3400MHz 16GB (2x8GB) vs 3200MHz 32GB (4x8GB) optimum performance and requirements

[CreativeTiger]

I have all the kit assembled for a new Skylake build with i7 6700K processor and have left the ram to last as it has been rapidly changing and catching up with Z170 series boards optimisations and at last become more affordable for very high specs that should enable good usage long-term as won't be able to afford any upgrades for a long time, but this will do everything required so shall be happy with set-up.

I have all the kit assembled for a new Skylake build and have left the ram to last as has been rapidly changing and at last become more affordable for very high specs. My question could relate to any make of DDR4 RAMM, but have decide din favour of G.Skill TridentZ as one of the best, although had also come close to going for Corsair Vengeance Pro, but eventually gone for the Trident as in many ways it's on a par to Corsair Dominator platinum, but seems better value.

My PC setup is primarily as workstation for Microsoft Office suite, including mostly Word, OneNote and Visio, multiple open browsers and open tabs, also working with Dragon Naturally Speaking professional, qualitative data analytic software. I also have music production software, with Cubase, Halion and Steinberg VST instruments, with the largest set Halion Symphonic orchestra that specifies minimum requirements as 4GB Ram Photoshop photo editing Premiere Pro and After Effects, also Sony Vegas Pro for video production hobbies, using the Adobe suite.

Although this software when used by professionals may require 32 or even 64Gb GB for optimum working, if adding some professional VST libraries can be much more Ram intensive than the standard Steinberg ones I use, or for advanced layers or 4K video rendering, for my usage though, I don’t usually require anywhere near as much capacity, as I am not running a studio. I only use 1080p video and am a beginner with Photoshop with 12 megapixel photos and video compositing it Isn't my main area that I use my PC for, as am not a professional musician or video editor, so it is more for my own rather than productive use.

Currently I use an i7 laptop as a desktop with 8GB RAM and linked to 2 monitors. I have had occasions when RAM usage has maxed out, although most of the time it runs fine, although most of the time when working on the PC it is close to or exceeds 4GB RAM usage. So originally was going to increase to 16GB, but won't be able to afford to upgrade for a long time, so it has to last, so considered 32GB. All the other components for the new desktop pc rig seem to fit requirements exactly,so if in the future required more Ram, suppose could replace with another set which by then may have further enhancements, although the sets am considering look like they will perform well for a long period.

I am also at a later date, poss in 2016 due to current affordability and either current series prices drops or next series of graphics cards, going to add a mid-range graphics card, such as a GTX 960 4GB as don’t do much gaming and that would be ideal to use with this software and PC set-up. I have also ordered a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 SSD to use for Windows 10 64 bit OS, so possibly high speed DDR4 along with the i7 processor should mean it works at full performance.


After much consideration have come to deciding between 2 DDR4 ram kits, based on optimum quality and affordability:

F4-3400C16D-16GTZ
http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16d-16gtz

Alternatively for £28 more but twice the amount of Ram, but also one step lower in speed and GTZB instead of GTZ so possibly not as tight a Cas latency at the extreme:
F4-3200C16Q-32GTZB
http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16q-32gtzb

I also noticed the following: F4-3200C16Q-32GTZ
http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16q-32gtz
This is also 32Gb and in a 4 dimm set, GTZ with slightly tighter Cas latency sequence. It also does not seem to be as readily available, so the decision appears to be between the 2 sets above this one.
I would've also considered the 3400 in 32GB sets, but the much higher price at about double makes it far over budget.

All are Trident Z series, specifically designed and tested for Skylake. Both specified as premium, so if considered the GTZB wondered if quality as good, but would seem to be except possibly tested speed is not a tight, but build quality as good. Also GTZ in same capacity and speed tend to be slightly more expensive, probably due to the tighter tested speeds. This may limit overclocking above the tested figures possibly. But if over clocking to less than tested maximum speed may mean both GTZ and GTZB may perform close to or even equal , with the main difference being in pushing it to the tested limit.

My mainboard is an Asus Z170-A, so is Skylake dual channel, with 4 dimms. It has all the features and specifications required, but has a limit, as do most of the boards up to midrange of 4 x DIMM, Max. 64GB, DDR4 3466(O.C.) The mainboard having limit of 3466 (OC) means that the 3400MHz set presumably could be clocked at 3400 or possibly 3466 with a few tweaks to maximise performance on the board. Then again the 3200MHz set would also run well at that speed and possibly could also get closer to the board limit.

I would like to know if GTZ vs GTZB is also a factor consider or is only related to pushing speeds to limit of tested frequencies and otherwise would perform just as well up to that point, which I think it possibly will do, as both types are premium DDR4 Trident Z series and so are both high quality.

But an important factor is that as the 16Gb 3400MHz set is still not quite as expensive as the 32GB 3200MHz set, if I only actually require 16Gb I may as well have the absolute optimum in performance at a lower cost as the spare ram capacity would not be utilised. But of course for a relatively small amount more could double Ram capacity, with slightly lower but still very high performance.

