# DDR3 1600 vs 2133 is there a difference in game?



## PedroC1999

Interesting, Can I ask what CPU you are using, as AMD likes faster RAM even if it isnt an APU


----------



## Stay Puft

Faster memory really helps with min frame rates. You can grab 8GB of DDR3 2400 these days for 60 dollars. Its a smart upgrade.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedroc1999*
> 
> Interesting, Can I ask what CPU you are using, as AMD likes faster RAM even if it isnt an APU


It's a 2600K.


----------



## nleksan

Thank you for doing this. It provides visual evidence for something I've been telling people for a while: that DDR3 speed has a beneficial effect on gameplay by increasing the minimum frame rate, resulting in a smoother game, and that the whole "anything above 1600 is a stupid worthless waste of money" argument is wrong.

DDR3 2133 with nice timings (9-10-10-27 works very well, but go for 9-10-9 if you can get it) is the sweet spot in terms of price to performance, in my opinion.

Awesome job, again. +rep


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Thank you for doing this. It provides visual evidence for something I've been telling people for a while: that DDR3 speed has a beneficial effect on gameplay by increasing the minimum frame rate, resulting in a smoother game, and that the whole "anything above 1600 is a stupid worthless waste of money" argument is wrong.
> 
> DDR3 2133 with nice timings (9-10-10-27 works very well, but go for 9-10-9 if you can get it) is the sweet spot in terms of price to performance, in my opinion.
> 
> Awesome job, again. +rep


Thanks
Yeah, you are right. Low latency DDR3 2133 is the way to go.


----------



## Boyd

thank you for doing this


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boyd*
> 
> thank you for doing this


Thanks. I figured that I wasn't the only one looking for information about this.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> Thanks
> Yeah, you are right. Low latency DDR3 2133 is the way to go.


You dont need super low latency with speeds over 2133. Look at the 2400, 2666 kits. They're all Cas 11. Thats perfectly fine for those speeds


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> You dont need super low latency with speeds over 2133. Look at the 2400, 2666 kits. They're all Cas 11. Thats perfectly fine for those speeds


DDR3 2133 CL11 isn't the same as DDR3 2400 CL11. If you are going for the fastest clock rate it would be a benefit to get the lowest CL offered for that speeds.


----------



## coolhandluke41

don't know what your specs are ,next time you do something similar please at list post the rigs specs you run you benches ...just fill up you rig sig








the 3FPS means nothing without telling us how many GPU's /clocks ,etc you running (i assume only one from that # )
EDIT; MP /SP makes huge difference also just like the server you play on (empty)


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> don't know what your specs are ,next time you do something similar please at list post the rigs specs you run you benches ...just fill up you rig sig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 3FPS means nothing without telling us how many GPU's /clocks ,etc you running (i assume only one from that # )
> EDIT; MP /SP makes huge difference also just like the server you play on (empty)


If you want to know anything specific all you have to do is ask








I've updated the OP with more spec information...
Your MP/SP comment is moot though. Those are still individual results be it MP or SP. I'm not comparing MP to SP. IE: DDR3 1600 SP vs DDR3 2133 SP; DDR3 1600 MP vs DDR3 2133 MP.


----------



## coolhandluke41

what i'm saying is ..how the heck you know it's 3FPS difference by playing MP ,it's all good man thanks for trying


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> what i'm saying is ..how the heck you know it's 3FPS difference by playing MP ,it's all good man thanks for trying


All I can do is provide the photos. It's consistent for me. That's all I can tell you.


----------



## Scorpion49

Nice tests, I have tested it before for folding and noticed a nice few % improvement in frame times. If you're interested I can try providing 1600 vs 2133 on an AMD FX platform, which I know benefits from faster memory much more than intel does.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> Nice tests, I have tested it before for folding and noticed a nice few % improvement in frame times. If you're interested I can try providing 1600 vs 2133 on an AMD FX platform, which I know benefits from faster memory much more than intel does.


Thanks, I would appreciate that. But I'm not sure if the mods would allow since there is a separate section for AMD Memory. Perhaps create a thread there and post a link here?
Do you notice that if you cap frame rates you get better results (smoothness, responsiveness) using DDR3 2133 then with DDR3 1600?


----------



## Deadboy90

Nice, but would it be possible to see the same test with 1333 memory?


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadboy90*
> 
> Nice, but would it be possible to see the same test with 1333 memory?


It'll obviously be lower


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadboy90*
> 
> Nice, but would it be possible to see the same test with 1333 memory?


I think I understand your concern(s). Sorry, it's not possible with 1333Mhz memory.


----------



## nleksan

Here are a few of my results...

System:
- 3930K @ 4.5Ghz (usually 4.8)
- Rampage 4 Extreme
- 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3 2133 9-11-10-27
- EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB @ 1326/7460
- Samsung 830 256GB SSD (OS/Sys/Apps)
- WD Blue 320GB (Music/Video)
- HGST 7K500 320GB (Apps)
- WD RE3 1TB (Games)
- Creative Titanium HD
- LG/Hitachi Slim DVD-R/W
- NZXT HALE90 850W PSU
- TRIPP-LITE ISO-BAR-4 ULTRA Line Conditioner/Surge Suppressor/Voltage Regulator

I used the above system for the below tests, with all clocks identical with just the RAM changing. The system is watercooled so no drops in Kepler Boost or anything like that.

*TESTS*

(RAM SPEED + TIMINGS - AVERAGE FPS - MINIMUM FPS - MAXIMUM FPS)
All tests done in 1080p using a Dell P2212Hb connected via DL-DVI-D, all game settings set at maximum unless otherwise noted.

HALF-LIFE 2 EPISODE 2 (CPU @ 3.4Ghz, GPU @ Stock FTW Speeds)
1600 6-7-7-19 - 198.5 - 131.8 - 233
1600 9-9-9-24 - 191.3 - 124.9 - 219
1866 8-8-8-24 - 204.1 - 137.7 - 242
2133 9-11-10-27 - 217 - 147.1 - 259
2133 9-10-9-26 - 226 - 154.3 - 266
2360 9-12-10-29 - 231 - 159.7 - 283

Half-Life 2 and it's countless derivatives (mods, etc) all seem to be CPU Bound at this point, as I see a perfectly linear relationship between a CPU's speed and FPS.

FAR CRY 3 (CPU @ 4.5Ghz, GPU @ 1326/7460)
1600 6-7-7-19 - 52.2 - 26.1 - 93
1600 9-9-9-24 - 50.8 - 24 - 86
1866 8-8-8-24 - 54.1 - 27.9 - 96
2133 9-11-10-27 - 57.4 - 31.1 - 105
2133 9-10-9-26 - 58.7 - 33 - 107
2360 9-12-10-29 - 60.2 - 35.5 - 108

The biggest thing with FC3 is the increase in smoothness. The slower memory feels choppy at times, such as when you get into a firefight. The faster memory never has this problem. Also, with 2133 and above, I get zero texture "pop in", yet it's present with lower memory speeds.

I did recordings of 9 games, 11 benchmarks, and timed start up/shutdown/opening (Firefox with 25tabs/Photoshop/Paint.Net/Chrome with 25tabs,and a half dozen other things), and a few other things.

There is not a single instance in which the 1600 9-9-9-24 didn't come in dead last. The differences ranged from "benchmark-noticeable" to "Wow that's a huge improvement".

I simply don't recommend getting 1600 when the option for faster memory is there, especially if you have an IVB platform. The tests above are X79, and I have done the same tests on a 3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7, 3770K + Maximus 5 Extreme, 3570K + Extreme6 (for Ivy), a 2700K + Maximus 4 Extreme-Z, 2600K + G3.Sniper3, 2500K + Extreme9 (for Sandy), a Phenom II X4 980BE + ASRock 990FX Fatal1ty, 1100T + Crosshair V Formula-Z, 960T + 990FX Sabertooth R2.0, 1090 + M5A99X, 965BE + Gigabyte 990FX UD5(UD7, can't remember), and 8350 + Crosshair V Formula, 8130 + Sabertooth, 6100 + Extreme6, 4100 + Extreme3.

These have been over the course of 16mo, and variables change, not all systems had all tests run (most only had 2-3 games and a few benchmarks), and it's not a controlled experiment. Still, the results are only compared against the results from the same system, so they are perfectly valid.

Every single system wanted the fastest memory possible, although the Phenom II systems had to be controlled for timings by ensuring that the actual latency in ns was better than the prior test (which means most of the Phenom II tests are more about timings for a given speed than speed itself, although 1800 7-8-7-26 was always the fastest, beating 1600 6-7-6-19 by 9.3% on average).

I will try to get the rest of the results all compiled on a single spreadsheet...


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> The biggest thing with FC3 is the increase in smoothness. The slower memory feels choppy at times, such as when you get into a firefight. The faster memory never has this problem. Also, with 2133 and above, I get zero texture "pop in", yet it's present with lower memory speeds.


Thanks for the results







.

The term "smooth" is something of a cliche now. Yet this is the exact term I would use to describe the visual differences when using DDR3 2133 from DDR3 1600 in some of the games I've tried. It's not that DDR3 1600 was always stuttering it depends on what's going at the time. It's just that DDR3 2133 provides a better, seamless gaming experiences


----------



## nleksan

Exactly. It's hard to find a word that works for something so subjective yet objective at the same time, but "smooth" comes closest. When you have frame rates that don't dip as low, especially if you can keep them above 30fps, you notice that character animation looks more natural, and even the firing of a weapon looks more real as you don't get a momentary hitch the second you press Fire (and thus the firing animation, including muzzle flash, looks like it sounds).

Considering how many of us use 60hz monitors, I don't understand why the focus isn't more on the minimum FPS... I could care less if I get 600fps, but if I can't keep it from dropping to 20fps then the immersion is ruined. I realize that the frame time method is meant to address this, but I sstill think that doesn't quite do it.

Even when looking at the vast majority of memory testing, they report maximum FPS in games, but not the minimum, which is where the difference lies. This is, I wouldiimagine, why so many people think that memory has "minimal" effects on gameplay. I really just want people to stop telling others that you don't need more than 1600, as they are just repeating something that someone else stated, and which is incorrect. I shudder to think how many people have bought RAM based solely upon such answers.


----------



## Scorpion49

Playing with my 8GB 2133 instead of my 16GB 1600 kit right now and Skyrim is definitely smoother. Smoothness is key for me, I don't care if I'm stuck at 45fps as long as it stays there.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Exactly. It's hard to find a word that works for something so subjective yet objective at the same time, but "smooth" comes closest. When you have frame rates that don't dip as low, especially if you can keep them above 30fps, you notice that character animation looks more natural, and even the firing of a weapon looks more real as you don't get a momentary hitch the second you press Fire (and thus the firing animation, including muzzle flash, looks like it sounds).
> 
> Considering how many of us use 60hz monitors, I don't understand why the focus isn't more on the minimum FPS... I could care less if I get 600fps, but if I can't keep it from dropping to 20fps then the immersion is ruined. I realize that the frame time method is meant to address this, but I sstill think that doesn't quite do it.
> 
> Even when looking at the vast majority of memory testing, they report maximum FPS in games, but not the minimum, which is where the difference lies. This is, I wouldiimagine, why so many people think that memory has "minimal" effects on gameplay. I really just want people to stop telling others that you don't need more than 1600, as they are just repeating something that someone else stated, and which is incorrect. I shudder to think how many people have bought RAM based solely upon such answers.


You bring up a very good point about how ram is being reviewed. Minimum frame rates are something we should know regarding the different speed/timing of DDR3. Although you don't see much as far as increased frame rates it doesn't tell the whole story. Character animation, input response, fluidity, etc all seem to be impacted by faster ram.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> Playing with my 8GB 2133 instead of my 16GB 1600 kit right now and Skyrim is definitely smoother. Smoothness is key for me, I don't care if I'm stuck at 45fps as long as it stays there.


Thanks for the confirmation on the improvement of DDR3 2133 over 1600. As what's been said already, games are more natural with the higher speed ram and play smoothly.

Do either of you notice any difference capping frame rates at 60 FPS with ddr3 2133 vs ddr3 1600?


----------



## Jpmboy

+1 to the OP. Here's a little excelsheet that calcs timings but excludes Command Rate (1N or 2N (or T))

cas timings - Copy.xls 18k .xls file


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> +1 to the OP. Here's a little excelsheet that calcs timings but excludes Command Rate (1N or 2N (or T))
> 
> cas timings - Copy.xls 18k .xls file


Thanks!
And GJ on the excel sheet.


----------



## nleksan

I find that with VSYNC on and running my memory @ 2133 9-10-9-26 vs 1600 8-8-8-24, the former results in less drops below 60fps, and when it doesdrop it is less of a drop. Also, the transitions between frame rates are smoother and less noticeable.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I noticed nice performance increase going from 1600MHz CL9 to 2400MHz CL11.


----------



## nleksan

With so many people having experienced a benefit, I wonder why so many are still so eager to dismiss it as being all in our heads...???


----------



## EastCoast

Noshahr Canals Team DM
Operation 925
Ziba Tower

All play a lot better now. I've always liked those maps and couldn't play them because of stuttering and overall unsmooth game play. Now I'm very capable of holding my own in those maps. The thing is that it's overall playability. My frame rates are about the same but it's a lot smoother now.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> I find that with VSYNC on and running my memory @ 2133 9-10-9-26 vs 1600 8-8-8-24, the former results in less drops below 60fps, and when it does drop it is less of a drop. Also, the transitions between frame rates are smoother and less noticeable.


This is pretty much spot on to what I'm noticing now. DDR3 2133 is providing a better transition when capping frame rates.


