Does i7 sandybridge 2600 3.4ghz support ram speed more then 1333?

[BonzaiDuck]

Not gonna lie bro, your system makes me cringe a little. D:

You could've dropped $120-150 USD more and had 2500k, z68 pro, and 4.8ghz. :'(

+1 to that.

Anandtech published a "paper" or article on this which was available last year. They did some benchmark tests on memory ranging from 1333 to . . . beyond. The conclusion that there was little performance gain for using RAM over DDR3-1600. And if you want to overclock the BCLK (which defaults 100), you're either unlikely or unwise to set it beyond 105. But in any event, the modules I bought are easy to handle that or run at something like 1680 with no change in voltage (1.5V) that I recollect.

So for the costs and benefits, I bought DDR3-1600 (G.SKILL Ripjaws -GBRL). And frankly, I think the price on my purchase was between $50 and $90 -- can't remember, but the current Egg price on those is about $47 for a pair.

Note that I got my bCLK to 105 in a stable configuration, but decided to just stick with the multiplier and keep the bCLK at 100.

 

[stahlhart]

Running G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 at CAS 9, 1.5v with a 2700K. Newegg had a $10 instant rebate that put the 8Gb kit at the same price as 1600, so I just went for it. Works nice. I'd be tempted to try out 2133 just for grins if I could find 1.5v sticks that fit under the cooler.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Running G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 at CAS 9, 1.5v with a 2700K. Newegg had a $10 instant rebate that put the 8Gb kit at the same price as 1600, so I just went for it. Works nice. I'd be tempted to try out 2133 just for grins if I could find 1.5v sticks that fit under the cooler.

Just run your current 1866 at 2133 with cas 10 or cas 11.

I benchmarked my corsair kit at cas 9 2133 (1.65v) and cas 11 2133

No difference in performance.

 

[stahlhart]

Just run your current 1866 at 2133 with cas 10 or cas 11.

I benchmarked my corsair kit at cas 9 2133 (1.65v) and cas 11 2133

No difference in performance.

I'll try that -- thanks for the suggestion... what's the best measurement app for memory currently, by the way? AIDA 64?

 

[Coup27]

Not gonna lie bro, your system makes me cringe a little. D:

You could've dropped $120-150 USD more and had 2500k, z68 pro, and 4.8ghz. :'(

I don't know why it makes you cringe. You can always add a little bit more for a bit more of this, where do you stop?

I don't play games, crunch numbers, or do photo or video editing so my system is more than fast enough for my tasks. I highly doubt in and around Windows you could tell the difference between it and an i5 4.8Ghz as it wouldn't get tasked enough. Reliability is my #1 priority hence my stock rig.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't know why it makes you cringe. You can always add a little bit more for a bit more of this, where do you stop?

I don't play games, crunch numbers, or do photo or video editing so my system is more than fast enough for my tasks. I highly doubt in and around Windows you could tell the difference between it and an i5 4.8Ghz as it wouldn't get tasked enough. Reliability is my #1 priority hence my stock rig.

+1 to that, too. Reliability is ALSO a priority of mine, but -- to quote the Lou Reed song -- I "take a walk on the wild side."

I've been over-clocking since 2004 -- every rig I've had. Even given two in succession to my brother (the second in return for the first), and both just "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'."



Some of the hot-dawgs here would put me in the junior-league or petticoat class for OC'ing. But I look at the specs, make self-imposed limits, and stay within them.

On your end, it might be more trouble than it's worth. It is also definitely a choice you can [blank] up. Of course, I don't decommission my last machine until the new one proves itself . . .

Running G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 at CAS 9, 1.5v with a 2700K. Newegg had a $10 instant rebate that put the 8Gb kit at the same price as 1600, so I just went for it. Works nice. I'd be tempted to try out 2133 just for grins if I could find 1.5v sticks that fit under the cooler.

Yeah -- I imagine all that's changed, too. I can only speculate at cost-of-production for the faster modules. If they originally priced them higher with expectations, the customer expectations may have tempered the pricing. Then the cost-benefit choices of memory kits would certainly change.

I have another 8GB (2x4GB) kit of the GBRL RipJaws. Keep postponing installation, because I never seem to run out of memory anyway. I also think for some or all the various models, they may now have 2x8GB kits. Of course, those will cost more . . .

 

[borisvodofsky]

I'll try that -- thanks for the suggestion... what's the best measurement app for memory currently, by the way? AIDA 64?

yea.

 

[borisvodofsky]

I don't know why it makes you cringe. You can always add a little bit more for a bit more of this, where do you stop?

I don't play games, crunch numbers, or do photo or video editing so my system is more than fast enough for my tasks. I highly doubt in and around Windows you could tell the difference between it and an i5 4.8Ghz as it wouldn't get tasked enough. Reliability is my #1 priority hence my stock rig.

From the gains standpoint, it's around %15-20 increase in cost for nearly 100% gain in performance.

You tell me that's NOT worth it. , and reliability is NO worse whatsoever. People have been running at these overclocked speeds for 2 years.

I'm not saying this to pull ur chain, it's "that" big a difference, which is why all the old guys around here like me have 2500k and 3570k

 

[borisvodofsky]

+1 to that, too. Reliability is ALSO a priority of mine, but -- to quote the Lou Reed song -- I "take a walk on the wild side."

