1600mhz CL7 vs 2400 CL10 vs 2666 CL11 GAMING

[doner]

hi i want to buy a new ram to my 4930k im looking for corsair or g.skill ripjaws z i want to know how is the best and if is more good in dual or quad channel, whats the difference between both? what is best mhz/cl mode?? ty all

 

[MeteorsRaining]

4930k supports quad channel, so I'd look for quad channel sticks. 2400Mhz/CL10 is very high performance. Higher the Mhz and Lower the CL, the better. I'd ditch 1600MHz for 2400/2666Mhz. Corsair are good (except Veng series), but usually a bit costlier than G.Skill, I'd get Trident X for high performance (2133Mhz or higher) sticks.

 

[doner]

so u chose 2400 cl10 to game? yep i know corsair is so much expensive than g.skill, but i will chose ripjaws z because trident are only dual ch i think.. my answer is what i win using more mhz/cl or les mhz/cl is so much difference fps ?? ty!

 

[MeteorsRaining]

There indeed is quad channel Tridents, 2400Mhz/CL10 4X4GB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231588

More MHz than less CL is known to produce better results. Its like:
1600MHz/CL7, 1866/8, 2133/9 and 2400/10 will have more or less equal results, but a minute advantage with more Mhz over less CL is its better in CPU intensive tasks like rendering. 1600/7<2400/10.

 

[rhysiam]

Your title says "Gaming" - I'm assuming that the only performance sensitive thing you do on your machine is game then? If so, I'm really struggling to understand the advantage of spending significantly more on faster RAM.

Check out this thread: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2079251/ram-speed-matter-gaming.html or many others, the majority of advice says that for gaming, RAM speed is pretty inconsequential. Remember as well that the majority of threads will be for Dual Channel RAM, which your machine will already destroy if you get ANY quad channel kit.

My advice would be to get a good brand (G.Skill - here I agree with @MeteorsRaining) quad channel kit at a decent price point, before things start to go crazy. That'd be either 1866 or 2133. When I've looked recently the price goes up significantly once you go higher speed or lower timings.

Specific types of content creation, then yes, paying for faster RAM is worth it, but for gaming... when you're already talking a crazy-fast quad channel system, I don't think so IMHO.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Multiple mistakes here.

Your title says "Gaming" - I'm assuming that the only performance sensitive thing you do on your machine is game then? If so, I'm really struggling to understand the advantage of spending significantly more on faster RAM.

Check these out:
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/blog/2013/october/battlefield-4-loves-high-speed-memory

Yes RAM has slight difference in gaming, but it depends from game to game. Now, you're not paying anything higher than a decent 1600MHz/CL9 kit:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231315

There certainly is a performance boost, for $2, I'd take it with both hands.

Check out this thread: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2079251/ram-speed-matter-gaming.html or many others, the majority of advice says that for gaming, RAM speed is pretty inconsequential. Remember as well that the majority of threads will be for Dual Channel RAM, which your machine will already destroy if you get ANY quad channel kit.

4930k is indeed optimized for quad channel, and a quad channel will run better on a CPU optmized for quad channel.
http://ark.intel.com/products/77780/Intel-Core-i7-4930K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
It'd produce better results in quad channel.

My advice would be to get a good brand (G.Skill - here I agree with @MeteorsRaining) quad channel kit at a decent price point, before things start to go crazy. That'd be either 1866 or 2133. When I've looked recently the price goes up significantly once you go higher speed or lower timings.

The prices actually remain pretty much $10 give or take, as mentioned above.

Specific types of content creation, then yes, paying for faster RAM is worth it, but for gaming... when you're already talking a crazy-fast quad channel system, I don't think so IMHO.

Quad channel is not faster than Dual channel in first place, the CPU supports quad channel so I advised that. But, 4 sticks will put more load on MC than 2, besides having less upgradibility, but you can't do much about it with a quad channel supported CPU.


Now, the notion that tighter CL is always better for gaming is immaterial. Any good MC can keep up with loose timings, unless you're going for like 1600/10 sticks. But, there's no real benefit of tight timings if the stick can't take more data out of it in the given time vs more MHz competitors.

 

[doner]

why u preffer trident than ripjaws z??

 

[MeteorsRaining]

why u preffer trident than ripjaws z??

They're known to be great sticks both on stock and for OCing, RJZ is not a bad deal too. Its just preference.

