Slow vs fast ram

[gasolin]

Now i am looking at ram and i can get 4x2 gb kingston hyper x gensis with a cl of 11 and a speed of 2400 mhz for less then 90€. I have 2x4gb 1600mhz kingston hyper x blue cl 9.

My cpu is a slightly oc'ed i5 3470 and a msi Z77 thunderbolt mb that is surpose to be able to handle up to 2800mhz ram.

If i use google to search for slow vs fast ram i get old results of slow 16gb vs fast 8gb ram or 8gb and 4 gb

I don't need 16gb, but what about slow ram with low cl vs much faster ram with slightly higher cl would the last be any noticeable faster?

How do we feel, notice faster ram? I mean what happens to the general speed,perfomance if we use faster ram?

 

[kn00tcn]

dont some of the TPU reviews go into this? generally many people seem to say about 1600mhz is the end of noticeable performance gains (real apps/games, more than a few %, not just theoretical benchmarks)

i also read something interesting recently, think it was about haswell in particular, about how 4 sticks were better than 2 or 1

i wouldnt really bother if you're already 1600mhz & 8gb, i would pick some tight gskills around 2100mhz 2x8gb instead of increasing the stick count without increasing the total gb

 

[Dent1]

Now i am looking at ram and i can get 4x2 gb kingston hyper x gensis with a cl of 11 and a speed of 2400 mhz for less then 90€. I have 2x4gb 1600mhz kingston hyper x blue cl 9.

My cpu is a slightly oc'ed i5 3470 and a msi Z77 thunderbolt mb that is surpose to be able to handle up to 2800mhz ram.

If i use google to search for slow vs fast ram i get old results of slow 16gb vs fast 8gb ram or 8gb and 4 gb

I don't need 16gb, but what about slow ram with low cl vs much fast ram with slightly higher cl would the last be any noticeable?

How du we feel, notice faster ram? I mean what happens to the general speed,perfomance if we use faster ram?

That is because you're Googling the wrong search term.

Google "latency review" or "memory cas latency review" and there is thousands of people asking your exact question.

For memory frequency, Google "does memory bandwidth matter".

 

[gasolin]

#2

I don't need 16gb ram, if i have 2x8gb i don't know if my mb only will use 1 ram stick until i need more the 4 gb ram or if it will use it as raid 0 use both ram stick so they each use 50% of the used ram.

#3

I thought so, sometimes it's just a matter for google right word,lines and you will get closer to the answer your looking for.

 

[RCoon]

You will notice almost nothing past 1600Mhz. 2 sticks run faster than 1 stick because of dual channel, or in certain cases on special boards, triple and quad channel memory.
Games and apps dump their stuff in RAM, having access to that data faster improves things (A substantial amount for APU's)

 

[Red_Machine]

I wouldn't bother replacing your RAM with higher speed sticks, at the end of the day it's just not worth the expense as you won't notice a thing.

 

[gasolin]

So what i can se from using google is faster ram is good for physics http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-3.html

And quad channel ram can in some cases give more fps f1 2012 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-4.html

So unless you have a 6 core heavily oced, 16 gb of ram or more (because you need that much), ssd's in raid 0 and making movies (rendering) or just do extreme multitasking, you won't feel a difference with 2133 or faster ram, if you already have dual channel 1600mhz ram with a cl of 9 ?

So why aren't we all using 4,8,12,16 or 32 gb 1600mhz ram with a cl of 8-9?

So what's the point for normal pc enthusiast,nerds to use 2133,2400mhz ram if it ain't gonna make your pc noticeable faster?

 

[Shou Miko]

as RCoon says, past 1600mhz u don't feel much when we talk about games, benchmarks and other tests will give u more.

i run 16gb 1600mhz myself, and been thinking about getting higher mhz but i mostly game, so i would rather see what the lowest timing with 1600mhz would.

 

[RCoon]

So what i can se from using google is faster ram is good for physics http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-3.html

And quad channel ram can in some cases give more fps f1 2012 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-4.html

So unless you have a 6 core heavily oced, 16 gb of ram or more (because you need that much), ssd's in raid 0 and making movies (rendering) or just do extreme multitasking, you won't feel a difference with 2133 or faster ram, if you already have dual channel 1600mhz ram with a cl of 9 ?