There is another factor, in one set using all 4 Ram DIMM slots on the mainboard, whilst the other uses just two. As long as used in matched pairs and sets that are compatible, and the Trident Z are specifically designed to be used on Skylake boards, so they should perform very well as a full set using all 4 DIMM slots. But from many previous comments on this board and from the internet that I've read on this, it is meant to relate to stress on IMC memory controller. I have also read in one review though, that the Skylake i7 5700K processor is meant to have one of the best and strongest memory controllers yet. This may mean the extra stress may not effect durability of the processor to the same extent as may have done in earlier models, and may not even have any detrimental effect any more at all.

Very often people also make suggestion of using 2 slots means can add more ram later, but also often correctly emphasised since DDR3 and 4 and especially with higher frequencies and overclocking mixing ram sets is not recommended, as need to be manufactured at same time and selected as a set. This means if want to upgrade capacity or type with later innovations, would need to replace the entire set, so the main factor is on performance.

I have also read 16Gb modules may not necessarily perform as well as 8Gb ones, but not sure on this, but could mean 4x8 may in some respects be better than 2x16. There seems to be very little information available on-line that compares performance of 4GB, 8Gb and 16Gb individual modules of same frequencies and Cas latencies with one another.

But also using 4 dimms does mean doubling voltage and possibly adding heat, I seem to have read somewhere possibly by as much as 10 c and if so needs to be considered. This can be important. I have included a BeQuiet Shadow Rock high performance CPU air cooler and top quality Gelid GC Supreme thermal paste so the cooling performance should be close to up to mid-range water coolers. The Asus mainboard instructions does mention if using all 4 dimm slots to ensure adequate cooling though, so perhaps it does mean increased heat, but then again that may only be important if there isn't sufficient overall cooling, although the using of all dimms may add to heat that needs to be dissipated. As long using all 4 DIMM slots isn't a major factor in affecting CPU durability though, and the board and processor are designed to work with 4 DIMMS and at double capacity of 32GB for that matter, with 4x16GB up to 64GB, then it may no longer be as important as it used to be, or be important at all in this case. It may mean using all 4 DIMMs in a matched set may even perform just as well as using one matched pair.

All the software would work with either RAM though. So it’s a series of trade-offs, if I opt for 16GB when 32GB may have been better, although most of the time I expect 16 GB would be sufficient and for my primary uses of the PC that may be optimum using al the current software. However if 16 GB is sufficient for the vast majority of the time on the PC then there isn't really any trade-offs and the highest performing 16GB set would then seem to be the best choice.

So in summary I'm wanting to decide which set to go for, either the very highest performance 3400MHz GTZ C16 16GB (2x8GB) or the also very high performance 3200MHz GTZB also C16 32GB (4x8GB). If 16GB is sufficient though, for the way I use my PC, then that would be the optimum. But if 32GB were needed, then a slightly lower performance, together with using all 4 DIMM slots, but still with high performance, would then be the best option.

Any good advice in deciding would be appreciated. Also points mentioned may be of interest to many, enabling various factors to be considered or debated, that could help others decide on how best to set up their PCs too.

 

[PassMark]

What a massive post. I didn't read most of it.

Assuming the question is,
"Should I take 32GB of medium speed RAM or 16GB of fast RAM, which are about the same price."

Then I would suggest taking the 32GB.
For most apps the RAM's speed isn't all that important. A couple of percentage points only. But the extra 16GB will function as a disk cache and might help with the 4K video editing.

 

[CreativeTiger]

Thanks and before I started learning more about Ram before choosing, that would've been sufficient, as in many ways having double the RAM whilst may not always be required, there could be times it would help a lot, especially for programs I have got. However if using 4 DIMM slots on an over-clocked CPU poss to 4.5GHz and also Ram at 3200/3400(OC) causes heat issues or wear and tear and stability on the memory controller, weighed up against I may most of the time only require 16GB ram, that makes it more difficult to decide. At least I already know I need over 8GB Ram, and can see 8GB Ram appears to be a minimum on systems using advanced software.

I had also originally considered using a RAM drive with some of the 32GB, however I decided to go for a Samsung 950Pro M.2 3D VNand PCie SSD which is so fast and although Ram drive is the fastest its volatile memory, so if too much is used requires loading and unloading and the M.2 VNad has all the advantages of being non-volatile. I also have a second SSD eSATA to use for projects. Also if 16Gb turns out to be mostly more than required could possibly go down to 14GB plus 2GB Ram drive, although feel Id like to keep 16GB as RAM and would only consider ram-drive if 32 GB RAM, but also may find don't really need to use a RAM drive, preferring fast SSD, with HDD storage and backups.

16 GB is probably the ideal capacity RAM using advanced office, video and audio software, for most though and more than enough for gaming which is more GPU orientated along with a fast CPU. Its when using ram for rendering video, using layers on Photoshop or loading multiple VST instruments. I may need to do more of all these in the future, but right now I probably could find 16Gb sufficient most of the time and for the times I need to go over, then the programs would still work, just that they would take longer, but when I didn't need the 32GB Ram, I would have the very fastest set-up with the Asus Z170 a good mid range board and probably the best mid range specs and even will be good specs for a few years still being good for the Skylake i7 6700K-A using 16GB. Its one of those questions, I think I may be swayed to 32GB if could be sure using 4 DIMMs had no major heat issues and woudlnt risk over-stressing the memory controller, then as you say the 3200MHz model is very close to the 3400MHz one.

