# Time for an upgrade



## Andynor91 (Mar 23, 2016)

So, I have had my rig for about 5 years now and I feel that it is time for an upgrade. What would be the best way of going about this in regards to best bang for buck? I am aiming to play the newest games on more or less max settings again in full HD resolution. What's the significant bottleneck? What should I replace/add? Although the 6970's in crossfire has served me well, AMD discontinuing driver support sucks big time. My specs can be seen below. I got great help when I built this rig on this forum many years ago, and I would be delighted to get some advice on what to upgrade 

Specs:
Motherboard: ASROCK Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 
CPU: 1x Intel Core i5-2500K
GPU: 2x ASUS EAH6970/2DI2S/2GD5 PCIE
PSU: 1x Corsair 850W TX V2 
RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT
HDD: 1x Samsung SSD 840 EVO 512gb, 1X 1TB samsung HDD
Case: 1x COOLERMASTER RC-932-KKN5
CPU Cooler: 1x Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
Monitor: 1x ASUS ML238H


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 23, 2016)

It's a good system but if you want higher FPS then I would upgrade the GPU as not all games support CF.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 23, 2016)

The system, for all intents and purposes, is fine. CPU etc, should be solid for another year or so.

Since you already have two GPUs, adding a third wouldn't be the most cost effective route, considering scaling (SLI/CFx supports MOST games, not all though as was mentioned above). Another issue is 2GB of vRAM isn't really enough these days for 1080p gaming with Ultra details. Its time to scrap those cards.

That said, I would grab a GTX 980 or a 390x/Fury. If you can wait a couple of months, some new cards will be out to choose from.


----------



## Grings (Mar 23, 2016)

If its best bang for buck you want JUST upgrade your graphics card, i literally upgraded from a virtually identical system (see specs, i have a 2nd 6950 not in it atm as i moved the big psu to new rig) a week ago after running an r9 390 in it for the last 3 months, sandy bridges still hold up really well, i can barely tell a difference on this i7 skylake system.


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 23, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> So, I have had my rig for about 5 years now and I feel that it is time for an upgrade. What would be the best way of going about this in regards to best bang for buck? I am aiming to play the newest games on more or less max settings again in full HD resolution. What's the significant bottleneck? What should I replace/add? Although the 6970's in crossfire has served me well, AMD discontinuing driver support sucks big time. My specs can be seen below. I got great help when I built this rig on this forum many years ago, and I would be delighted to get some advice on what to upgrade
> 
> Specs:
> Motherboard: ASROCK Z68 Extreme4 Gen3
> ...


Your system looks very good as it is.  I would say the GPU's are the only thing needing upgrading (Like others stated).

If you want bang for buck upgrade now, definitely grab the R9 390 which is probably one of the best bang for buck high end cards.  You will max pretty much every game at FHD.

Try this one, pretty good bang for buck:
MSI R9 390.


----------



## Andynor91 (Mar 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> The system, for all intents and purposes, is fine. CPU etc, should be solid for another year or so.
> 
> Since you already have two GPUs, adding a third wouldn't be the most cost effective route, considering scaling (SLI/CFx supports MOST games, not all though as was mentioned above). Another issue is 2GB of vRAM isn't really enough these days for 1080p gaming with Ultra details. Its time to scrap those cards.
> 
> That said, I would grab a GTX 980 or a 390x/Fury. If you can wait a couple of months, some new cards will be out to choose from.



How many months would I have to wait if I choose this route? Also, only 1 year more of the rig being solid? So if I purchase a 390/390x now, my computer will only be able to run the newest games for 1 year before it'll be struggling with high settings and 60fps gameplay at FHD? Sounds like a pretty bad investment to me. If I purchase a 390/390X and my computer can run games for another 3 years or so at high/medium settings and 60fps FHD I would think it'd be more worth it. Thanks for the advice so far everyone.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 23, 2016)

Nobody knows when exactly they will come out. NVIDIA is supposed to be May for their midrange offering (will still smoke your current cards). But that is a rumor......If you are ready now, buy now. 

2-3 is possible, but likely, with more games coming out for DX12 by then, you could have a glass ceiling on your card. Not a big deal, really, but its IMPOSSIBLE to tell you 60FPS on all titles without IQ sacrifices.


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 23, 2016)

Nvidia will make formal announcements on their Pascal GPU next month, I would not hold my breathe for new GPUs until late spring/early summer from them at the earliest.  The good news is with new video cards releasing the old stock gets discounted.  Every game is different and you may find Very High settings just as good as Ultra in certain games allowing you to play for several years with the 390/390x.  It really depends on the games you play and the graphic performance you want.