So why aren't we all using 4,8,12,16 or 32 gb 1600mhz ram with a cl of 8-9?

So what's the point for normal pc enthusiast,nerds to use 2133,2400mhz ram if it ain't gonna make your pc noticeable faster?

I have 2133Mhz Kingston RAM, which in turn overclocks by quite a sizable margin, and I intend to feed it to my APU system which I'm going to buy soon. The APU will improve a great deal in games with faster RAM. I may end up dumping my second GTX 780 with it of course, rendering the fast RAM useless xD

 

[gasolin]

would 2x4gb 1600mhz cl 8 or 7 make any noticeable difference?

 

[RCoon]

would 2x4gb 1600mhz cl 8 or 7 make any noticeable difference?

What is your current RAM? If you already have 2 sticks of 1600Mhz RAM at around CL9 then there is no point in buying anything else unless you need more RAM.

 

[gasolin]

I have these ram http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1K2_8GX.pdf if i am lucky i might be able to sell them for 30€ and get those for 80€ http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX2400C11D3K4_8GX.pdf (mabye i could get them down to cl 10)

 

[Vego]

i was wondering preaty much the same thing

i had 12gb of corsair dominator gt 2000 8 9 8 24 and wanted to get 16gb of corsair dominator platinium

new ram should be slower but 4gb "larger"

i dont see any differance except the looks in my case

 

[RCoon]

I have these ram http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1K2_8GX.pdf if i am lucky i might be able to sell them for 30€ and get those for 80€ http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX2400C11D3K4_8GX.pdf (mabye i could get them down to cl 10)

You're wasting your time and money. 2 x 4GB @ 1600mhz is fine. There is no need for any faster RAM than 1600Mhz. You may in future want to upgrade to 16GB, but that's an entirely different matter.
I'm telling you, for normal use, and for gaming, 1600Mhz is all you need. If you are looking for a reason to buy RAM with big numbers wot look gud on paper, I have none for you.

 

[Dent1]

I have these ram http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1K2_8GX.pdf if i am lucky i might be able to sell them for 30€ and get those for 80€ http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX2400C11D3K4_8GX.pdf (mabye i could get them down to cl 10)

Waste of money. Latency and higher bandwidth doesn't effect performance (much) to justify swapping sticks. The only legitimate reason to upgrade memory is if you need a larger capacity (GB). which I don't think you do at the moment.

 

[sttubs]

OP, I really doubt you will have any discernible difference between CL9 to CL7. You could try changing your BIOS to manual with your current memory & drop it down to a CL8 or even CL7 to see if your current memory can handle it.

 

[Arjai]

I had 6GB of some Hitachi in my Laptop. One was 1600 the smaller was 800. I could have gotten away with just one stick of 4GB 1600 but, I got two so they were the same, Kingston.

8GB is all I need. I crunch and have used a 3GB RamDisc and had room to spare.

I have used different branded ram in the same machine, in the past. Most work but some don't clock well together. DD3 though, I believe to be of a better quality than the crappy DDR of 10 yrs ago, of which I speak.

I still like to have the same brand in Dual.

So, point is, 1600 is better than enough. 8GB is more than you need, self proclaimed.

Save your Money and go buy a soda for your Honey!!

 

[Hood]

