Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31

    Question Memory Speed for Ivy Bridge Build

    I am going to buy a new system tomorrow, and I just noticed that G.Skill has new memory I wanted to spend about $100 on memory so I could either buy G.Skill Ripjaw X 16gb (2x8GB) 1600MHz, or G.Skill Trident X 8GB (2x4GB) 2400MHz.

    The system I am building will have the following components if that helps:
    i7 3770K
    Asus P8Z77-v pro (what's the difference to the P8Z77-v?)
    2TB Seagate Barracuda
    Cooler Master Silent Pro 850w
    Sapphire Radeon 7950 OC

    and either Ripjaws 16GB (2x8GB @1600MHz) or Trident 8GB (2x4GB @2400MHz)

    I have not built a rig in over 6 years so I am a little out of date on hardware and the differences, my main concern is future upgradability. With the trident I top out at 16GB very fast memory with the Ripjaws I can get up to 32GB but slower memory. Which makes more sense.
    I will be using the rig for graphic and video editing and I want to learn to use Maya, I also want to use it for video games that's why the Radeon.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    914
    I've only seen one review that covers this and it showed going over 1600mhz had very little improvement in real world usage. Sandy Bridge was the same way.
    FX-6300 | Gb 970A-UD3P | EVGA GTX 750 Ti | Corsair 8GB 1866 | 120GB Hyper-X 3k | Seasonic G 550w
    Heat

  3. #3
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31
    So I guess I am going with the bigger 16GB at 1600MHz

  4. #4
    Member Neuromancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tau'ri
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Dermen View Post
    I've only seen one review that covers this and it showed going over 1600mhz had very little improvement in real world usage. Sandy Bridge was the same way.
    I had exactly teh opposite review.

    1600 is minimum I suggest for sandy bridge with 1866 minimum clocking past 5 GHz.

    As far as "real world improvement" no.. you are not going to add 20 FPS in games, but in all tests I did those two multipliers showed the largest gains.

    Difference is 3-4% tops in benchmark improvements. "Real world" however is different then benchmarks.

    General desktop feel is totally tied to faster RAM. Lower latency feels faster.

    16GB is great though.. especially if you need that much RAM
    All rants I produce are sole property of 127.0.0.1.
    10 types of people understand binary.
    Suck iiiiiitttttttttt. -Shawn Spencer
    Linux is the stepchild of the OS world. "You told me to set 192.168.0.266 ip address", okay >>>Kernel PANIC - Me

  5. #5
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post
    I had exactly teh opposite review.

    1600 is minimum I suggest for sandy bridge with 1866 minimum clocking past 5 GHz.

    As far as "real world improvement" no.. you are not going to add 20 FPS in games, but in all tests I did those two multipliers showed the largest gains.

    Difference is 3-4% tops in benchmark improvements. "Real world" however is different then benchmarks.

    General desktop feel is totally tied to faster RAM. Lower latency feels faster.

    16GB is great though.. especially if you need that much RAM
    So what would you suggest me to do? I am not sure if I really need 16GB or if 8GB will do the job.

  6. #6
    Member Neuromancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tau'ri
    Posts
    8,159
    If you are only going to run stock or maybe a small OC the 1600 will be fine. But if you plan to push for 5 GHz I would go with the faster ram instead.

    8GB is still a lot of ram and you can always get two more sticks later on if you need 16GB.
    All rants I produce are sole property of 127.0.0.1.
    10 types of people understand binary.
    Suck iiiiiitttttttttt. -Shawn Spencer
    Linux is the stepchild of the OS world. "You told me to set 192.168.0.266 ip address", okay >>>Kernel PANIC - Me

  7. #7
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post
    If you are only going to run stock or maybe a small OC the 1600 will be fine. But if you plan to push for 5 GHz I would go with the faster ram instead.

    8GB is still a lot of ram and you can always get two more sticks later on if you need 16GB.
    That's true I won't overclock right away, but as soon as I spend the extra dough on better cooling I am sure I can't leave my fingers off it.

