# Slow vs fast ram



## gasolin (Sep 23, 2013)

Now i am looking at ram and i can get 4x2 gb kingston hyper x gensis with a cl of 11 and a speed of 2400 mhz for less then 90€. I have 2x4gb 1600mhz kingston hyper x blue cl 9.

My cpu is a slightly oc'ed i5 3470 and a msi Z77 thunderbolt mb that is surpose to be able to handle up to 2800mhz ram.

If i use google to search for slow vs fast ram i get old results of slow 16gb vs fast 8gb ram or 8gb and 4 gb

I don't need 16gb, but what about slow ram with low cl vs much faster ram with slightly higher cl would the last be any noticeable faster?

How do we feel, notice faster ram? I mean what happens to the general speed,perfomance if we use faster ram?


----------



## kn00tcn (Sep 23, 2013)

dont some of the TPU reviews go into this? generally many people seem to say about 1600mhz is the end of noticeable performance gains (real apps/games, more than a few %, not just theoretical benchmarks)

i also read something interesting recently, think it was about haswell in particular, about how 4 sticks were better than 2 or 1

i wouldnt really bother if you're already 1600mhz & 8gb, i would pick some tight gskills around 2100mhz 2x8gb instead of increasing the stick count without increasing the total gb


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 23, 2013)

gasolin said:


> Now i am looking at ram and i can get 4x2 gb kingston hyper x gensis with a cl of 11 and a speed of 2400 mhz for less then 90€. I have 2x4gb 1600mhz kingston hyper x blue cl 9.
> 
> My cpu is a slightly oc'ed i5 3470 and a msi Z77 thunderbolt mb that is surpose to be able to handle up to 2800mhz ram.
> 
> ...




That is because you're Googling the wrong search term.

Google "latency review" or "memory cas latency review" and there is thousands of people asking your exact question.

For memory frequency, Google "does memory bandwidth matter".


----------



## gasolin (Sep 23, 2013)

#2

I don't need 16gb  ram, if i have 2x8gb i don't know if my mb only will use 1 ram stick until i need more the 4 gb ram or if it will use it as raid 0 use both ram stick so they each use 50% of the used ram.

#3

I thought so, sometimes it's just a matter for google right word,lines and you will get closer to the answer your looking for.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 23, 2013)

You will notice almost nothing past 1600Mhz. 2 sticks run faster than 1 stick because of dual channel, or in certain cases on special boards, triple and quad channel memory.
Games and apps dump their stuff in RAM, having access to that data faster improves things (A substantial amount for APU's)


----------



## Red_Machine (Sep 23, 2013)

I wouldn't bother replacing your RAM with higher speed sticks, at the end of the day it's just not worth the expense as you won't notice a thing.


----------



## gasolin (Sep 23, 2013)

So what i can se from using google is faster ram is good for physics http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-3.html

And quad channel ram can in some cases give more fps f1 2012 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-4.html

So unless you have a 6 core heavily oced, 16 gb of ram or more (because you need that much), ssd's in raid 0 and making movies (rendering) or just do extreme multitasking,  you won't feel a difference with 2133 or faster ram, if you already have dual channel 1600mhz ram with a cl of 9 ?

So why aren't we all using 4,8,12,16 or 32 gb 1600mhz ram with a cl of 8-9?

So what's the point for normal pc enthusiast,nerds to use 2133,2400mhz ram if it ain't gonna make your pc noticeable faster?


----------



## puma99dk| (Sep 23, 2013)

as RCoon says, past 1600mhz u don't feel much when we talk about games, benchmarks and other tests will give u more.

i run 16gb 1600mhz myself, and been thinking about getting higher mhz but i mostly game, so i would rather see what the lowest timing with 1600mhz would.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 23, 2013)

gasolin said:


> So what i can se from using google is faster ram is good for physics http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-3.html
> 
> And quad channel ram can in some cases give more fps f1 2012 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-latency-gaming,3409-4.html
> 
> ...



I have 2133Mhz Kingston RAM, which in turn overclocks by quite a sizable margin, and I intend to feed it to my APU system which I'm going to buy soon. The APU will improve a great deal in games with faster RAM. I may end up dumping my second GTX 780 with it of course, rendering the fast RAM useless xD


----------



## gasolin (Sep 23, 2013)

would 2x4gb 1600mhz cl 8 or 7 make any noticeable difference?


----------



## RCoon (Sep 23, 2013)

gasolin said:


> would 2x4gb 1600mhz cl 8 or 7 make any noticeable difference?