----------



## shteklis

not noticeable, you might as well use that money to purchase a better GPU or save it for your next system.

8 GB of 1600Mhz is grate! if anything get 16gb but its still overkill,
Gpu should be your main concern SLI and crossfire configurations are AMAZING!!!


----------



## youpekkad

Wow this is very interesting, I always thought there isnt any difference (or no noticeable difference) in gaming between 1333 and lets say 2100MHz memory.

Right now I got 8GB of 1333MHz RAM, this makes me wanna upgrade even though the difference would be very small


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> Wow this is very interesting, I always thought there isnt any difference (or no noticeable difference) in gaming between 1333 and lets say 2100MHz memory.
> 
> Right now I got 8GB of 1333MHz RAM, this makes me wanna upgrade even though the difference would be very small


The general opinion is that there is no benefit going beyond DDR3 1600. The problem is that some want to associate ram performance to GPU performance. Ram *does not* equal a graphics card functionality.

Going from DDR3 1600 to DDR3 2133 has sustained/improved minimum frame rates that keeps the game play smooth. Be it that you cap/uncap frame rates. It's true that the performance increase won't be night and day different. So far it's been enough for me to notice improvements in game that otherwise wasn't as good before.

For example, in one game I play I've now capped frame rates and have nearly forgot that I've done it now. That's because the game is playing similarly without the frame rate being capped. Something I didn't do with DDR3 1600 because of the overall sluggishness I noticed. In the past, with DDR3 1600, I wanted to cap frame rates and would forget that I've done it only to notice something was a bit off when playing. I would then go in to the options menu to check the settings only to see that I've forgotten to uncap the frame rate. That's how I've noticed things have gotten better.


----------



## couchasault9001

great info guys. 50% increase in minimum frame rate in far cry 3 for a 35-40$ upgrade @ 8gb? i'm sold!

I'm sure all games wont have such drastic of an impact. However that it is possible to do so for such a cheap upgrade is surprising!


----------



## mindblowingj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> I will try to get the rest of the results all compiled on a single spreadsheet...


This, also thank you.


----------



## EastCoast

I wanted to also point something else out that I've noticed in BF3. I had to try it a few times just to make sure that it's consistent and give it a few days before I'm sure and now I am. When playing metro outside in BF3 I've always noticed it was not smooth. But when I go inside Metro everything smooths out. It's a transition I've gotten accustom to. It's always been like that. Over time, a patch and/or driver update made it a little better.

With DDR3 2133 it's been reduce even though the frame rates looks similar. I'm seeing improved fluidity outside as I do inside.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> I wanted to also point something else out that I've noticed in BF3. I had to try it a few times just to make sure that it's consistent and give it a few days before I'm sure and now I am. When playing metro outside in BF3 I've always noticed it was not smooth. But when I go inside Metro everything smooths out. It's a transition I've gotten accustom to. It's always been like that. Over time, a patch and/or driver update made it a little better.
> 
> With DDR3 2133 it's been reduce even though the frame rates looks similar. I'm seeing improved fluidity outside as I do inside.


Should try Cas 10 2400 or 2666. I ran 2133 since my SB days and just recently stepped up to 2666 and i ask myself why i hadnt done it sooner.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Should try Cas 10 2400 or 2666. I ran 2133 since my SB days and just recently stepped up to 2666 and i ask myself why i hadnt done it sooner.


I'll keep that in mind...

I just played Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising. I still like that game to this very day. I would always noticed odd frame rate dips as well as odd AI behavior (IE: AI not following orders, delay to follow orders, in one mission my AI team mate was suppose to help me take out tanks by switching to SMAW but never did, etc). Just tried it again with DDR3 2133 and it's night and day different. I was able to play that game at my native resolution. AI pathfinding, overall game progression from check point to check point was perfect.

I can't say if frame rates improved because I don't have benchmarks to see for myself. But I did notice more sustain frame rates at a higher resolution. This is one game that is CPU intensive so I have to wonder if other CPU intensive games would show more of a difference in higher ram frequency?


----------



## Brokenstorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> +1 to the OP. Here's a little excelsheet that calcs timings but excludes Command Rate (1N or 2N (or T))


This chart is wrong. For starter memory reads words not bits, second for the value of the first word you have to use the effective memory clock (half the value)

cas timings.xls 13k .xls file


With that said the sweet spot seems to be 2400MHz CAS9


----------



## EastCoast

I found this comparison that was posted by someone else. Look at those minimums in Heaven BM.
http://forums.tweaktown.com/memory/48445-does-ddr3-memory-speed-really-matter-ivy-bridge-sandy-bridge-2.html#post448845

That's what is making the difference in how smooth a game can be. Going from 33 FPS to 38 FPS on minimums is what I consider a performance increase even though average didn't change. We all know that the best experience in games are had based on how good minimum frame rates are. For example: If someone is playing a game that only gives them an average of 50 FPS as long as minimums are within the game's level of tolerance the overall gaming experience will be similar if the average was at 80 FPS. It's all about minimum frame rates.


----------



## nleksan

Great find, and I couldn't agree more!

An increase of 8 minimum FPS is a fantastic boost, especially considering it's solely coming from MEMORY and NOT GPU!!! I feel like I have been preaching the benefits of fast memory for so long that I sound like a broken record, but many people still need to see the proof.


----------



## youpekkad

BTW would 2133 CL11 yield noticeable (or any) improvement over my current 1333 CL9? I mean are 2133 CL11-sticks good, they are quite affordable at least.

Really started contemplating a RAM-upgrade, especially since I could give my current 2x4GB sticks to my little brother who has 2x2GB, uses Vista 64bit and gets some slowdowns in BF3 multiplayer (full 64p servers) and cant really ALT-TAB while in game without computer becoming extremely sluggish, I suspect its lack of RAM.

I´m not even excepting a massive improvement, if I could get slightly higher minimums in FC3 I would be very happy


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> BTW would 2133 CL11 yield noticeable (or any) improvement over my current 1333 CL9? I mean are 2133 CL11-sticks good, they are quite affordable at least.
> 
> Really started contemplating a RAM-upgrade, especially since I could give my current 2x4GB sticks to my little brother who has 2x2GB, uses Vista 64bit and gets some slowdowns in BF3 multiplayer (full 64p servers) and cant really ALT-TAB while in game without computer becoming extremely sluggish, I suspect its lack of RAM.
> 
> I´m not even excepting a massive improvement, if I could get slightly higher minimums in FC3 I would be very happy


Newegg has cl9 2133 sets for like 65 bucks


----------



## youpekkad

Sounds good, but I live in Finland, so Newegg is out of the question I´m afraid...

The cheapest 2133 RAM I could find was Gskill ripjaws 2133 CL11 2x4GB, costs 69 €, how about 2400 10-12-12-2N 1,6V RAM? Couldnt find 2133 CL9 for under 100€ BTW, does it make a big difference if it is CL11 instead of CL9?


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> Sounds good, but I live in Finland, so Newegg is out of the question I´m afraid...
> 
> The cheapest 2133 RAM I could find was Gskill ripjaws 2133 CL11 2x4GB, costs 69 €, how about 2400 10-12-12-2N 1,6V RAM? Couldnt find 2133 CL9 for under 100€ BTW, does it make a big difference if it is CL11 instead of CL9?


You could always grab the 2400 and tighten up the timings. Going from 1333 to 2400 will provide you with a very good increase in responsiveness and minimum framerates.


----------



## youpekkad

So, that 2400MHz 10-12-12-2N 1,6V RAM (possibly with tighter timings) will work in my system? Sorry I dont know anything about RAM, I´ve always grabbed the cheapest possible kit and been done with it


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Great find, and I couldn't agree more!
> 
> An increase of 8 minimum FPS is a fantastic boost, especially considering it's solely coming from MEMORY and NOT GPU!!! I feel like I have been preaching the benefits of fast memory for so long that I sound like a broken record, but many people still need to see the proof.


Yeah, it only shows what's been said before. Faster ram does have an effect in game that goes beyond looking at max/average frame rates.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> So, that 2400MHz 10-12-12-2N 1,6V RAM (possibly with tighter timings) will work in my system? Sorry I dont know anything about RAM, I´ve always grabbed the cheapest possible kit and been done with it


Limit for SB is usually 2133 but the 2400 kit is good futureproofing if you decide to ever get ivy


----------



## nleksan

The 2400 kit would be the way I'dgo. It wwill give you a significant speed boost (nearly 2x the throughput of 1333),and for SNB, it would be very easy to downclock to 2133 with timings tighter than 11-11-11, likely around 2133 9-11-10 if the Trident X 2400 still uses the same ICs as the Ripjaws Z kit I have. AActually, if so, you will likely be able to run something like 2133 9-10-10 or 9-11-9.


----------



## EastCoast

I would be interested in his results going from DDR3 1333 to DDR3 2133.


----------



## nleksan

Almost identical as going from 1600 to 2360, but about 10-15% more gain.


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Thank you for doing this. It provides visual evidence for something I've been telling people for a while: that DDR3 speed has a beneficial effect on gameplay by increasing the minimum frame rate, resulting in a smoother game, and that the whole "*anything above 1600 is a stupid worthless waste of money*" argument is wrong.
> 
> DDR3 2133 with nice timings (9-10-10-27 works very well, but go for 9-10-9 if you can get it) is the sweet spot in terms of price to performance, in my opinion.
> 
> Awesome job, again. +rep


Only AMD4ME says that.


----------



## youpekkad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> I would be interested in his results going from DDR3 1333 to DDR3 2133.


Yea I´m still contemplating whether to get a 2400 kit or 2133, 2400 costs ~20€ more tho. so I may end up getting those 2133 CL11 Ripjaws as they are very affordable.

If/when I get those, I´m surely going to post my results here


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> Yea I´m still contemplating whether to get a 2400 kit or 2133, 2400 costs ~20€ more tho. so I may end up getting those 2133 CL11 Ripjaws as they are very affordable.
> 
> If/when I get those, I´m surely going to post my results here


ohh..the latency









I'm going to suggest some ballistix tactical 1866 here...


----------



## jdc122

If anyone could tell me any benchmarks for memory I'd be happy to test out my samsungs at a range of speeds, best I've got so far is 2133 cl10, but ill see if I can get 2400 and so forth if people want


----------



## Rpg2

This is quite the role reversal of what people and reviewers have been saying for the past 2-3 years where anything faster than 1600Mhz is pointless. A lot of the reviews and comparisons only showed a 1-2 FPS difference, but here we see a small number of games show a lot of improved responsiveness such as AI, textures, smoothness, and consistency.

I'm also surprised to see the higher speeds and looser timings providing lower latency than tighter timings at lower speeds. I was always under the impression that timings were purely for latency and that bandwidth was purely for transfer rates, sacrificing one for the other.

I just got a Samsung kit and am very eager to try out CL9 2133 from my CL7 1600.


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rpg2*
> 
> This is quite the role reversal of what people and reviewers have been saying for the past 2-3 years where anything faster than 1600Mhz is pointless. A lot of the reviews and comparisons only showed a 1-2 FPS difference, but here we see a small number of games show a lot of improved responsiveness such as AI, textures, smoothness, and consistency.
> 
> I'm also surprised to see the higher speeds and looser timings providing lower latency than tighter timings at lower speeds. I was always under the impression that timings was purely for latency and that bandwidth was purely for transfer rates, sacrificing one for the other.
> 
> I just got a Samsung kit and am very eager to try out CL9 2133 from my CL7 1600.


Part of the reason you're seeing latency improving with speed I think is the move of IMC's to the CPU die itself, it no longer has to go through the intermediary and much slower Northbridge chip. A few extra cycles on the RAM is apparently not as big of a hit as the NB was, and with much improved memory controllers the higher speed might be edging out the low speed low latency.


----------



## Rpg2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> Part of the reason you're seeing latency improving with speed I think is the move of IMC's to the CPU die itself, it no longer has to go through the intermediary and much slower Northbridge chip. A few extra cycles on the RAM is apparently not as big of a hit as the NB was, and with much improved memory controllers the higher speed might be edging out the low speed low latency.


Seems like they're finally able to take advantage of having the IMC in the same chip. I think Nehalem and 1st gen Core processors had IMC as well.

I will try to tighten my 1600 timings a bit more and then aim for CL9 2133 and run the STALKER Call of Pripyat benchmark to compare differences.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdc122*
> 
> If anyone could tell me any benchmarks for memory I'd be happy to test out my samsungs at a range of speeds, best I've got so far is 2133 cl10, but ill see if I can get 2400 and so forth if people want


AvP benchmark program. GUI found here
3dMark11
3DMark
Heaven Benchmark
Hawx 2 benchmark
As well as any other game you use like FAR CRY 3, Diablo 3, Boarderlands 2, etc.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rpg2*
> 
> This is quite the role reversal of what people and reviewers have been saying for the past 2-3 years where anything faster than 1600Mhz is pointless. A lot of the reviews and comparisons only showed a 1-2 FPS difference, but here we see a small number of games show a lot of improved responsiveness such as AI, textures, smoothness, and consistency.
> 
> I'm also surprised to see the higher speeds and looser timings providing lower latency than tighter timings at lower speeds. I was always under the impression that timings were purely for latency and that bandwidth was purely for transfer rates, sacrificing one for the other.
> 
> I just got a Samsung kit and am very eager to try out CL9 2133 from my CL7 1600.


Instead of seeing results from the min. frame rate we were looking at it like we would a GPU review (IE: max/average FPS). Average frame rates simply doesn't provide enough information to tell us what high freq. ram is doing vs lower frequency ram.

