1600 CAS 9 -- vs -- 1866 CAS 10

Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
So, which is faster:

1600 CAS 9 -- or -- 1866 CAS 10

Assume that they are running at their rated frequencies.
 

Brunnis

Senior member
Nov 15, 2004
506
71
91
1866 CAS 10 is faster. The higher frequency produces higher bandwidth, while it also provides lower latency than 1600 CAS 9:

(1600/1866) * 10 = 8.6

In other words, running the RAM at 1866 CAS 10 gives equivalent CAS latency to running 1600 CAS 8.6 (if that was possible).
 

Burner27

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
4,444
48
91
But is the 'real world' performance increase perceivable to justify the price difference between the two?
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
But is the 'real world' performance increase perceivable to justify the price difference between the two?

Figure out the speed difference yourself, as shown in the second or third post, and decide whether 4/10 of a percent (in the above example) is worth the difference in price, or not. BTW, this applies 100% of the time with system RAM: the higher the speed, at the lower the latency, the better, at least as far as performance.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
But is the 'real world' performance increase perceivable to justify the price difference between the two?
Depends. With IGP, maybe (if even light gaming with an AMD APU, or Skylake's IGP, definitely). With simulation work, maybe (including games like Flight Simulator X and Dwarf Fortress, that I know of). With significant CPU overclocks, or running multiple GPUs in a dual-channel socket, faster RAM can definitely lead to better real world performance.

But, today, they are often the same price, or almost the same price. 1866MHz might be cheaper, on some given day, and 2133-2400MHz DDR3 kits often come up for mere ~5% more, so why not? Worst case, you can run them like I do, at 1600MHz and tight timings (6-6-6 :twisted:).
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Worst case, you can run them like I do, at 1600MHz and tight timings (6-6-6 :twisted:).

Seriously? You have RAM running at 1600 CL6?

That's 1600 / 6 = 266.7 which is the fastest specs I've seen available for purchase on DDR3.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Seriously? You have RAM running at 1600 CL6?

That's 1600 / 6 = 266.7 which is the fastest specs I've seen available for purchase on DDR3.
It's 2133MHz, CL11 or CL10, but I have a B85 motherboard. I can't remember the exact cost, now, but it was definitely less than $10 more for the whole 32GB of it, compared to 1600MHz CL9, at the time.
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
They will be very close in performance with 1866-10 being very slightly faster.

2133-10 will be faster though. And 2133-11 will be comparable to 1600/9 and 1866/10 but again very very slightly faster than both.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,690
2,907
126
But is the 'real world' performance increase perceivable to justify the price difference between the two?
In the real-world you won't notice any difference between 1333 and 2133, much less this. Heck, many can't even tell if they're running in single channel mode.

The exception might be the IGP, but anyone running an IGP doesn't care about about performance to begin with.
 

Dasa2

Senior member
Nov 22, 2014
245
29
91
In the real-world you won't notice any difference between 1333 and 2133, much less this. Heck, many can't even tell if they're running in single channel mode.

The exception might be the IGP, but anyone running an IGP doesn't care about about performance to begin with.

a myth spread by bad reviews like the one anandtech did

sure a gpu bottlnecked game will show no difference as faster ram only helps the cpu
even then it only seems to help when the software is overflowing the cpu cache


most people didnt believe a few user run tests done by myself and others in the past but now there is lots of examples of cpu limited games that benefit from faster ram
http://www.overclock.net/t/1487162/...affect-fps-during-high-cpu-overhead-scenarios

http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html
When benchmarking the Intel Haswell processors, the memory speed in the BIOS kept reverting back to 1333MHz (was an issue with the BIOS which has now been fixed) at every processor change rather than holding the DDR3-2400 XMP (Extreme Memory Profile). At first we accidently tested the Core i7-4770K with the memory clocked at 1333MHz and were perplexed by the much weaker than expected performance.
RAM.png

It was quickly spotted that the memory was running much slower than it ought to be, though we weren't entirely sure this was the cause of the massive deficit. Turns out it was, as moving the memory back up to 2400MHz resulted in a massive 67% increase in minimum frame rate for the Core i7-4770K.
A similar situation was found with the Core i3-4360, which went from a minimum of 41fps with DDR3-1333 memory to a minimum of 65fps with DDR3-2400.
Yes, we know there's a significant difference between the now obsolete 1333MHz memory speed and 2400MHz, but from memory I don't recall it having anything like that kind of impact on gaming performance. Interestingly the same variation in memory speeds had little impact on the AMD FX-8350's performance, as the processor was just 13% faster with the quicker memory.
Anyway, we found this interesting and it would suggest that Fallout 4 fans with Intel hardware will want to ensure they are running their memory as fast possible.
67% is massive 10-30% is more what i would expect so i wouldnt be surprised if there was something else wrong with here test system
it will be interesting to see more testing done on fallout4 which is clearly horribly optimised

http://translate.googleusercontent....4.html&usg=ALkJrhitpE4CwC0uG8dYOMAkcv8GkAafqw
gta5.png


