RAM Upgrade Question: Faster RAM Worth It?

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?

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

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.

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 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

ignatzatsonic said:

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.

Layback Bear said:

More ram is better than faster ram.

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

AddRAM said:

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.

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

He has 2 :)

AddRAM said:

He has 2 :)

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

The Win 8 one doesn't get used much.