Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Five Overclockable 32 GB DDR3 Kits, Reviewed

Tags:
  • Overclocking
  • DRAM
  • Bandwidth
  • Tom's Hardware Top Picks
  • Memory
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 19, 2014 11:00:19 PM

Eight gigabytes per DIMM has become de rigueur for high-end builds, even though you get the best data rates and latencies from lower-density modules. We test five 32 GB products to see if it's still possible to squeeze out enthusiast-class performance.

Five Overclockable 32 GB DDR3 Kits, Reviewed : Read more

More about : overclockable ddr3 kits reviewed

May 20, 2014 12:06:12 AM

I've had the Gskill Kit for over a year now and i love it. All these other kits are late to the party.

I use mine for RAM DISK, which is a Asus Program that lets me install games to my RAM and have nearly instant loading times. 10,000 Mbps, where as the fastest m.2 PCIe ssd's will only do 1/10th that.

I cant wait for Broadwell because i need 64GB so i can put a full Battlefield 4 install (42GB and going up with each expansion) on it.

Whats great is the asus RAM DISK program can move the installation freely without you having to mess with the registry or installation directory settings.
Score
1
May 20, 2014 12:08:54 AM

also the Gskill kit is Quad Channel Compatible. i know it's up to the chipset to set channels, but some kits wont work quad channel.
Score
0
Related resources
May 20, 2014 12:18:27 AM

@jasonelmore RAM disks have been around for ages and is not an exclusively ASUS thing. Also if you actually NEED that much space on a RAM disk then you'd be better served by using an LGA2011 platform since you could easily drop 64GB in it.
Score
8
May 20, 2014 12:45:31 AM

i have used g-skill on my last 3 builds and work hard. never get an blue scren. but with corsairs i lost my count. i prefer use kingston value ram to buy corsair memory again
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 20, 2014 1:29:15 AM

jasonelmore said:
also the Gskill kit is Quad Channel Compatible. i know it's up to the chipset to set channels, but some kits wont work quad channel.
All of these kits are designed for Quad-Channel mode, but the Quad-Channel CPUs we have won't push the high data rates needed for a memory overclocking evaluation.

Score
1
May 20, 2014 2:32:52 AM

Quote:
@jasonelmore RAM disks have been around for ages and is not an exclusively ASUS thing. Also if you actually NEED that much space on a RAM disk then you'd be better served by using an LGA2011 platform since you could easily drop 64GB in it.


The connectivity on LGA 2011 is behind quite a bit. I'd rather have faster IPC, and more than 2 native sata 6g. I wish intel would not keep it's enthusiast line a year behind in tech.
Score
2
May 20, 2014 2:48:22 AM


I've used a lot of GSkill kits, they're very good, but one thing surprises me about
the choice, namely the absence of the GSkill TridentX kit. I find it's more stable
than the Ripjaws series, especially in max-RAM configurations with 32GB on Z68,
or 64GB on X79, etc. I wonder why GSkill chose to supply the RipjawsX... I was
going to say maybe it was just price, but TridentX is cheaper now, at least in the
UK anyway, but even if it cost more I'd still always recommend the TridentX if a
buyer can afford it. Note the TridentX is CL10 vs. the RipjawsX's CL11. Here's my
config with two TridentX 2400 kits, set for the moment at 2133 as that was my
target speed (at the time it was cheaper than buying native 2133 kits, and I've
not had a chance yet to optimise at 2400):

http://valid.canardpc.com/r9ibvb

Ian.

Score
2
May 20, 2014 6:17:07 AM

I have been using G.Skill RAM since the early days of the Athlon when no one had heard of the company. It has always been rock solid for me and have had great luck overclocking it over the years.
Score
3
May 20, 2014 6:59:51 AM

good gravy those are some hideous looking sticks.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 20, 2014 8:52:02 AM

I can run my G.Skill 2133CL10s at 2500CL10 rock solid on an Athlon 760K so suck it, intel!
Score
-5
May 20, 2014 10:58:50 AM

I GOT A G SKILL 32GB 1866 KIT FOR $109 TWO YEARS AGO FROM THE EGG! BEST DEAL EVER! It will be a looooong time till I buy new ram.
Score
3
May 20, 2014 11:12:31 AM

So what was wrong with Adata?
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 20, 2014 1:06:59 PM

spookyman said:
So what was wrong with Adata?
There's nothing wrong with it, they just shipped two pair rather than a set of four, in a comparison of four-module kits, and the resulting combination didn't leave any room for overclocking. Corsair got an award for overclocking, G.Skill got an award for value, and there wasn't any "in the middle" award.

