DDR4 memory selection for z170 system

Which memory would you pick for my build?

  • 2 x 8GB G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34

  • 2 x 8GB G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4-3000 14-14-14-34

  • 2 x 8GB G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4-2800 15-16-16-35


Results are only viewable after voting.

bloodandsoil

Member
Jan 5, 2007
96
0
61
Hello, it's been a while since I built my last computer and now I'm researching a new build. This topic is a question about DDR4 memory selection.

So far I have selected the Asus Z170-PRO motherboard and an i7-6700K CPU. I think it's correct (if I'm wrong please let me know) that this bus operates at 2133 Mhz, but depending on the parts you pick it has the potential to be overclocked to higher speeds.

In the past, I've always used the compatibility tool at the crucial.com website and when I do this it gives me Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4-2400 16-16-16. I'll be getting 16GB (8x2) by the way.

So, is that considered any good? My budget for system memory is no more than $250 and my primary use will be for gaming.

Looking on newegg.com I see some memory that have better specs but I'm unsure about compatibility. For example, the G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4 3200 14-14-14-34.

One thing I'm really concerned with is memory stability and I'm not sure how aggressive 3200 Mhz is and whether I should go down to 3000 Mhz or even 2800 Mhz. For example, G.SKILL TridentZ DDR 2800 with 14-14-14-35 timings.

Edited to add: I'll be building my system with a MSI GeForce GTX 980TI GAMING 6G GOLDEN EDITION

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
3000 seems to be about the sweet spot. Gaming seems to scale well with ram speeds for Skylake. 3200 is not too aggressive at all. 2400 is definitely on the low end.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,883
142
106
3000 seems to be about the sweet spot. Gaming seems to scale well with ram speeds for Skylake. 3200 is not too aggressive at all. 2400 is definitely on the low end.

Are you basing this off reviews from somewhere? From what I've seen gaming doesn't improve that much with faster ram.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Are you basing this off reviews from somewhere? From what I've seen gaming doesn't improve that much with faster ram.

Someone buying an i7 6700K today is likely to keep it for 3-5 years given how long Intel CPUs tend to last. Over that period of time, it's also likely that this gamer's GPU will eventually exceed 980Ti. Under those conditions, there is a huge benefit to faster DDR4:
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

Faster DDR4 also gives Skylake a boost in non-gaming apps (see page 2 of the review). At current prices, the sweet spot is DDR4 3200 at $75 or if budget is an issue $60 DDR4 3000. There is no reason to buy 32GB unless doing memory intesive tasks that call for it. Games do not care for 32GB.

There is also the issue of longevity. Buying DDR4 3200 now by paying $15 extra allows one to have the potential to carry it over towards a future rig.

With current market prices, it's better to skip all sub-3000 DDR4 kits when buying a high end SKL system.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Are you basing this off reviews from somewhere? From what I've seen gaming doesn't improve that much with faster ram.

From your link:

Benchmark Results: In Metro: Last Light with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti discrete desktop graphics card installed in the system we saw a jump in performance between DDR4-2133 and DDR4-2400 and again between DDR4-2666 and DDR4-2800.
...
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Commenters made a good point, too:

THU31 • 9 months ago

You should not test the average framerate, you should test the minimum framerate, because that is what is mostly affected by system memory speed. In CPU-bound scenarios you can often get 5-10 more FPS with faster memory, which is significant.
You do not change your system memory too often, it might last you until the next memory standard comes (so probably way more than 5 years), which means investing in faster memory is not a bad idea.

10
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
JanxSpirit THU31 • 22 days ago

"...you should test the minimum framerate..."

Agreed. Plenty of others have done this and the benefits are always shown to be significant. No disrespect intended, but these tests tell us almost nothing about the benefits of faster RAM for fairly obvious reasons.
 

ddogg

Golden Member
May 4, 2005
1,864
361
136
I bought the TridentZ 3200 to go with my 6700k. I'm currently running it overclocked at 3600Mhz 17-18-18-36. My rigs screams :)
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
Hello, it's been a while since I built my last computer and now I'm researching a new build. This topic is a question about DDR4 memory selection.

So far I have selected the Asus Z170-PRO motherboard and an i7-6700K CPU. I think it's correct (if I'm wrong please let me know) that this bus operates at 2133 Mhz, but depending on the parts you pick it has the potential to be overclocked to higher speeds.

In the past, I've always used the compatibility tool at the crucial.com website and when I do this it gives me Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4-2400 16-16-16. I'll be getting 32GB (16x2) by the way.

So, is that considered any good? My budget for system memory is no more than $250 and my primary use will be for gaming.