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 23, 2016)

The best advice I can give you, make a list of the games you want to play (pick 4, 5, 6, etc.,).  Check out a review website like techspot  
Find those games and check out the cards that give you the performance you want at the settings you want.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 23, 2016)

Dude, your double posting...lol

And their HIGH END, hbm2, out late this year, but the mid range pascal with gddr5, gp104 sil8con, can be late May on forward depending on yields.


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 23, 2016)

Posting on my phone and doing three things at once.


----------



## ASOT (Mar 23, 2016)

Go with a R9 390/X and u good to PLAY


----------



## Jetster (Mar 23, 2016)

Depends on your budget


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 24, 2016)

Overclock that 2500k they are so easy to OC. Get another 8gb stick of ram for dual channel and ditch those 6970s for a 390X or grab a pre-owned 770, 780ti or new or pre-owned 970 and wait till pascal drops in Q4


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 24, 2016)

out of curiosity what improvements to gaming do you feel 16GB in dual channel will create rather then a 8GB stick (please post an independent review from a valid web site rather then Hyperbole_) _as I would be interested in seeing the ROI as it pertains to gaming .


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 24, 2016)

The problem with the analytical tests of 8GB vs 16GB are that the most recent testing done by Techspot   they have a basic system install, run chrome tabs, and the game being tested.  Two games in that configuration went over 8: GTA 5 and Arkham Knight.  

I say it's a problem, because most people have alot of programs running, and do multitasking while gaming.  You can search the topic here and find a large number of our members who regularly exceed 8GB while gaming.  And in fairness, just as many who don't.  

So, it might be anecdotal, but I really can't argue with the personal experience of people I've known on here for years.

My recommendation to the OP: 16GB in dual channel and a GPU upgrade.  The rest of the system is just fine.


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 24, 2016)

I saw the techspot report and it was well done.  Obviously if someone runs a lot of background programs while gaming then the more ram the better.  Personally outside of, web browsers, streaming music and AV, I don't run anything else in the background while gaming and have never gone past 6GB (out of 8GB system RAM).  To each their own but I would not see it as a major need especially if the OP is not running into out of RAM issues. 

I would personally recommend not running a lot of background programs while gaming but for those people who need (or want) to, I figure they have already built themselves a PC that can handle such multitasking.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Mar 24, 2016)

dirtyferret said:


> I would personally recommend not running a lot of background programs while gaming but for those people who need (or want) to, I figure they have already built themselves a PC that can handle such multitasking.



I guess it would be better to close background programs while your gaming, but I think it's not so actual anymore. Your CPU has cycles to spare. Will a web browser hinder your FPS? Word, excel? Spotify? Minecraft? Don't think so.. 
I'm way to lazy to open and close programs, so I just leave everything open. Sometimes even alt-tab from a game for ages.. I recommend 16gb if you are or want to be lazy.


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 24, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> The problem with the analytical tests of 8GB vs 16GB are that the most recent testing done by Techspot   they have a basic system install, run chrome tabs, and the game being tested.  Two games in that configuration went over 8: GTA 5 and Arkham Knight.



Actually they had a bit more open in the background 

"Given how Windows handles/prioritizes system memory we didn't think this would have much impact on gaming performance. That said, this time we have run the game tests with Chrome open in the background with 65 active tabs fully loaded, which consumed 2.2GB of memory when 16GB was available."

"For years, 8GB has been the go-to recommendation for gaming, and it looks like that won’t be changing anytime soon. Techspot tested a few games with 65 Chrome tabs open, and found that they'd guzzle up 9-10GB in a 16GB RAM configuration. And yet in Grand Theft Auto V, both 16GB and 8GB RAM configurations ran at 56 frames per second. Surprisingly, the 4GB configuration only ran one frame slower at 55.
There were similar test results for Batman: Arkham Knight and F1 2015. For the 16, 8, and 4GB configurations, Arkham Knight ran at 102, 101, and 98 FPS respectively. For F1 2015, the results were 109 FPS across the board.
Techspot did run some other tests that showed off increased speed with 8GB and 16GB of RAM, like compressing files with 7-Zip, but for gaming, larger quantities of RAM are still mostly going to waste. You can even get away with 4GB of RAM without crippling your framerate, although 8GB kits go for around $60 on Amazon at the moment."

My personal take; if you have 8GB and are not running into any issues then there is no need to upgrade.  If you are building a PC primarily for gaming then 8GB is fine.  For those people who will be running a lot of background multi-tasking, they know they need 16GB and already have it.


----------



## ASOT (Mar 24, 2016)

8 Gb is good enough for today ...later on 16 gb will be better,but depends how utilise the pc.

only gaming 8 gb is a good start


----------



## Andynor91 (May 12, 2016)

So, I will be waiting for either Polaris or Pascal since it's so close to being released. However, I want to upgrade the ram as well. Is it sufficient for me to just add 8gb more of the same RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT?
I can find 8gb more for about 40$ of the exact same ram. Right now I have the aforementioned ram as 2x 4GB.