  8. #8
    Benching Team Leader
    Grabbed Senior
    Janus67's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio State
    Posts
    12,168
    I'd go with 8GB at DDR3-1600, you will be just fine with that and you likely won't notice the difference outside of running benchmarks against it. And the odds of you pushing 5.0ghz through an ivy bridge chip is extremely slim from the numbers that I have seen, so the benchmark/improvements that Neuro speaks of would likely not be available/noticeable either.
    Haswell Benching and Gaming: ASRock Z87 OC Formula : Intel i7 4770k w/ Phanteks PH-TC14 : 8GB 2x4GB G.Skill TridentX DDR3-2666 : MSI, XFX, and Sapphire R9 290X
    Other Components: Samsung 840 Evo 500GB SSD : 2TB Hitachi : Silverstone Strider Gold 1250W and Seasonic Platinum 1000W : Auria EQ276W 2560x1440


    Folding User Stats

  9. #9
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus67 View Post
    I'd go with 8GB at DDR3-1600, you will be just fine with that and you likely won't notice the difference outside of running benchmarks against it. And the odds of you pushing 5.0ghz through an ivy bridge chip is extremely slim from the numbers that I have seen, so the benchmark/improvements that Neuro speaks of would likely not be available/noticeable either.
    Now it gets tricky again, so I am not sure again. Any more ideas?

  10. #10
    Senior Memory Guru
    Premium Member #19



    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Poznan, Poland
    Posts
    4,833
    TridentX 8GB for games and benching. 16GB 1600-1866 for anything else that needs more memory like video editing etc ( and it seems like you will need it ).

  11. #11
    Member Neuromancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tau'ri
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus67 View Post
    I'd go with 8GB at DDR3-1600, you will be just fine with that and you likely won't notice the difference outside of running benchmarks against it.
    See that was exactly the opposite of my experience. Benchmarking (minus competitively) shows very little difference. It is the desktop FEEL that improves most when using the faster ram. I used the benchmarks as an example as that is the only empirical data I had to explain the situation. The subjective desktop "feel" is not benchable and the only correlative benchmark I can find is maybe latency.



    25% performance increase in latency between 1333 and 2133. Despite looser timings.

    I know that when I got stuck using 1333 MHz RAM it was PAINFUL. I had to use an SSD to get any kind of decent desktop performance out of it. Even then it was not as snappy as my Thuban based rig.

    BUT....

    If you go 1600 and never go with faster RAM you wont know what you are missing so you wont be disappointed. Its like running Core2 platforms.. if you dropped from a quad to a dual there was microstutter. If you never ran a quad you did not notice it (in fact after two weeks I did not notice it anymore either).

    1600 will work fine and if you need more than 8GB of memory more but slower ram is better than not enough ram even if it was 3300 MHz.
    Last edited by Neuromancer; 05-01-12 at 12:07 PM.
    All rants I produce are sole property of 127.0.0.1.
    10 types of people understand binary.
    Suck iiiiiitttttttttt. -Shawn Spencer
    Linux is the stepchild of the OS world. "You told me to set 192.168.0.266 ip address", okay >>>Kernel PANIC - Me

  12. #12
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Posts
    45,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus67 View Post
    I'd go with 8GB at DDR3-1600, you will be just fine with that and you likely won't notice the difference outside of running benchmarks against it. And the odds of you pushing 5.0ghz through an ivy bridge chip is extremely slim from the numbers that I have seen, so the benchmark/improvements that Neuro speaks of would likely not be available/noticeable either.
    +1. Only in certain benhmarks (SPi32M, Vantage and Heaven) is faster than 1600Mhz nneded.