When I bought my 2x4GB HyperX Beast kit (2400-11-13-13-30-2T) for $65, 1600 RAM kits were going for ~$50, so the $15 difference was no big deal. The 2400 kit gave me higher throughput and lower latency, and really lets my 4.5GHz CPU overclock get maximum performance. My AIDA64 memory scores beat everything except quad channel systems (i7-3960X) and it even beats them in latency scores. Yes it's a benchmark, that's how you determine what's going on "under the hood". People always say "You won't notice the difference", and they're right, but what's that got to do with anything? Faster is faster, period. Can you tell if a CPU does a billion operations a second vs only 800 million? Neither can I, but that system is 25% faster in CPU intense operations. It all adds up over time, even if you don't notice it. It always makes me smile when I run a benchmark and see the much more expensive systems I'm beating. SiSoft SANDRA, for instance, says my system is faster than 96.9% of all systems tested. It was ranked #19 overall worldwide unlimited class (any hardware/anything goes) on Intel's XTU/HWBOT page for a day or two. The extra $15 was well worth it! RAM is a bit higher now, but it's still only about a $20 difference in price. It's your choice - follow the herd, or lead the pack. I like knowing I'm getting all I can out of my hardware. I built my system one piece at a time as I could afford each upgrade, and every part was selected for it's position at or near the "sweet spot" of performance vs value. The 2400 RAM was the best upgrade of all from a price/performance viewpoint. Now everything works together amazingly well, and still surprises me at times how fast it is.

 

[fullinfusion]

When I bought my 2x4GB HyperX Beast kit (2400-11-13-13-30-2T) for $65, 1600 RAM kits were going for ~$50, so the $15 difference was no big deal. The 2400 kit gave me higher throughput and lower latency, and really lets my 4.5GHz CPU overclock get maximum performance. My AIDA64 memory scores beat everything except quad channel systems (i7-3960X) and it even beats them in latency scores. Yes it's a benchmark, that's how you determine what's going on "under the hood". People always say "You won't notice the difference", and they're right, but what's that got to do with anything? Faster is faster, period. Can you tell if a CPU does a billion operations a second vs only 800 million? Neither can I, but that system is 25% faster in CPU intense operations. It all adds up over time, even if you don't notice it. It always makes me smile when I run a benchmark and see the much more expensive systems I'm beating. SiSoft SANDRA, for instance, says my system is faster than 96.9% of all systems tested. It was ranked #19 overall worldwide unlimited class (any hardware/anything goes) on Intel's XTU/HWBOT page for a day or two. The extra $15 was well worth it! RAM is a bit higher now, but it's still only about a $20 difference in price. It's your choice - follow the herd, or lead the pack. I like knowing I'm getting all I can out of my hardware. I built my system one piece at a time as I could afford each upgrade, and every part was selected for it's position at or near the "sweet spot" of performance vs value. The 2400 RAM was the best upgrade of all from a price/performance viewpoint. Now everything works together amazingly well, and still surprises me at times how fast it is.

You hit the nail straight on the head

As for the op's Q I had a set of 2133 cas 9 1.50v dominator platinum 2x4gb sticks.
upgraded when I didnt need to as the platinum sticks would clock up very well but the numbers just didnt scale up with the clocks

I moved up to a set of Kingston’s HyperX 10th Anniversary Edition memory 4x4gb 2400MHz c11 sticks and the difference was impressive to say the least... I never looked back at the corsair sammy chips. So imo I think you cant go wrong upgrading. The numbers prove to be way faster and these things beat alot of 2666mhz sticks out there on the market.
check out Daves review here, you might be surprised

 

[Arjai]

When I bought my 2x4GB HyperX Beast kit (2400-11-13-13-30-2T) for $65, 1600 RAM kits were going for ~$50, so the $15 difference was no big deal. The 2400 kit gave me higher throughput and lower latency, and really lets my 4.5GHz CPU overclock get maximum performance. My AIDA64 memory scores beat everything except quad channel systems (i7-3960X) and it even beats them in latency scores. Yes it's a benchmark, that's how you determine what's going on "under the hood". People always say "You won't notice the difference", and they're right, but what's that got to do with anything? Faster is faster, period. Can you tell if a CPU does a billion operations a second vs only 800 million? Neither can I, but that system is 25% faster in CPU intense operations. It all adds up over time, even if you don't notice it. It always makes me smile when I run a benchmark and see the much more expensive systems I'm beating. SiSoft SANDRA, for instance, says my system is faster than 96.9% of all systems tested. It was ranked #19 overall worldwide unlimited class (any hardware/anything goes) on Intel's XTU/HWBOT page for a day or two. The extra $15 was well worth it! RAM is a bit higher now, but it's still only about a $20 difference in price. It's your choice - follow the herd, or lead the pack. I like knowing I'm getting all I can out of my hardware. I built my system one piece at a time as I could afford each upgrade, and every part was selected for it's position at or near the "sweet spot" of performance vs value. The 2400 RAM was the best upgrade of all from a price/performance viewpoint. Now everything works together amazingly well, and still surprises me at times how fast it is.

