Five Overclockable 32 GB DDR3 Kits, Reviewed
Tags:
-
Overclocking
- DRAM
- Bandwidth
-
Tom's Hardware Top Picks
-
Memory
Last response: in Reviews comments
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
Five Overclockable 32 GB DDR3 Kits, Reviewed : Read more
More about : overclockable ddr3 kits reviewed
jasonelmore
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.
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
jasonelmore
May 20, 2014 12:08:54 AM
Related resources
- I recently installed a 4x4GB kit of DDR3 ram onto my motherboard. Windows 7 Pro 64bit is showing I have 32GB ram (16GB usable - Forum
- Asus Maximus VII Ranger 32GB DDR3 Intel Motherboard - Any bad review? - Forum
- Dilemma between three G.SKILLs 32GB DDR4 kits for x99 build - Forum
- How do I make 2 kits of 8GB 1866 Mhz Kingston DDR3 RAM work with a Gigabyte GA-990-FXA v.4? - Forum
- Two 16GB (4x4GB) kits vs One 32GB (8x4GB) kit? - Forum
s3anister
May 20, 2014 12:18:27 AM
Amdlova
May 20, 2014 12:45:31 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.Score
1
jasonelmore
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
mapesdhs
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
Vlad Rose
May 20, 2014 6:17:07 AM
kyle382
May 20, 2014 6:59:51 AM
shogunofharlom
May 20, 2014 10:58:50 AM
spookyman
May 20, 2014 11:12:31 AM
spookyman said:
So what was wrong with Adata?Score
0
Sabishii Hito
May 20, 2014 1:28:06 PM
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
Redline 2400 CAS 10 = 8.33 ns
Vengeance 2800 CAS 12 = 8.57 ns
Score
0
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?Score
0
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"
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
That's pretty much the same advice that I give for SSDs: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performa... .
Score
0
mapesdhs
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
faye__kane
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
> 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
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
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
Score
0
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
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
Related resources
- I want to install Corsair Vengeance® Low Profile — 16GB Dual/Quad Channel DDR3 Memory Kit (CML16GX3M4X1600C8) x 2 Memory Kits? Forum
- Solved32GB G.Skill RipJawsX DDR3-2400 DIMM CL11 Dual Kit 1.65v Forum
- Solved16gb 2400mhz ddr3 vs 32gb 1600mhz ddr3 Forum
- Solvedwill the G-Skill 8GB Ripjaws X DDR3 2133 Dual Kit - Red fit with a cooler master hyper 212 evo Forum
- Best 16GB DDR3 kit for 1090T overclock Forum
- SolvedBest memory kit (32gb) for maximus vii hero Forum
- SolvedIs the G-Skill 8GB Ripjaws X DDR3 2133 Dual Kit with the Intel i7 4770k CPU? Forum
- SolvedIs there ANYTHING left over on Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0 32GB DDR3 AMD Motherboard for Gaming? Forum
- SolvedWould Corsair Vengeance® Low Profile — 32GB Dual/Quad Channel DDR3 (CML32GX3M4A1600C10) be compatible with a Gigabyte X79-UP4 Forum
- OCZ DDR3 Gold Series (1333MHz, 2x1GB - 2 Kits) Forum
- 2GB DDR3 kits Forum
- SolvedIs Corsair DDR3 32GB(4x8GB) 1866 MHz RAM compatible with Asus P9X79 WS Mobo? Forum
- Solveds the ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AM3+ motherboard compatible with Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB Kit (4GBx2) DDR3 1600 MT/s Forum
- SolvedWhich 32GB RAM kit should I get? Forum
- SolvedWill be fit the Corsair 16GB KIT DDR3 2133MHz CL11 Vengeance Pro with NOCTUA NH-D14 SE2011 Forum
- More resources
!