Faster memory or a new SSD?

[Arachnotronic]

All right, so I've got a bunch of American Express rewards points that I'd like to blow away on something to make my system even better.

I'm thinking about buying some ultra high speed RAM, but my question is: can the memory controller on SNB actually be overclocked to utilize DDR-2133 or above? The reason I used DDR3-1333 is because it was what Intel spec'd (and the fact that I'm kind of a cheap ass), but if I can get more performance with better RAM, I'm totally on board if it's with fake money

I could, on the other hand, use more SSD space. My current 250GB drive is almost full (since I found a program to let me move over my steam games...), so I figure I'll nab a 256GB V4 or something to become a fully fledged games drive.

Thoughts?

 

[Charlie98]

For real world performance, I'd take the SSD.

Or, me being Mr Safe, get an external HDD and back your system up.

 

[bryanW1995]

M4's have been hovering around $180 for a 256gb drive lately, that's probably the way I would go.

 

[thelastjuju]

This is a no brainer..

The SSD drive will actually produce REAL WORLD benefits that you can see and feel.

The other option would produce higher gains only in ARTIFICIAL benchmarks, when overclocking.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I'd take the ram, anything below 1600mhz isn't snappy enough and benchmarks don't show that. Ssds are mainly for boot speed for me. I'd possible get 8gb ddr3 1600 plus 128gb Ssd. Though best would be 16gb samsung plus 128+ gb ssd

 

[exdeath]

You're full of it if you think you, a human being, can discern differences of nanoseconds, that you can feel how "snappy" your PC is over a few MHz of RAM speed.

10 ns vs 9 ns for RAM or 10 ms vs. 01ms for data access. Hmm I wonder which has real world benefits.

 

[palladium]

Get another SSD. You can even RAID-0 it for better performance if you're willing to put up with the fact that if one of your drive dies, your array dies. You can always OC your RAM if you think it is bottlenecking you (which probably would not unless you do lots of Winzip type stuff, or you use the IGP)

 

[mikeymikec]

(since I found a program to let me move over my steam games...),

1) Stop Steam

2) Copy program folder

3) Watch progress dialog

 

[Blain]

You're full of it if you think you, a human being, can discern differences of nanoseconds, that you can feel how "snappy" your PC is over a few MHz of RAM speed.

10 ns vs 9 ns for RAM or 10 ms vs. 01ms for data access. Hmm I wonder which has real world benefits.

You've hit the nail on the head!

How odd that a "spinning platter" guy like yourself is recommending a SSD, but wonders never cease.

 

[Arachnotronic]

1) Stop Steam

2) Copy program folder

3) Watch progress dialog

I can't fit all of my games on my 250GB SSD (my steam folder is >700GB). I copy over the stuff I'll be playing and then leave the rest on a separate HDD.

Anyway, I ended up buying a 128GB Vertex 4 to become my new apps drive. SSD 510 will become my fast games drive. Thanks, all!

 

[cytg111]

I can't fit all of my games on my 250GB SSD (my steam folder is >700GB). I copy over the stuff I'll be playing and then leave the rest on a separate HDD.

Anyway, I ended up buying a 128GB Vertex 4 to become my new apps drive. SSD 510 will become my fast games drive. Thanks, all!

....

...128GB Vertex 4 to become my new apps drive. SSD 510 will become my fast games drive. Thanks, all!

....

...128GB Vertex 4.. apps drive. SSD 510 ... games drive...

- Wow, talk about reverse it, flip it and spin it one more time. Just sayin'

 

[grimpr]

With Intels memory controllers higher speed rams are not worth the extra about them, a fast SSD and *plenty* of cheap standard RAM for Ramdrives etc, is the best you can get for boosting overall performance. 16GB of DDR3 1333 and a Samsung 830 is imho the best you can invest, use a ramdrive for Browsers cache/data and the TMP folder and let Windows 7s ram caching do the rest. Here's a good ramdrive program, http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-ramdisk/index.html

 

[thelastjuju]

I'd take the ram, anything below 1600mhz isn't snappy enough and benchmarks don't show that. Ssds are mainly for boot speed for me. I'd possible get 8gb ddr3 1600 plus 128gb Ssd. Though best would be 16gb samsung plus 128+ gb ssd

I honestly cannot believe a single person made this recommendation. Do some of you just blindly accept that if the statistic is higher in number, it must amount to it being faster?

For the first time, I am in complete, 10000% agreement with exdeath.

-

Anyway, there is no need to load ALL your games on the SSD. Just the games that have long load times that you want to see vanish. :thumbsup:

 

[exdeath]

You've hit the nail on the head!

How odd that a "spinning platter" guy like yourself is recommending a SSD, but wonders never cease.

Uhm spinning platter guy? Confused. I despise all forms of mechanical media. R/W heads belong in the 1950s. SSD or go to hell IMO. :biggrin:

I've merely stated in the past that RAID0 Cheetahs or Raptors were the closest thing you could get to SSD like responsiveness from a PC before NAND SSDs became prevalent, but a dino drive is still a dino drive.

 

[Blain]

For the first time, I am in complete, 10000% agreement with exdeath.

How is that mathematically possible?

 

[LagunaX]

SSD was the obvious choice.

However, I bet all the "ram experts" here have never even tried ddr3 2133.

Anyone who has tried ddr3 2133 would never go back to 1600, and that's the truth.

It may not be a significant real world difference, but it IS a real perceptual difference, especially on a mechanical drive.

Please do not comment otherwise if you never have tried ddr3 2133.

 

[Rubycon]

How is that mathematically possible?

Say I agree one hundred times in a row.