Solved RAM Upgrade Question: Faster RAM Worth It?

[Mellon Head]

Hi guys and gals,

I'm currently running 8 GB of Mushkin DDR3-1600 in my system with some pretty nice timings (8-8-8-24) and my PC is pretty fast and snappy. I've been thinking of going to DDR3-2400 for a little extra zip and I found this 8GB kit:

Mushkin Enhanced Redline 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200) Desktop Memory Model 997083F - Newegg.ca

My question is, am I really going to see a significant difference in performance with DDR3-2400? Or would I be wasting my money?

 

[Solarstarshines]

Honestly you will only see it in Benchmarks real world performance will not even notice

 

[ignatzatsonic]

You aren't wasting your money if $90 means little or nothing to you.

I have no idea what $90 means to you.

You'd certainly have some better benchmarks.

And you could strut around and tell everyone you've got 2400 speed RAM and hope they'd be impressed. If 1600 of something is good, then 2400 certainly must be better. That matters a lot to some people. I have no idea if you are one of those people.

If you walk into a stereo store, do you gravitate toward the "200 watt" amplifiers rather than the "100 watt" amplifiers?

What would I do? Offhand, I can't think of a worse way to spend $90 on my PC. Better that I spend it on fast women, slow horses, and wine.

I've heard that fast RAM can be noticeable in certain use cases if you use integrated graphics, rather than a discrete graphics card. But that ignores bragging rights---which may or may not interest you.

 

[Layback Bear]

I would also check the cpu and motherboard specs to see what ram they are qualify for.
I'm not a AMD person so I have no idea what will or will not work.

You say in post #1

I'm currently running 8 GB of Mushkin DDR3-1600 in my system with some pretty nice timings (8-8-8-24) and my PC is pretty fast and snappy.

If it was my computer I would leave the ram alone.
The ram you have will meet or exceed most peoples needs in speed and amount.

***A rule of the thumb.***

More ram is better than faster ram.

 

[paulpicks21]

I would say no. Personally I noticed no performance difference between 1600 and 2400mhz.

Another thing, I believe AMD CPU's don't get on very well with high speed RAM. I can't be certain as it's going back quite some time but I think a fair few members on here simply couldn't reach 2133MHz not alone 2400mhz with their 8 core AMD CPU's.

 

[AddRAM]

I overclocked my 1600 to 1866 and it flies, just try that before buying anything.

I`ve been wanting these for 6 months now, but I`d rather put the $177 towards a 980

G.SKILL Trident X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200) Desktop Memory Model F3-2400C10Q-16GTX - Newegg.com

 

[Mellon Head]

You aren't wasting your money if $90 means little or nothing to you.

I have no idea what $90 means to you.

You'd certainly have some better benchmarks.

And you could strut around and tell everyone you've got 2400 speed RAM and hope they'd be impressed. If 1600 of something is good, then 2400 certainly must be better. That matters a lot to some people. I have no idea if you are one of those people.

If you walk into a stereo store, do you gravitate toward the "200 watt" amplifiers rather than the "100 watt" amplifiers?

What would I do? Offhand, I can't think of a worse way to spend $90 on my PC. Better that I spend it on fast women, slow horses, and wine.

I've heard that fast RAM can be noticeable in certain use cases if you use integrated graphics, rather than a discrete graphics card. But that ignores bragging rights---which may or may not interest you.

Lol. No. I'm not looking for bragging rights. Just more performance.

More ram is better than faster ram.

I certainly would agree with that. I have thought of going to 16 GB.

I overclocked my 1600 to 1866 and it flies, just try that before buying anything.

I'll give an OC a try and see what I get.

Looks like I won't be buying new RAM. Thanks for all of the opinions, guys. Much appreciated.

 

[whs]

Not worth it. Get a SSD, then you see real performance improvements.

 

[AddRAM]

He has 2

 

[Mellon Head]

He has 2

Yup. One for Win 7 and one for Win 8.

The Win 8 one doesn't get used much.

 

[Indianatone]

I would say no. Personally I noticed no performance difference between 1600 and 2400mhz.