Or, should I add a different kind of RAM?


----------



## jaggerwild (May 12, 2016)

You would be OK doubling the exact same ram, (make sure it's the same KIT/model/number as the memory you already have. I game with you tube playing music in the back ground or streaming music, have noticed lately a few issue's. How can you tell how much memory is being used during gaming? What app do you all use?


----------



## Caring1 (May 12, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> So, I will be waiting for either Polaris or Pascal since it's so close to being released. However, I want to upgrade the ram as well. Is it sufficient for me to just add 8gb more of the same RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT?
> I can find 8gb more for about 40$ of the exact same ram. Right now I have the aforementioned ram as 2x 4GB.
> 
> Or, should I add a different kind of RAM?


Adding the same ram will see more improvement than upping the ram speed.


----------



## trog100 (May 12, 2016)

odd really but on the one hand people seek extra gaming performance to the extreme on the other hand some seem too "lazy" to shut down other programs when they are not needed. 

for sensible use.. 8 gigs of ram is plenty.. but for those that like to run a dozen things at once who the hell knows..

i have a small laptop with 4 gigs of ram.. in general use browsing and the like ram usage never goes over 1.3 gigs.. but then again i aint too lazy to shut down stuff i aint using.. he he..

doing the same thing on my main machine (32 gigs of ram) it shows around 3.1 gigs in use.. if its there to spare windows must use more of it.. but 8 gigs even in this day and age is still enough..

trog

ps.. i have 32 gigs just cos i can but so far i genuinely have not found any use for it.. its just sat there doing nothing..

incidentally i have tried running my browser and the like from a ram drive.. in an attempt to use my spare ram.. the speed difference (snappy factor) is undetectable compared to running normally off the SSD drive..


----------



## EarthDog (May 12, 2016)

Why would you bother to shut down anything on today's CPUs? I mean unless you are breaching your ram use, there is literally no point in doing so. Long gone are the days where walking and chewing bubble gum on a PC caused notable performance losses. I think you are stuck in 2004 and 'ram scrubber' programs, LOL!


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 12, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Why would you bother to shut down anything on today's CPUs? I mean unless you are breaching your ram use, there is literally no point in doing so. Long gone are the days where walking and chewing bubble gum on a PC caused notable performance losses. I think you are stuck in 2004 and 'ram scrubber' programs, LOL!




Just thinking the same thing lol 

He  could always download some more ram


----------



## jboydgolfer (May 12, 2016)

keep the system, dump the GPU's. I "upgraded" my 2500k and it wasnt worth it.  even the latest intel CPU's arent worth the swap. get a new gpu, and be happy You made the right choice buying Sandy Bridge.


----------



## trog100 (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Why would you bother to shut down anything on today's CPUs? I mean unless you are breaching your ram use, there is literally no point in doing so. Long gone are the days where walking and chewing bubble gum on a PC caused notable performance losses. I think you are stuck in 2004 and 'ram scrubber' programs, LOL!



you could well be right.. old habits die hard or so they say.. he he.

but on the other hand with an ssd drive everything pretty much instantly springs to life apart from large games so why not shut it down.. i did buy a ram drive program (dimmdrive) with the idea of preloading games into  it but would need at least 64 gig of ram to do that.. my 32 aint enough..

dont get me wrong here i am not trying to save ram usage i wish to f-ck windows would effectively use more of it.. it strikes me its windows that is stuck in ram scrubber mode not me.. 

trog

ps.. out of curiosity i just fired up everything thats up in my taskbar.. stuff i might use on regular daily basis.. with it all running at the same time i still only see 3.1 gig of ram usage.. and only 1% cpu usage.. he he

then out of habit i shut it all down.. he he


----------



## Kanan (May 13, 2016)

Overclock the CPU to about 4.3 to 4.5 GHz at least. Exchange the graphics card with GTX 1070 or 1080, or if you can't wait, get yourself a R9 390, R9 Nano or 980 Ti. System RAM amount of 8 GB is still okay, but if you really need more you can add the same again (same kit) to a sum of 16 GB. So much for my opinion, I don't think the CPU/Ram etc. needs any replacement or upgrade, just the graphics cards are old and need to be replaced. If you really want something for 2-3 years, then better get yourself at least a R9 Nano or 980 Ti - again, depends how much money you can spend. And if you can wait for the GTX 1070/1080, get one of those they are more efficient (and faster).


