memory voltage question

[slick2010]

Does lower voltage equal less performance? Im looking at some memory for a new build.

G.SKILL ECO Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL8D-4GBECO - Retail


or this

CORSAIR XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) ... - Retail

thanks

 

[bryanl]

Those are different types of DDR3. The 1.35V G.Skill is designed for the newest CPUs, which use a 1.35V memory bus (maximum allowed is 1.45V), while the 1.5V Corsair is for older DDR3 motherboards.

But generally for memory of any one given type, like DDR3 containing chips build with a 1.5V process or DDR2 with chips built with a 1.8V process , a higher voltage rating is an indication of inferior quality.

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

Those are different types of DDR3. The 1.35V G.Skill is designed for the newest CPUs, which use a 1.35V memory bus (maximum allowed is 1.45V), while the 1.5V Corsair is for older DDR3 motherboards.

The first RAM will run on any board that takes dual channel DDR3 memory, ie 1156 intel boards or AM2+/AM3 AMD boards. It's marketed as designed for 1156 boards, which will accept up to 1.65 volts on VDIMM before you risk damaging the CPU. They're being marketed as environmentally friendly because they use less voltage, which means they use less electricity (personally I think that's kind of a gimmick though). It doesn't have anything to do with newer, lower voltage mobos. Early reviews also suggest that the lower voltage gives you quite a bit more headroom for overclocking if you're up for it. It's solid RAM. I have a set that has lower timings (7-9-7-24) and I like em a lot, though I haven't gotten to push em too hard yet.

The second set is a typical 1600 mhz RAM set for an 1156 board. Stock volts on an 1156 board is 1.5 volts, so advertising it as 1.65 volt RAM is their way of admitting that you're going to have to overclock your PC in order to be stable at the stock settings. Its true that you'd rather have RAM that was advertised at 1.5 volts instead of 1.65, but that's because you know for a fact that you can get the advertised settings at stock voltage and won't have to overclock the RAM. I guess that can be construed as lower voltage = better quality, but I've never thought of it that way before. Both sets will be stable, just one will require marginally more work and power than the other.

Performance wise, for RAM you look at the timings (8-8-8-24 on both sets you listed) and the frequency (1600 on both sets you listed). Lower numbers are better for the timings, while higher numbers are better for the frequencies. Frequencies over 1600 are not needed for everyday usage, and are more for benchmarking or minimal performance gains. (If you have an i5 750 CPU, in order to get frequencies over 1333 you have to overclock your CPU, so 1333 is a more mainstream RAM frequency.) Given that both sets you list are essentially identical, I would choose the one with the lower voltage, the one that is cheaper, or the one that looks cooler, in that order.

 

[kmmatney]

Sometimes you need to be careful with memory that requires higher voltage, especially if you are using a cheap motherboard. I had a system where I thought the mmeory was defective - it would only boot up about 10% of the time. After raising the voltage in the BIOS (basically over-volting the memory slightly), the system ran stable, and has been great ever since.. The Corsair memory is already rated at 1.65V, which is higher than the DDR3 spec of 1.5 V. It "should" run fine, but I'd probably go for the lower voltage memory, or just be ready to raise the memory voltage if the motherboard doesn't do it automatically.