I've been over-clocking since 2004 -- every rig I've had. Even given two in succession to my brother (the second in return for the first), and both just "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'."



Some of the hot-dawgs here would put me in the junior-league or petticoat class for OC'ing. But I look at the specs, make self-imposed limits, and stay within them.

On your end, it might be more trouble than it's worth. It is also definitely a choice you can [blank] up. Of course, I don't decommission my last machine until the new one proves itself . . .



Yeah -- I imagine all that's changed, too. I can only speculate at cost-of-production for the faster modules. If they originally priced them higher with expectations, the customer expectations may have tempered the pricing. Then the cost-benefit choices of memory kits would certainly change.

I have another 8GB (2x4GB) kit of the GBRL RipJaws. Keep postponing installation, because I never seem to run out of memory anyway. I also think for some or all the various models, they may now have 2x8GB kits. Of course, those will cost more . . .

At the current price point 2133 cost the same as 1600 so there's no reason not to get 2133.

Now there's people looking to get 3000mhz on the corsair platinum soon. If that comes out for the appraised $300 per 8gb, that would in fact be frivolous.

 

[stahlhart]

yea.

Thanks for the help, dick-breath.

 

[Coup27]

From the gains standpoint, it's around %15-20 increase in cost for nearly 100% gain in performance.

You tell me that's NOT worth it. , and reliability is NO worse whatsoever. People have been running at these overclocked speeds for 2 years.

I'm not saying this to pull ur chain, it's "that" big a difference, which is why all the old guys around here like me have 2500k and 3570k

I think you're applying your usage patterns on somebody elses machine. I understand what you are saying, but I don't play games, crunch numbers, or do high res photo or video editing. I don't ask much from my PC, just what I do, I want it to be fast. I highly doubt there would be any noticeable difference in Windows between the two. The SSD is the biggest win in this system.

Plus why would I want to chuck out more heat and noise just for Windows?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think you're applying your usage patterns on somebody elses machine. I understand what you are saying, but I don't play games, crunch numbers, or do high res photo or video editing. I don't ask much from my PC, just what I do, I want it to be fast. I highly doubt there would be any noticeable difference in Windows between the two. The SSD is the biggest win in this system.

Plus why would I want to chuck out more heat and noise just for Windows?

A qualified +1 to that, too . . . On this forum (CPU&OCing) everyone is focused on the processor. But the old pyramid model of memory, speed and cost still applies when you throw persistent memory (magnetic drum, tape, hard disk or SSD) into the mix and at the bottom level.

The SSD is the biggest win for speed, but -- (and I know I'll hear catcalls) -- the ISRT feature developed by Intel and a similar feature I read about for recent Marvell disk controllers is a darn-good second to that. Open up the slowest bottleneck, watch happiness and patience increase while high-blood pressure waiting for an "hourglass" will decline. . . .

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Hey! I just had a thought -- decided to drop it here. And sorry for the double-post (unless someone beats me to it before I hit "submit" for this one).

There is still a CPU:RAM ratio. And as I recall from a decent tour at the over-clock wars for the last eight years, there is an second-most optimal ratio (and a third and fourth etc.) if it can't be 1:1.

I remembered this before when I was going through my overclocking and tweaking last year on this machine. Current-revision monitoring software reports the ratio. We just don't spend much time thinking about it with the new QPI and the last three generations of processors. At least -- I don't.

I would think this would affect your choice of memory kits among the speeds offered . . . . wouldn't it?

Just a thought . . . .

 

[borisvodofsky]

Hey! I just had a thought -- decided to drop it here. And sorry for the double-post (unless someone beats me to it before I hit "submit" for this one).

There is still a CPU:RAM ratio. And as I recall from a decent tour at the over-clock wars for the last eight years, there is an second-most optimal ratio (and a third and fourth etc.) if it can't be 1:1.

I remembered this before when I was going through my overclocking and tweaking last year on this machine. Current-revision monitoring software reports the ratio. We just don't spend much time thinking about it with the new QPI and the last three generations of processors. At least -- I don't.

I would think this would affect your choice of memory kits among the speeds offered . . . . wouldn't it?

Just a thought . . . .

Yup, there's no 1:1 fsb to ram anymore. That's Old school. :biggrin:

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yup, there's no 1:1 fsb to ram anymore. That's Old school. :biggrin:

OK . . . I just rang up my AIDA 64. It shows a 24:3 DRAM:FSB ratio. Obviously, AIDA has to work for a range of hardware. But this is what it reports for my system.

So what does that mean? If it means something, then I'm still wondering if there isn't an "optimal" ratio.

I haven't looked into this any further. Maybe some Anandtech articles on Nehalem and later would clarify it -- at this point, I'm clueless.

 

[vzz7st]

Coming back to my topic Guys a mobo u would suggest me maximum i can afford is 150$ :'(

 

[Smoblikat]

Coming back to my topic Guys a mobo u would suggest me maximum i can afford is 150$ :'(

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157293

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I argue all the time over memory speeds on this forum. I think if you're running a 4.6Ghz 2600K 8 GB of 2133 should be used. Its cheap and it helps even in small amounts.

I think you are bit a OCD there. Unless he's doing something like CFD calculations which take hours/days to run, he won't notice the benefit of faster RAM. Unless...

At the current price point 2133 cost the same as 1600 so there's no reason not to get 2133.

... if this is true then by all means just get 2133. I haven't checked RAM prices in forever so I don't know.