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

trog100 said:


> you could well be right.. old habits die hard or so they say.. he he.
> 
> but on the other hand with an ssd drive everything pretty much instantly springs to life apart from large games so why not shut it down.. i did buy a ram drive program (dimmdrive) with the idea of preloading games into  it but would need at least 64 gig of ram to do that.. my 32 aint enough..
> 
> ...


I am right. Stop wasting your time shutting crap down for no/negligible at best gains... 

Perhaps instead of wishing Windows uses more memory, understand how it uses it and buy a more appropriate amount... just like your GPUs. You probably could have spent 1/2 or less on your rig and got the same performance.

I don't remotely see a point in loading a game to ram... particularly multiplayer ones.. I mean what, you load first and wait for everyone else to get it??? 

Your methods are..........ponderous man... really ponderous...


----------



## trog100 (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I am right. Stop wasting your time shutting crap down for no/negligible at best gains...
> 
> Perhaps instead of wishing Windows uses more memory, understand how it uses it and buy a more appropriate amount... just like your GPUs. You probably could have spent 1/2 or less on your rig and got the same performance.
> 
> ...



and you are kind of off my planet.. i find it hard to make any sense of some of your comments..

my time is there to waste.. i am lucky in the sense i aint under any pressure to waste it in any other way that suits me..

as for the same performance for half the money.. that is total bollocks.. adequate performance for half the money maybe but not the same he he..

but dare i say it.. for me money just like time is there to waste.. i cant think of much else pleasurable to do with it..

one thing i will tell you though is i get pretty good value for the money i waste.. i never pay any more for things than i have to.. ether way recon most of what you say to me or about me is total bollocks.. but that is your right.. 

the point of pre-loading a larger game to ram is a pretty simple and obvious one.. it saves waiting the two minutes or so for the bugger to load.. that two minutes wasting time aint the kind i like.. waiting three seconds for edge or chrome to load or the one second it takes for me to shut them down i dont mind.. 

but pretty much every minute i spend on a PC is leisure time.. i dont use them for work purposes.. i retired from that a while back..

trog


----------



## Flow (May 13, 2016)

Hmm, all things said, more and more games seem to like 16GB of ram. I got 4x2GB and it's sufficient. But games like fallout4 already seem to like even more.
Even so, I'm not gonna swap out my 4x2 for 2x8 or something similar, because as said, it's still sufficient for all games.

As for shutting down tasks, that's hardly needed in windows 7, and not at all in windows 10. Maybe some tasks that run at startup, like some adobe managers.

Running from a ram disk can have certain advantages yes. I wouldn't use it though, even if I had 32GB of ram. And I would test it thoroughly with the pagefile on and off, even if windows uses it when set to off. And if I found it snappier with pagefile on, then I would set it to on, with 32GB of ram.
Placebo or not.

Anyways *Andynor91*,
as an upgrade, you could go for i7 and the upcoming gtx1080 or equivalent amd videocard. You got your 2500k at a time more threads weren't needed much, but nowadays there is some real benefit in it.
I like asus motherboards but that's personal taste. And you might as well get 16GB ram if you're upgrading. Get some quality high speed ram, it will serve you for several years to come.


----------



## Andynor91 (May 18, 2016)

Flow said:


> Hmm, all things said, more and more games seem to like 16GB of ram. I got 4x2GB and it's sufficient. But games like fallout4 already seem to like even more.
> Even so, I'm not gonna swap out my 4x2 for 2x8 or something similar, because as said, it's still sufficient for all games.
> 
> As for shutting down tasks, that's hardly needed in windows 7, and not at all in windows 10. Maybe some tasks that run at startup, like some adobe managers.
> ...



Thanks for the input. I'm leaning towards going for a GTX1070. Going to be playing at Full HD resolution so it should be sufficient I figure. I am also adding 8GB more of the same kit I have (so 2x4gb more).
I would preferably not want to switch out the CPU seeing as I would have to change the motherboard too then for a newer socket - because of moneyz. However, 1) will the 2500k be a bottleneck for the GPU? And if so, will it effect it significantly? Can I get away with having the 2500k, 16GB DDR3 ram, and a GTX1070, for let's say 3-4 years - at Full HD with high settings/60fps? I could perhaps OC the CPU as currently it's on stock settings. Heard it's an easy CPU to OC to around 4-4.5GHZ. Maybe a good idea? Only if it's needed of course, I'd prefer leaving it at stock settings.

Also, seeing as I have a sandy bridge which does not support PCIE 3.0, 2) Will installing a new GPU on a PCIE 2.0 slot (though I think my motherboard supports PCIE 3.0, but doesn't matter I guess seeing as I don't have an ivy bridge) have any significant negative performance impact ?

Everyone is obviously welcome to chime in!