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...76700k_ipc_overclocking_review/6#.VkkDoeJrsUl
1438184048QCHM79YbJA_6_1.png


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-5/cpu-ddr4-vs-ddr3-pratique.html
sky%20r_zpsepkfhqdl.jpg


https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/1...mance-comparison-1600-2133-up-to-15-fps-gain/
arma3stratiscpuvsrambar_zps0cf88683.jpg


http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index.php/topic/55771-cpuram-performance-in-thief/
ThiefAverageFPS_zps766cfe5a.png


http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2455994
Dragonage%203770k%20ht%20vs%20ram_zpscgwdojlu.png

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
Untitled_zpsk4d5mro0.jpg
 
Last edited:

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,477
231
106
1.5V. It's these (I can't run higher than 1600MHz). One of the slower profiles on the ones I got is 6-6-6, which they run well at, but it won't pass one memtest run with 5-6-6, much less any tighter.
1600 Mhz CL6 @ 1.5v is quite rare. Too bad you are handicapped by the B85 chipset, it's a shame to run such a great kit at this lower speed.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
1600 Mhz CL6 @ 1.5v is quite rare. Too bad you are handicapped by the B85 chipset, it's a shame to run such a great kit at this lower speed.
I just selected one of the other profiles, after the auto setting wanted to run it at the same timings as 2133MHz specs, rebooted, ran Windows' RAM test, and then went on about my game playing (until the urge to try even lower timings came). I expected to run it at lower than CAS 9, which is why I bought 32GB (then re-purposed the 2x8GB I started with), at the time; but yeah, I was expecting more like 8-8-8, or 7-8-8, from 10-12-12@1.6V to start.

I'm also "handicapped" by a non-overclockable CPU, so I wouldn't be seeing much of those gains Dasa2 is showing, anyway. I manage :).
 
Last edited:

dazelord

Member
Apr 21, 2012
46
2
71
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html
67% is massive 10-30% is more what i would expect so i wouldnt be surprised if there was something else wrong with here test system
it will be interesting to see more testing done on fallout4 which is clearly horribly optimised

Something is very wrong in Fallout 4.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

"However, reducing the clock speed as low as 2.5GHz had a catastrophic impact on performance, with the 6700K becoming almost 40% slower when going from 3GHz to 2.5GHz."
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,596
10,791
136
Seriously? You have RAM running at 1600 CL6?

That's 1600 / 6 = 266.7 which is the fastest specs I've seen available for purchase on DDR3.

My old Pi Blacks would do DDR3-1600 CL6 on K10.5 memory controllers. Actually they did 6-5-7 which was weird, but fun. They would do it at around 1.6v, possibly lower (they were specced for 1.65v so I rarely bothered with undervolts).

My newer DDR3-2400 only does CL7 on Kaveri. But there's 16 Gb of it vs the 4 Gb of my Pi Blacks so . . . there is that.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Waaah!

So I installed my Corsair Vengeance Pro RAM (stock 2400 / CL 11 at 1.65 V) and the computer wouldn't boot at 1866 CL9 1.5 V and I couldn't even use my keyboard or mouse to work the BIOS menu. I had to use the MemOK! button to reset it. I ended up having to set it to 1600 CL9 1.5V (seems to run fine at this setting).

Kind of disappointing. I was hoping I might be able to get say 1600 CL8 at 1.5 or 1866 CL9 at 1.5. Maybe I'll try again but with 1.55. (I don't want to run at 1.65V to prevent any potential damage to my CPU's memory controller.)

Did I get a batch of crappy RAM, or is it possible that those particular sticks are just Voltage hungry since their default at 2400 is supposed to be 1.65?
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,596
10,791
136
They are probably voltage hungry. I need something like 1.6v to get my DDR3-2400 CL11 to do DDR3-1600 CL7.
 

Dasa2

Senior member
Nov 22, 2014
245
29
91
your extremely unlikely to do any harm with 1.65v to ram provided temps are ok
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,596
10,791
136
It's not the RAM that worries him. It's the IMC. Intel IMCs do not like heavy VDIMM.
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
I've never seen or heard of any IMC of LGA1150 CPU damaged due to 1.65V RAM. It's safe to say the risk is very, very low.