# 2133Mhz DDR4 with 8700K ?



## Fif23 (Apr 28, 2018)

Hi there ! 
I have two options before me: 

1. Used Fury X 2133Mhz  2x8Gb for the price of 110$
2. Corsair (red ones) 3000Mhz 2x8 for the price of 250$

Used with 8700k, no gaming, no OC.  It's a 24/7 data/firefox machine.


Opinions ?


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 28, 2018)

At  that price gap... option one.

Can always move up when you see another deal pass by but for those purposes, you will probably never notice the difference.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Apr 28, 2018)

And the other thing is that you can always overclock the RAM as well, you most likely won't manage to get it to 3000MHz but it will narrow the gap in performance between the two anyway


----------



## Folterknecht (Apr 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> At  that price gap... option one.
> 
> Can always move up when you see another deal pass by but for those purposes, you will probably never notice the difference.



And when he 's bored, he can set mem voltage to 1.35V and OC it to at least 2400 - 2666 MHz.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 28, 2018)

2666Mhz is the stock 8700k Memory speed iirc, so unless you OC it wont go beyond that, making the 2nd ridiculously priced set pointless. go with the first set, and use XMP or manual to increase if you want. You should have no issue reaching 2666Mhz on that 1st set.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 28, 2018)

The 8700 is fast enough at 2133...
Even with gaming 2133 is fast enough.


----------



## las (Apr 28, 2018)

Does not matter with that use case.



jmcslob said:


> The 8700 is fast enough at 2133...
> Even with gaming 2133 is fast enough.



Haha. "Fast enough" for what? You'll see a huge decrease in fps in most games. High refresh rate gamers would never want to go with insanely slow memory like that. In many demanding programs same thing will happen.

My DDR3 ran 2400/CL9. 2133 MHz on DDR4 is terrible.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 28, 2018)

las said:


> You'll see a huge decrease in fps in most games



do you have some numbers for that? something to show that huge drop , a test or the likes? im curious as it contradicts what i would define as 'huge" unless by "huge" you mean 5-10 FPS.


----------



## TheHunter (Apr 28, 2018)

Yeah even DDR4 2666MHZ is slower then DDR3 2400MHz CL10, I think 2800+ starts to drift away with 38GB/s+, e.g. Aida64 memory benchmark.

I think that DDR4 2133 can easily do 2800MHz, if not even 3000MHZ @ 1.35v and CL15-16? they OC better then DDR3. 
I remember my old DDR3 4x4GB 2133 cL9 crucial balistix elite could do 2666mhz CL11 , even booted at 2800 but it was slower then 2400..


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 28, 2018)

TheHunter said:


> crucial balistix



i have these, similar ones atleast, and they do Clock well.


----------



## las (Apr 28, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> do you have some numbers for that? something to show that huge drop , a test or the likes? im curious as it contradicts what i would define as 'huge" unless by "huge" you mean 5-10 FPS.



Many games will perform much better with fast (and low latency) memory. Try google Fallout 4 memory benchmark for example

Pretty much all games with texture streaming performs way better with fast memory

60 Hz gamers should not care that much, but 120+ Hz gamers definitely should. It's almost always CPU and memory that is the bottleneck when chasing very high fps. It's here you'll see the benefit of CPU OC and high speed / low latency memory. Difference can be huge.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 28, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> do you have some numbers for that? something to show that huge drop , a test or the likes? im curious as it contradicts what i would define as 'huge" unless by "huge" you mean 5-10 FPS.


Depends on the game ofc. And here is a sample.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews..._Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 28, 2018)

las said:


> Many games will perform much better with fast (and low latency) memory. Try google Fallout 4 memory benchmark for example
> 
> Pretty much all games with texture streaming performs way better with fast memory
> 
> 60 Hz gamers should not care that much, but 120+ Hz gamers definitely should. It's almost always CPU and memory that is the bottleneck when chasing very high fps. It's here you'll see the benefit of CPU OC and high speed / low latency memory. Difference can be huge.



Don't get me wrong ,I'm not arguing that what you're saying isnt technically true, and I am by far no expert on this issue.  But every video or benchmark graph I check out, shows an average variance of about 8 frames per second from 1600 MHz up to say 2400 MHz. Im not saying no improvement exists, it just seems to be limited from my searches.