Thanks again


----------



## Kanan (May 18, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> However, 1) will the 2500k be a bottleneck for the GPU? And if so, will it effect it significantly? Can I get away with having the 2500k, 16GB DDR3 ram, and a GTX1070, for let's say 3-4 years - at Full HD with high settings/60fps? I could perhaps OC the CPU as currently it's on stock settings. Heard it's an easy CPU to OC to around 4-4.5GHZ. Maybe a good idea? Only if it's needed of course, I'd prefer leaving it at stock settings.


The CPU is good for 1-3 years tops it depends a lot on the games and developers. Yes it's a very good idea to OC the CPU because otherwise it's simply too slow to support such a fast GPU. You should overclock it as far as you can, maybe with a maximum goal of 4.7 or 4.8 GHz and a minimum of 4.2 to 4.3 GHz. 



> Also, seeing as I have a sandy bridge which does not support PCIE 3.0, 2) Will installing a new GPU on a PCIE 2.0 slot (though I think my motherboard supports PCIE 3.0, but doesn't matter I guess seeing as I don't have an ivy bridge) have any significant negative performance impact ?


No, 16x PCI-E 2.0 is like PCI-E 3.0 8x and both aren't limiting graphics cards (or by a very small amount of maybe 1-2%). If you want to use PCI-E 3.0 you need a Ivy Bridge CPU, that's right. But I wouldn't recommend it to you (better then to switch whole CPU/MB/Ram). 

If you really want to buy a GTX 1070 wait for the custom cards though! Or get a GTX 980 Ti custom (it's faster).


----------



## ASOT (May 18, 2016)

1070 is overkill for FHD ..save some money and get a GTX 970/R9 390


----------



## P4-630 (May 18, 2016)

ASOT said:


> 1070 is overkill for FHD



I don't think so, seeing how many eye candy graphics settings some current games have and for the games to come.
I'm also buying a GTX1070 and I play at 1080p.


----------



## ASOT (May 18, 2016)

For 1080p is too much ...futureproof for many years,unless 2k or more is worth.

And if u tend to keep to much it will become outdated as new gpu's come quickly on market... 

P4-630 yes i know what u saying but need higher res,imagine all that Vram waste only for FHD


----------



## P4-630 (May 18, 2016)

ASOT said:


> but need higher res,imagine all that Vram waste only for FHD



Well I will be happy with that GTX1070 and 8GB maybe 6-7GB fast GDDR5, at least I know for sure I won't be running out anytime soon! 
A GTX1070 can probably play everything for years I throw at it at 1080p/60fps Ultra, even for upcoming games. 

Edit: Also I would be still able to upgrade my monitor in time and the GTX1070 would still be suffice for years. (for me).


----------



## Andynor91 (May 18, 2016)

So I managed to OC my 2500K to 4.5ghz at a vcore hitting 1.336V max, and hovering around 1.320V average under prime95. Vcore is set to offset at -0.025v, and Turbo Boost to +0.004v in BIOS. 1) This is acceptable I guess? Changing Vcore to -0.030v results in a bsod, so -0.025v seems stable. Temperatures hit 78C max on the stable configuration of -0.025v. Been runnin prime95 for 5 hours now. Will keep it running throughout the day. No errors so far.

Also, I stumbled upon this interesting article:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k

Basically it seems that an overclocked 2500k at around 4.5ghz, and running DDR3 ram at 2133mhz gives a comparable performance to that of a i5 6500. Taken from the article "in terms of the average reported frame-rates, 4.6GHz of Sandy Bridge quad-core power combined with 2133MHz DDR3 is a fairly close match for a stock 3.2GHz Core i5 6500 paired with 2666MHz DDR4". The 2500K is holding up well I guess.

Now that I have overclocked my CPU, I am thinking about maybe overclocking the RAM. My ram is 1600mhz, but I guess it can go higher? If so, any guides on my pair of ram? (not a lot of luck on google). I am also considering just replacing my RAM with a kit which runs at 2133mhz. However, my motherboard states on its official websites this: Supports DDR3 2133(OC)/1866(OC)/1600/1333/1066 non-ECC, un-buffered memory.
2) Could anyone elaborate on this? That is, will I be able to just buy a pair of DDR3 ram that runs stock at 2133mhz and my system will recognize it and run it at 2133mhz, or do I need to do some overclocking on my 1600mhz. I am not sure if my system supports stock DDR3 2133mhz.

Lots of help here, learning more by the day


----------



## P4-630 (May 18, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> Also, I stumbled upon this interesting article:
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
> 
> Basically it seems that an overclocked 2500k at around 4.5ghz, and running DDR3 ram at 2133mhz gives a comparable performance to that of a i5 6500. Taken from the article "in terms of the average reported frame-rates, 4.6GHz of Sandy Bridge quad-core power combined with 2133MHz DDR3 is a fairly close match for a stock 3.2GHz Core i5 6500 paired with 2666MHz DDR4".