Score
0
May 20, 2014 1:28:06 PM

Ironic that all these kits use the same ICs (Hynix H5TQ4G83MFR).
Score
1
a b K Overclocking
May 20, 2014 5:06:09 PM

I also use Gskill, and I have been able to set my 1600CAS9 sticks to 2133CAS11, and that really showed a HUGE improvement for my APU :D 
Score
0
a c 170 K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 21, 2014 7:20:50 AM

Enjoyed seeing Mushkin Redlines in ya last roundup (THG Elite Award) and disappointed they didn't participate this time around. The 10-12-12-28 timings are the best I have seen outta the package. The Blackline series also has slightly tighter timings at 2800 with 12-14-14-35

Redline 2400 CAS 10 = 8.33 ns
Vengeance 2800 CAS 12 = 8.57 ns




Score
0
a b } Memory
May 22, 2014 6:24:23 AM

If I read the chart on page 9 correctly, most memory runs higher bandwidths at the stock settings than overclocked. Am I misreading something?
Score
2
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 22, 2014 7:12:05 AM

WyomingKnott--

were you once or still doing the jonny guru bit? where do I remember you from?

I like my gskills but with any brand theres good and bad on how you board takes to them some can be finicky..
Score
0
a b } Memory
May 22, 2014 7:17:28 AM

?? Jonny Guru ?? I was never over there. Sorry.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 22, 2014 7:21:58 AM

my mistake then sorry.... just seemed like I seen WyomingKnott on some other tech site.. my bad
Score
0
a b } Memory
May 22, 2014 7:24:17 AM

Fully possible, it's just a character from a Heinlein novel. I chose the anonymized name back when I was a lurker.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 22, 2014 4:39:08 PM

WyomingKnott said:
If I read the chart on page 9 correctly, most memory runs higher bandwidths at the stock settings than overclocked. Am I misreading something?
There's a comment or three in the article about that. The motherboard appears configured for best performance at data rates up to DDR3-2400, and for enhanced stability at data rates beyond DDR3-2400. So if you're running this board and don't know how to optimize tertiary timings, you're probably best to use DDR3-2400 or below.

Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 27, 2014 5:39:58 AM

Hey Look, a RAM speed article where the results of the tests show virtually no perceptible performance changes in actual usage. Fancy that.

It's too bad RAM is so boring these days. It would be nice if the advice for RAM purchases wasn't "Just buy whatever is on sale as long as you have enough RAM for what you are doing, spend the money on your CPU/Video"
Score
0
May 27, 2014 7:50:17 AM


The only task I've come across so far which benefits a lot from higher clocked RAM is After Effects,
probably because it's often very bandwidth intensive. A friend did a test for me: reducing the RAM
speed from 2133 to 1866 increased render times by 10% (this is for a 3930K @ 4.5 with 64GB
GSkill TridentX).

Ian.


Score
0
May 27, 2014 3:19:06 PM

WyomingKnott asked the same question I wanted to ask:

> If I read the chart on page 9 correctly, most memory runs higher bandwidths at the stock settings than overclocked. Am I misreading something?

He asked that on the 22nd. I'm very surprised that it wasn't asked in the article, and extra surprised that nobody seems to be interested in the question, seeing as overclock performance is the point of the whole article.

I imagine that stock settings work better because the lower latency more than compensates for the slower clock. But it's like a company selling its candy bars 1/3 cheaper, then you discover that they're half as large.

-faye kane ? girl brain
Score
0
a c 170 K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 27, 2014 6:22:38 PM

Traciatim said:
Hey Look, a RAM speed article where the results of the tests show virtually no perceptible performance changes in actual usage. Fancy that.

It's too bad RAM is so boring these days. It would be nice if the advice for RAM purchases wasn't "Just buy whatever is on sale as long as you have enough RAM for what you are doing, spend the money on your CPU/Video"


Ya mean like the 11% performance difference on F1 ?

Of course that one just stands out but overall 2-3% performance differences are not unusual ..... that might be considered not worth bothering about but when a 2.5% performance increase comes at a corresponding increase in system costs of 1 - 1.5%. For last 2 weeks GSkill 2133's were cheaper than 1600 or 1866. 2400 CAS 10 Mushikins weres $30 more.... at that kinda cost (1.5%) on a $2k box, I can't argue against that kind of ROI.



Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 27, 2014 6:57:04 PM

faye__kane said:
WyomingKnott asked the same question I wanted to ask:

> If I read the chart on page 9 correctly, most memory runs higher bandwidths at the stock settings than overclocked. Am I misreading something?

He asked that on the 22nd. I'm very surprised that it wasn't asked in the article, and extra surprised that nobody seems to be interested in the question, seeing as overclock performance is the point of the whole article.

I imagine that stock settings work better because the lower latency more than compensates for the slower clock. But it's like a company selling its candy bars 1/3 cheaper, then you discover that they're half as large.

-faye kane ? girl brain
It was answered in the article, a couple times, and also re-answered in the response thread about four responses up :) 

Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 28, 2014 7:34:14 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
Traciatim said:
Hey Look, a RAM speed article where the results of the tests show virtually no perceptible performance changes in actual usage. Fancy that.

It's too bad RAM is so boring these days. It would be nice if the advice for RAM purchases wasn't "Just buy whatever is on sale as long as you have enough RAM for what you are doing, spend the money on your CPU/Video"


Ya mean like the 11% performance difference on F1 ?

Of course that one just stands out but overall 2-3% performance differences are not unusual ..... that might be considered not worth bothering about but when a 2.5% performance increase comes at a corresponding increase in system costs of 1 - 1.5%. For last 2 weeks GSkill 2133's were cheaper than 1600 or 1866. 2400 CAS 10 Mushikins weres $30 more.... at that kinda cost (1.5%) on a $2k box, I can't argue against that kind of ROI.


Yeah, but F1 is notorious for scaling really well with memory performance for some reason, which is probably why it's used in the article just to show that there can sometimes be a difference. The vast majority of the time the results end up like the metro chart where all the results are within 1FPS of each other. Which is why the advice on purchase ends up being to buy whatever is on sale for the best price at the size that you want. Generally it doesn't matter if you just get 1600. Like you pointed out though, sometimes you can get 2133 for a better price anyway, so you may as well, since it's not like it would hurt performance . . . but this isn't a performance decision, but a cost based one.

I just find it sad these days that with RAM and somewhat processors there isn't really all that much going on in the usable performance department. People with decently spec'd sandy bridge and above don't generally have anything to buy that would be deserving of an upgrade for the cash.

You also calculate the ROI on the entire machine, when you are going to be buying all of the other parts anyway the comparison should by to sinking the cost difference in to upgrading other parts and what overall system performance difference you would see. For example you can grab some G-Skill Ares CAS9 1600 2x4GB sticks for 70 bucks. The G-Skill Trident CAS9 2400 2x4GB kit is 135... nearly twice the price. But you could go from a GTX760 to a GTX770 for 100 bucks, which is only a 35 dollar difference if you save the RAM cost (since you were willing to spend the extra on the RAM anyway). So which of these are going to get you better overall more performance? For 35 bucks difference in cost the 770 is something like 20% faster, vs saving 35 bucks an having your performance go up by 11% in one case, but generally not even measurable in most other cases.
Score
0
a c 170 K Overclocking
a b } Memory
May 28, 2014 4:59:59 PM

Traciatim said:


You also calculate the ROI on the entire machine, when you are going to be buying all of the other parts anyway the comparison should by to sinking the cost difference in to upgrading other parts and what overall system performance difference you would see. For example you can grab some G-Skill Ares CAS9 1600 2x4GB sticks for 70 bucks. The G-Skill Trident CAS9 2400 2x4GB kit is 135... nearly twice the price. But you could go from a GTX760 to a GTX770 for 100 bucks, which is only a 35 dollar difference if you save the RAM cost (since you were willing to spend the extra on the RAM anyway). So which of these are going to get you better overall more performance? For 35 bucks difference in cost the 770 is something like 20% faster, vs saving 35 bucks an having your performance go up by 11% in one case, but generally not even measurable in most other cases.


That can be significant in a budget limited instance but for example.... anytime you get a % increase in performance for a smaller % in cost..... there's no other way to look at it but as having a positive return on investment. Yes, you may get better returns on investing money elsewhere but that doesn't change the fact that your return is bigger than your investment. I can certainly more easily justify the extra $30 I spent on the Mushkin 2400s than the $100 extra I spent on the 4770k.

But I wasn't budget limited..... so when you are not in a position to have to choose it becomes a decision in and of itself and it's hard to argue against getting 3% for 1.5%. The other thing is memory bandwidth has historically had a much greater effect on minimum frame rated than on average so I wish reviewers looked more at minimum frame rates, lag and SLI / CF impacts



Score
0
!