DDR3 1600 VS DDR3 1866

[TorqueRanger]

I am looking at picking up some new ram for my new MSI 970 Gaming AM3+ rig.. but I can't decide which ram to get for the couple dollar difference??


G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory
DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900)
Timing 9-10-9-28
Cas Latency 9
Voltage 1.5V

Or


G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop
DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
Timing 9-9-9-24
Cas Latency 9
Voltage 1.5V
Or I am up for suggestion within the same price range

 

[EarthDog]

1866 for a couple dollar difference...

 

[jaymz9350]

Like EarthDog said for a couple bucks grab the 1866. In games it really doesn't make a difference, I just upgraded from 4 x 2 GB 1600 9-9-9-24 to 2 x 8GB 2400 10-12-12-31 and there is no noticeable difference to me. I only did it because I traded something I don't use for it and if I ever get time to play with benching again it will be helpful.

 

[caddi daddi]

it depends on the cpu, fx, get 1866 and clock it to around 2000, that's where fx imc tends to peter out.
if you have a phenom or thuban its 1600, clock it into the 1700's that is where those imc's peter out.
or just run them stock, as jaymz9350 says you'll never see it, the only time memory speeds show is in bench marks so in game 1333 is fine.

 

[Woomack]

On Intel I see some difference between 1333/1600 and 2000+ but on AMD memory controller is just too slow and will limit every higher clocked memory. FX memory controller ( without overclocking CPU-NB ) is not really scalling past 1866 but performance is still not much higher than ~1600.
I have 2666 HyperX running on my 24/7 Kabini file server but it doesn't mean it's getting faster because of that. I just could keep it or sell and buy 1600 memory for maybe $20 less ( stupid local prices ). It also made ~3800MHz on air so maybe I will run it on cold one day

 

[Ivy]

My Kingston 1866 was cheaper than any of the 1600 offers, so i just got me the 1866 and down clock to 1600 because OC just makes no sense on a low power browsing PC. Anyway, i see no advantage in high clocked RAM, 1600 is totally fine, and the timings is important too for gaming, not just raw MHz. Naturally the RAM are doing high MHz by destroying the timings, so it can turn out to be a great eye blender and bad timed 1866 are not necessarily faster than good timed 1600, so just dont fall into the "eye blend-trap".

Sometimes i feel that the industry is doing RAM speed ups just for marketing purposes and every time the speed goes up the timings are destroyed. But rarely anyone is watching at timings and are just boasting raw MHz clocks. Result is that software which may benefit from timings too (games is one of them) may show only marginal improvements if any at all.

 

[EarthDog]

if your sticks were labeled 1866, they were 1866. Why would you downclock it???!!!!!!

Have you done the math on the timings(dived cas rating by speed) to see if you 1600 timings are actually quicker?

 

[Ivy]

They are capable to handle 1866, thats what it says, so the quality is obviously higher compared to 1600 labeled RAM, and they could run at 1600 with better timings too. Ultimately, the RAM is just like the (passive) speakers on a HIFI, they do not perform by them self, they simply try to adapt the specs the CPU and MB is asking for... either they succeed or they dont. If i ask for 1600 they will run it with max stability and just what i ask for, no issue at all.

I dont need fast RAMs on a browsing PC, it wont affect anything at all, the PC is already more powerful than most of the tablet and even those are browsing faster than their net is capable of. On top of that the MB probably cant handle above 1600...

 

[EarthDog]

Right. I get that...

I just hope you tightened them down enough to make a difference. Personally, I tighten up its stock rating.

 

[Ivy]

Overclockers mentality... but to me OC should make sense and not only joy. A gamer PC will always benefit in many spots but my mini browsing PC... just no use.
Cant go above 1600 anyway, but the 1866 is now the new mainstream RAM so the prices are often lower than the old 1600 "sweet spot" RAM. I would be stupid buying 1600 at same or even higher price in term i get 1866 for same cash... it can handle the same and even more if it have to be.

 

[Woomack]

On new platforms timings are not so important because large and fast cache in new CPUs is helping a lot in access time. You can see there is big difference in bandwidth on any haswell CPU when you use higher clocked memory while latency is not much worse. On AMD or older Intels it's not so big difference.
This is one of reasons why DDR4 is still really fast even though popular memory kits are CL15+. Simply you have to pick right memory for your platform. There is no such thing as one general rule. Especially on newer platforms where memory controller counts more than memory itself.

When you overclock AM1 APU then you can set memory @2000 and it works fine. Problem is only to make it run at high fsb/bclk. Won't change much but can make it run higher.

Prices of DDR3-1600 and even 2133 are similar for longer, that's why I always say to check what stores have on stock from higher series. One more reason why is better to pick higher series is that manufacturers are using generally better IC in 2133+. You won't find there lower binned Nanya, Micron or Elpida. Almost only Samsung and Hynix which is overclocking much higher or run at tighter timings when you want to downclock memory.

 

[Ivy]

Yes, generally it is foolish to buy a 1600 MHz kit in term there is another one available at 1866 or even 2133 because in term the memory controller or MB cant keep up such speeds or in term there is no need for then someone can simply downclock the memory and there is still better ICs attached to those kits at the almost same price. This was the reason i simply used a 1866 kit, even if i actually have no need for such a speed.

Anyway, with your statement that the newer CPUs such as Haswell are more demanding on bandwidth and less demanding on timings, i think you are generally correct. This is pretty much the same issue comparable to high end GPUs, the weak cards scale pretty bad with good memory speed but the strong processors may show some good benefit from faster memory or bandwidth. So, in order to truly make use of fast memory there is aswell very fast processors needed, else the difference can be close to zero. Still, the new memory isnt truly supreme... it does simply add a new demand, the demand for lesser timings and even more bandwidth, but if the higher bandwidth is truly making a difference in applications such as games... i dont know, it rarely ever does. Maybe in the few % range but i am talking for serious gain, not just a few %. It is kinda like splitting hairs because a better processor, especially a GPU, can make a difference of maybe 50% more performance. So i always have to ask if it truly is worth it, the "hunt for better memory". But long as cost isnt increased or almost same it surely is wise to get the best stick available because just as i said, the speed can be adjusted after.