The other area Id like to know more about is the GTZ versus GTZB modules used for Trident Z series, although I would feel as its a premium line, both will be amongst the best Ram modules available, although the GTZ appear to be the highest, unless the B refers to a later version, but looking at Cas timings the GTZ appear to have the edge, but then again very close and both excellent and the GTZB outperform the GTZ of the lower frequency, so order would be 3400 GTZ and under 3200 GTZ, then GTZB then 3000 GTZ then GTZB. I also noticed from 3400MHz all seem to be GTZ, with no GTZB, although that may change as frequencies go higher still, although for most mainboards 3400 MHz will be the ultimate and probably stay that way until the successor to Skylake. I'm building now as I need the system now, so not waiting for successor to Skylake and Skylake seems very good for most applications and anyone upgrading now should have a good system that will perform well for quite a few years.

 

[Tradesman1]

The 32GB Trident Z, 3000-3400 would be good _ I got the 32GB 3200 set with my Hero and 6600K Great sticks

 

[CreativeTiger]

Thanks Tradesman, and for a quick reply. From all of my trying to figure this out have noticed you're an expert, provide useful accurate explanations and give very good recommendations. You make very useful interventions when many say things that are misleading, such as the typical suggestions about adding Ram at a later date. Its clear that is not a good idea, need everything perfectly matched. In a way I'm no win the position having learnt a lot of being concerned about what are probably such minor aspects, possibly debated nanosecond performance differences, which with other factors offsetting my reduce differences even more.

I can see any Trident Z is good and as with all tech constantly being upgraded, but again have to take the plunge sometime otherwise will always wait for the next upgrade, but I need the system now to improve performance and so as not to wreck my laptop that is being overused and desktop computers are very serviceable and easy to replace components as long as not fried by poor power supply. After much consideration opted for Corsair RM750i 750W power supply, so that should ensure all components are kept in good order . The 6700K is set to arrive at the end of this week. The M.2 is on order, but will take longer, but I want to load Windows on to upgrade to Windows 10 first anyway.

From what I've read there are differences but i expect they are so minute that they will only appear on test benches and in real world not be noticeable. I had originally thought go for 16Gb but then thought Id like to go up to 32gb Vengeance 2400MHZ, to ensure plenty of Ram to cover all uses and then changed from 4x8 GB to 2x16GB due to what I read about extra heat and memory controller stress.

From much reading I'm impressed with Trident Z and they've been designed to work with Skylake as dual channel and also appear to have been designed to work well as dual channel quad matching sets tested to work with Z170 mainboards, that in itself will probably mean better compatibility. Also they are designed to work as pairs or 2 matched sets of pairs. I get the impression possibly 4x8GB may in some respects be better than 2x16GB. But of course cost always also plays a part.

I quite like the timings of the 3200MHz GTZ as they're perfect, with GTZB not quite as tight a setting, although still very good, so it's really comparing top performers with other top performers. I was hoping running 4 dimms doesn't add too much heat, although again seems Skylake is meant to have a very good memory controller and the Asus Z170-A seems a good value high performance board that is designed to work with it. I wonder if 4x8GB doesn't put as much stress on the CPU as 4x16GB, but it's possible the Skylake series is so well designed that there are no longer any issues with the memory controller running 4 sticks together.

The doubling of Ram to 32GB is very tempting and I know that would well cover all purposes.
I have already ordered the 2x8GB 2400MHz because of the GTZ and even higher specs, but they won't be available for about 2 weeks and the 32Gb set is currently available. This means I could cancel the order and in its place order the 3200MHz GTZB 32GB Trident Z.

But the GTZ vs GTZB added to the equation. I read the following https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.nexthardware.com/forum/ram/86923-g-skill-trident-z-3200mhz-16gb-recensione-2.html&prev=search that seems to suggest there are differences, but also they really only minor differences and both versions still outperform just about all the other Ram available. I get the impression it's rather like half steps, with for instance 3200MHz GTZ outperforming 3200Mhz GTZB, which in itself outperforms 3000 MHz GTZ and so on. Alternatively it could be that the same Ram modules are used, but one has had more effort in setting up factory overclocking, whereas the other has been set quicker to meet the 3200MHz speed. If that is the case, by tweaking possibly performance of GTZ could also be matched by GTZB. However, in practice in the real world, it may be extremely difficult to tell any difference between GTZ and GTZB and both have same high standards of quality and are part of the Trident Z premium DDR4 series that's optimised for Skylake.

Most of the test bench reports have used GTZ, yet the most available is GTZB, but also keep thinking that the 32GB would ensure I wouldn't max out Ram, although keep also thinking most of the time am not likely to max out 16GB. I also notice a lot of people saying that is too much, but i can see 16GB seems to be a necessity and 32GB is a luxury for normal use, but gives a good headroom and series of options for video, photo and audio and for long-term advances in technology that can utilise more Ram and of course 3200MHz is very fast indeed and a major upgrade from when I considered 2400MHz. 3200 or 3400MHz are both ideal speeds, balanced well for latency and frequency are both super fast, but also more realistic and compatible, as well as affordable than any of the frequencies nearer 4000 MHz. And of course most boards appear to go up to around 3400MHz so are matched to meet full performance specs.

Thanks for all the excellent information you provide to help people with questions on the computer hardware boards.

 

[Tradesman1]

Those ending in B are slight better latency wise due to tighter secondary timings

 

[CreativeTiger]

Yes, thanks, I had figured that it is to do with latencies and secondary timings, I mean I thought the GTZ had lower CL secondary timings than GTZB. Whichever, because both these choices I reckon are excellent, in fact I think I would be happy with either, so I am still not totally decided.

If only I could get the 32GB version of 3200MHz GTZ for the same price as 3200MHz GTZB, or even get it at all as it seems that only the GTZB version is currently available in UK. Whilst tantalizingly the ultimate 3400MHz GTZ is available in UK 2 weeks. And if only the 32GB version of 3400MHz GTZ were a much lower price, which it probably will be in the future, but of course I need to get RAM now to be able to use the PC.

My dilemma is I think I shall find 16Gb is sufficient for most uses, its just future proof with constantly improving PC performances and if I get chance to do more work on video, photos and audio 32 GB may be better. However if I find 16GB is sufficient I could go all out for the lowest latencies combined with slightly faster 3400 MHz.

It seems choosing Ram has been the most difficult part to the entire build, I'm sure I shall be happy with either of these G.Skill Trident Z though, they look the part alight. I shall have to let you know what I decide, but still deliberating which one, see pros and cons in both, although either looks like a fantastic piece of kit.

 

[Tradesman1]

They are great sticks, in DDR3 their Trident X was the best out there and these are following suit, I waited about a month for their release and started the build with a set of 2x8GB RJ Vs so I could start testing CPU coolers for the build. Got mine the day they were released and they were sold out of the set a couple hours later

 

[CreativeTiger]

They are great sticks, in DDR3 their Trident X was the best out there and these are following suit, I waited about a month for their release and started the build with a set of 2x8GB RJ Vs so I could start testing CPU coolers for the build. Got mine the day they were released and they were sold out of the set a couple hours later

You must have been excited getting that first set of Ripjaws V are good too, and to use phrase over the moon with Trident Z, and 32GB is good enough for just about everything, but depending on what and how programs are used 16GB also could be ample for many and any of the Trident Z series are really awesome sets.

I still may go either way, on one hand ultimate 16GB, on the other almost as good 32GB, along with 2 vs 4 DIMM. I think I shall be happy with either. Could be a case of enjoying the 16GB and if discover as I did with 8GB reaching limit in future could upgrade to 32, but if works within most of time may stay with 16 unless I do more advanced video and audio and am in the future likely to go for 4K, but cant afford to upgrade video equipment for quite a while and if did could then upgrade to what would then be the latest version. That would only be a problem if found needs 32 GB regularly now.

It is a long post but quite a few points raised and at an exciting time in PC development. I went for Skylake too so will be ready for USB 3.1, HDMI 2, PCIe and M.2, as well as very advanced processors, 6600K and 6700K along with fast DDR4.

Somehow think frequency and latencies, also secondary timings will become more important as new programs and upgrades, updates are made utilising faster DDR4 Ram, also Direct 12. Although there is an optimum that possibly will coincide with limits on main boards. The one Im going to use in the build, Asus Z170-A goes up to 3466 (OC), so in effect is maxed at DDR4 tested frequency of 3400MHz (OC) and most mid and even higher range boards such as Asus Maximus VIII Hero at 3733 (OC) Asus Z170-Deluxe at 4000 (OC) don't go much higher. The ultra fast over 4000 MHz speeds for enthusiast high end boards, possibly with Skylake Extreme 6 and 8 core processors with quad channel DDR4. For me though the i7 6700K dual channel is as much as required, as the Extreme would only really be needed by media production professionals and studios, with budgets to match.

Some at the moment are saying faster speed RAM wont matter, but possibly its because its so new not many programs are yet utilising the speeds. Also M.2 SSD is going to be a super fast SDD that may also be better utilised by faster Ram. Anyway the latest 3200 and 3400MHz DDR 4 Skylake Ram should support all current and new programs, updates and upgrades for a long time, throughout Skylake series and continue to perform well in comparison in a constantly upgrading computing world with new chips beyond.

 

[CreativeTiger]

They are great sticks, in DDR3 their Trident X was the best out there and these are following suit, I waited about a month for their release and started the build with a set of 2x8GB RJ Vs so I could start testing CPU coolers for the build. Got mine the day they were released and they were sold out of the set a couple hours later

I changed my order from the 3400MHz 16GB to the 3200MHz 32GB, but then was unsure which is really best, however its a case where the larger capacity may outperform due to the programs I am using and in real world scenarios rather than test bench, both probably exceed all demands and in reality probably would be extremely close.

So I've decided to stay with the order for 3200MHz GTZB 32GB (4x8GB) over the 3400MHz GTZ 16GB (2x8GB) option, with the 32Gb set costing more but seems good value for an extra £40 to double the Ram to what is probably a workable 16GB for all my programs to 32GB that also enables options settings.