Looking on newegg.com I see some memory that have better specs but I'm unsure about compatibility. For example, the G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4 3200 14-14-14-34.

One thing I'm really concerned with is memory stability and I'm not sure how aggressive 3200 Mhz is and whether I should go down to 3000 Mhz or even 2800 Mhz. For example, G.SKILL TridentZ DDR 2800 with 14-14-14-35 timings.

Thanks!

I'd go with the DDR4 3200, or faster. I did so in my rig. My modules couldnt handle it though and I just had to turn down the frequency since I had maxed out voltage already.

You should be able to just use the XMP profile and be done, hardly feels like overclocking at all.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,220
3,801
75
Are you basing this off reviews from somewhere? From what I've seen gaming doesn't improve that much with faster ram.

From what I've seen recently, there is a significant improvement in some games. But only with really fast graphics card(s). I'd say there's little point to really fast RAM on anything less than a GTX 1070/980Ti, and even at that level it's debatable.

My favorite RAM is DDR4-2800 1.2V. It's pretty fast as-is, and if you need more speed you can try OCing it at 1.35V.
 

bloodandsoil

Member
Jan 5, 2007
96
0
61
The Techspot DDR4 review is very interesting but it looks like the entire testing was done with two GeForce GTX 980 Ti cards. In my case, I'll only be using a single GTX 980 Ti.

I wish there was a review that shows gaming performance with memory scaling on an i7-6700k with only a single GTX 980 Ti.

Actually, on the last page of that Techspot review it shows The Witcher 3 with a single GTX 980 Ti and there is virtually no difference in performance from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-4000. That's pretty eye-opening!

Thoughts?
 

MTDEW

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,284
37
91
The Techspot DDR4 review is very interesting but it looks like the entire testing was done with two GeForce GTX 980 Ti cards. In my case, I'll only be using a single GTX 980 Ti.

I wish there was a review that shows gaming performance with memory scaling on an i7-6700k with only a single GTX 980 Ti.

Actually, on the last page of that Techspot review it shows The Witcher 3 with a single GTX 980 Ti and there is virtually no difference in performance from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-4000. That's pretty eye-opening!

Thoughts?
Yeah, we're all looking ahead as we know that GPUs are just going to get faster in the future.

So yeah, you can just buy slower memory now and wait until you need it later and buy faster memory then when you can make full use of it in gaming.

RS is right though , if you want faster DDR4 now, the price/perf sweet spot is currently at DDR4 3200-3000.

I chose DDR4 3000, because it should last awhile, didn't cost much over DDR4 2400 and by the time I'll have a GPU powerful enough to make use of anything faster than DDR4 3000 in gaming, by then hopefully the faster stuff (ie: DDR4 4000) will have better timings at better prices.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
The Techspot DDR4 review is very interesting but it looks like the entire testing was done with two GeForce GTX 980 Ti cards. In my case, I'll only be using a single GTX 980 Ti.

I wish there was a review that shows gaming performance with memory scaling on an i7-6700k with only a single GTX 980 Ti.

Actually, on the last page of that Techspot review it shows The Witcher 3 with a single GTX 980 Ti and there is virtually no difference in performance from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-4000. That's pretty eye-opening!

Thoughts?

Techspot did not do minimum frame rate testing, as mentioned earlier.
 

bloodandsoil

Member
Jan 5, 2007
96
0
61
Hm, this sounds like an excellent idea for a review. An i7-6700k with a single GTX 980 Ti and then test how minimum FPS performance scales in games with different speeds of DDR4, from like 2133 Mhz up to 4000 Mhz. I think this is a way more common configuration (having only a single video card) and therefore this kind of review would be more useful to let us know how much we are gaining for our overclocked memory.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,883
142
106
Someone buying an i7 6700K today is likely to keep it for 3-5 years given how long Intel CPUs tend to last. Over that period of time, it's also likely that this gamer's GPU will eventually exceed 980Ti. Under those conditions, there is a huge benefit to faster DDR4:
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

Faster DDR4 also gives Skylake a boost in non-gaming apps (see page 2 of the review). At current prices, the sweet spot is DDR4 3200 at $75 or if budget is an issue $60 DDR4 3000. There is no reason to buy 32GB unless doing memory intesive tasks that call for it. Games do not care for 32GB.

There is also the issue of longevity. Buying DDR4 3200 now by paying $15 extra allows one to have the potential to carry it over towards a future rig.

With current market prices, it's better to skip all sub-3000 DDR4 kits when buying a high end SKL system.