What is your current RAM? If you already have 2 sticks of 1600Mhz RAM at around CL9 then there is no point in buying anything else unless you need more RAM.


----------



## gasolin (Sep 23, 2013)

I have these ram http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1K2_8GX.pdf if i am lucky i might be able to sell them for 30€ and get those for 80€ http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX2400C11D3K4_8GX.pdf (mabye i could get them down to cl 10)


----------



## Vego (Sep 23, 2013)

i was wondering preaty much the same thing

i had 12gb of corsair dominator gt 2000 8 9 8 24 and wanted to get 16gb of corsair dominator platinium

new ram should be slower but 4gb "larger"

i dont see any differance except the looks in my case


----------



## RCoon (Sep 23, 2013)

gasolin said:


> I have these ram http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1K2_8GX.pdf if i am lucky i might be able to sell them for 30€ and get those for 80€ http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX2400C11D3K4_8GX.pdf (mabye i could get them down to cl 10)



You're wasting your time and money. 2 x 4GB @ 1600mhz is fine. There is no need for any faster RAM than 1600Mhz. You may in future want to upgrade to 16GB, but that's an entirely different matter.
I'm telling you, for normal use, and for gaming, 1600Mhz is all you need. If you are looking for a reason to buy RAM with big numbers wot look gud on paper, I have none for you.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 23, 2013)

gasolin said:


> I have these ram http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9D3B1K2_8GX.pdf if i am lucky i might be able to sell them for 30€ and get those for 80€ http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX2400C11D3K4_8GX.pdf (mabye i could get them down to cl 10)



Waste of money. Latency and higher bandwidth doesn't effect performance (much) to justify swapping sticks. The only legitimate reason to upgrade memory is if you need a larger capacity (GB). which I don't think you do at the moment.


----------



## sttubs (Sep 23, 2013)

OP, I really doubt you will have any discernible difference between CL9 to CL7. You could try changing your BIOS to manual with your current memory & drop it down to a CL8 or even CL7 to see if your current memory can handle it.


----------



## Arjai (Sep 23, 2013)

I had 6GB of some Hitachi in my Laptop. One was 1600 the smaller was 800. I could have gotten away with just one stick of 4GB 1600 but, I got two so they were the same, Kingston.

8GB is all I need. I crunch and have used a 3GB RamDisc and had room to spare.

I have used different branded ram in the same machine, in the past. Most work but some don't clock well together. DD3 though, I believe to be of a better quality than the crappy DDR of 10 yrs ago, of which I speak.

I still like to have the same brand in Dual. 

So, point is, 1600 is better than enough. 8GB is more than you need, self proclaimed. 

Save your Money and go buy a soda for your Honey!!


----------



## Hood (Sep 23, 2013)

When I bought my 2x4GB HyperX Beast kit (2400-11-13-13-30-2T) for $65, 1600 RAM kits were going for ~$50, so the $15 difference was no big deal.  The 2400 kit gave me higher throughput and lower latency, and really lets my 4.5GHz CPU overclock get maximum performance.  My AIDA64 memory scores beat everything except quad channel systems (i7-3960X) and it even beats them in latency scores.  Yes it's a benchmark, that's how you determine what's going on "under the hood".  People always say "You won't notice the difference", and they're right, but what's that got to do with anything?  Faster is faster, period.  Can you tell if a CPU does a billion operations a second vs only 800 million?  Neither can I, but that system is 25% faster in CPU intense operations.  It all adds up over time, even if you don't notice it.  It always makes me smile when I run a benchmark and see the much more expensive systems I'm beating.  SiSoft SANDRA, for instance, says my system is faster than 96.9% of all systems tested.  It was ranked #19 overall worldwide unlimited class (any hardware/anything goes) on Intel's XTU/HWBOT page for a day or two.  The extra $15 was well worth it!  RAM is a bit higher now, but it's still only about a $20 difference in price.  It's your choice - follow the herd, or lead the pack.  I like knowing I'm getting all I can out of my hardware.  I built my system one piece at a time as I could afford each upgrade, and every part was selected for it's position at or near the "sweet spot" of performance vs value.  The 2400 RAM was the best upgrade of all from a price/performance viewpoint.  Now everything works together amazingly well, and still surprises me at times how fast it is.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 23, 2013)

Hood said:


> When I bought my 2x4GB HyperX Beast kit (2400-11-13-13-30-2T) for $65, 1600 RAM kits were going for ~$50, so the $15 difference was no big deal.  The 2400 kit gave me higher throughput and lower latency, and really lets my 4.5GHz CPU overclock get maximum performance.  My AIDA64 memory scores beat everything except quad channel systems (i7-3960X) and it even beats them in latency scores.  Yes it's a benchmark, that's how you determine what's going on "under the hood".  People always say "You won't notice the difference", and they're right, but what's that got to do with anything?  Faster is faster, period.  Can you tell if a CPU does a billion operations a second vs only 800 million?  Neither can I, but that system is 25% faster in CPU intense operations.  It all adds up over time, even if you don't notice it.  It always makes me smile when I run a benchmark and see the much more expensive systems I'm beating.  SiSoft SANDRA, for instance, says my system is faster than 96.9% of all systems tested.  It was ranked #19 overall worldwide unlimited class (any hardware/anything goes) on Intel's XTU/HWBOT page for a day or two.  The extra $15 was well worth it!  RAM is a bit higher now, but it's still only about a $20 difference in price.  It's your choice - follow the herd, or lead the pack.  I like knowing I'm getting all I can out of my hardware.  I built my system one piece at a time as I could afford each upgrade, and every part was selected for it's position at or near the "sweet spot" of performance vs value.  The 2400 RAM was the best upgrade of all from a price/performance viewpoint.  Now everything works together amazingly well, and still surprises me at times how fast it is.



You hit the nail straight on the head 

As for the op's Q I had a set of 2133 cas 9 1.50v dominator platinum 2x4gb sticks.
upgraded when I didnt need to as the platinum sticks would clock up very well but the numbers just didnt scale up with the clocks

I moved up to a set of Kingston’s HyperX 10th Anniversary Edition memory 4x4gb 2400MHz c11 sticks and the difference was impressive to say the least... I never looked back at the corsair sammy chips. So imo I think you cant go wrong upgrading. The numbers prove to be way faster and these things beat alot of 2666mhz sticks out there on the market. 
check out Daves review here, you might be surprised


----------



## Arjai (Sep 23, 2013)

Hood said:


> When I bought my 2x4GB HyperX Beast kit (2400-11-13-13-30-2T) for $65, 1600 RAM kits were going for ~$50, so the $15 difference was no big deal.  The 2400 kit gave me higher throughput and lower latency, and really lets my 4.5GHz CPU overclock get maximum performance.  My AIDA64 memory scores beat everything except quad channel systems (i7-3960X) and it even beats them in latency scores.  Yes it's a benchmark, that's how you determine what's going on "under the hood".  People always say "You won't notice the difference", and they're right, but what's that got to do with anything?  Faster is faster, period.  Can you tell if a CPU does a billion operations a second vs only 800 million?  Neither can I, but that system is 25% faster in CPU intense operations.  It all adds up over time, even if you don't notice it.  It always makes me smile when I run a benchmark and see the much more expensive systems I'm beating.  SiSoft SANDRA, for instance, says my system is faster than 96.9% of all systems tested.  It was ranked #19 overall worldwide unlimited class (any hardware/anything goes) on Intel's XTU/HWBOT page for a day or two.  The extra $15 was well worth it!  RAM is a bit higher now, but it's still only about a $20 difference in price.  It's your choice - follow the herd, or lead the pack.  I like knowing I'm getting all I can out of my hardware.  I built my system one piece at a time as I could afford each upgrade, and every part was selected for it's position at or near the "sweet spot" of performance vs value.  The 2400 RAM was the best upgrade of all from a price/performance viewpoint.  Now everything works together amazingly well, and still surprises me at times how fast it is.



Yada, yada, Benchmark, yada...yawn. Listen, we are all proud of your achievements! Seriously, nice work. HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, *1600 is more than enough to do most things VERY, VERY well.* Most people are not editing movies everyday, all day. Most people are not driven to prove how well their money is spent on the best stuff, as a competition.

I would say the majority of computer users just want them to work fast enough, or a little faster than their last one. Or, boost the one they got with a better drive...Memory speed?

I wish people would freaking relax!


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 23, 2013)

Arjai said:


> Yada, yada, Benchmark, yada...yawn. Listen, we are all proud of your achievements! Seriously, nice work. HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, *1600 is more than enough to do most things VERY, VERY well.* Most people are not editing movies everyday, all day. Most people are not driven to prove how well their money is spent on the best stuff, as a competition.
> 
> I would say the majority of computer users just want them to work fast enough, or a little faster than their last one. Or, boost the one they got with a better drive...Memory speed?
> 
> I wish people would freaking relax!