This means I can set ram allocations on Adobe After Affects to say 2 to3 GB per core, use multiple browsers with multiple tabs and multitasking, such as rendering whilst working using Microsoft Office. With so much ram, could even add a small ram drive and as I have dual monitors could watch videos or game at the same time as using for work related tasks, although don't seem to have enough time for gaming at the moment, then again could develop skills to enable this utilising all that ram.

It could even make an interesting test bench set-up to compare one set of higher capacity ram with a lower capacity set of one frequency step faster ram, as I would think the benefits of the greater capacity may outweigh the very slightly lower frequency and very slightly loser latencies of GTZB vs GTZ, which after all are at the maximum tested over-clock, as both are premium ram kits.

Probably the greatest difference would be noticed where more demanding programs are used and especially for multitasking of high ram usage programs, such as rendering in the background whilst using Office, web browsing or other Adobe programs simultaneously with ram allocations of say 2 to 3GB per core for each, are set to help with rendering. I posted an edited version of the question on the G.Skills DDR4 forum http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?p=77786&posted=1#post77786
and also received the advice from a helpful G.Skill tech administrator making the same recommendation to go for the 32GB at 3200MHz.

I've now talked myself into agreeing!

 

[Tradesman1]

I wrote an article earlier this year (DDR3 base, but same-same, you might take a look at, it's based on 32GB sets but also tested them with just the 2x8GB and at differernt data rates:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dram-benchmark-fluctuations,4080.html

 

[CreativeTiger]

I wrote an article earlier this year (DDR3 base, but same-same, you might take a look at, it's based on 32GB sets but also tested them with just the 2x8GB and at differernt data rates:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dram-benchmark-fluctuations,4080.html

A good article of yours that features a comparison of 1600 vs 2400 of DDR3 shows improvement when running the programs used in the test setup of 32GB over 16GB, as almost compensating for the difference in higher frequency and that's for a large number of frequency steps, 800 MHz out of 2400 MHz. If two sets just one step of 200MHz apart as when comparing 3200MHz to 3400MHz of DDR4 ram, and with percentage difference even less for 200Hz steps the higher the frequencies are, it is possible that the 32GB lower frequency would outperform the higher one. But of course considering that the comparison would only be between one increment of 200MHz on the frequency, whilst doubling the Ram, but if deciding between two ram kits for similar cost, then the larger ram kit on 200MHz less frequency may outperform the half size capacity of Ram at higher frequency.

It seems that in determining performance and choosing between ram, not only does frequency and latency need to be considered but also ram capacity, that in turn may vary according to types of programs and level of multitasking. Presumably comparing the same capacity will be straightforward, but often as higher frequencies cost more, this means a choice at a similar price can be more ram of the frequency one step lower can be more in cost than half the ram at one step higher frequency, but often not much more and with double capacity, that in itself adds to the performance result.

In terms of stress on IMC of the processor, whilst technically more for using all 4 out 4 DIMMS on a Z170 series boards and 4 core processor using dual channel ram, as the processor and board are designed to run with all 4 DIMMs and with the processor at even higher frequencies than standard boards, running a mid-range frequency up to the limit of a standard board should be well within capabilities, so with a good setup of components should not in real world use, cause any excessive wear and tear. Pushing towards record overclocks would cause more and at the very highest such as over 4000 MHz and towards the maximum speed CPU overclock combined with ram OC, that the processor can work with, possibly using less DIMMs may help then and even so under high load test bench tests or heavy gaming rather than real world usage.

There are also differences between ram kits of the same specification will perform better than others, but that is a factor you can't control, but can use tested speeds do give a comparison, but then also to factor in capacity and types of computing affect performance.

 

[CreativeTiger]

I wrote an article earlier this year (DDR3 base, but same-same, you might take a look at, it's based on 32GB sets but also tested them with just the 2x8GB and at differernt data rates:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dram-benchmark-fluctuations,4080.html

Update, with initial test results. I have put together my rig, using Asus Z170A mainboard, 6700K and G.Skill Trident Z 3200 (OC) GTZB 32GB (4x8GB) and air cooled with Nuctua D15 with 2 cpu fans. Setup up with 5-way optimisation setting temp maximum at 80 Deg and maximum cpu voltage 1.35v, it came up with stress tested 4.6GHz and failed on maximum parameters at 4.7GHz. The 5-way setup kept cpu base clock at default 100 and reset Ram to fraction under 2926 Mhz at 1.35v for the Ram. XMP profile worked perfectly at advertised tested settings of 3200MHz (OC)16-18-18-38 2T at 1.35v.

I then went into manual bios setup using 46 as multiplier, which worked, only experienced problems when tried to lower voltage too much to 1.7, 1.9 and 2.1v and it reset to stock 1.2v. that automatically crashed at 46 multiplier with 100 base clock and didn’t change that. Original Ez seup wizard from Bios selected 1.9v and changed base clock to 100.5 from 100. But when I changed manually set it back to 100. from reading cross sites on overclocking cpu it seems typical to require around 1.35v for cpu to run at 4.6Ghz. I also tested 44 multiplier at 4.4GHz that the cpu works at 1.9v with no problems. Max temp reached in Asus Dual Intelligent Processor 5 way tests at 4.4Ghz came in at 61 Deg with Ram at 3333 MHz, also stable, cool and quiet.