Techspot is the odd one out which shows markedly better performance in non-gaming apps with faster memory.
Legitreviews, silentpc testing shows hardly any or no performance increase (non-gaming).

And legitreviews, silentpc, hardwareunboxed show very little performance increase in gaming as well with a single discrete card. Silentpc only tested with a weak card (640). legit and hwunboxed tested with the gtx 980ti.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,883
142
106
From your link:

"Benchmark Results: In Metro: Last Light with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti discrete desktop graphics card installed in the system we saw a jump in performance between DDR4-2133 and DDR4-2400 and again between DDR4-2666 and DDR4-2800."

If you look at the actual numbers of the 'increase', they are very small. The graph is very flat from 2133 to 3733 speeds.

Techspot did not do minimum frame rate testing, as mentioned earlier.

No. Techspot did show the minimum frame rate for both sli and single discrete card testing. And the minimum fr increase mirrored the average fr in sli tests. The minimum fr did not improve with single discrete card testing.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
I meant the Legit Reviews piece.

When I read the Techspot piece, it tells me to buy faster ram.

We recommend Skylake builders aim for DDR4-3000 memory, but if you can go faster without paying much more then feel free to do so.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,883
142
106
I meant the Legit Reviews piece.

When I read the Techspot piece, it tells me to buy faster ram.

But if you look at the minimum frame rate numbers at Techspot, it doesn't support the assertion that minimum fr would be more adversely affected by slower memory. Like I said, it mirrors the average fr so the comment you quoted earlier to make your point is unfounded.

Only Techspot seems to show much better performance with faster ram in non-gaming benchmarks.

Another site - Hexus also shows hardly any improvement with non-gaming benchmarks and predictably no gaming improvement after testing with a single GTX980 with 2133 and 3200 ram speeds.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
But if you look at the minimum frame rate numbers at Techspot, it doesn't support the assertion that minimum fr would be more adversely affected by slower memory. Like I said, it mirrors the average fr so the comment you quoted earlier to make your point is unfounded.

Only Techspot seems to show much better performance with faster ram in non-gaming benchmarks.

Another site - Hexus also shows hardly any improvement with non-gaming benchmarks and predictably no gaming improvement after testing with a single GTX980 with 2133 and 3200 ram speeds.

I already told you that I meant the LR piece didn't show mins...

And again you direct me to an article that recommends fast ram for Skylake..

anyone considering Skylake should be looking at fast RAM as standard.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,883
142
106
I already told you that I meant the LR piece didn't show mins...

And again you direct me to an article that recommends fast ram for Skylake..

You are missing the point that minimum frame rates don't matter and that there are 4 other websites(Hexus, LR, Silentpc, HWunboxed) whose findings contradict Techspot.

Why do you keep insisting on min fr based on a single anonymous comment which is already shown to be false based on benchmark data? Even previous ddr3 tests on AT, THW and elsewhere didn't show any improvement in non-gaming apps, or avg or min frame rate improving significantly except for IGPU gaming.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,229
9,990
126
You are missing the point that minimum frame rates don't matter and that there are 4 other websites(Hexus, LR, Silentpc, HWunboxed) whose findings contradict Techspot.

Why do you keep insisting on min fr based on a single anonymous comment which is already shown to be false based on benchmark data? Even previous ddr3 tests on AT, THW and elsewhere didn't show any improvement in non-gaming apps, or avg or min frame rate improving significantly except for IGPU gaming.

What about that DigitalFoundry YouTube video showing what I thought appeared to be tangible framerate increases on modern games with Skylake and faster RAM.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
You are missing the point that minimum frame rates don't matter and that there are 4 other websites(Hexus, LR, Silentpc, HWunboxed) whose findings contradict Techspot.

Why do you keep insisting on min fr based on a single anonymous comment which is already shown to be false based on benchmark data? Even previous ddr3 tests on AT, THW and elsewhere didn't show any improvement in non-gaming apps, or avg or min frame rate improving significantly except for IGPU gaming.

Why did you mention Techspot again? What didn't you understand when I said I didn't mean Techspot?

Drop it already if you aren't even going to read my posts.
 

MTDEW

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,284
37
91
What about that DigitalFoundry YouTube video showing what I thought appeared to be tangible framerate increases on modern games with Skylake and faster RAM.
You mean This one (Core i5 6500 CPU vs RAM Overclocking)?
I was sure DF would do one for the Skylake i7 and even faster DDR4 after that original test, but they never did and I always wondered why not.
And DF is horrible at listing the exact hardware & settings they're testing with in their VIDs.
(ie: what GPU was used in this test?...I don't believe he ever says, and its not listed in the description)
 
Last edited: