Corsair ship out new 3Ghz ram, WHY ?

[Magissia]

Hello, i would like to know if anyone here knows how much a system is impacted by ram speed.

Will you get significant boost from switching 1333 to 1600 or 3000 ?

Plus higher frequencies means higher delay too.

I currently use 1600 mhz ram because it was as cheap as 1333 at time i bought it, but i don't think i could tell the difference from a 1333 kit

Regards

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Magissia, Welcome to SF.
Can you ship me some of that 3000 ram......love to see how much voltage I'd have to throw at that, lol. You ask a good question regarding the noticeable speed differences between 1333, 1600 and higher. I would say for normal web surfing tasks and such it would be hard to notice a big speed difference between 1333 and 1600 but it's there and when you compare 1600 to 1866 it's small but there and measurable. Now measurable and perceptible are two different beasts. With the pricing being so aggressive with DDR3 I say get the higher mhz. ram and tighten the timing settings and just leave it alone and it'll do it's job. Oh and my offer stands I'll take any of that DDR3 2800 you can ship me and I'll test it out for ya !

 

[Magissia]

Hello, sorry the 3ghz kit is about 800$ on it's own. It's the price of a full high end computer already

Thanks for the welcome and the information.

This computer is used for heavy gaming, but games tend to use more vram than ram

Regards

 

[theveterans]

I wonder how will this stack up against a future DDR4 1600 MHz RAM.

 

[Magissia]

Good question theveterans.

I wonder why they didn't try to jump directly to 1800 for the DDR4, we had 2200 mhz clocked ram since long on the DDR3

 

[kbrady1979]

For general computing, exotic RAM like that is just a marketing ploy to drum up cash. Several tests have been done that shows a system to perform just about the same with 1600MHz RAM as 2400MHz RAM.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Hello Dark Lady I agree with KB myself I think we all think fatser speed better performance but my 2400Mhz running @ 1866MHz is not really that much faster than running the default 1333MHz my board sets it at.

Like everything else there will always something that tempts us to want it just because it's bigger or faster or longer etc ad nauseum ad infinitum

 

[theveterans]

RAM hasn't been a bottleneck IMO since DDR3 came. Spending $800 for this is just outrageous and only warrant bragging rights. Heck, I bet that a quad channel 1600 MHz setup will eat this 3000 MHz in dual channel mode.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

RAM hasn't been a bottleneck IMO since DDR3 came. Spending $800 for this is just outrageous and only warrant bragging rights. Heck, I bet that a quad channel 1600 MHz setup will eat this 3000 MHz in dual channel mode.

Agree 100% the veterans I think sometimes we spend a lot of time debating things (not just RAM) that we as your average user is or will never likely to use let alone afford. As I said in my earlier post I really don't see any difference in the default 1333MHz set via the board to the 1866MHz I set via the BIOS.

As you so rightly put it is it just a bragging issue or are we not understanding something here??

 

[Wrend]

I get 37.6GB/s ("winsat mem" test) with 1600MHz quad channel RAM, which seems fast enough to me.

I could pretty easily OC the RAM which is more or less made to be, but I haven't bothered to.

 

[essenbe]

I think the wrong questions are being asked here. And, no I dot know the answers. But if ram frequency is the speed at which the CPU receives/sends data, then it seems like frequency does make a difference to the computer even though it is not observable to us. Then you have to add into the equation the amount of ram. I can't match the 37.6GB/s of Wrend, but he is running 64GB and I'm only running 8. The amount does make a difference too. Just because we can't observe it, does not mean it does not make a difference to the computer. If Wrend is capable of transferring 37.6GB/s, then obviously the computer can and does use it. Now, does it make a difference to the efficiency of the computer? That, I can't answer, but I suspect it does, up to a point.

But, I will not be paying $800 for ram under any circumstances.

 

[Solarstarshines]

This is my Opinion if you have RAM that cost more then your system what are you actually achieving ?

Also for that kind of money why not do some real upgrades and make your machine a super beast

Both of my Gpu's are cheaper then this ram that is speaking volumes in terms of what you could be doing with that kind of cash if I had a extra $800.00 I would go mod crazy on other area's new board new cpu Psu just to name a few and some good triple or quad channel that would make it scream

 

[theveterans]

This is my Opinion if you have RAM that cost more then your system what are you actually achieving ?

Also for that kind of money why not do some real upgrades and make your machine a super beast

Both of my Gpu's are cheaper then this ram that is speaking volumes in terms of what you could be doing with that kind of cash if I had a extra $800.00 I would go mod crazy on other area's new board new cpu Psu just to name a few and some good triple or quad channel that would make it scream

I agree. I could've purchased a GTX 670 + a quality PSU + 256 GB SSD and 2 TB storage drive as an upgrade to a budget i5 (non K) & 8 GB DDR3 RAM desktop and it will run GPU intensive games at 900p and everyday tasks like a rocket.

 

[Wrend]

...

Yeah, I think my RAM speed went up about 800MB/s when I went from 32GB (4×8) to 64GB (8×8). I think a lot of its speed is from being using in quad channel, though.

I agree that faster speeds in general are pretty much always going to be better to some extent. I guess what matters though is how much of an impact it has on overall system performance, which of course also depends what you're using your computer for.

As long as your RAM is fast enough, and you have enough of it for what you're doing, there are likely going to be other more beneficial upgrades you could make.

I have 64GB to run a RAM drive on, and because I like SuperFetch loading up what's left over as a HDD cache. Just in general use testing, I've gotten it to load upwards of 30GB. Makes for some very fast AV scans, taking a couple of minutes where it would otherwise typically take over half an hour. This only works once it has already been run and is already cached though.

I run a Minecraft server on my RAM drive, so I don't need it to be too large, but I'm looking into recording and writing uncompressed HD video to it, so I'll need to make it larger for that. I also crunch for BOINC in the background, dynamically fully loading my CPU and GPU, so my computer is up pretty much 24/7.

Anyway, my point is that, similarly with RAM speeds, with the way Windows 7 can take advantage of available RAM, more RAM is generally always better to some extent too, but as long as you have enough for what you're doing, it probably isn't going to be significantly better.