Example <--Take note of the average frame rate vs min. frame rates between ddr3 1600 vs ddr32133.
(someone else's results)


----------



## Maian

Is there a way without running benchmarks to make a semi-accurate estimation on whether tighter timings at a lower speed would produce better results than a little looser timings at a higher speed?

I was reading an article on RAM Timings the other day and it mentioned that a quick way to figure out the time between cycles is to add those 4 numbers up (ex: my 6-7-6-18 timings on my ram) and divide by the frequency to get the time in seconds (ends up being nano-seconds I believe) between cycles or whatever the term is. Is that accurate or completely wrong?


----------



## jdc122

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> AvP benchmark program. GUI found here
> 3dMark11
> 3DMark
> Heaven Benchmark
> Hawx 2 benchmark
> As well as any other game you use like FAR CRY 3, Diablo 3, Boarderlands 2, etc.
> Instead of seeing results from the min. frame rate we were looking at it like we would a GPU review (IE: max/average FPS). Average frame rates simply doesn't provide enough information to tell us what high freq. ram is doing vs lower frequency ram.


should i overclock my 7950?


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdc122*
> 
> should i overclock my 7950?


It's up to you. Just make sure that the clock rate is the same in all tests.


----------



## nleksan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maian*
> 
> Is there a way without running benchmarks to make a semi-accurate estimation on whether tighter timings at a lower speed would produce better results than a little looser timings at a higher speed?
> 
> I was reading an article on RAM Timings the other day and it mentioned that a quick way to figure out the time between cycles is to add those 4 numbers up (ex: my 6-7-6-18 timings on my ram) and divide by the frequency to get the time in seconds (ends up being nano-seconds I believe) between cycles or whatever the term is. Is that accurate or completely wrong?


I always mix it up, but I BELIEVE it is: 1000 / Memory Frequency Actual [ie 800 for DDR3-1600] x CAS...

so....

DDR3-2400 CAS 9 7.5ns
DDR3-2400 CAS10 8.33ns
DDR3-2400 CAS11 9.17ns

DDR3-2133 CAS9 8.44ns
DDR3-2133 CAS10 9.38ns
DDR3-2133 CAS11 10.32ns

DDR3-1600 CAS7 8.75ns
DDR3-1600 CAS8 10.0ns
DDR3-1600 CAS9 11.25ns


----------



## EastCoast

Here are some results using the old version of that benchmark (because that's what I used with DDR3 1600). One thing I will note is that the results of the DDR3 1600 does look a bit lower then normal but that's the result I got.

Heaven Benchmark

DDR3 1600
Min 11 FPS
Avg 54.7 FPS
Max 117.5 FPS

DDR3 2133
Min 28.6
Avg 55 FPS
Max 117.7 FPS


----------



## nleksan

...and EastCoast comes in with a strong finish! Nearly TRIPLING minimum frame rates! Folks, we haven't seen anything like this in years... I believe...we have just.... witnessed history...in... the making!







:thumb:


----------



## Maian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> I always mix it up, but I BELIEVE it is: 1000 / Memory Frequency Actual [ie 800 for DDR3-1600] x CAS...
> 
> so....
> 
> DDR3-2400 CAS 9 7.5ns
> DDR3-2400 CAS10 8.33ns
> DDR3-2400 CAS11 9.17ns
> 
> DDR3-2133 CAS9 8.44ns
> DDR3-2133 CAS10 9.38ns
> DDR3-2133 CAS11 10.32ns
> 
> DDR3-1600 CAS7 8.75ns
> DDR3-1600 CAS8 10.0ns
> DDR3-1600 CAS9 11.25ns


I don't know how I skipped over this article, but it explains it here: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Understanding-RAM-Timings/26/3
Your formula was pretty much spot on, though it was just "1 / frequency * CAS." But yea, your math still comes out fine in your list below (DDR3 1600 have clock cycles of 1.25ns). I still can't find the article I was looking at before... I just remember stumbling upon it when I was trying to overclock my RAM a short while ago and didn't know what exactly I was doing lol.

EDIT: Actually, scratch that about the formula. Your way of doing it, and the one in the article are the same... just the one in the article figures out the time in Seconds, forcing you to convert it afterwards, while yours just goes straight to nano-seconds.


----------



## nleksan

All about efficiency


----------



## xD4rkFire

So would a system with an i5 2500k benefit from a memory OC? Right now I have this kit in my system @ rated spec. Any ideas where I should start off?


----------



## Theelichtje

Hmm, interesting. time to oc my ram


----------



## shredzy

People have to keep in mind these 2133/2400 ram kits they see usually need a vdimm of 1.65V to run at that rated spec.....which you don't want to use with ivy/sandy bridge.


----------



## jdc122

JEDEC standard says memory must withstand 1.975v before incurring damage.


----------



## youpekkad

So whats what? G.Skill RipjawsX 2x4GB 2133 CL11 1,5V kit costs 57€ which is very affordable IMO, or is 1866 kit with lower latencies better?


----------



## shredzy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdc122*
> 
> JEDEC standard says memory must withstand 1.975v before incurring damage.


....I wasn't talking about the memory, I'm talking about the IMC in the CPU.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> So whats what? G.Skill RipjawsX 2x4GB 2133 CL11 1,5V kit costs 57€ which is very affordable IMO, or is 1866 kit with lower latencies better?


CL11 is high for that frequency IMO.


----------



## youpekkad

OK, so can someone throw some suggestions? What ram would suit my (1155-socket, Z68) rig the best? As long as its fast and affordable, again I dont know much about RAM-stuff


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> OK, so can someone throw some suggestions? What ram would suit my (1155-socket, Z68) rig the best? As long as its fast and affordable, again I dont know much about RAM-stuff


It depends on the price of ram where you are shopping. I can only tell you that CL9 DDR3 2133 at 1.5v is the best option.


----------



## Nocturnal Link

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Here are a few of my results...
> 
> System:
> - 3930K @ 4.5Ghz (usually 4.8)
> - Rampage 4 Extreme
> - 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3 2133 9-11-10-27
> - EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB @ 1326/7460
> - Samsung 830 256GB SSD (OS/Sys/Apps)
> - WD Blue 320GB (Music/Video)
> - HGST 7K500 320GB (Apps)
> - WD RE3 1TB (Games)
> - Creative Titanium HD
> - LG/Hitachi Slim DVD-R/W
> - NZXT HALE90 850W PSU
> - TRIPP-LITE ISO-BAR-4 ULTRA Line Conditioner/Surge Suppressor/Voltage Regulator
> 
> I used the above system for the below tests, with all clocks identical with just the RAM changing. The system is watercooled so no drops in Kepler Boost or anything like that.
> 
> *TESTS*
> 
> (RAM SPEED + TIMINGS - AVERAGE FPS - MINIMUM FPS - MAXIMUM FPS)
> All tests done in 1080p using a Dell P2212Hb connected via DL-DVI-D, all game settings set at maximum unless otherwise noted.
> 
> HALF-LIFE 2 EPISODE 2 (CPU @ 3.4Ghz, GPU @ Stock FTW Speeds)
> 1600 6-7-7-19 - 198.5 - 131.8 - 233
> 1600 9-9-9-24 - 191.3 - 124.9 - 219
> 1866 8-8-8-24 - 204.1 - 137.7 - 242
> 2133 9-11-10-27 - 217 - 147.1 - 259
> 2133 9-10-9-26 - 226 - 154.3 - 266
> 2360 9-12-10-29 - 231 - 159.7 - 283
> 
> Half-Life 2 and it's countless derivatives (mods, etc) all seem to be CPU Bound at this point, as I see a perfectly linear relationship between a CPU's speed and FPS.
> 
> FAR CRY 3 (CPU @ 4.5Ghz, GPU @ 1326/7460)
> 1600 6-7-7-19 - 52.2 - 26.1 - 93
> 1600 9-9-9-24 - 50.8 - 24 - 86
> 1866 8-8-8-24 - 54.1 - 27.9 - 96
> 2133 9-11-10-27 - 57.4 - 31.1 - 105
> 2133 9-10-9-26 - 58.7 - 33 - 107
> 2360 9-12-10-29 - 60.2 - 35.5 - 108
> 
> The biggest thing with FC3 is the increase in smoothness. The slower memory feels choppy at times, such as when you get into a firefight. The faster memory never has this problem. Also, with 2133 and above, I get zero texture "pop in", yet it's present with lower memory speeds.
> 
> I did recordings of 9 games, 11 benchmarks, and timed start up/shutdown/opening (Firefox with 25tabs/Photoshop/Paint.Net/Chrome with 25tabs,and a half dozen other things), and a few other things.
> 
> There is not a single instance in which the 1600 9-9-9-24 didn't come in dead last. The differences ranged from "benchmark-noticeable" to "Wow that's a huge improvement".
> 
> I simply don't recommend getting 1600 when the option for faster memory is there, especially if you have an IVB platform. The tests above are X79, and I have done the same tests on a 3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7, 3770K + Maximus 5 Extreme, 3570K + Extreme6 (for Ivy), a 2700K + Maximus 4 Extreme-Z, 2600K + G3.Sniper3, 2500K + Extreme9 (for Sandy), a Phenom II X4 980BE + ASRock 990FX Fatal1ty, 1100T + Crosshair V Formula-Z, 960T + 990FX Sabertooth R2.0, 1090 + M5A99X, 965BE + Gigabyte 990FX UD5(UD7, can't remember), and 8350 + Crosshair V Formula, 8130 + Sabertooth, 6100 + Extreme6, 4100 + Extreme3.
> 
> These have been over the course of 16mo, and variables change, not all systems had all tests run (most only had 2-3 games and a few benchmarks), and it's not a controlled experiment. Still, the results are only compared against the results from the same system, so they are perfectly valid.
> 
> Every single system wanted the fastest memory possible, although the Phenom II systems had to be controlled for timings by ensuring that the actual latency in ns was better than the prior test (which means most of the Phenom II tests are more about timings for a given speed than speed itself, although 1800 7-8-7-26 was always the fastest, beating 1600 6-7-6-19 by 9.3% on average).
> 
> I will try to get the rest of the results all compiled on a single spreadsheet...


I have seen the LIGHT!


----------



## nleksan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shredzy*
> 
> People have to keep in mind these 2133/2400 ram kits they see usually need a vdimm of 1.65V to run at that rated spec.....which you don't want to use with ivy/sandy bridge.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdc122*
> 
> JEDEC standard says memory must withstand 1.975v before incurring damage.


I have only actually run any of my memory at 1.5v on one occasion, the entire rest of the time all the different kits I've got have run, at the very least, at 1.635v and as high as ~1.75v for 24/7 use. After as long as 2 years, I have not seen ANY degradation, damage, or any other negative effects of any kind









Hell, when benchmarking (using just the cool winter air to cool the RAM), I've exceeded 1.985v without issue!

The VDIMM voltage doesn't affect the IMC, it's the VCCSA/IMC voltage that you need to watch as that directly influences the life of your IMC. Run your memory as high as you want, within reason.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> So whats what? G.Skill RipjawsX 2x4GB 2133 CL11 1,5V kit costs 57€ which is very affordable IMO, or is 1866 kit with lower latencies better?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shredzy*
> 
> ....I wasn't talking about the memory, I'm talking about the IMC in the CPU.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> CL11 is high for that frequency IMO.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> OK, so can someone throw some suggestions? What ram would suit my (1155-socket, Z68) rig the best? As long as its fast and affordable, again I dont know much about RAM-stuff


2133 CL11 is not BAD, but you can certainly do better!

I would definitely suggest the Ripjaws Z 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-2133 9-11-10-28 kit which goes for about $55-60USD; it will run wicked-fast with just the XMP settings, but should you get into overclocking/tuning the RAM yourself, well, it's the same exact kit I have so you can see a glimpse of my results in this thread







Oh, and the results I've given have all been on Sandy Bridge-E (X79), not known for having a particularly strong IMC. Benching the same memory on a Z77 platform (3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7 and 3770K + Maximus V Extreme), I have gotten it to ~2840 10-14-12-36 1.785v! I have also gotten as tight of timings as 1600 6-7-6-15 1.715v, 1866 6-7-7-20 1.685v, 2000 7-8-7-21 1.710v, 2133 8-9-9-24 1.765v, 2200 9-9-9-25 1.780v... Nothing that I'd want to run every day due to the stress it put on the IMC (VCCSA voltage was too high for anything but benchmarking in 9*F weather), but still the memory only took about an average of a half-hour to tweak for each of the above settings!

The Trident-X DDR3-2400 9-12-12 kit is also fantastic!!! Overclocks insanely well, as well as underclocks/tightens-up.


----------



## FtW 420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shredzy*
> 
> ....I wasn't talking about the memory, I'm talking about the IMC in the CPU.


Ivy bridge IMC isn't as wimpy as the sandy bridge IMC. With sandy I didn't want to go past 1.75V vdimm with increased VTT, ivy can take it like a champ (& doesn't need VTT as high for the same or even higher memory frequencies)


----------



## EastCoast

You can run the memory test portion of Window's Experience Index. At the CMD (with admin rights) type: winsat mem. The test should be done in a few seconds.

Edit:
DDR3 1600 was rated at 7.8 (I think) in WEI with a score around 21700. DDR3 2133 is rated at 7.9 with a score around 27800.


----------



## turbobnl

Thanks for the advice once again, Picked up a set of ripjawz ddr3-2133 ram. 2/2 test in 3dmark i picked up +150 points. The most important thing i notice was fps is stable in gaming and does not drop off like it use to. BF3, CSS, CSS:GO, SC2 games runs alot smoother. this is stock setting corsair ddr3 1600 upgraded to ripjawz ddr3-2133
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> I have only actually run any of my memory at 1.5v on one occasion, the entire rest of the time all the different kits I've got have run, at the very least, at 1.635v and as high as ~1.75v for 24/7 use. After as long as 2 years, I have not seen ANY degradation, damage, or any other negative effects of any kind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, when benchmarking (using just the cool winter air to cool the RAM), I've exceeded 1.985v without issue!
> 
> The VDIMM voltage doesn't affect the IMC, it's the VCCSA/IMC voltage that you need to watch as that directly influences the life of your IMC. Run your memory as high as you want, within reason.
> 
> 2133 CL11 is not BAD, but you can certainly do better!
> 
> I would definitely suggest the Ripjaws Z 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-2133 9-11-10-28 kit which goes for about $55-60USD; it will run wicked-fast with just the XMP settings, but should you get into overclocking/tuning the RAM yourself, well, it's the same exact kit I have so you can see a glimpse of my results in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the results I've given have all been on Sandy Bridge-E (X79), not known for having a particularly strong IMC. Benching the same memory on a Z77 platform (3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7 and 3770K + Maximus V Extreme), I have gotten it to ~2840 10-14-12-36 1.785v! I have also gotten as tight of timings as 1600 6-7-6-15 1.715v, 1866 6-7-7-20 1.685v, 2000 7-8-7-21 1.710v, 2133 8-9-9-24 1.765v, 2200 9-9-9-25 1.780v... Nothing that I'd want to run every day due to the stress it put on the IMC (VCCSA voltage was too high for anything but benchmarking in 9*F weather), but still the memory only took about an average of a half-hour to tweak for each of the above settings!
> 
> The Trident-X DDR3-2400 9-12-12 kit is also fantastic!!! Overclocks insanely well, as well as underclocks/tightens-up.


----------



## nleksan

Excellent, very glad to hear it!

Once you start playing with the speed and timings you should see even more improvement. I would say it's perfectly possibleto ddouble your gain in 3DMARK, if not more! Just remember that the RAM functions better as the CPU speed increases, so for every 100Mhz you overclock now you shouldssee bigger gains than you would with 1600.

Enjoy the memory, it's truly one of the best kits out there!


----------



## youpekkad

Too bad I´m low on funds but nice to hear that there is some performance to be had







When I can I´m gonna get one of those kits as well, I´m just wondering that what is going with all those ppl who say "well you can get 2133 RAM if you want to waste money..."


----------



## jdc122

Sorry im taking a while, but yes there is huge differences in my tests for what is an almost nonexistant price increase as part of you're overall build. I know its a low speed, but im running about 10 tests from 1333 to 2133, and its noticeably smoother, well worth it, plus ram is quite fun to test!


----------



## nleksan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> Too bad I´m low on funds but nice to hear that there is some performance to be had
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I can I´m gonna get one of those kits as well, I´m just wondering that what is going with all those ppl who say "well you can get 2133 RAM if you want to waste money..."


It's a psychological phenomenon related to people and how our belief system works. In this case, basically these people have READ over and over that "blah blah anything over 1600 is stooopid blah blah fart", so they have simply accepted it as fact, despite never seeing a shred of evidence first-hand. Furthermore, most of these people likely bought RAM that was 1600, based on this ignorant and flat-out wrong "advice", and they must now justify why "their" product is "better"; generally it is an attempt at justifying to one's self, rather than to those they are speaking with. Basically, people buy something but when they find out it's not the best/not what it was said to be, the VAST majority (I'm talking >99.9%) cannot admit that and instead continue to spout the nonsense they themselves were fed in attempt to feel better about their own product.

Brand loyalty develops in much the same way, and is equally ignorant. Of course, the actual Theory is far more complex but I really don't feel like typing it all out lol. It's more or less an example of how when people are unhappy/miserable, they want to bring other people to their level rather than try and "life themselves back up"; except in this case it's "I got mislead so you will too!".

Generally speaking, it's NOT intentional; people are not trying to intentionally mislead you, and in many cases there is a good chance that they, having never used faster memory (only the 1600 they were told to buy), genuinely believe they are helping a person (to save money/time/hassle/etc) by recommending the DDR3-1600 kits.

My advice?

LOOK FOR NUMBERS NOT OPINIONS! Always visit sites that are known for having absolute top-notch review quality (AnandTech, TechPowerUp!, JohnnyGuru and Xbit Labs come immediately to mind; Tom's Hardware is shady and is seemingly the place where all the PC enthusiasts' worlds' dumbest and most ignorant denizens go to spew their unintelligible filth...). Stay away from those that are NOT renowned for their reviews.
BUT ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS take benchmarks with a few grains of salt. What you see are usually the average of multiple runs, and it is extraordinarily rare to see a review in which any REAL overclocking of memory is performed, even more rare than it is to see one with game benchmarks that take into account the MOST IMPORTANT factor: minimum FPS!!!


----------



## FtW 420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> *It's a psychological phenomenon related to people and how our belief system works. In this case, basically these people have READ over and over that "blah blah anything over 1600 is stooopid blah blah fart", so they have simply accepted it as fact*, despite never seeing a shred of evidence first-hand. Furthermore, most of these people likely bought RAM that was 1600, based on this ignorant and flat-out wrong "advice", and they must now justify why "their" product is "better"; generally it is an attempt at justifying to one's self, rather than to those they are speaking with. Basically, people buy something but when they find out it's not the best/not what it was said to be, the VAST majority (I'm talking >99.9%) cannot admit that and instead continue to spout the nonsense they themselves were fed in attempt to feel better about their own product.
> 
> Brand loyalty develops in much the same way, and is equally ignorant. Of course, the actual Theory is far more complex but I really don't feel like typing it all out lol. It's more or less an example of how when people are unhappy/miserable, they want to bring other people to their level rather than try and "life themselves back up"; except in this case it's "I got mislead so you will too!".
> 
> Generally speaking, it's NOT intentional; people are not trying to intentionally mislead you, and in many cases there is a good chance that they, having never used faster memory (only the 1600 they were told to buy), genuinely believe they are helping a person (to save money/time/hassle/etc) by recommending the DDR3-1600 kits.
> 
> My advice?
> 
> LOOK FOR NUMBERS NOT OPINIONS! Always visit sites that are known for having absolute top-notch review quality (AnandTech, TechPowerUp!, JohnnyGuru and Xbit Labs come immediately to mind; Tom's Hardware is shady and is seemingly the place where all the PC enthusiasts' worlds' dumbest and most ignorant denizens go to spew their unintelligible filth...). Stay away from those that are NOT renowned for their reviews.
> BUT ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS take benchmarks with a few grains of salt. What you see are usually the average of multiple runs, and it is extraordinarily rare to see a review in which any REAL overclocking of memory is performed, even more rare than it is to see one with game benchmarks that take into account the MOST IMPORTANT factor: minimum FPS!!!


This!!! I'm not a gamer so don't really know, but since almost every gamer out there said faster than 1600Mhz makes no difference I figured it must be true.


----------



## EastCoast

The best time to get some good ram is when you see it on sale. Always keep an eye out for your favorite retailer and see if they are having a sale. If so take advantage of it and get the highest frequency/lowest latency ram out there (DDR3 2133+ depending on what your MB/cpu can handle).

It would have been better if ram benchmark tests for games allowed for a line graph. That would show us any differences. However, as mentioned average runs of the same map, scene, etc really don't tell the whole story. We should see individual runs to get a better picture. Again, we can't view ram performance like we do gpu performance.


----------



## nleksan

Well, I think that comparing the average minimum framerates across multiple runs of the same, linear, single player section of games is what will give the best data. I don't personally believe that multilayer benchmarks are worthwhile due to the immense amount of variables that cannot be accounted for unless you have a group of friends willing to suffer on the behalf of the greater good lol, not to mention run your own game server and do the testing over LAN. The same thing goes for pre-set game benchmarks, which don't have anywhere near the amount of AI realtime calculations being performed.

This is something of a new area in benchmarking, or rather something that hasn't been explored in a while. That means that we will just have to forge ahead and figure out what works best, keep excellent records, and make pretty graphs (everyone knows that the Internet has the attention span of, well, it doesn't have one lol).


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Well, I think that comparing the average minimum framerates across multiple runs of the same, linear, single player section of games is what will give the best data. I don't personally believe that multilayer benchmarks are worthwhile due to the immense amount of variables that cannot be accounted for unless you have a group of friends willing to suffer on the behalf of the greater good lol, not to mention run your own game server and do the testing over LAN. The same thing goes for pre-set game benchmarks, which don't have anywhere near the amount of AI realtime calculations being performed.
> 
> This is something of a new area in benchmarking, or rather something that hasn't been explored in a while. That means that we will just have to forge ahead and figure out what works best, keep excellent records, and make pretty graphs (everyone knows that the Internet has the attention span of, well, it doesn't have one lol).


The problem is that when people see a graph showing 55 FPS they truly think that the frame rates are 55 FPS. However the truth is 55 FPS is the average of 3 to 3+ runs of the same area. The difference between run 1 through run 3 could fluctuate by a few frames. Sometimes those runs are scripted so nothing changes other times those runs are in the general area and can't be scripted. So I was never a proponent for averages like that.

As for MP we gotta see something. It's been said that MP never gave the same frame rates as SP. The issue is that you can't get consistent results doing multiple runs in MP. For example, when playing BF3 we get into a map and we play. We don't consistently need the same number of players at the same location do the same thing multiple times before we get an idea of what our frame rates are. We simply play as we normally do and get an average from that...with just one run through of that map. That gives us an idea of how we are doing performance wise.

Now if we saw a line graph instead of just averages we could see a progression, over time, how frame rates fluctuate and get a better visual representation of min. frame rates.


----------



## ASUSfreak

So I recently OCd my 2x 4GB 1866 9-10-9-27 1.5V Vengeance to 2133 10-11-10-27-1T @ 1.55V

Haven't tested any fps comparising stuff yet...

Also my mobo says this:

Due to CPU behavior, DDR3 2200/2000/1800 MHz memory module will run at DDR3 2133/1866/1600 MHz frequency as default.

4 x DIMM, Max. 32 GB, DDR3 1866(O.C.)/2133(O.C.)/2200(O.C.)*/1600/1333/1066

Does this mean I can't buy RAM higher than 2200MHz?

I mean if I buy 2400 or higher, it just will not EVER work? Or can it be done with standard/other OC methods?

Also is my current RAM OC any good cause I just tried something and it seems to boot and run IBT with 6GB fine









And what you guys recommand for me (gamer, maybe at 1x 1440p soon) if I should buy other Corsair's RAM?







(I see they have 3GHz Vengeance now







--> not for me tho







)


----------



## marc0053

I decided to upgrade to Gskill 16gb 2133MHz from Gskill 8gb 1600MHz and try it for myself








Thanks for sharing this great finding guys!

For those using a Noctua D14 cooler, here is a useful website for selecting ram with proper clearance http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=compatibility_ram_gen&products_id=34&lng=en


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ASUSfreak*
> 
> So I recently OCd my 2x 4GB 1866 9-10-9-27 1.5V Vengeance to 2133 10-11-10-27-1T @ 1.55V
> 
> Haven't tested any fps comparising stuff yet...
> 
> Also my mobo says this:
> 
> Due to CPU behavior, DDR3 2200/2000/1800 MHz memory module will run at DDR3 2133/1866/1600 MHz frequency as default.
> 
> 4 x DIMM, Max. 32 GB, DDR3 1866(O.C.)/2133(O.C.)/2200(O.C.)*/1600/1333/1066
> 
> Does this mean I can't buy RAM higher than 2200MHz?
> 
> I mean if I buy 2400 or higher, it just will not EVER work? Or can it be done with standard/other OC methods?
> 
> Also is my current RAM OC any good cause I just tried something and it seems to boot and run IBT with 6GB fine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you guys recommand for me (gamer, maybe at 1x 1440p soon) if I should buy other Corsair's RAM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I see they have 3GHz Vengeance now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --> not for me tho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


It just means that the highest you can go is 2133. Just as suggested this is a cpu limitation. If you buy 2400 ram you could down clock it to 2133 but there maybe some quarks with stability. Some manufactures say that certain ram was developed with certain generations of PC in mind (sandybridge/ivybridge, etc). Check with the manufacture of that ram to make sure. For example, the best voltage, timing, etc. No need to do a whole lot of guessing to find out when you get the info directly from them. Some manufactures, like corsair, have their own forum making that task a bit easy.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> I decided to upgrade to Gskill 16gb 2133MHz from Gskill 8gb 1600MHz and try it for myself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing this great finding guys!
> 
> For those using a Noctua D14 cooler, here is a useful website for selecting ram with proper clearance http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=compatibility_ram_gen&products_id=34&lng=en


Thanks for the info.


----------



## ASUSfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> It just means that the highest you can go is 2133. Just as suggested this is a cpu limitation. If you buy 2400 ram you could down clock it to 2133 but there maybe some quarks with stability. Some manufactures say that certain ram was developed with certain generations of PC in mind (sandybridge/ivybridge, etc). Check with the manufacture of that ram to make sure. For example, the best voltage, timing, etc. No need to do a whole lot of guessing to find out when you get the info directly from them. Some manufactures, like corsair, have their own forum making that task a bit easy.


I see... hmmm so that means I can't go higher than 2133...

Well then there's no point for me to upgrade to "real" 2133 speed with tighter timings...


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ASUSfreak*
> 
> I see... hmmm so that means I can't go higher than 2133...
> 
> Well then there's no point for me to upgrade to "real" 2133 speed with tighter timings...


I'm not sure I follow. DDR3 2133 is real 2133 speed. You won't be able to get real 2400 or 2600 speed.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ASUSfreak*
> 
> I see... hmmm so that means I can't go higher than 2133...
> 
> Well then there's no point for me to upgrade to "real" 2133 speed with tighter timings...


You can run 2133 memory with tighter timings. You just cant run 2200 or 2400


----------



## ASUSfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> I'm not sure I follow. DDR3 2133 is real 2133 speed. You won't be able to get real 2400 or 2600 speed.


I meant my 1866 RAM overclocked to 2133 is the same as a "real" RAM module of 2133
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> You can run 2133 memory with tighter timings. You just cant run 2200 or 2400


Ok, this is what I needed to know...


----------



## nleksan

Sandy Bridge CPU's don't support memory multipliers higher than x21.33 which limits you to DDR3-2133 (apart from the +/-4-7Mhz you may have in BCLK). However, if you plan on upgrading before DDR4 becomes mainstream, you may as well get a set of DDR3-2400/2666 RAM because you will be able to max out your CPU's capabilities now while having extra RAM speed in "reserve" for when you upgrade, say to Haswell.


----------



## jdc122

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Sandy Bridge CPU's don't support memory multipliers higher than x21.33 which limits you to DDR3-2133 (apart from the +/-4-7Mhz you may have in BCLK). However, if you plan on upgrading before DDR4 becomes mainstream, you may as well get a set of DDR3-2400/2666 RAM because you will be able to max out your CPU's capabilities now while having extra RAM speed in "reserve" for when you upgrade, say to Haswell.


my p67 sabretooth has 2400 as an option


----------



## ASUSfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Sandy Bridge CPU's don't support memory multipliers higher than x21.33 which limits you to DDR3-2133 (apart from the +/-4-7Mhz you may have in BCLK). However, if you plan on upgrading before DDR4 becomes mainstream, you may as well get a set of DDR3-2400/2666 RAM because you will be able to max out your CPU's capabilities now while having extra RAM speed in "reserve" for when you upgrade, say to Haswell.


DDR4... not yet for me.

So higher RAM speeds can lead to higher CPU OC's?

Say I would buy Corsairs latest 3GHz memory (wich I'm not







) what would that do with my OC?


----------



## Rpg2

Top picture is 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24 1T. The bottom picture is 2133Mhz 9-10-10-28 1T.

1-2 FPS improvement. Only issue is that this benchmark is dynamic and is not 100% static (the same) each time so I would get fluctuating minimum FPS each time I ran it even with the same settings. I took the highest set of minimum FPS I could get at each RAM setting.


----------



## EastCoast

Thanks for posting those results. Even though there are differences between benchmark runs you can clearly see that min/avg frame rates increase having higher frequency ram. Even though it's 1-2 frames it's more then enough to show that ram faster then 1600 does impact a game's performance. Thus contributes to how smooth a game will run.

If you limit the the frame rates to 60 FPS do you notice a difference between 1600 vs 2133?


----------



## Rpg2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> Thanks for posting those results. Even though there are differences between benchmark runs you can clearly see that min/avg frame rates increase having higher frequency ram. Even though it's 1-2 frames it's more then enough to show that ram faster then 1600 does impact a game's performance. Thus contributes to how smooth a game will run.
> 
> If you limit the the frame rates to 60 FPS do you notice a difference between 1600 vs 2133?


I'll turn on Adaptive Vsync in the Nvidia Control Panel and give the benches another run.

The only issue is that my 2133Mhz overclock is borderline stable. Not quite sure how that affects my results, but they seem to be consistent enough to seem valid in terms of gains. If I remember correctly, the CAS9 1600Mhz was smoother because it was definitely stable while my CAS9 2133Mhz is still a work in progress. Will report back.

Overall, from this thread, everyone should be recommending 2133Mhz RAM. An extra $10 for the speed (unless you get that Samsung RAM which is cheaper but requires work overclocking it) is nothing in comparison to, say, a $200-400 graphics card, $100 case, $100-200 CPU.


----------



## homestyle

i'm still not a believer of faster ram.

can somebody post more benches?


----------



## Rpg2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *homestyle*
> 
> i'm still not a believer of faster ram.
> 
> can somebody post more benches?


We're not saying you'll get an extra 10 minimum FPS in all games. At best, a small handful of games might get 4-5 FPS while others see 1-2 FPS (minimum, not average). There's no reason not to get faster RAM for the small price difference if you want slightly better performance.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313343

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313234

Those two sets of RAM are about $14 apart. Those were the lowest priced 1.5v RAM with heatsinks from any company. They happened to be the same brand though.


----------



## homestyle

i was saying i wanted to see some minimum frame rate increases in the benchmarks. i know the average fps would be similar, but the gain is seen in the minimum fps.


----------



## EastCoast

Benchmarks posted in this thread have been added to the OP for easy reading.


----------



## Blameless

Results like a minimum of 11 at DDR3 1600 and a minimum of 28.6 at 2133 are not plausible and not representative.

That's a fluke.


----------



## nleksan

I wish I had taken screenshots, I did my testing a while ago just to satiate my own curiosity so a notepad file was all I used for loggin, eeventually I did switch to OpenOffice's spreadsheet program though. It wasn't until I saw this thread that I posted anything about them.

I assure you that the results I posted are all the average of multiple runs with the highest and lowest outliers dropped. Some benchmarks I have over 50 runs averaged, but I am very OCD about ensuring that everything is set identically (Psychopharmacologist, aka specialized Biochemical Engineering... I have to be a bitofperfectionist lol). All the bencbenchmarks are even kept on their own HDD with absolutely nothing else on it (320GB single platter WD 7200rpm 16MB cache short-stroked to 60GB).


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> Here are some results using the old version of that benchmark (because that's what I used with DDR3 1600). One thing I will note is that the results of the DDR3 1600 does look a bit lower then normal but that's the result I got.
> 
> Heaven Benchmark
> 
> DDR3 1600
> Min 11 FPS
> Avg 54.7 FPS
> Max 117.5 FPS
> 
> DDR3 2133
> Min 28.6
> Avg 55 FPS
> Max 117.7 FPS


Man oh man what am I reading









I'm not patient enough to read the whole thread, but I would be amazed by how naive people can be, and how come nobody pointed out that you're doing a very obvious mistake that everyone with running knowledge of Heaven is aware of...

The 11fps minimum from your first run is a bugged minimum fps run ( you see the benchmark "stutter" in the beginning of the test ), you need to let the bench reach scene 2 and press F9 to re-run the test, and bingo! the minimum fps will be on par with your DDR3-2133 run.

As for the rest, I've done more than a hundred test runs for various articles and purposes and I would love to have somebody dispute them with proper proof ( simply because they're indisputable, but I'll just play along and let you and the placebo effect give you some false hope ).

Please, prove me wrong









http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=gaming_performance_part1&pg=13


----------



## MrDucktape

What about my setup? Aparently my 980x doesn't like high frequency ram so I have my gskill perfect storm @ 1600 cl6. Is that much worse than 2133 cl9?


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrDucktape*
> 
> What about my setup? Aparently my 980x doesn't like high frequency ram so I have my gskill perfect storm @ 1600 cl6. Is that much worse than 2133 cl9?


Absolutely, you're missing out a lot... NOT! ( http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=gaming_performance_part1&pg=12 )

[ off-topic: apart from the fact that memory has nothing to do with your system's gaming performance, I highly doubt that your 980X can't take a RAM kit at DDR3-2000 at least ]


----------



## MrDucktape

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BenchZowner*
> 
> Absolutely, you're missing out a lot... NOT! ( http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=gaming_performance_part1&pg=12 )
> 
> [ off-topic: apart from the fact that memory has nothing to do with your system's gaming performance, I highly doubt that your 980X can't take a RAM kit at DDR3-2000 at least ]


Meh, I figure you're prolly right I haven't had that much time to try stuff but at first it didn't work. Thx, will look into it


----------



## kingduqc

I don't get it, they are all withing margin of error... so basically everything above 1600 is wasted money?


----------



## Maiky

Everyone is getting all hyped up about a 1-2 frame loss in min FPS when comparing 1600mhz to 2133mhz..

It's a few frames, not exactly earth shattering results..


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> I don't get it, they are all withing margin of error... so basically everything above 1600 is wasted money?


Yeap, gaming and memory = speed doesn't really matter once you pass the "max processing capability" of your CPU/GPU config.
Where it really helps is if you're using the iGPU/APU ( built-in CPU "VGA" ).


----------



## BenchZowner

Since I've done something similar with the new Metro ( Last Light ) for another guy on another forum, I thought it wouldn't hurt to post them here too.

( I believe I don't need to point out that in most benchmarks a 1fps-1.5fps variance is within the standard run to run deviation )

CPU: Core i7-3770K @ 4.4GHz
RAM: DDR3-800, DDR3-1333, DDR3-2000

Metro Last Light - 1920x1080 max details SSAA on Tessallation Very High

First AIDA64 Cache & Mem bandwidth test and then Metro Last Light built-in benchmark results

*DDR3-800 11-12-11-31 Loose sub-timings*





*DDR3-1333 10-10-10-24 Moderate sub-timings*





*DDR3-2000 7-7-7-21 Tight sub-timings*


----------



## coolhandluke41

one game is just that and I think someone already spend good amount of time on testing
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_5.html

EDIT; who runs 800~ 2000 ram on Ivy ...?







(4Gb vs 32-lol)
on another note I would love to see some none synthetic testing,preferably multiplier full server and just overall experience


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> one game is just that and I think someone already spend good amount of time on testing
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_5.html
> 
> EDIT; who runs 800~ 2000 ram on Ivy ...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (4Gb vs 32-lol)
> on another note I would love to see some none synthetic testing,preferably multiplier full server and just overall experience


Ignorant or blind ?

More than what you asked... ==> http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=gaming_performance_part1


----------



## coolhandluke41

1333-1866 and still no Ivy or Haswell.. get back (this "article" is 2 years old man)


----------



## Bruennis

Folks - which is faster 2133 @ 9-11-10-26 1T OR 2400 @ 10-12-12-31 2T

?


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Folks - which is faster 2133 @ 9-11-10-26 OR 2400 @ 10-12-12-31
> 
> ?


None.


----------



## nleksan

They'll perform equivalently. If you could get the timings on the 2400 down to 9-11-11, it'll be faster though!


----------



## borischarles

Hi guys
you seam to know a lot about RAM could you help me to buy the best sweet spot for my MSI z77 m power motherboard I use ivy bridge I5 3570k ans a single graphic card asus hd 7770
any advise, help would be appreciated. thank you


----------



## coolhandluke41

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *borischarles*
> 
> Hi guys
> you seam to know a lot about RAM could you help me to buy the best sweet spot for my MSI z77 m power motherboard I use ivy bridge I5 3570k ans a single graphic card asus hd 7770
> any advise, help would be appreciated. thank you


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313235


----------



## Bruennis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313235


I had this ram. Very fast. Was able to do 2666 @ 10-12-12-31 1T

Returned it because I needed 16GB.


----------



## coolhandluke41

they will do 2666c9


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I know 3DMark is not relevant to actual game performance but coming from 1600 CL9 to 2400 CL11 got about same boost in CPU score i would get from 300-400MHz CPU OC.


----------



## jeffro37

You guys seems to know how to OC ram pretty good. I am wondering if my ram ( Hyper X 1600, 9-9-9-27 1.65) could do any better? I know how to OC my cpu (2500k) fairly well, but oc'ing ram is a different story. Any good guides on OCN for getting maybe 1866 or better with my ram?

edit: Or would it be better to just buy new 2133 ram?


----------



## coolhandluke41

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I know *3DMark* is not relevant to actual game performance but coming from 1600 CL9 to 2400 CL11 got about same boost in CPU score i would get from 300-400MHz CPU OC.


why not ?

edit jeffro37 ..look at the RAM link I posted above..(there is 2 profiles-at list on new batch profile1 2133 1.5v same timings )


----------



## Bruennis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> They'll perform equivalently. If you could get the timings on the 2400 down to 9-11-11, it'll be faster though!


Thanks for reply. I was able to play with the ram a bit today and they are indeed very close in speed. However I think 2400 @ 10-12-12-31 1T is slightly faster leading me to believe that frequency is more impactful on performance than timings

2133 @ 9-11-10-25 1T


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







2133 @ 9-10-10-28 1T


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







2400 @ 10-12-12-31 1T


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## nleksan

Looks like read took a bit of a hit, write and copy improved a small amount, and latency dropped a ms. Seems pretty equivalent to me


----------



## coolhandluke41

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> They'll perform equivalently. If you could get the timings on the 2400 down to 9-11-11, it'll be faster though!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reply. I was able to play with the ram a bit today and they are indeed very close in speed. However I think 2400 @ 10-12-12-31 1T is slightly faster leading me to believe that frequency is more impactful on performance than timings
> 
> 2133 @ 9-11-10-25 1T
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2133 @ 9-10-10-28 1T
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2400 @ 10-12-12-31 1T
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
Click to expand...

look at top 3Dmark (not just 3D11) submissions (HWBOT) and you will have better idea what's for diner









and yes it's not that much but saying crap like "not at all" is just funny ,you will see this more evident on the next platform

EDIT; this reminds me of all this guys from few years back that would kill you when you recommend more then 4Gb
I'm done here see ya


----------



## Bruennis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> look at top 3Dmark (not just 3D11) submissions (HWBOT) and you will have better idea what's for diner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yes it's not that much but saying crap like "not at all" is just funny ,you will see this more evident on the next platform
> 
> EDIT; this reminds me of all this guys from few years back that would kill you when you recommend more then 4Gb
> I'm done here see ya


Not sure why you are irate but my post was to simply find which kit was faster -- 2400 CL10 vs. 2133 CL9

?


----------



## unph4zed

Quote:


> 1st I tried BF3 MP. The only real thing I noticed was that animations of your character were a bit faster and quicker. Meaning that when I revived someone one the motion to res a player was quicker with ddr3 2133. Also, certain player animations seem more natural. For example, watching someone vault over something didn't result them skipping further ahead. All of these seem to suggest, to me connection related. But that's simply not the case.


Is there anyone else that can actually feel this difference? I am putting together a 2011 build and every benchmark I have read seems to point towards 1600+ being pointless for gaming. I have the money but I do not feel like wasting $100+ if it is simply epeen factor. The other benchmarks basically show at the higher resolutions not even a single fps gain. Does it affect minimum framerate at high resolutions at all?


----------



## nleksan

I absolutely feel a difference, games are much smoother with faster memory than just 1600. For X79, I recommend the G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-2133 9-11-10-28 kit, as it's a bargain for the performance, and it's a great overclocking kit as well. I have run mine @ 2442 9-11-10-26 1T prettyeeasily.

The difference isn't shown in benchmarks because most places only show the average/max FPS, but it's the minimum FPS that's boosted by higher memory speeds. I have done all my testing so far at 1080p, but even without frame time graphs or the like, I can tell you that subjectively, games are noticeably smoother @ 1440p with DDR3-2400 9-11-11-29 1T than DDR3-1600 7-8-7-16 1T using a pair of 680 Lightnings (1438core/7212mem) in SLI.

How much of an effect the memory speed has is dependent upon the graphics card(s), as if you don't have the GPU horsepower to run something well, even DDR3-4000 isn't going to help. However, if you can maintain a decent framerate with your setup, then faster memory enhances what's already there, allowing texture swaps and such to occur much more quickly, and reducing any stuttering by a huge amount.


----------



## deFiniLoGy

Personally still thinks 1866 is just the same as 2133 gaming wise...


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> I absolutely feel a difference, games are much smoother with faster memory than just 1600. For X79, I recommend the G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-2133 9-11-10-28 kit, as it's a bargain for the performance, and it's a great overclocking kit as well. I have run mine @ 2442 9-11-10-26 1T prettyeeasily.
> 
> The difference isn't shown in benchmarks because most places only show the average/max FPS, but it's the minimum FPS that's boosted by higher memory speeds. I have done all my testing so far at 1080p, but even without frame time graphs or the like, I can tell you that subjectively, games are noticeably smoother @ 1440p with DDR3-2400 9-11-11-29 1T than DDR3-1600 7-8-7-16 1T using a pair of 680 Lightnings (1438core/7212mem) in SLI.
> 
> How much of an effect the memory speed has is dependent upon the graphics card(s), as if you don't have the GPU horsepower to run something well, even DDR3-4000 isn't going to help. However, if you can maintain a decent framerate with your setup, then faster memory enhances what's already there, allowing texture swaps and such to occur much more quickly, and reducing any stuttering by a huge amount.


Placebo effect to "reason" your purchases and spent money on something that won't make a difference.
The numbers are in, and more than enough testing has been done ( including frametimes to see if there's something min/avg/max fps can't show, sadly no, the frametimes are the same no matter how faster you run your RAM ).


----------



## Bruennis

I've used 1600, 2133, and up to 2666 ram and let me say this; I wouldn't run anything less than 2133. Difference isn't detectable but it's certainly there.


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> I've used 1600, 2133, and up to 2666 ram and let me say this; I wouldn't run anything less than 2133. Difference isn't detectable but it's certainly there.


It goes without saying... prove it.

Because theoretically ( if you know how computers work and how games are processed ) and practically it doesn't make any sense at all, and from several tests from various trusted benchmarkers & reviewers have been "mythbusted".


----------



## coolhandluke41

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> I've used 1600, 2133, and up to 2666 ram and let me say this; I wouldn't run anything less than 2133. Difference isn't detectable but it's certainly there.


Hey man look.. if you happy with higher bandwidth just like me that's all it matters (latency is becoming less important now days and only good for 2D ) I game all the time and I feel the same way it's very hard to show clear evidence in multiplayer since you can have empty /full server and different ping ,please don't let trolls stand between you and what makes you happy









edit; bandwidth and the amount of RAM is the key,RAM alone won't make huge difference ,what you looking for is balance (play with your timings -tight timings=latency ,use maxxmem or similar for comparison ),same goes for "GPU" power lol look at this ,this is single 570 on my old rig -I'm actualy getting better frames now since i switched to different monitor

http://www.overclock.net/t/1226631/electronista-kepler-fast-enough-to-replace-3-x-gtx-580s/80#post_16675305

"if there's a will there's a way"


----------



## nleksan

I 100pct agree with the above. The key to getting the benefits of fast memory lies in the rest of the system. If you run high memory speeds but the rest of your computer is made up of mid-range hardware, or if you have a bottleneck anywhere in your system, you are not going to benefit.

The testing I've done, and continue to do, has shown me that the higher the CPU clock, the greater the effect of the memory speed. Same goes with your GPU's. Running stock speeds, even with a recent card, will result in slower performance than if the same card is overclocked. Even the storage subsystem comes into play, with solid state drives alleviating the biggest bottleneck in any computer. If you are running a hard drive, you will find the performance of the memory is limited. I have tried this with my 830 256GB SSD, 2x 840Pro 256GB in RAID0, a single WD10EZEX 1TB HDD (short-stroked to 300GB, for an avg/max/min sequential RW speeds of 191MBs/203MBs/188MBs and access times of 8.7ms), 2x WD10EZEX in RAID0 (each short-stroked to 200GB for 382MBs/391MBs/377MBs and 7.9ms access times), a single WD VelociRaptor 1TB (161/172/139MBs and 10.1ms, and short-stroked to 300GB for 166/173/161MBs with 7.2ms), and two in RAID0 (298/334/273MBs and 9.2ms, and short-stroked to 200GB each for 331/343/324MBs and 7.0ms). I also used a single WD10FAEX 1TB (133/152/103 and 14.8ms), a single Seagate 7200.12 1TB (148/165/98 and 14.3ms), a single Seagate 7200.14 1TB (169/207/127 and 14.3ms), a single WD Black 1TB (132/154/96 and 13.5ms), a single WD Green 2TB (129/161/79 and 20.1ms), and a few other drives (older, such as a WD 320GB WD3200AAKS, HGST Deskstar 1TB,and even a WD1600JB which I have had for 8 years, and which is surprisingly slower than only the VR in seeks).

The fastest was obviously having the games and benchmarks on the 2x 840Pro 256GB RAID0 array, with Sequential R/W speeds of 1,103MBs/1,023MBs. The single 830 256GB actually outperformed the single 840Pro for some reason. The RAID0 and short-stroked WD10EZEX are behind the SSDs but far ahead of all theoother mechanical drives, with the VelociRaptor RAID0 and short-stroked coming in behind, followed by the single WD10EZEX in both full and short-stroked capacity, then the VR in both capacities, with all the other drives similarly slow.
Even with the extremely impressive numbers put out by the RAID0 array of the 2 WD10EZEX drives, it's simply not anywhere close to the slowest SSD (Vertex 4 256GB), and the difference between the varying SSDs in single drive configurations is minimal (830 256GB + 840Pro 256GB are virtually tied at the top, then the Plextor M5P-Xtreme 256GB is very slightly behind, then the Intel 335, Corsair Neutron GTX, Corsair Performance Pro, Vertex3 MaxIOPS 256GB, and the Vertex4).
The difference between the varying hard drives and their configurations shows much greater differences in performance, with the fastest single drive (WD10EZEX) being over 3.5x faster than the slowest newer drive (WD6400AAKS). When adding the RAID0 arrays into the picture, the mechanical drives suddenly put themselves in between the SSDs and their solo brethren, although definitely closer to the other spinning drives.

Similarly, with the CPU, your overclock plays a big role in the effect of RAM speed. I have been using my 3930K + RIVE setup for most of the testing so far, but I have been working with the 3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7 more and more as I reach the limits of my SNB-E's IMC.
I have tested everything from 3.0Ghz to 5.2Ghz on the 3930K, and have used the 100, 125, and 166 straps and varied the actual BCLK from -7.0 to +8.3 (@ 100strap) to test the limits of different overclocks. For some basic background, the CPU VCORE ranges from 1.175v to 1.4425v (I have a good chip), VTT + VCCSA range from 1.1v to 1.2v, PLL from 1.58xxV to 1.9125v, LLC always at "Very High" (using a Fluke DMM, it results in a nearly Perfect 1:1 set-to-actual vCORE). The VDIMM is set from 1.5v to as much as 1.750v (for 24/7 overclocks) or 1.925v (for finding the limit), and the memory is cooled via 50F air from a portable AC unit blowing directly into the case, which results in temps around 11C case temps under load, 14C MB temp, 22C VRM temps, 13-18C RAM temps, 29-51C CPU temps, and 14-19C GPU Temps, with the CPU/MB/GPU under water).
Using MaxxMEM, with the standard 2133 9-11-10-28 kit speeds, there's about 25-33 percent gains going from 3.2Ghz to 4.8Ghz, with no memory tweaking.
In games, the difference is that at stock (with a single GPU), a 1600 7-8-7-16 kit and the 2133 9-11-10-28 kit both stutter, although less so for the 2133 kit. However, when cranked to 5Ghz, the 1600 kit stutters while the 2133 has decreased it's stuttering by almost 90 percent.

When using a single card, the difference is there especially if stock. However, it's when running two cards that it's most apparent. The 2133 9-11-10-28 kit is nearly as smooth as a single card (and with the GPU's @ 1394core/7448mem, they are as smooth as a single card), while the 1600 kit results in very perceptible hitching during fast turns, and unexpectedly the 1600 kit has issues with texture pop in, which isn't present with the higher speed memory.

TL;DR VERSION

Your system is only as fast as it's weakest link. If you are running a stock CPU/GPU (or slow/old/underpowered), using mechanical drives instead of an SSD, etc, then you will benefit far more from upgrading and/or overclocking those components than you will from faster RAM. However, if you have a top of the line system,then you wiwill find that increasing your memory speed will result in perceptible increases in smoothness, a reduction or elimination of stuttering/hitchingand pop-in textures, aand a higher minimum frame rate.


----------



## timisyourfriend

Quad Core, hex core, octo core,... most games only need a good dual or quad core, so why purchase all these better processors when a game can't even utilize the performance?

Not everyone games ONLY, and not everyone cares about games ONLY. For builders and computer enthusiasts, sometimes just knowing the computer is capable of a certain power is all that matters.

My car can go 200mph+ but I do not dare to drive that fast. It can do quarter mile in 12 seconds, but I do not go to the grocery store in 12 seconds. Sure, it may not be practical or real purposeful, but the car/computer is capable and not many others are of the same thing. It is about being non-standard, better than average.









Cheers mates

Happy Memorial Day


----------



## nleksan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timisyourfriend*
> 
> Quad Core, hex core, octo core,... most games only need a good dual or quad core, so why purchase all these better processors when a game can't even utilize the performance?
> 
> My car can go 200mph+ but I do not dare to drive that fast. It can do quarter mile in 12 seconds, but I do not go to the grocery store in 12 seconds. Sure, it may not be practical or real purposeful, but the car/computer is capable and not many others are of the same thing. It is about being non-standard, better than average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers mates
> 
> Happy Memorial Day


First of all, yes, there are a decent amount of games that utilize AT LEAST 4 cores, and with the new consoles having "8-core" CPU's, I think developers finally have the push they need to really make games take advantage of multi-threading.

Also, my track car (my 328Ci which has cost me a fortune to build, pushing 493rwhp @ 7380rpm and 438rw-tq @ 1850-5250rpm w 90%+ available from 1200rpm thru 6100rpm courtesy a FULLY built motor @ 10.8:1 compression ratio and a modified Lysholm 2.8L twin-screw blower with a triple-thick core FMIC, meth injection, and a quartet of misters for the FMIC, 3 in front and 1 in rear; see profile for pics, see other posts for a partial parts-list, if interested....whole parts list is over 50 pages in Excel...) can run the quarter-mile in 10.218sec @ 139.52mph with just "street wheels" (J-Line 5LR2 custom-made 18x9" 16.8lb front and 18x11.5" 18.4lb rear wheels) and DOT-Approved street legal tires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cups in 265/35R18 and 295/30R18 front/rear (avg of my times on 93oct pump gas, which is 14.5psi on the blower; have quick-change pulleys/belts for the blower for 18.5psi, 21psi, and 24.5psi for 98oct, 103oct, and 109oct, respectively). It's not a drag car, but with 1/4 tank of 110oct, the 24.5psi pulley and belt, and some sticky rubber it'll run mid-9's with a better 1/4mile driver than I (can't run smaller wheels with drag radials, due to StopTech Monbobloc 6-Piston monobloc calipers 395x38mm (15.55"x1.5") 2pc floating slotted rotors front / 4-Piston Monobloc 384x34mm (15.1"x1.4") 2pc floating slotted rotors rear, big brake kit; the J-Line's had to be custom made to fit over the brakes, and I've got about 4mm of clearance at most).