Another thing, I believe AMD CPU's don't get on very well with high speed RAM. I can't be certain as it's going back quite some time but I think a fair few members on here simply couldn't reach 2133MHz not alone 2400mhz with their 8 core AMD CPU's.

I have a Sabertooth 990FX R2and FX8350 and 32 gb of 2400 mhz ram and it runs flawlessly. There is a default setting for the GSkill ram in the bios. So that if it was an issues is most likely the motherboard.

 

[Indianatone]

And I have to say the only reason I got the 32GB of 2400 Mhz ram was the money was left to me by my late mother. Was $320 and I have not noticed any difference between 1600 Mhz and the only time 32Gb makes any difference is if I run to many virtual machines the computer does not swap to the hard drive so soon, it uses the ram. Do yourself a favour and just get another 8Gb of ram and have 16Gb.........

 

[Mellon Head]

Do yourself a favour and just get another 8Gb of ram and have 16Gb.........

I'm thinking of doing that. I have four 2GB sticks now, so I'll have to bite the bullet and get 4GB sticks to get 16GB. And since I've discovered that getting DDR3-1600 is as expensive as buying DDR3-2400, I might just as well buy 2400 and be done with it. I can always use it for a new build later.

Odd how this thread has gone full circle, isn't it?

 

[Solarstarshines]

Do yourself a favour and just get another 8Gb of ram and have 16Gb.........

I'm thinking of doing that. I have four 2GB sticks now, so I'll have to bite the bullet and get 4GB sticks to get 16GB. And since I've discovered that getting DDR3-1600 is as expensive as buying DDR3-2400, I might just as well buy 2400 and be done with it. I can always use it for a new build later.

Odd how this thread has gone full circle, isn't it?

DDR3 is still the standard until DDR4 becomes the new Standard then it will drop Ram wise i would go with Corsair 16GB 1866 you would get more bang for your buck and would be a little cheaper for 16gb Trident black 2400mhz I paid 170.00 + tax and personally speaking AMD CPU's don't do great with anything over 1866 they still perform about the same overclocking the 1866 to 2000 would warrant better gains than buying new higher Mhz sticks

 

[Mellon Head]

DDR3 is still the standard until DDR4 becomes the new Standard then it will drop Ram wise i would go with Corsair 16GB 1866 you would get more bang for your buck and would be a little cheaper for 16gb Trident black 2400mhz I paid 170.00 + tax and personally speaking AMD CPU's don't do great with anything over 1866 they still perform about the same overclocking the 1866 to 2000 would warrant better gains than buying new higher Mhz sticks

The reason I was thinking of the higher MHz sticks is that the 1866, 2166 and 2400 are all essentially the same price, and I could always use the sticks in a new build next year. It doesn't make any sense to me to spend $175 on 1866, when I could spend $174 and get 2400.

Even if I can't get to 2400 on my MB (which would be a stretch, believe me), I could probably run them at 1866 or 2000 at much tighter timings than normal 1866 RAM.

I dunno, it just seems to make more sense to buy the 2400 sticks at the same price as the 1866.

 

[Solarstarshines]

DDR3 is still the standard until DDR4 becomes the new Standard then it will drop Ram wise i would go with Corsair 16GB 1866 you would get more bang for your buck and would be a little cheaper for 16gb Trident black 2400mhz I paid 170.00 + tax and personally speaking AMD CPU's don't do great with anything over 1866 they still perform about the same overclocking the 1866 to 2000 would warrant better gains than buying new higher Mhz sticks

The reason I was thinking of the higher MHz sticks is that the 1866, 2166 and 2400 are all essentially the same price, and I could always use the sticks in a new build next year. It doesn't make any sense to me to spend $175 on 1866, when I could spend $174 and get 2400.

Even if I can't get to 2400 on my MB (which would be a stretch, believe me), I could probably run them at 1866 or 2000 at much tighter timings than normal 1866 RAM.

I dunno, it just seems to make more sense to buy the 2400 sticks at the same price as the 1866.

You know something you are right actually because you are in Canada the mark up is damn ridiculous and it's a shame they charge damn near 50 dollars more in some cases for something that cost a lot lower in the US