professional work such as video editing, the CPU will continuously be under high stress, so a CPU cooler upgrade is necessary.

Thank you
GSKILL SUPPORT
Share
March 13, 2012 5:14:17 PM

gskill support said:
The DDR3-1866 kit would be ideal. You can run into issues with your first option of using two separate kits instead of a single 32GB kit. The DDR3-1866 kit can also be overclocked, so you can surely achieve outstanding performance.

With the money saved, it would also be very beneficial to invest in a decent aftermarket CPU cooler that will keep the system nice and cool during long editing sessions. With full slots of memory (even 1.50V), it will increase your CPU temps, so to protect that expensive CPU, a ~$40 investment in a CPU cooler is a great idea. Not to mention you could do some overclocking to CPU and memory to drastically improve render time. :) 

DRAM Voltage 1.65V is no problem, but with full slots, it is highly recommended to use an aftermarket CPU cooler to provide the proper cooling. Keep in mind that the Intel CPU cooler was designed with DDR3-1333 CL9 1.50V memory in mind. Some people can get away without one if they built such a good system for gaming, but if the system is used for professional work such as video editing, the CPU will continuously be under high stress, so a CPU cooler upgrade is necessary.

Thank you
GSKILL SUPPORT


Thanks g-skill, with you and the forums combined effort I came up with something pretty ideal. I appreciate the assistance. I was able to free up enough space in the budget to not only get a better sound card but also get 2 x GTX 580 (Fermi) Classified ULTRA 3072MB for the CUDA core boost to take some processing from the CPU cores. I went with the 1866 Memory.
Score
0
March 20, 2012 12:02:03 AM

Best answer selected by simplytechnical.
Score
0
a c 146 } Memory
March 20, 2012 1:34:41 AM

This topic has been closed by Nikorr
Score
0
!