Memory Speed Question

[ttechf]

Hi, I've looked around for charts or articles explaining this but none of them were very good without being 17 pages long and just didn't answer what I wanted to know clear, cut and dry.

What I want to know is, the "standard" seems to be 1600Mhz memory today.

Well let's say a motherboard can fit 32GB of memory....2 questions...

1. Is it "wiser" to pay for faster memory at like 2400Mhz for example compared to 1600Mhz. Will I actually notice the difference in everyday computing and gaming?

2. Is it better to have 32GB of 1333Mhz or 1600Mhz memory or 16GB of 2666Mhz or 2800Mhz memory?



Thank you. : ]

 

[ggadrian]

It really depends on what do you do with your computer.

Most workloads doesn't escale very well past 1600, being 1600 the sweet spot between price and performance.

I would buy 16 or 32GB (depending on your needs) of 1600 and try to OC it to 1866 or 2133 and see if it's stable.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Hi, I've looked around for charts or articles explaining this but none of them were very good without being 17 pages long and just didn't answer what I wanted to know clear, cut and dry.

What I want to know is, the "standard" seems to be 1600Mhz memory today.

Well let's say a motherboard can fit 32GB of memory....2 questions...

1. Is it "wiser" to pay for faster memory at like 2400Mhz for example compared to 1600Mhz. Will I actually notice the difference in everyday computing and gaming?

2. Is it better to have 32GB of 1333Mhz or 1600Mhz memory or 16GB of 2666Mhz or 2800Mhz memory?



Thank you. : ]

1) No it's not wise if the cost increase is enough that you could have gotten more memory by going with 1600Mhz. Generally you won't notice the difference, it will be such a small increase in general performance that you'd need to run synthetic benchmarks or count seconds in different circumstances.

2)My recommendation is to go with more memory rather than less even at a higher speed. I'd rather not run out of memory than to have a few more Mhz on the frequency. Especially if I were doing any professional work that required lots of memory to be available.

I'd stick with DDR3-1600 and get as much of it as you can. Any extra speed you may get (2133Mhz overclock maybe) is just gravy.

 

[Z15CAM]

I agree with cmdrdredd. If you're looking for a low latency, I would look for something like 9-9-9-24 1T 1600Mhz some where around 1.35 volts. You might even get that timing at 1866 Mhz's if you increase the voltage to 1.5v. The Max-IMP Voltage is relevant to the CPU and different for SB, IB and HW ...etc.

It seems memory speeds after 1600Mhz's is not too relevant as the Intel Integrated Memory Processor handles it.

 

[ttechf]

1) No it's not wise if the cost increase is enough that you could have gotten more memory by going with 1600Mhz. Generally you won't notice the difference, it will be such a small increase in general performance that you'd need to run synthetic benchmarks or count seconds in different circumstances.

2)My recommendation is to go with more memory rather than less even at a higher speed. I'd rather not run out of memory than to have a few more Mhz on the frequency. Especially if I were doing any professional work that required lots of memory to be available.

I'd stick with DDR3-1600 and get as much of it as you can. Any extra speed you may get (2133Mhz overclock maybe) is just gravy.

Thank you, very nice answer. : ]