I therefore may consider dropping back to 4.4Ghz or compromise between the 4.5 and 4.6 to lower voltage from 1.35v to 1.31 or 4.4GHz at 1.29v. Fans only got up to medium settings and most of the tests were under 60 Deg and in idle temp runs close to 19 to 21 Deg. Before overclocking in idle was running at 17 Deg. Need to do more test to ensure stability at 4.6GHz at settings, although to maintain cool and quiet may lower to 4.4 or 4.5GHz, but so far 4.6gHz doesn’t seem to cause any problems. Just the cpu voltage, would’ve preferred 2.9v and for that may have to lower to 4.4Ghz, although as long as set to max 1.35v that may be well within tolerances. Would need to post to Toms hardware overclocking thread to check up on that.

At 4.6Ghz initial quick stress test reached max 78 Deg and cpu max at 1.35v, Ram worked perfectly at G.Skill tested and advertised benchmarks at both advertised 3200 (OC) and manually set 3333MHz. Also by using manual setting have been able to get 3333Mhz at the same Cl latency settings of 16-18-18-38 but have had crashes at 3466MHz at 18-18-18-40 1.37v, and 17-18-18-39 2T at 4.4GHz cpu, but when change to 4.6GHz cpu leaving it at 17-18-18-39 2T it ran for a few minutes at 3466 but it crashed.

The mainboard too is advertised at 3400MHz max, but in other specs advertised at 3466MHz, so maybe a bios update and I have installed the latest bios and means either 3400 or 3466Mhz is the highest frequency that can be used on this mainboard, the max for 4 dimms. This may even be a mainboard limit, although a limit of 3400 or 3466Mhz is not exactly an issue at the current time and as is well over base specs for Skylake should not be an issue at all, unless one is an extreme overclocked for Ram benchmarking and any improvement would even then be miniscule. It may also be related to the overclocking cpu beyond 4.4Ghz and not the Ram at all. I also could not find a 3400MHz setting in the bios, so choice is between 3200, 3333 and 3466 mhz.

I have dropped Ram frequency back to what appeared stable 3333MHz at same good latency settings 16-18-18-38 at 1.36v I tried setting adaptive mode on cpu voltage from manual at 1.33v that in bios sets to 1.328v and ram at 1.35v but crashed. On changing this to manual 1.33v, shows in bios as 1.328v and Ram set as 1.36v shows varying between 1.360 and 1.376v it works. I reset to cpu manual at 1.33 and bios shows 1.328v and ram set in bios to 1.360, although appears to vary on bios display between 1.360 and 1.376 but working. I then tested resetting to xmp, actual value is 1.3530v and did not realise had to change from auto on ram voltage setting, was trying to change it in the above option, discovered could change in ram voltage in bios from auto to 1.35 and now shows as 1.3530 that matches xmp.
It worked with same settings as 3200MHz and passed stress tests using 1.36v, however at same settings and 1.35v it crashed. So seems requires 1.36v needed to get same 16-18-18-38. But when tried 17-19-19-41 at 1.35v it worked at 3333 MHz at correct xmp voltage and with 4 dimms all populated opted to keep it to 1.35v at slightly higher cas latency. However, it is hit and miss at 3333 MHz. They do seem to have extremely good xmp profiles at 3200 MHz for anyone simply wanting to know the ram is capable of tested speed.

I later tried using Ez wizard in bios that set to 4.4GHz, then used Asus software which took it to 4.6GHz, with ram reset to near 3000 MHz. I also noticed voltage seemed to allow higher than would like close to 1.4v in software if accurate although checked in bios and was set to 1.376v. offset. I tried to change it to adaptive, but that crashed and rest voltage to 1.2v for cpu. I then manually set it to 1.375v, leaving it at 4.6 GHz just to see if it would boot with ram set at 3333 MHz and 1.35v and it did, so currently working with settings in bios as manual, cpu at 1.375v and ram at 1.35v at 3333 MHz and with latencies at 16-18-18-38.

It seemed to work alright when left set up by Asus software, problems arose by changing to manual and adaptive, initially worked in manual, and crashed when adaptive set starting at 1.360 v. This could be because of the 4.6 GHz overclock voltage requirements. Looking at other benchmark testing reviews of 6700k, several had referred to using voltages set higher and to get 4.7Ghz which I am not trying to get although Asus software did achieve it near to 3.95v. 4.5 GHz may enable lower voltages for CPU and 4.4 GHz appears to perform well and didn’t crash whilst running ram at 3333 MHz. have rebooted to new ram set manually at 1.38v to try out if can have running at 4.6 GHz. So it may not be a ram issue but rather sufficient voltage to run cpu at 4.6 GHz overclock at same time as ram at 3333 MHz.