I ABSOLUTELY GET TO THE GROCERY STORE IN 10.218sec !!!!


----------



## BenchZowner

*Frame times:* ( "smoothness factor" )
Metro Last Light
1080p Max details
3770K
ram at:

ddr3-1333 10-10-10-31 crappy subtimings, very crappy ram
ddr3-1600 9-9-9-24 moderate subtimings, normal 1600 ram like corsair vengeance
ddr3-2000 7-7-7-21 very tight subtimings, wicked ram

*DDR3-1333 vs DDR3-2000*



*DDR3-1600 vs DDR3-2000*


----------



## coolhandluke41

this dude makes my day every time ,you choking your bandwidth genius ,yeah that RAM is wicked..for 2D







,try 2400+ (8Gb+)
EDIT; try more games,make sure you have equal amount of RAM (same RAM for comparison )


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> this dude makes my day every time ,you choking your bandwidth genius ,yeah that RAM is wicked..for 2D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,try 2400+ (8Gb+)
> EDIT; try more games


How am I choking my bandwidth genius ? ( you can also stop confusing benchmarking 3D Marks, AquaMark, etc with real-life gaming they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common )
You're claiming that higher bandwidth = more fps ( then you said that it's not higher fps, it's smoother gaming, smoother gaming = lower frame times & less frame time variance [ less time between frames and consistent timing... ] ) and here we are.
Barely seeing a difference between a ridiculously slow DDR3-1333 kit and a DDR3-2000 fast kit, and seeing a tie between a regular DDR3-1600 kit and a DDR3-2000 kit ( want to compare our bandwidth ? you at 2400 and me at 2000 with my timing-set ? gonna be fun







)

I hope you're feeling good with yourself either telling lies or fooling people into buying things that DO NOT benefit them at all


----------



## coolhandluke41

read my last post Mr. big shot bencher..come back and I'l have some milk and cookies for U


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> read my last post Mr. big shot bencher


Name calling won't help you out in this case ( or any other case anyway ).

It's the same memory kit, i'm just changing the frequency and timings.

And yeah, I've done tests with more than a lot of games, page with results has been linked a gazillion times already, it's definitely posted in the last 2-3 pages...


----------



## coolhandluke41

If this is the same RAM ,I definitely can't tell from them screens and you still running 2000 4Gb ,as for name calling read your posts
EDIT; leave the timings alone just shoot for frequency say 1333-2400 and more games (metro is not the best and it will only show exactly what you referring to as GPU power )


----------



## Crouch

Interesting.... I thought there would be a big difference but apparently not


----------



## coolhandluke41

I guess that's why all RAM makers makes all high frequency RAM just for E-peen right







..if RAM was so worthless why they want close to $700 for high-end stuff,why everyone trying to run 2400+ RAM now days ?..I get it browsing



PS4 will kill XBOX one ,bet $20 on this one








Quote:


> Our investigation of the correlation between the performance of Ivy Bridge platforms and their memory subsystem parameters suggests a lack of significant differences from Intel's earlier platforms. The Ivy Bridge memory controller is largely the same as the Sandy Bridge one and delivers similar performance at the same settings. So, the influence of system memory settings on practical tasks is rather low. However, the new CPUs have brought about certain changes, the most important of which is the opportunity to choose a very high clock rate for DDR3 SDRAM. Such clock rates were not possible even with overclocker-targeted systems of the previous generation. As a result, the range of DDR3 SDRAM offered for LGA1155 systems has been extended, increasing the gap between configurations with slow and fast memory. By changing the memory clock rate alone, you can see a performance boost of 5-10% while applications that need large amounts of data (such as games) may get up to 20-30% faster! So, choosing the right kind of memory for you LGA1155 platform is important. We must note, however, that such benefits can only be achieved after a twofold increase in clock rate whereas a single 266MHz step up leads to a mere 2-3% increase in speed.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ivy-bridge-ddr3_7.html#sect0


----------



## BenchZowner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*
> 
> I guess that's why all RAM makers makes all high frequency RAM just for E-peen right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..if RAM was so worthless why they want close to $700 for high-end stuff,why everyone trying to run 2400+ RAM now days ?..I get it browsing
> 
> 
> 
> PS4 will kill XBOX one ,bet $20 on this one


PS4 & XboX architecture is different than what you are using here ( PC ).
Anyway, I'm not going to chime in some nonsense conversation regarding that matter ( and that would've been off-topic as well ).

As for why RAM makers make high speed RAM...

plenty of reasons, such as:

1) Because the tight timings chips have been discontinued by Elpida, Micron is out of the DDR game, Winbond is long gone, there's no serious player for high performance low latency RAM anymore.

2) Even if Elpida kept making high perf. DDR3 ICs the manufacturers would push the high speed kits more PR-wise because they make more profit out of them ( the high perf elpida chips are two times more expensive than the "high end" Hynix & Samsung counterparts )

3) Marketing 101: Higher number > lower number

4) People are buying ridiculous stuff thanks to their own ignorance and the marketing tricks, and since most people seem to be buying stuff without any kind of research ( oh, higher number, higher price tag, must be better ), it's easy as peasy to sell these kits.

If you want to make RAM useful, do a iGPU/APU test ( that's where its speed counts since it acts as a framebuffer for the iGPU/APU ) [ same for Xbox One & PS4 ] { to be honest I'm not sure about the Xbox One since I haven't checked its specs & architecture yet, not really into consoles anyway }, or WinRAR/7-zip/KGB archiving or high load SAP/SQL server tests.


----------



## coolhandluke41

all the milk and cookies for me ?









Thanks that was fun

EDIT ;edited my previous post to make it a bit clearer


----------



## magicase

I have these 2 ram kits to choose from

$176 - http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f3-2133c9d-16gxh

$189 - http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f3-2133c9d-16gtx

Since both kits have the same speed/timings etc there should be no difference in performance and the only thing apart is the heatsink?


----------



## jdc122

Get these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231639&nm_mc=OTC-FroogleNEW&cm_mmc=OTC-FroogleNEW-_-Memory%20(Desktop%20Memory)-_-G.SKILL-_-20231639


----------



## magicase

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdc122*
> 
> Get these
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231639&nm_mc=OTC-FroogleNEW&cm_mmc=OTC-FroogleNEW-_-Memory%20(Desktop%20Memory)-_-G.SKILL-_-20231639


Why do you link something that I don't need? Also i'm not in USA so that's impossible and I use SB so 2400 is useless since SB can only take up to 2133


----------



## jdc122

You're on an an American site, saying prices in dollars, and I'm causing the problem? Even if you were in Canada or Australia, you can find them there, it takes ten seconds to Google, so don't be like that when I'm taking my time to help you after you necroed a thread dead for 3 months. Secondly, that ram is highly binned, so its safe to say that 2400cl9 will clock or tighten better than a 2133cl9, because if it can do 2400 at cl9, then imagine the timings you can do with it at 2133, far better than the 2133 set will.


----------



## nleksan

Both of those are going to have Samsung IC's, but I don't know if they'll be HCH9 or HYK0....

Oh, just noticed they're 2x8GB... Now I have no idea what IC's (though I'd still bet some kind of Sammy)... Is there a reason you need that specific configuration?

If not, you can get some even better stuff, and 4GB DIMMs typically have the best IC's for overclocking.

Here are some of my recommendations:

G.Skill Ripjaws Z 4x4GB DDR3-2400 9-11-11-31 F3-19200CL9Q-16GBZMD (I LOVE the Ripjaws Z kits, every one I've owned/own has/is absolute top-notch! Currently using the 2133 9-11-10-28 version OC'd to 2484 10-12-10-26 1T with just 1.66v vDIMM! These here should run at least as well, and tighten down to something like say DDR3-2133 8-10-11-26 1T or so!)

G.Skill Trident X 2x4GB DDR3-2400 9-11-11-31 F3-2400C9D-8GTXD (these are tied for first place in my "Favorite RAM for Everything!" list with the Ripjaws Z, they're that great!)

G.Skill Ripjaws X 2x4GB DDR3-2200 9-11-9-28 F3-17600CL9D-8GBXLD (phenomenal kit, absolutely grab these if you can! Can do insane timings/speeds)

G.Skill Ripjaws X 2x4GB DDR3-2133 9-11-9-28 F3-17000CL9D-8GBXLD (again, awesome kit)


----------



## ericore

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> I found this comparison that was posted by someone else. Look at those minimums in Heaven BM.
> http://forums.tweaktown.com/memory/48445-does-ddr3-memory-speed-really-matter-ivy-bridge-sandy-bridge-2.html#post448845
> 
> *That's what is making the difference in how smooth a game can be. Going from 33 FPS to 38 FPS on minimums is what I consider a performance increase even though average didn't change*. We all know that the best experience in games are had based on how good minimum frame rates are. For example: If someone is playing a game that only gives them an average of 50 FPS as long as minimums are within the game's level of tolerance the overall gaming experience will be similar if the average was at 80 FPS. It's all about minimum frame rates.


You hit the nail dead on. It is curious nevertheless, that the maximum frame rate would be reduced in net; almost a contradiction. I suspect the increased min frame rates results from reduced latency. To be clear latency is both a factor of speed and timings, not just timings in and of themselves. To explain the drop in maximum frame rates, my theory is that the circumstances on systems where this occurs create a maximum read/write ram condition for a given game, but since the latency is reduced, this manifests itself as an increase in min FPS and reduce max FPS; a most beautiful phenomenon until now







Still pretty, but understood. If this happens to so many people with different systems and on so many games, and from both major video card vendors, one can summarize that the Evil DirectX overhead is to blame. So you got DirectX, massive overhead, this overhead puts tons of strain on CPU (the poor cpu is like, feed me, feed me I am dying over hear, magnetic hard drive! Shoot Me). All to say that minimum frame rates are intrinsically linked to CPU horsepower given the massive burden that is DirectX. Fok, now i want to test my theory with mantle. Btw, mantle is suppose to improve the average frame rate by 20-50%, but we know that averages are deceiving don't we. I predict that mantle will provide a 40%-60% improvement in min frame rates which is very very very nice.

Thanks so much for your comment, now I understand.


----------



## andydabeast

What about load times? I used to load Black Ops 2 maps online fast enough to see the starting countdown. Then in overclocking my CPU (phenom II 1055t) higher I turned the memory down from 1600 to 1300 and I always miss the start of the match.
I guess I should test by putting it back up and playing online but I was just wondering if ram speed affects load times.
I have a caviar black with OS and another one with steam games.


----------



## anferne

For what its worth im running

i52500k @4.5
amd asus 270
ddr3-1333mhz.

I upgraded to 2133 mhz ram and it made a BIG difference, min fps is better, game is smoother, i guess the slower ram was chocking the cpu.

get the faster ram. the end.


----------



## ChampN252

i'm sorry, but I'm also a non believer in this ram thing. Never seen a right differences and I hate to whip out the linus card. He also tested.


----------



## NeoReaper

I have only noticed a (Very vague) 1-2 FPS from lowering the Timings. Changing the Clock speed seemed to help only Minecraft (Because of its ram cycling) but there is no real difference. Stick to CPU and GPU overclocking and only think about RAM timings if its really holding you back (Which is.... never).


----------



## DMatthewStewart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> Thanks
> Yeah, you are right. Low latency DDR3 2133 is the way to go.


This is great, thanks for creating this post. I am running 1600 right now and do notice occasional choppiness at random times and places so its refreshing to learn that 2133 may get rid of that problem. Now Im just hoping that I can sell my 1600 without taking too much of a hit.

I am trying top find the best the option and the timings and latency sort of confuses me. Im running an fx 8350 cpu. What do think the best happy medium is as far as timings and latency for gaming?


----------



## Nagamayasi

My PC
i7 4790K
2 x 4gb Corsair CMD8GX3M2A1600C8
VGA ASUS GTX 780 Ti DC2 OC
MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
SSD EVO 250GB
==============================
Now I run the ram at 2133MHz.


and game like FIFA 15 running smooth. controller more responsive. but after play 20 minute back to delay controller.
and try to running timming to cl 9 but no lucky, controller not respomsive.
==================================================
and now I am planning to buy Corsair CMD8GX3M2B2133C9
whether to stable ?.


----------



## Xzow

Is there an actual conclusion to this? I see mixed opinions all across the thread


----------



## ASUSfreak

1333 --> 1600 = big difference in gaming (more fps)
1600 --> 1866 = still more fps, but just a few extra, like 5 or so (but when you reach 25fps, those extra 5 can make a difference)
1866 --> all above 1866 = not a difference at all in gaming, only calculating stuff works better (rendering, photoshop, etc)

And we're talking MIN fps most of the time (and those are the most important actualy... who cares if you have 200fps or 205fps. But some do care if those exact same 5fps makes it just playable or not)

Then again, don't waste much more if 1600 is WAY cheaper than 1866...


----------



## andydabeast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ASUSfreak*
> 
> 1333 --> 1600 = big difference in gaming (more fps)
> 1600 --> 1866 = still more fps, but just a few extra, like 5 or so (but when you reach 25fps, those extra 5 can make a difference)
> 1866 --> all above 1866 = not a difference at all in gaming, only calculating stuff works better (rendering, photoshop, etc)
> 
> And we're talking MIN fps most of the time (and those are the most important actualy... who cares if you have 200fps or 205fps. But some do care if those exact same 5fps makes it just playable or not)
> 
> Then again, don't waste much more if 1600 is WAY cheaper than 1866...


did you test this yourself or have a source?