Thanks for that info!
I own a i5 6500 combined with 3000MHz memory and soon a GTX1070
Seeing those framerates with i5 6500 makes me feel better again

i5 6500 turbo is actually 3.6GHz


----------



## Andynor91 (May 18, 2016)

Also, is it possible for me to buy this RAM and run it at 2133Mhz by just putting it in my system and firing it up? Cautious because I'm not sure if my motherboard supports it at 2133Mhz.
Kingston HyperX Savage DDR3 PC17000/2133MHz CL11 2x8GB

Will I see a good performance improvement in games with this kit over the one I currently have by the way? The timing is slower than the one I have in my system now, but reviews say that the kit is supposed to be solid. Might be possible to get it to run at CL9 at 2133Mhz too maybe?


----------



## Kanan (May 19, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> Also, is it possible for me to buy this RAM and run it at 2133Mhz by just putting it in my system and firing it up? Cautious because I'm not sure if my motherboard supports it at 2133Mhz.
> Kingston HyperX Savage DDR3 PC17000/2133MHz CL11 2x8GB
> 
> Will I see a good performance improvement in games with this kit over the one I currently have by the way? The timing is slower than the one I have in my system now, but reviews say that the kit is supposed to be solid. Might be possible to get it to run at CL9 at 2133Mhz too maybe?


Yes, the "OC" just means it's a higher supported value than officially stated by Intel for its Sandy Bridge CPUs (official limit is 1600). Well you saw that in the review you posted from Eurogamer, I guess it's a solid upgrade, but not a must have.


> Might be possible to get it to run at CL9 at 2133Mhz too maybe?


Yes, just buy a higher end kit, a 2400 MHz for example, or whatever is still cheap to buy (as high as possible) and run it with lower clocks but faster timings. PS. Maybe CL9 is too fast, but CL10 is certainly possible.


----------



## Andynor91 (May 19, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Yes, the "OC" just means it's a higher supported value than officially stated by Intel for its Sandy Bridge CPUs (official limit is 1600). Well you saw that in the review you posted from Eurogamer, I guess it's a solid upgrade, but not a must have.
> 
> Yes, just buy a higher end kit, a 2400 MHz for example, or whatever is still cheap to buy (as high as possible) and run it with lower clocks but faster timings. PS. Maybe CL9 is too fast, but CL10 is certainly possible.



So I am leaning towards buying the same kit they used in the review I posted, the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 2400MHz. It's also the cheapest I can find in my country. Just worried that I will run into problems with my motherboard/cpu OC because this kit is noted at 1.65v, which is pretty high. Do you think it will still run/boot/be stable and fine at 2133MHz?


----------



## Flow (May 19, 2016)

That's a tricky one. Many debates were fought in the past about sandies burning up due to 1.65v ram. While I never found an article saying this has actually happened, there are still people in doubt.
I run my ram and oc since may 2011, and the 1.65v isn't hurting anything thusfar. But going over that is a serious risk for sandy chips so no overvoltage to gain higher speeds on the ram.
Further more, your board should have a list of the maximum frequency for ram. Going over that could pose a problem for your board, in that it's possible it doesn't recognize it, or refuses the speed to boot with.

But if it boots you should be fine and able to go into bios to adjust your ram settings.
Lower frequency also means lower/faster cas timings. And you wont find much difference in your games compared to 1600Mhz ram.
All in all I would run it at the max speed your board allows, and then tinker some with the cas timings.
Like for instance : 2400Mhz 11-11-11-24 could run 2100Mhz 9-10-10-20 (just an example, have no real proof ofcourse)

In general the lower cas timings are better for small blocks of data (which games have lots of) and higher frequencies benefit large blocks of data ignoring the slower cas timings.
But ofcourse with high speed ram this is all unimportant and unnoticable in your everyday tasks. It's just schematics and insights of things you will never notice.

So a good choice for the 1070, and certainly not overkill!
Modern games want more ram, and faster videocards, they don't care about your cpu.
So even in 1080p it will produce more fps, and more is always better.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 19, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> So I am leaning towards buying the same kit they used in the review I posted, the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 2400MHz. It's also the cheapest I can find in my country. Just worried that I will run into problems with my motherboard/cpu OC because this kit is noted at 1.65v, which is pretty high. Do you think it will still run/boot/be stable and fine at 2133MHz?



I have that RAM and it's quite good. As for "OC'ing" it all you do is go into the BIOS and set the RAM to it's XMP Profile, and your at 2400.