Yada, yada, Benchmark, yada...yawn. Listen, we are all proud of your achievements! Seriously, nice work. HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, 1600 is more than enough to do most things VERY, VERY well. Most people are not editing movies everyday, all day. Most people are not driven to prove how well their money is spent on the best stuff, as a competition.

I would say the majority of computer users just want them to work fast enough, or a little faster than their last one. Or, boost the one they got with a better drive...Memory speed?

I wish people would freaking relax!

 

[fullinfusion]

Yada, yada, Benchmark, yada...yawn. Listen, we are all proud of your achievements! Seriously, nice work. HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, 1600 is more than enough to do most things VERY, VERY well. Most people are not editing movies everyday, all day. Most people are not driven to prove how well their money is spent on the best stuff, as a competition.

I would say the majority of computer users just want them to work fast enough, or a little faster than their last one. Or, boost the one they got with a better drive...Memory speed?

I wish people would freaking relax!

I didn't see anyone on edge here but you my friend
This is a place to comment, and just because you think the OP should run 1600MHz and save his money is not up to you, nor anybody else. Some like it slow and some like it fast!
So with that said I think the different posts from others will help the OP decide on what He wants to do, and not what YOU want him to do. Its his money and let him do what he feels best to do with it

 

[Arjai]

I didn't see anyone on edge here but you my friend
This is a place to comment, and just because you think the OP should run 1600MHz and save his money is not up to you, nor anybody else. Some like it slow and some like it fast!
So with that said I think the different posts from others will help the OP decide on what He wants to do, and not what YOU want him to do. Its his money and let him do what he feels best to do with it

I was not posting to upset anyone. It is my own opinion, and I am not upset with any of yours.

Jeese...

 

[Hood]

You hit the nail straight on the head

As for the op's Q I had a set of 2133 cas 9 1.50v dominator platinum 2x4gb sticks.
upgraded when I didnt need to as the platinum sticks would clock up very well but the numbers just didnt scale up with the clocks

I moved up to a set of Kingston’s HyperX 10th Anniversary Edition memory 4x4gb 2400MHz c11 sticks and the difference was impressive to say the least... I never looked back at the corsair sammy chips. So imo I think you cant go wrong upgrading. The numbers prove to be way faster and these things beat alot of 2666mhz sticks out there on the market.
check out Daves review here, you might be surprised

Thanks for your reply and understanding, I see posts like this often, asking if fast or low latency RAM is worth it, and I always see the same knee-jerk replies from people who never bothered to run their own tests and form their own opinions. Your post was a breath of fresh air.

Yada, yada, Benchmark, yada...yawn. Listen, we are all proud of your achievements! Seriously, nice work. HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, 1600 is more than enough to do most things VERY, VERY well. Most people are not editing movies everyday, all day. Most people are not driven to prove how well their money is spent on the best stuff, as a competition.

I would say the majority of computer users just want them to work fast enough, or a little faster than their last one. Or, boost the one they got with a better drive...Memory speed?

I wish people would freaking relax!

I'm sorry, I thought this forum was for ENTHUSIASTS, not "most people". This site is called Tech POWER Up, maybe it was the name that misled me, I thought it was for power users, not sheep who only want to follow the herd. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And by the way, I don't care about "bragging rights", because I'm the only one I have to please. I only quote my benchmark accomplishments so that intelligent users can make an informed decision about the worth of a given upgrade. Many of us care about getting all the performance possible from a given set of components; whether our budgets are tight or effectively unlimited makes no difference. If $15 or $20 will break your budget, you're not an enthusiast.

 

[shovenose]

If $15 or $20 will break your budget, you're not an enthusiast.

What sort of bs statement is that?
How about this: if you aren't excited about the performance of your computer, you are not an enthusiast.

 

[AsRock]

cadaveca did a test with some Samsung ram some time ago

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Samsung/MV-3V4G3/6.html