After a lot of booting and rebooting and finding myself around trying to optimise my set-up without excessive voltages, yet ultlising above stock ones for performance. I found running ram at rated 1.35v best and to my surprise all settings at xmp and yet at 3333 MHz. I didn't expect to get that stable, thought may have to chose between using xmp that is already excellent or loosening to get 3333, with 3400 being a bridge to far, but I think may be more related to limits of the mainboard plus my desire to limit cpu voltage to 1.35v. I managed to get an incredible 3467MHz stable at 1.35v on the ram kit uisng all 4 dimms at 32GB at 4.6Ghz, but noticed too many voltage spikes up to 1.4v on the cpu. I noticed performance improvements and much lower voltages and very cool running using 4.5GHz and by not trying to push any closer towards 3400 MHz on the ram, but excellent on 3200 and 3333 (OC).

It gets even better, I think G.Skill may like the benchmarck chart for the ram, its at the very peak on 'PassMark' memory mark. I have done some tests at 4.5 GHz on 6700K with what seem typical voltages for that speed, set at 1.328v with 0.020v negative offset, that allows low voltages when idle or not under stress and seems to maintain core voltages in high 1.2's to low and up to about 1.35v when under stress testing, with maximum temperatures on Noctua NH D15 air cooler with 2 fans not exceeding 750rpm at around 62 degrees C and with the 3200 (OC) ram profile same latency settings of 16-18-18-38 also at 3333MHz.

Tried using Level 4 and 5 and of 7 on CPU load-line calibration, but was concerned about how this can enable too high voltages if not careful, although if set correctly is supposed to enable a wider range, but optimum overclock may also mean more higher voltage spikes, so to minimise these needs slightly less than maximum overclocking, although still a very good moderate overclock. It appears Intel default is at auto. After doing this noticed it had increased the core voltage on the offset mode, so as this was higher than I would want at 1.360v set minus offset to 0.040v and on rebooting noticed in idle most of the time it runs at 0.768v and with a maximum nearer to 1.360v under load, but most of the time it seems to be running at under stock voltage when idle or doing less demanding tasks. This resulted in an upper core voltage 0.010 higher, but increased offset from minus 0.020v to minus 0.040v and seemed to result in lower voltages such as 0.752v to 0.804v and CPU temps of 17.8 to 21 degrees in idle.

After letting it run for a few hours using regular programs, checked in bios and offset cpu core had changed to 1.264v and still minus offset. Not sure how that happened unless it had taken it down from about 1.340 when I first applied the negative offset. One of the experts on this site may have an explanation, but whatever its running fine at low temps and at 4.5 GHz with ram at 3333 MHz.

On Prime 95 stress testing after running for 2 hrs at 4.5GHz and Ram at 3333 MHz and passing all tests, whilst using browser and OneNote, plus CPU-Z, Asus Dual Intelligent Processors 5 with 2 input one output case fans set to max cpu usage at 100% cpu temp varies, with peaks on most demanding tests temporarily up to 75 to 81 degree max, with case fans on max, but appears to range between mostly 62 and 64 degrees.

I may have to check how I set the fans speeds though as was expecting them to run near to max, but they were mostly running at between 340 and even under maximum stress in Prime 95 the 2 fans didn't get above 745 and 748 rpm, yet the rated max is 1200 rpm and I didn't fit the low noise adapter. When the most extreme stress tests were completed at highest cycles temps quickly fell back to 60s and when stopped Prime 95 it immediately fell back to 26 degrees and even down to 18 degrees.

As not a gamer, although if get chance to play in future with this set-up may consider more gaming when get a graphics card (I am going to wait for the Pascal series of graphics cards to come out in 2016 as many new features, geared for 4k and designed to work well with Skylake series and onwards mainboards and processors, to add to rig). When working on media files not usually rendering for over an hour or for hours on end, usually do not use heavily intensive tasks for over an hour, but can use pc for hours with Office, browsers and programs that may use ram but not too intensive on CPU or GPU, So 2hrs of Prime 95 whilst using Office, email web browser and Youtube seems a good enough test, together with incredibly high performing scores on other benchmark tests, including 11 1/2hrs of MemTest 86 seems a thorough test, the set-up has passed. Also as using integrated graphics without a graphics card this also means am using cpu and Ram for all graphics functions, including driving 2 1080p monitors, so possibly when add a graphics card this may help performance even more.

Results on Cinebench R15 and Passmark (v8.0.1053) are astonishing, with Ram at the very top and incredibly even some graphic tests notably in 2D matching 980 graphics cards on the comparison benchmarks and even exceeding in several tests that are cpu and ram intensive, using the on-board Intel integrated graphics. On the overall rankings it is only beaten by 8 core and 12 core xeons and on programs utilising above 4 cores, but in practise most people would be utilising at most 4 cores, but even then it rates using 4 cores not that far behind 8 and even 12 cores and on 4 or less cores it exceeds them. There could be a combination of a good moderate over-clock on cpu, plus a very good over-clock on the 3200 (OC) run at 3333MHz Trident Z s and utilising 32GB Ram.

 

[CreativeTiger]

What a massive post. I didn't read most of it.

Assuming the question is,
"Should I take 32GB of medium speed RAM or 16GB of fast RAM, which are about the same price."

Then I would suggest taking the 32GB.
For most apps the RAM's speed isn't all that important. A couple of percentage points only. But the extra 16GB will function as a disk cache and might help with the 4K video editing.