And since OP is choosing between ram that has a price difference of $140 (the faster set is close to double the slower), it seems to me that wording the facts properly is important.

" The faster set of ram could yield higher frame rates in certain games, anywhere from 2 frames per second all the way up to 9 or 10 frames per second".

Seems more factual based on what ive found.  But even if it was higher than 10fps, for me it wouldn't make a difference ,because paying twice the amount for slightly faster ram just wouldn't be worth it for me.



HD64G said:


> Depends on the game ofc. And here is a sample.



Yea,  that matches the results I found. Hardly worth double the cost for 6 frames per second (in specific titles) to 9 out of 10 users. Even if every game ever made, performed 10 frames per second faster with faster ram, it still wouldn't be worth it (unless the cost was FAR less than what this thread is refering to) . In my opinion anyone who would argue it would be worth it ,is just someone trying to justify the fact that they got duped into paying more for "faster" ram.


----------



## Fif23 (Apr 28, 2018)

I see fellas  ! Good points ! 
Looks like the 2133 + OC is the smarter option, especially in todays market huh ? 
I will try to find used 3000 but if I can't, tomorrow I will pull on the 2133


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 28, 2018)

Fif23 said:


> Looks like the 2133 + OC is the smarter option, especially in todays market huh ?



undeniably the 2133 is the smart choice. unless 6FPS in some games is THAT important to You. save the money for something that will be an actual performance increase. also, keep in mind, you will be able to get that Ram up to higher speeds if it is important to you. mostly, faster Ram effects iGPU perf in games, not so much dGPU


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 28, 2018)

las said:


> Does not matter with that use case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've tested it with my system... Maybe 5fps difference in anything I play... Outside of gaming I really can't tell the difference...
I'm sure there is a difference but it's not really noticable.


----------



## basco (Apr 28, 2018)

bravo good choice Mr. Fif23


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 28, 2018)

TheHunter said:


> Yeah even DDR4 2666MHZ is slower then DDR3 2400MHz CL10, I think 2800+ starts to drift away with 38GB/s+, e.g. Aida64 memory benchmark.
> 
> I think that DDR4 2133 can easily do 2800MHz, if not even 3000MHZ @ 1.35v and CL15-16? they OC better then DDR3.
> I remember my old DDR3 4x4GB 2133 cL9 crucial balistix elite could do 2666mhz CL11 , even booted at 2800 but it was slower then 2400..


Right you are, DDR3 at 2400 CL9 is still a beast. Latency can be key for CPU heavy gaming. Tested on 6700K:


----------



## John Naylor (Apr 28, 2018)

Id go w/ 2133 for your usage but make sure whichever set ua choose is from a 2 x 8GB kit and not two sticks purchased separately


----------



## er557 (Apr 28, 2018)

@las : My ram runs 2133 and I never notice bottleneck issues anywhere, ram speed is overhyped. Although my ram is octal channel numa mode enabled- so it might give same performance as quad ddr4 4000mhz


----------



## cucker tarlson (Apr 28, 2018)

er557 said:


> @las : My ram runs 2133 and I never notice bottleneck issues anywhere, ram speed is overhyped. Although my ram is octal channel numa mode enabled- so it might give same performance as quad ddr4 4000mhz


It is not overhyped, you just don't notice it at 4K. Also, in order to draw such conclusions you'd have to run tests on faster ddr4, hello....











I got another question. What does your cpu usage look like in games on 72 threads ? Do you have any cpu intensive games, and can you drop them to 1080p and take a screenshot of core usage, just for fun ?


----------



## er557 (Apr 28, 2018)

your eyes cant see the difference between 400fps or 500 fps in 1080p, anything above 60hz is thrown away anyway, unless some 144hz screen with vsync off; as long as a cpu can feed the gpu at this res, you don't need a 8700k  to play fine. If you talk about memory bandwidth, than yeah octal channel will give you same results as 4000 quad.

What would be a cpu intensive game ? gta v? I can drop it to 1080p, but task manager shows only blue squares, not graphs, when there are many threads; I'll see if I can come up with something


----------



## erocker (Apr 28, 2018)

Oh look, people arguing FPS in games with RAM when OP states it's not for gaming. 
Looks like issue resolved.


----------