----------



## Andynor91 (May 19, 2016)

INSTG8R said:


> I have that RAM and it's quite good. As for "OC'ing" it all you do is go into the BIOS and set the RAM to it's XMP Profile, and your at 2400.



My motherboard only supports 2133mhz I think. Is there a profile for this or how do I go about it? My MB is the ASROCK Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 btw.



Flow said:


> That's a tricky one. Many debates were fought in the past about sandies burning up due to 1.65v ram. While I never found an article saying this has actually happened, there are still people in doubt.
> I run my ram and oc since may 2011, and the 1.65v isn't hurting anything thusfar. But going over that is a serious risk for sandy chips so no overvoltage to gain higher speeds on the ram.
> Further more, your board should have a list of the maximum frequency for ram. Going over that could pose a problem for your board, in that it's possible it doesn't recognize it, or refuses the speed to boot with.
> 
> ...



Ah, so it's basically a gamble for me to buy the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 2400MHz for my MB/CPU - might not even boot. Total waste of money if that's the case. Maybe I should try finding a kit which runs at 1.5-1.6v then. How about these ones?

Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2133 DC 16GB
DDR3, 16 GB : 2 x 8 GB, DIMM 240-pin, 2133 MHz / PC3-17066, CL11, 1.5 V
/
G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 C10 DC - 16GB
DDR3, 16 GB : 2 x 8 GB, DIMM 240-pin, 2133 MHz / PC3-17000, CL10, 1.6 V

If any, which one would you go for considering the aforementioned problems you brought up. The Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 2400MHz is about the same price as the two listed before, would you gamble and hope that it'd work?


----------



## INSTG8R (May 19, 2016)

Well I am running them without issue but I am on Z97 and I just checked and the XMP profile is 1.65V for 2400. Those 2133 Vengence will probably be the same. "Default" Voltage is 1.5 tho.


----------



## Andynor91 (May 19, 2016)

INSTG8R said:


> Well I am running them without issue but I am on Z97 and I just checked and the XMP profile is 1.65V for 2400. Those 2133 Vengence will probably be the same. "Default" Voltage is 1.5 tho.



Maybe I should just gamble and go for the 2400mhz Vengeance. I found this review for the 2133mhz Vengeance (but it's in russian sadly). Doing a quick google translate shows that he tested them with basically the same MB I have and it didn't recognize them at 2133mhz. Max was either 1866 or 2000mhz (anyone who speaks russian here? ).
http://i2hard.ru/reviews/obzor-nabora-modulej-pamyati-corsair-vengeance-pro-cmy16gx3m2a2133c11.html


----------



## Flow (May 19, 2016)

Well, that's a good job. Always look on the internet for threads with similar motherboards and ram questions. Quite often you can find which ram does and does not work.
If you have a good return policy with the shop/vendor you're buying it from you can always take that gamble.

In any case, you wont win much with 2400Mhz over 2133. Also it's likely your motherboard has a frequency limit in bios at 2133Mhz. But you can check that now by going in there and set your current ram at the max frequency your bios allows. Don't safe it ofcourse, it's just to see the highest number available.
But I'm guessing it's 2133Mhz, which allows you to use that ram (if it will boot) with faster cas timings.

As for your other options, I would go for the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2133 DC 16GB.
We had several corsair type of ram in use, including some vengeance, and they all worked fine on multiple boards including some AM3 ones.


----------



## Kanan (May 20, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> So I am leaning towards buying the same kit they used in the review I posted, the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 2400MHz. It's also the cheapest I can find in my country. Just worried that I will run into problems with my motherboard/cpu OC because this kit is noted at 1.65v, which is pretty high. Do you think it will still run/boot/be stable and fine at 2133MHz?


I think 1.65 V is no problem. Years ago Intel said it's not "recommended" or "supported" by them, but after so many years it's well known now, that 1.65 V never produced any real problems. I had this discussion with a friend anno end of 2013 and I decided to not take the risk and go with 1.5 V ram, but now I wouldn't care - the same friend told me last year it's known to be no problem by now.

btw. I used G.Skill 2400 MHz Ripjaws and Ares on a APU and i5 Haswell system, they are very good and well supported on motherboards. Just had to update the bios, maybe same with your board, but that's no problem. Just take a good kit of a well-known and supported brand.


----------



## Grings (May 20, 2016)

The Corsair 2400 kits do work in the z68 extreme 4 gen3, i have a set in mine, but as pointed out already, only at 2133Mhz

as they are underclocked a little mine run fine at 1.57 volts


----------



## Andynor91 (May 20, 2016)

Flow said:


> Well, that's a good job. Always look on the internet for threads with similar motherboards and ram questions. Quite often you can find which ram does and does not work.
> If you have a good return policy with the shop/vendor you're buying it from you can always take that gamble.
> 
> In any case, you wont win much with 2400Mhz over 2133. Also it's likely your motherboard has a frequency limit in bios at 2133Mhz. But you can check that now by going in there and set your current ram at the max frequency your bios allows. Don't safe it ofcourse, it's just to see the highest number available.
> ...