----------



## Woundingchaney

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ASUSfreak*
> 
> 1333 --> 1600 = big difference in gaming (more fps)
> 1600 --> 1866 = still more fps, but just a few extra, like 5 or so (but when you reach 25fps, those extra 5 can make a difference)
> 1866 --> all above 1866 = not a difference at all in gaming, only calculating stuff works better (rendering, photoshop, etc)
> 
> And we're talking MIN fps most of the time (and those are the most important actualy... who cares if you have 200fps or 205fps. But some do care if those exact same 5fps makes it just playable or not)
> 
> Then again, don't waste much more if 1600 is WAY cheaper than 1866...


Do you have any articles or benchmarks to show that ram speed alone is going to net a 5 fps difference in games. This doesn't coincide with any of my experience in PC gaming. A 5 fps difference could be the equivalent of a 10% fps increase and that sounds like an extremely high performance increase for nothing but ram speed.


----------



## ASUSfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woundingchaney*
> 
> Do you have any articles or benchmarks to show that ram speed alone is going to net a 5 fps difference in games. This doesn't coincide with any of my experience in PC gaming. *A 5 fps difference could be the equivalent of a 10% fps increase* and that sounds like an extremely high performance increase for nothing but ram speed.


*
It is, but ONLY on the MIN fps and ONLY when going from 1333/1600 to 1866*

As for other results/benchmarks:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ram+speed+gaming+benchmarks --> than hit the Show Pictures button









And see the Linus video that Champ provide a few posts above this one. Fast forward to 2 minutes and see for yourself

Also I had 2x 2GB ddr2 and went for 4x 2GB ddr2 and did not see anything different (those old Core 2 Quad days...)

Now I have 2x 4GB ddr3 upgraded to 4x 4GB and went from 1866 to 2133 (via overclocking







) NOT seeing any improvement...

EDIT: euh... I don't know anything about those ddr4 modules and stuff.... so there might be a change in those???


----------



## Woundingchaney

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ASUSfreak*
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ram+speed+gaming+benchmarks --> than hit the Show Pictures button
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And see the Linus video that Champ provide a few posts above this one. Fast forward to 2 minutes and see for yourself
> 
> Also I had 2x 2GB ddr2 and went for 4x 2GB ddr2 and did not see anything different (those old Core 2 Quad days...)
> 
> Now I have 2x 4GB upgraded to 4x 4GB and went from 1866 to 2133 (via overclocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) NOT seeing any improvement...


The number 1 link there shows a Toms article where really there was only one title that showed and difference out of 5 titles, this title also is not a demanding title in the least. If anything this doesn't back up your statement. Im also questioning the validity of using a game released in 2012 as an example of ram speed timings improving performance.

If anything that article disproved your statement.

Im sorry but I very much doubt your statement regarding system ram speed and noticeable performance increases during gaming.


----------



## ASUSfreak

The linus vid starting from 2 min? It shows eg Metro Last Light which is pretty recent and demanding in my opinion.

I'm not stating RAM speed improves game performance. I "state" that going from 1333 upwards till 1866 improves the minimum fps in games/benchmarks. Anything above 1866MHz is not noticeable.

But as I editted my previous post, it seems you have DDR4 modules and I know nothing about those...


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Just poked my nose in here thought I could contribute something because I've looked into this as well.

Theres been a couple of users here who have tested and found it does make a difference. But only in situations where you are CPU bound, and so mainly to minimum frame rates. Heres one.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1487162/an-independent-study-does-the-speed-of-ram-directly-affect-fps-during-high-cpu-overhead-scenarios

Having gone from 1600 C9 to 2000 C9 myself I tested and I found a slight difference myself, to be honest I only upgraded in the first place because I wanted the RAM for another build.

If the game is GPU limited you probably wouldnt notice a thing, most are. Like Linus with his 8xMSAA tests on a 660ti. Might well help you out a bit more in something like Battlefield multiplayer or Starcraft 2 online though when things get busy on the CPU.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1438222/battlefield-4-ram-memory-benchmark

Quote from above:

'less framedrops or less incursions
FPS increase 58%, RAM mhz increase 60%
in cpu-limited situation the fps increase is nearly the same as the ram mhz increase'

He is talking about c9 1333 vs c9 2133, latency has an effect as well of course so you wouldnt benefit as much from c11 2133 for example.

I've seen results like this in a few independent tests, enough to make me believe its not a freak, a lot of the big review sites use GPU limited games or only show average frame rates in their results which I dont think tells the whole story.

It's definitely not something I would spend a huge amount of money on faster RAM for personally. But as here at least 1600 c9 is not much less then some 1866c9 or c10 2133/2400 kits why not? And if you can overclock your RAM to get a bit of a benefit in some way, why not again?


----------



## Xzow

Absolutely no difference going from 1333 9-9-9-24 to 1600 9-9-9-24 to 1866-9-10-9-27, in unigine heaven or firestrike, for me.


----------



## timisyourfriend

agree with slink.

DDR3-2400 CL10 is not much more than DDR3-1600 CL9

In fact, some brands have DDR3-1600 that cost more than or the same as another brands DDR3-2400.. so it should be clear what to get.

Especially for those paying premium price for Haswell K series, does it really make sense to use standard RAM? even if you could save $10? lol

Cheers

xzow-- maybe your CPU cant take advantage with stock speeds, or at all


----------



## Woundingchaney

Realistically saying it improves performance is not necessarily true, particularly given the times it does have some marked value are such specific situations that they are fairly uncommon in modern gaming. Years ago I would perhaps agree when gaming wasn't near as gpu dependent (or if one is using settings that is causing cpu burden), but in modern gaming the benefits of faster speed ram for gaming is extremely limited and really only viable under very specific circumstances.

Making blanket statements regarding ram speed increases coinciding with fps increases is not an accurate statement.

Sure, Im inclined to agree that if one is looking at a 20 usd difference then by all means buy the higher grade ram, but if one is forgoing other aspects of their build for faster ram, I don't think anyone would see that as a worthwhile investment. For instance when buying a factory OCed gpu (twin frozr, kingpin, etc) or higher speed ram, the choice should be obvious when gaming is the goal of a build.


----------



## Xzow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timisyourfriend*
> 
> agree with slink.
> 
> DDR3-2400 CL10 is not much more than DDR3-1600 CL9
> 
> In fact, some brands have DDR3-1600 that cost more than or the same as another brands DDR3-2400.. so it should be clear what to get.
> 
> Especially for those paying premium price for Haswell K series, does it really make sense to use standard RAM? even if you could save $10? lol
> 
> Cheers
> 
> xzow-- maybe your CPU cant take advantage with stock speeds, or at all


How can I tell if that's the case? It's an fx 8350, crosshair iv mobo.


----------



## timisyourfriend

Amd systems don't respond as much to higher dram frequency. Generally it's intel CPUs, higher end ones that can take advantage of high dram freq. u can see when comparing benchmark tests, bandwidth is not nearly as high for amd CPUs. but price is much nicer


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woundingchaney*
> 
> Realistically saying it improves performance is not necessarily true, particularly given the times it does have some marked value are such specific situations that they are fairly uncommon in modern gaming. Years ago I would perhaps agree when gaming wasn't near as gpu dependent (or if one is using settings that is causing cpu burden), but in modern gaming the benefits of faster speed ram for gaming is extremely limited and really only viable under very specific circumstances.
> 
> Making blanket statements regarding ram speed increases coinciding with fps increases is not an accurate statement
> 
> Sure, Im inclined to agree that if one is looking at a 20 usd difference then by all means buy the higher grade ram,but if one is forgoing other aspects of their build for faster ram, I don't think anyone would see that as a worthwhile investment. For instance when buying a factory OCed gpu (twin frozr, kingpin, etc) or higher speed ram, the choice should be obvious when gaming is the goal of a build.


Youre right it doesnt mean an automatic increase in FPS everywhere, as I say only in CPU limited situations. I have to say that does include a lot of MMO's for example which are pretty common. Some people will find that more useful then others but I dont think it is fair to say, as many do, that RAM makes no difference whatsoever in gaming. It can make a fair amount of difference when your CPU is struggling it seems.

I agree it would be stupid go for faster RAM over a faster GPU of course


----------



## Pwrmx24

So after all that said what is your opinion of:
F3-2133C9D-16GTX
vs
F3-2133C10D-16GSR

when I5-4690K Asus z87 Pro GTX 760 for playing Arma 3

a whopping $50 difference right now.

Thanks.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pwrmx24*
> 
> So after all that said what is your opinion of:
> F3-2133C9D-16GTX
> vs
> F3-2133C10D-16GSR
> 
> when I5-4690K Asus z87 Pro GTX 760 for playing Arma 3
> 
> a whopping $50 difference right now.
> 
> Thanks.


I vote get the C10 kit, it's very good deal at $30 off. If you're lucky you might even be able to tighten the timings a bit to get c9 anyway.


----------



## Pwrmx24

Ordered the sniper memory. Thanks.


----------



## Pwrmx24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> I vote get the C10 kit, it's very good deal at $30 off. If you're lucky you might even be able to tighten the timings a bit to get c9 anyway.


I got everything installed and ran ASUS 4-Way Optimization. Here is what I have for the memory. I have not Idea if this is good or not.


----------



## giubox360

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nleksan*
> 
> Here are a few of my results...
> 
> System:
> - 3930K @ 4.5Ghz (usually 4.8)
> - Rampage 4 Extreme
> - 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3 2133 9-11-10-27
> - EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB @ 1326/7460
> - Samsung 830 256GB SSD (OS/Sys/Apps)
> - WD Blue 320GB (Music/Video)
> - HGST 7K500 320GB (Apps)
> - WD RE3 1TB (Games)
> - Creative Titanium HD
> - LG/Hitachi Slim DVD-R/W
> - NZXT HALE90 850W PSU
> - TRIPP-LITE ISO-BAR-4 ULTRA Line Conditioner/Surge Suppressor/Voltage Regulator
> 
> I used the above system for the below tests, with all clocks identical with just the RAM changing. The system is watercooled so no drops in Kepler Boost or anything like that.
> 
> *TESTS*
> 
> (RAM SPEED + TIMINGS - AVERAGE FPS - MINIMUM FPS - MAXIMUM FPS)
> All tests done in 1080p using a Dell P2212Hb connected via DL-DVI-D, all game settings set at maximum unless otherwise noted.
> 
> HALF-LIFE 2 EPISODE 2 (CPU @ 3.4Ghz, GPU @ Stock FTW Speeds)
> 1600 6-7-7-19 - 198.5 - 131.8 - 233
> 1600 9-9-9-24 - 191.3 - 124.9 - 219
> 1866 8-8-8-24 - 204.1 - 137.7 - 242
> 2133 9-11-10-27 - 217 - 147.1 - 259
> 2133 9-10-9-26 - 226 - 154.3 - 266
> 2360 9-12-10-29 - 231 - 159.7 - 283
> 
> Half-Life 2 and it's countless derivatives (mods, etc) all seem to be CPU Bound at this point, as I see a perfectly linear relationship between a CPU's speed and FPS.
> 
> FAR CRY 3 (CPU @ 4.5Ghz, GPU @ 1326/7460)
> 1600 6-7-7-19 - 52.2 - 26.1 - 93
> 1600 9-9-9-24 - 50.8 - 24 - 86
> 1866 8-8-8-24 - 54.1 - 27.9 - 96
> 2133 9-11-10-27 - 57.4 - 31.1 - 105
> 2133 9-10-9-26 - 58.7 - 33 - 107
> 2360 9-12-10-29 - 60.2 - 35.5 - 108
> 
> The biggest thing with FC3 is the increase in smoothness. The slower memory feels choppy at times, such as when you get into a firefight. The faster memory never has this problem. Also, with 2133 and above, I get zero texture "pop in", yet it's present with lower memory speeds.
> 
> I did recordings of 9 games, 11 benchmarks, and timed start up/shutdown/opening (Firefox with 25tabs/Photoshop/Paint.Net/Chrome with 25tabs,and a half dozen other things), and a few other things.
> 
> There is not a single instance in which the 1600 9-9-9-24 didn't come in dead last. The differences ranged from "benchmark-noticeable" to "Wow that's a huge improvement".
> 
> I simply don't recommend getting 1600 when the option for faster memory is there, especially if you have an IVB platform. The tests above are X79, and I have done the same tests on a 3770K + GA-Z77X-UP7, 3770K + Maximus 5 Extreme, 3570K + Extreme6 (for Ivy), a 2700K + Maximus 4 Extreme-Z, 2600K + G3.Sniper3, 2500K + Extreme9 (for Sandy), a Phenom II X4 980BE + ASRock 990FX Fatal1ty, 1100T + Crosshair V Formula-Z, 960T + 990FX Sabertooth R2.0, 1090 + M5A99X, 965BE + Gigabyte 990FX UD5(UD7, can't remember), and 8350 + Crosshair V Formula, 8130 + Sabertooth, 6100 + Extreme6, 4100 + Extreme3.
> 
> These have been over the course of 16mo, and variables change, not all systems had all tests run (most only had 2-3 games and a few benchmarks), and it's not a controlled experiment. Still, the results are only compared against the results from the same system, so they are perfectly valid.
> 
> Every single system wanted the fastest memory possible, although the Phenom II systems had to be controlled for timings by ensuring that the actual latency in ns was better than the prior test (which means most of the Phenom II tests are more about timings for a given speed than speed itself, although 1800 7-8-7-26 was always the fastest, beating 1600 6-7-6-19 by 9.3% on average).
> 
> I will try to get the rest of the results all compiled on a single spreadsheet...


Hi mate can I ask you how you overclocked your ram till 2360 mhz with that timings? thanks in advance!


----------