I didn't see anyone on edge here but you my friend 
This is a place to comment, and just because you think the OP should run 1600MHz and save his money is not up to you, nor anybody else. Some like it slow and some like it fast!
So with that said I think the different posts from others will help the OP decide on what *He wants to do, and not what YOU want him to do. Its his money and let him do what he feels best to do with it*


----------



## Arjai (Sep 23, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> I didn't see anyone on edge here but you my friend
> This is a place to comment, and just because you think the OP should run 1600MHz and save his money is not up to you, nor anybody else. Some like it slow and some like it fast!
> So with that said I think the different posts from others will help the OP decide on what *He wants to do, and not what YOU want him to do. Its his money and let him do what he feels best to do with it*



I was not posting to upset anyone. It is my own opinion, and I am not upset with any of yours.

Jeese...


----------



## Hood (Sep 23, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> You hit the nail straight on the head
> 
> As for the op's Q I had a set of 2133 cas 9 1.50v dominator platinum 2x4gb sticks.
> upgraded when I didnt need to as the platinum sticks would clock up very well but the numbers just didnt scale up with the clocks
> ...


Thanks for your reply and understanding, I see posts like this often, asking if fast or low latency RAM is worth it, and I always see the same knee-jerk replies from people who never bothered to run their own tests and form their own opinions.  Your post was a breath of fresh air.  



Arjai said:


> Yada, yada, Benchmark, yada...yawn. Listen, we are all proud of your achievements! Seriously, nice work. HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, *1600 is more than enough to do most things VERY, VERY well.* Most people are not editing movies everyday, all day. Most people are not driven to prove how well their money is spent on the best stuff, as a competition.
> 
> I would say the majority of computer users just want them to work fast enough, or a little faster than their last one. Or, boost the one they got with a better drive...Memory speed?
> 
> I wish people would freaking relax!


I'm sorry, I thought this forum was for ENTHUSIASTS, not "most people".  This site is called Tech POWER Up, maybe it was the name that misled me, I thought it was for power users, not sheep who only want to follow the herd.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  And by the way, I don't care about "bragging rights", because I'm the only one I have to please.  I only quote my benchmark accomplishments so that intelligent users can make an informed decision about the worth of a given upgrade.  Many of us care about getting all the performance possible from a given set of components; whether our budgets are tight or effectively unlimited makes no difference.  If $15 or $20 will break your budget, you're not an enthusiast.


----------



## shovenose (Sep 23, 2013)

Hood said:


> If $15 or $20 will break your budget, you're not an enthusiast.



What sort of bs statement is that?
How about this: if you aren't excited about the performance of your computer, you are not an enthusiast.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 23, 2013)

cadaveca did a test with some Samsung ram some time ago

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Samsung/MV-3V4G3/6.html


----------



## Hood (Sep 23, 2013)

shovenose said:


> What sort of bs statement is that?
> How about this: if you aren't excited about the performance of your computer, you are not an enthusiast.



That's a good one too.  By that I meant I have done without certain things so I could spend the money on a part that was really beyond my budget.  I am semi-retired due to health reasons, and on a very limited budget, so upgrades require sacrificing something or an unexpected windfall.  Since I consider myself an "enthusiast", I often find myself wanting to buy the latest and greatest hardware, but being a realist on a tight budget, it's not always possible.  Also it's best to wait through at least 2 or 3 generations of hardware to do a major upgrade, to make it worth it.  That's why I want my Ivy rig to be as fast as possible - so I can safely skip Haswell and Broadwell.  My next major upgrade should include DDR4 and SATA Express, or it's not worth it, so it looks like I'll have until 2015 to save my pennies.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 23, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> You hit the nail straight on the head
> 
> As for the op's Q I had a set of 2133 cas 9 1.50v dominator platinum 2x4gb sticks.
> upgraded when I didnt need to as the platinum sticks would clock up very well but the numbers just didnt scale up with the clocks
> ...



That review is very synthetic heavy. Like who cares what Sisoft Sandra, 3D Mark 11 or Superi says. I don't make my purchased based on random numbers.

The non synthetic tests shows it virtually makes no difference. In most situations that review shows the 1600MHz sticks going toe to toe with the 2400Mhz Sticks. Not sure that review helped your cause.

Nothing wrong with 2133Mhz Sticks, if I was building new I would recommend shooting for the highest frequency possible. But in the OPs case its just silly to remove his good memory sticks and spend 80€ for a superficial boost.


----------