 

[rhysiam]

Quoting benchmarks from Corsair, who make high performance RAM, is extremely dubious. That very point is made in the thread that I linked. I'll happily withdraw my suggestion if you can link a respected review site with similar findings... as I say, check out the thread I linked, they also throw a bunch of other benchmarks which finds 1-3fps at most.

I also think you've misunderstood my recommendation to go with quad channel RAM - we agree here don't we? I'm simply saying that even a quad channel 1600mhz kit will already be faster (on his system - running in quad channel mode) than any dual channel system, where the benchmarks already show minimal gains from spending up on faster RAM.

I've gone and had a look at the prices, and I agree that the kit you linked is not massively more expensive (as - I confess - I suspected it would be).
But you can get 2133mhz ARES for nearly $20 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231656
Plus they're low profile and lower voltage.

They'd be my choice, given that I don't think you'll ever see more FPS from your extra money on faster RAM. OP -> your money, your choice. I'm just throwing my perspective into the mix.

 

[doner]

so if u said me is more good 2400 c10 than 1600c7 on gaming i think ill go for G.SKILL Trident X 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR3 2666 (PC3 21300) Memory F3-2666C11Q-16GTXD or ill try to get 2800 c11/12 so i preffer pay more and have good experience because when u buy cheap u have bad items.. i have rampage iv black edition so ill go 2666 c11 or 2800 c11/12 u think well than 2400 c10 Meteorsraining?? ty

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Quoting benchmarks from Corsair, who make high performance RAM, is extremely dubious. That very point is made in the thread that I linked. I'll happily withdraw my suggestion if you can link a respected review site with similar findings... as I say, check out the thread I linked, they also throw a bunch of other benchmarks which finds 1-3fps at most.

Yep, you're not gonna get 20 FPS increase by using faster memory, agreed, but what I really hate (not your case, in general), is the notion that people usually use "1600MHz/CL9 is the sweet spot for gaming, any higher CL will not be worth it". And I can very well prove it indeed is worth it, just becuase does give you 1-3 FPS increase (atmost, I know one won't believe Corsair's benchmarks, they were just to exggarate the increase!) for the same price.

I also think you've misunderstood my recommendation to go with quad channel RAM - we agree here don't we? I'm simply saying that even a quad channel 1600mhz kit will already be faster (on his system - running in quad channel mode) than any dual channel system, where the benchmarks already show minimal gains from spending up on faster RAM.

Yep, that's what I meant, and I misunderstood you, we're on the same track.

I've gone and had a look at the prices, and I agree that the kit you linked is not massively more expensive (as - I confess - I suspected it would be).
But you can get 2133mhz ARES for nearly $20 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231656
Plus they're low profile and lower voltage.

They'd be my choice, given that I don't think you'll ever see more FPS from your extra money on faster RAM. OP -> your money, your choice. I'm just throwing my perspective into the mix.

Well you got a great deal there, I was not aware of that one, easily the best bang for buck, agreed. (I'm not from Americas or Europe, so Newegg results don't feature in my Google search, and we all know how good Newegg's search feature is).

OP said:

so if u said me is more good 2400 c10 than 1600c7 on gaming i think ill go for G.SKILL Trident X 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR3 2666 (PC3 21300) Memory F3-2666C11Q-16GTXD or ill try to get 2800 c11/12 so i preffer pay more and have good experience because when u buy cheap u have bad items.. i have rampage iv black edition so ill go 2666 c11 or 2800 c11/12 u think well than 2400 c10 Meteorsraining?? ty

Nope, there's no good in going with that high memory, you'll need to substancially OC the CPU for that. Anything above 2133Mhz is not at all bad.

 

[Tradesman1]

And just for info - there is no TRUE quad channel or dual channel sticks.....each stick of DRAM is an individual 64bit component - they don't care how they are run or on what platform.....If you take 2 or 4 sticks and put them in a dual channel rig the MC (memory controller sees all the DRAM as a SINGLE 128 bit device....if you take four or eight sticks and put them in a 2011 rig (true quad channel) then ALL the DRAM is seen as a single 256bit device, on the other hand if you only use 2 sticks on 2011, the MC sees them as a 128bit device and will run them in dual channel

 

[MeteorsRaining]

As Tradesman1 explained (I honestly did not know there's no difference whatsoever), it'd be wise to go with 2 sticks because of obvious reason:
-More upgradibility in future, you wouldn't need to discard all 4 sticks if you want more memory, although there's no garuantee the older 2 with run with newer 2 even if they're the exact same.
-Less stress on MC.