Kanan said:


> I think 1.65 V is no problem. Years ago Intel said it's not "recommended" or "supported" by them, but after so many years it's well known now, that 1.65 V never produced any real problems. I had this discussion with a friend anno end of 2013 and I decided to not take the risk and go with 1.5 V ram, but now I wouldn't care - the same friend told me last year it's known to be no problem by now.
> 
> btw. I used G.Skill 2400 MHz Ripjaws and Ares on a APU and i5 Haswell system, they are very good and well supported on motherboards. Just had to update the bios, maybe same with your board, but that's no problem. Just take a good kit of a well-known and supported brand.



@Flow: I checked the BIOS and it says that the max supported setting is 2133mhz. However, the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2133 DC 16GB was the one I linked to, and which said in the russian review that it wouldn't run at 2133mhz at a Z68 Asrock Gen3 motherboard (same as mine). 

@Kanan: Found: 1) G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-2133 C10 DC - 16GB  2) G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-2133 C9 DC - 16GB  3) Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2400 DC 16GB.

My main worry is that they will not run at their set XMP profile for 2133MHZ/causing instability/bootproblems. Any input which one to go for and which is the safest choice?


----------



## Andynor91 (May 20, 2016)

Grings said:


> The Corsair 2400 kits do work in the z68 extreme 4 gen3, i have a set in mine, but as pointed out already, only at 2133Mhz
> 
> as they are underclocked a little mine run fine at 1.57 volts



Is this with the 2500K OC'ed, and are the timings of the ram tightened from the stock C11? Also, do you think my system (listed in original post) will run the 2400mhz corsair vengeance pro's at 2133mhz fine? I'm quite the beginner at these things. Lastly, how do I run them at 2133mhz? I assume I don't load the XMP profile or set it to auto, but rather choose some manual setting. Need some elaboration here in regards to my motherboard. Thanks for the help so far


----------



## Kanan (May 20, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> @Flow: I checked the BIOS and it says that the max supported setting is 2133mhz. However, the Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2133 DC 16GB was the one I linked to, and which said in the russian review that it wouldn't run at 2133mhz at a Z68 Asrock Gen3 motherboard (same as mine).
> 
> @Kanan: Found: 1) G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-2133 C10 DC - 16GB  2) G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-2133 C9 DC - 16GB  3) Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2400 DC 16GB.
> 
> My main worry is that they will not run at their set XMP profile for 2133MHZ/causing instability/bootproblems. Any input which one to go for and which is the safest choice?


If you want to play it safe take 1) or 2), two is obviously better, has CL9 timings. I think the 3) is a waste, just go with 1) or 2).


----------



## Grings (May 20, 2016)

Andynor91 said:


> Is this with the 2500K OC'ed, and are the timings of the ram tightened from the stock C11? Also, do you think my system (listed in original post) will run the 2400mhz corsair vengeance pro's at 2133mhz fine? I'm quite the beginner at these things.



Yes i set the cl9 manually from some timings i had seen online (pretty sure it was from some cl9 ripjaws ironically)

I am overclocked but had the benefit of having run that overclock for 3 years perfectly stable (with 8gb kingston ram at 2133/cl9) before adding the corsair ram

The XMP is weird, the bios reads it and sets to 2133 cl10, i'm pretty sure it was stable but i never used it for any length of time.

If you consider yourself a beginner i would definitely say get the cl9 G.Skill set, theres a good chance you could get the exact same corsairs as me and they not be capable of dropping to cl9, while it is only 1 step lower speed its still luck of the draw dropping 2 steps of cl, im sure some ram wont drop more than 1 cl even if you drop it to 1600/1866


----------



## Andynor91 (May 20, 2016)

Grings said:


> Yes i set the cl9 manually from some timings i had seen online (pretty sure it was from some cl9 ripjaws ironically)
> 
> I am overclocked but had the benefit of having run that overclock for 3 years perfectly stable (with 8gb kingston ram at 2133/cl9) before adding the corsair ram
> 
> ...



All the Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB DDR3 2400MHz I have found have been at CL11, not CL10 which you note. I'm thinking that at least with the Cosair's it's a safe bet that they'll run at 2133mhz considering you can run it. I don't know anyone who has run the cl9 G.Skill kit on my motherboard/cpu combo. If I could be safe that they would run and be recognized at 2133mhz and cl9 stable with no probs then I'd definitely go for them.


----------