Thanks to your answer too, it really a joint best solution, but can only vote for one best solution so went for Tradesman as a board moderator and he also suggests more ram as opposed to slightly higher frequencies at tested settings. And in this case the difference is only very slightly higher specs in a range that is beyond all programs to utilise the very slightly higher specs. So any difference is only really measurable by benchmarking and stress tests, whereas the double ram capacity will affect all media programs and when multitasking. Ironically the extra ram having a positive effect on many programs, especially when multitasking.

In reality in real world use can mean it will outperform the very slightly higher spec from half the ram, taking advantage of there being double the ram and much better value at the price. Although as time goes on this difference will be minute and pricing probably will mean the higher spec will fall, to the same level and be better value eventually. But it is always a priority at the cutting edge when new components are first available and if building at pc at that time there is always a weighing up of costs related to when the components and the build is required. And the trade-off between slightly higher specs and more ram will possibly always be the case as each new processor, mainboard and ram are developed and released.

 

[CreativeTiger]

I wrote an article earlier this year (DDR3 base, but same-same, you might take a look at, it's based on 32GB sets but also tested them with just the 2x8GB and at differernt data rates:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dram-benchmark-fluctuations,4080.html

Since my initial query on selecting ram I've been running it smoothly and tweaking a bit more, Trident Z is running amazing. I am also pleased ive gone for the 32Gb ram, as I may add using virtual machines to tasks needed as well as using many programs that are helped by having plenty of ram. I have been running the system daily for normal use and no problems, just ultra fast and ultra quiet. I thought as it was running well as the better than expected settings, I would try a bit more tweaking in case it may be possible to reach 3400MHz. from trial and error, always maintaining 1.35v for the ram and aiming for a good moderate over-clock on cpu at 4.5Ghz. I achieved best stability with cpu set to 1.35v offset to allow for boost up to 1.37 and at 3466 MHz manual over clock aiming to limit to max peaks within 1.42v. I find mostly it runs at between 0.8 and 1.35v for the cpu. The ram at a steady 1.35v.

Note all tests and usage is using only the Intel HD530 CPU integrated graphics without any graphics card and running 2 monitors at 1080p, as I want to wait for a Pascal video card that will be better optimised for the features of K series Skylake processors along with G.Skill Trident Z super performance Ram. With discrete graphics card meaning much less demand on the processor for graphics it may be possible to exceed all benchmarks, although the fact that this processor has integrated graphics equivalent to what was a top end graphics card from only a few years ago, but as programs can use integrated features as well as discreet graphics or for integrating processor and graphics card, the high quality of graphics even without graphics card is incredible. But this means with say an Nvidia Pascal graphics card when it is released the benchmarks are likely to all be surpassed, including tweaking to improve latencies and lower voltages as well as for maximum workable clock rate.

The latency settings of 16-18-18-38 have worked steady at 3333MHz. I then tried various slightly loser settings to try for 3400MHz and found it has reached a steady usage setting at 17-18-18-38 at 3466 MHz. Funnily i originally tried loser settings that seemed to go down. These settings are close to the 3600MHz kit latencies but using the 3200 MHz kit and achieving at similar latencies 3466MHz. I shall have to see how this runs under stress. The 3333MHz passes all the stress tests and for the last week it has been running smoothly in normal use at 3466MHz at 17-18-18-38 CL. That is also at the limit of the main board and a significant over-clock far exceeding any program specifications.

I also wonder if losing but on same ratios may achieve same high speed but can set cpu voltage a bit lower, possibly at similar levels to 3333MHz at 16-18-18-38, maybe at 18-18-18-38 or 18-19-19-38. I'm not an expert on this but am learning as going along. I may also take it back down to 3333 MHz if need to maintain cpu at slightly lower temperatures as at those settings was finding that at 3333MHz, that the cpu could run at 1.29 to 1.35v, mostly 0.8 to 1.32v and in reality the difference for real world usage of 3333 and 3466 MHz must be very small, both very fast.

Update: After running successfully for couple of weeks at 3333MHz set at CL 16-18-18-38 on 32GB set of 4 ram dimms at 4.5GHz, using only the integrated graphics as waiting for Pascal before adding graphics card, thought I would lower to 4.4Ghz until add graphics card then may take it back to 4.5GHz. I also notice don offset voltages running higher than liked, and setting at 4.4Ghz didn’t lower voltages with settings as they were. Also using Asus on-board 5-way setup it seemed to also keep it running higher. Manual lowered the peak rates to the rate set and found at 4.4GHz could run at 2.9 v., but also never went down. Then discovered adaptive seems best for my purposes as its mostly much lower voltages, very low temperatures, extremely quiet and still allows peaks when demand increases. Found it crashed a few times at 2.8v, but was stable at 3.0v but upped it to 3.2v to allow for higher demands and found it mostly ran near 0.784v and still did so when set at 3.2v, jus that allowed more room for heavy demand programs.
With it running smoothly thought would have a go upping ram towards mainboard tested maximum and found it has been stable set at 3466MHz, 1.35v for ram, with CL at 17-18-18-38.
G.Skill Trident Z is excellent ram, very impressive!