/ Sign-up
Your question

1866 MHz RAM suggestions - 4 GB max

  • CPUs
  • RAM
  • Motherboards
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
December 1, 2011 2:54:44 PM

Although my motherboard natively supports up to 2133 MHz, this RAM is very expensive and Newegg has practically nothing available for it. My motherboard also supports 1866, 1600, 1333, and 1066 RAM as well.

With future overclocking in mind (to 4 GHz, possibly 4.5 GHz for turbo boost) on my i7-2600K CPU, I'm looking into replacing my temporary 2 GB of 1333 RAM. Because I have a 32-bit OS (I don't intend on upgrading any time soon, possibly even 3 years), any more than 4 GB of RAM is wasted. I find rare situations where even 2 GB RAM is not quite enough so I'd like to max out the memory. Although my motherboard supports up to 32 GB of RAM, only 3 GB may be effectively used at the most (maybe 2.5 GB with a 1 GB video card), 2.5 GB is sufficient enough for me for pretty much everything I do.

What would you suggest? What advantage is there with the 1866 RAM over the 1066, 1333, or 1600? That is, how much of a performance gain am I going to get if I go with 1866 RAM versus the more common 1333, both dual channel and the same 4 GB. I have no preference on brands - it's price and usefulness for my needs.

I primarily focus on game design (a 2D game that could run on a Geforce 4xxx), of which involves a lot of artwork and programming. Video processing is my next most common thing I do would be memory-demanding. There are other activities I do, but they are not memory-demanding ones - typing SHTML files, writing game design documents in Word, and the fairly common browsing of the web.

So far, I've found this RAM to be decent. Is this good, or is there something better?

More about : 1866 mhz ram suggestions max

a c 1190 à CPUs
a c 1491 V Motherboard
December 1, 2011 9:03:30 PM

Why you raise the multiplier on the CPU, you do not change the fsb. If you go to 64bit OS then I would go ahead and upgrade to faster 8GB kit. Ram speed by itself has hardly any noticeable difference on overall speed but measurable.
a c 307 à CPUs
a c 373 V Motherboard
December 1, 2011 9:26:48 PM

btw - win7 and vista 32 and 64 activations keys are the same. IE - you can install win7-64 and use your 32bit win7 key. You're only real concern is if you have an OEM version of the software (with OEM key) - those dont work with the retail OS so you would need to find the 64bit OEM installation disk.
December 2, 2011 3:25:18 AM

The "why you raise the multiplier on the CPU, you do not change the fsb" sounds confusing. What are you trying to say? Do I only change the multiplier (apparently to 40x instead of 34 (45x for turbo boost), and possibly the voltage (by a slight amount, though the lower while still keeping stability, the better). So, basically, there isn't any considerable benefit to going with 2133 RAM over 1066? Hmm. Then I might stick with 1600 RAM instead of 1866.

I have to go with the retail version of the OS, and I'm unlikely to upgrade in the next 3 years. Given that I tend to keep operating systems for close a decade (I've used Windows 98 from about 1998 until February 6, 2006), a lot of hardware upgrades are in store. By the time I do upgrade the OS, Windows 9 might be around.

Thus, I have to get the retail version. It may be $100 more, but over time, it's already more than paid for itself from the savings plus still more yet to come. For reference, since I got XP, I've gone through about 3 or 4 motherboards, 2 or 3 processors, 2 or 3 power supplies, 2 video cards, 3 or 4 sets of RAM (about to be 1 more), 3 hard drives, 1 sound card, 2 mice, 1 keyboard, 3 monitors, and 2 TV tuners. That's all in 5 3/4 years. Now, think about what the next 3 years might do. Thus, an OEM version of the OS is not going to work. I've probably already saved $500 from getting retail over OEM for XP and may be $900 by the time I upgrade the OS. Besides, I have no real need for RAM much beyond 2.5 GB anyway so there's little point in upgrading to a 64-bit OS either.