    I personally do not notice anything different on the desktop, but then again, I pay little attention to things going on there.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  13. #13
    Member Don Karnage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    249
    My computer feels snappier with 2400 compared to 2133 but who knows. I really want to try DDR3 2800+. I think this MVG can support up to DDR3 3200
    Core I5 3570K @ 4.5Ghz 1.26v
    Asus Z77 Maximus V
    G.Skill 8GB DDR3 2800 10-11-11-31 1.60v
    MCW82 WaterCooled Vanilla EVGA GTX 670
    Intel 320 120GB SSD
    Corsair AX1200
    Venom X

  14. #14
    Benching Team Leader
    Grabbed Senior
    Janus67's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio State
    Posts
    12,168
    I would rather spend the money on a nice SSD rather than faster RAM, much more noticeable difference when it comes to snappiness.
    Haswell Benching and Gaming: ASRock Z87 OC Formula : Intel i7 4770k w/ Phanteks PH-TC14 : 8GB 2x4GB G.Skill TridentX DDR3-2666 : MSI, XFX, and Sapphire R9 290X
    Other Components: Samsung 840 Evo 500GB SSD : 2TB Hitachi : Silverstone Strider Gold 1250W and Seasonic Platinum 1000W : Auria EQ276W 2560x1440


    Folding User Stats

  15. #15
    Senior Memory Guru
    Premium Member #19



    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Poznan, Poland
    Posts
    4,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Karnage View Post
    My computer feels snappier with 2400 compared to 2133 but who knows. I really want to try DDR3 2800+. I think this MVG can support up to DDR3 3200
    Board yes but most IMC won't make that high. At least from random comments I see that best of available kits with standard IB will make ~2800. I'm not saying max under LN2 or sick voltages but something that you can keep stable 24/7. So 2800 seems possible 3000+ not really.

  16. #16
    Member Don Karnage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus67 View Post
    I would rather spend the money on a nice SSD rather than faster RAM, much more noticeable difference when it comes to snappiness.
    Already have one
    Core I5 3570K @ 4.5Ghz 1.26v
    Asus Z77 Maximus V
    G.Skill 8GB DDR3 2800 10-11-11-31 1.60v
    MCW82 WaterCooled Vanilla EVGA GTX 670
    Intel 320 120GB SSD
    Corsair AX1200
    Venom X

  17. #17
    Member Neuromancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tau'ri
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus67 View Post
    I would rather spend the money on a nice SSD rather than faster RAM, much more noticeable difference when it comes to snappiness.
    This is true as well.
    All rants I produce are sole property of 127.0.0.1.
    10 types of people understand binary.
    Suck iiiiiitttttttttt. -Shawn Spencer
    Linux is the stepchild of the OS world. "You told me to set 192.168.0.266 ip address", okay >>>Kernel PANIC - Me

  18. #18
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31
    I went to the store and ask the guy again about it, he seemed not to care at all to answer questions, didn't even ask me what I will be using the machine for. I didn't buy the computer, because many discounts that were advertised were not given and the rig would have cost me over $2000 and I planned on spending not more than $1800 total including monitor. So I am waiting for a sale to come on again and then just order it online. Especially due to weak in-store support.

    I was thinking on getting an SSD, they are still very expensive, but I plan on upgrading to a 240-250GB one later this year.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post
    Benchmarking (minus competitively) shows very little difference. It is the desktop FEEL that improves most when using the faster ram. I used the benchmarks as an example as that is the only empirical data I had to explain the situation. The subjective desktop "feel" is not benchable and the only correlative benchmark I can find is maybe latency.
    ...
    Damn, I now want to buy some G.Skill tridenX. In the unlikely event I do, I'll report whether I notice any improvement.

    Off-topic comment: Normal desktop usage seems snappier after overclocking my 3570k from 3.6GHz to 4.4GHz. No other changes were made. I never expected to see any difference in games, let alone desktop environment, so this came as a complete surprise. Perhaps there is credibility in what Neuromancer said.

  20. #20
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Posts
    45,397
    Year old thread... lol!

    Your overclocked your CPU then you generally see gains...

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •