[SOLVED] Best ram money can buy for i9 10900k

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
With most Intels, it'll take some OC settings to get any use from such high speed ram like 4800MHz. The memory controller just needs that extra amount of 'umph' to deal with it.

You say heavy workload, with 80%± of 32Gb used, but the question is 'how' it's used. If it's tons of small file transfers, speed won't count for much but timings will. If it's 1 or a couple large file transfers, timings won't be as important as speed.

With the 10900k native at 2933MHz, something like 3200/3600 Cas14 might very well get you better overall results than 4000+ and Cas20, as well as being easier on the MC to handle and offering better chances at stability.

It's ram. You are looking at nanosecond differences which may add up to a couple minutes on an hour long render, but for 10 second loads are not discernable. Quick enough, reliable, stable might be a better solution than trying to chase that last 5% performance gain that you personally can't see.
 
Reactions: General Kenobi

General Kenobi

Respectable
Sep 19, 2018
633
130
2,140
29
Heavy workload, daily usage at 80% of 32gb used.

Currently building a new PC, what is the most responsive, fastest 64gb kit I can buy for a 10900K?

Planned on using an ASUS HERO mobo, but open to other suggestions if so.

Post containing my full build can be found here: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/new-build-would-you-change-anything.3663864/

Thank you.
According to Asus i7/i9 can natively run at 2933Mhz whereas a good ram could be overclocked upto 4800Mhz idk how Speed works with Intel and how much it's gonna affect however if you are planning to get fast ram see through it that it also has good timing as the ram frequency and timing will define the speed of your ram,i saw someone recommending you a 5900x build why not that with a 3600mhz ram?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
With most Intels, it'll take some OC settings to get any use from such high speed ram like 4800MHz. The memory controller just needs that extra amount of 'umph' to deal with it.

You say heavy workload, with 80%± of 32Gb used, but the question is 'how' it's used. If it's tons of small file transfers, speed won't count for much but timings will. If it's 1 or a couple large file transfers, timings won't be as important as speed.

With the 10900k native at 2933MHz, something like 3200/3600 Cas14 might very well get you better overall results than 4000+ and Cas20, as well as being easier on the MC to handle and offering better chances at stability.

It's ram. You are looking at nanosecond differences which may add up to a couple minutes on an hour long render, but for 10 second loads are not discernable. Quick enough, reliable, stable might be a better solution than trying to chase that last 5% performance gain that you personally can't see.
 
Reactions: General Kenobi

strea

Honorable
Jun 18, 2015
80
0
10,630
0
With most Intels, it'll take some OC settings to get any use from such high speed ram like 4800MHz. The memory controller just needs that extra amount of 'umph' to deal with it.

You say heavy workload, with 80%± of 32Gb used, but the question is 'how' it's used. If it's tons of small file transfers, speed won't count for much but timings will. If it's 1 or a couple large file transfers, timings won't be as important as speed.

With the 10900k native at 2933MHz, something like 3200/3600 Cas14 might very well get you better overall results than 4000+ and Cas20, as well as being easier on the MC to handle and offering better chances at stability.

It's ram. You are looking at nanosecond differences which may add up to a couple minutes on an hour long render, but for 10 second loads are not discernable. Quick enough, reliable, stable might be a better solution than trying to chase that last 5% performance gain that you personally can't see.
Thank you Karadjgne.

This is the use-case for the ram, would you expect speed or timings would matter more?

Daily workload
35+ tabs of Google Chrome (all active charts of stocks) so it isn't just resting pages (price constantly moving).
Opera for some specific tabs (3-5 tabs)
Trading software (Thinkorswim, single core dependent I believe)
Telegram
Discord
Media player (Currently using JRiver)
Steam
Some type of game during downtime like DotA 2 (I DO NOT close the background tabs at all during this time, they must stay open for alerts).
 

General Kenobi

Respectable
Sep 19, 2018
633
130
2,140
29
Thank you Karadjgne.

This is the use-case for the ram, would you expect speed or timings would matter more?

Daily workload
35+ tabs of Google Chrome (all active charts of stocks) so it isn't just resting pages (price constantly moving).
Opera for some specific tabs (3-5 tabs)
Trading software (Thinkorswim, single core dependent I believe)
Telegram
Discord
Media player (Currently using JRiver)
Steam
Some type of game during downtime like DotA 2 (I DO NOT close the background tabs at all during this time, they must stay open for alerts).
Yea the ram frequency and timings both matter and it decides your overall speed so if you are going for 3600 with latency 18 if available get 3600 Cl16, also they are more expensive.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Yep. Ton of small file transfer stuff and a good mix of large file thrown in. The Chrome tabs soak up a bunch of ram bandwidth, easily as much as half the available ram. Speed isn't going to help as much as size here, 80%+ of 32Gb means a move to 64Gb, decent speed and good timing, like the mentioned 3600/16 or 3200/14.

And I'd stick with 2x sticks...

I'd almost be tempted to say start thinking about running a couple of virtual machines. That way you could seperate the operations, have 1 VM running the stocks, 1 VM running Chrome and the base running whatevers left. That'd allow you to seperate ram usage so 1 operation doesn't affect others.
 
Last edited:

strea

Honorable
Jun 18, 2015
80
0
10,630
0
Yep. Ton of small file transfer stuff and a good mix of large file thrown in. The Chrome tabs soak up a bunch of ram bandwidth, easily as much as half the available ram. Speed isn't going to help as much as size here, 80%+ of 32Gb means a move to 64Gb, decent speed and good timing, like the mentioned 3600/16 or 3200/14.

And I'd stick with 2x sticks...

I'd almost be tempted to say start thinking about running a couple of virtual machines. That way you could seperate the operations, have 1 VM running the stocks, 1 VM running Chrome and the base running whatevers left. That'd allow you to seperate ram usage so 1 operation doesn't affect others.
2x sticks? So just a 2x32g kit? Because I was looking at 4x16.

Also, should I give any thought to 128gb? For example, if I'm video editing and rendering with Sony Vegas 18 with all the workload above is going on in the background.
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Well you have Intel, so really the amount of sticks isn't an issue, you could use 2 or 4 with no worries. 2x32Gb is expandable, if the need arises, 4x16Gb is not. Granted there's a minimal risk to mix and match kits with expanding, but it's still a possibility.

I couldn't honestly say. Whatever you are doing now is using 80+% of 32Gb. That's a known number. That means without changing usage, you'd be using closer to 40-50% of 64Gb at best. Meaning there's no real way of telling exactly how much any particular usage is going to increase the ram usage.

One thing for sure, the only thing 128Gb of ram is going to hurt is the wallet, you'd need to be doing crazy amounts of work in several VMs to abuse that.

64Gb I can see as being a necessity. Whether 128Gb is a luxury or necessity is undecided. If you can justify the difference, go for it.
 

strea

Honorable
Jun 18, 2015
80
0
10,630
0
Well you have Intel, so really the amount of sticks isn't an issue, you could use 2 or 4 with no worries. 2x32Gb is expandable, if the need arises, 4x16Gb is not. Granted there's a minimal risk to mix and match kits with expanding, but it's still a possibility.

I couldn't honestly say. Whatever you are doing now is using 80+% of 32Gb. That's a known number. That means without changing usage, you'd be using closer to 40-50% of 64Gb at best. Meaning there's no real way of telling exactly how much any particular usage is going to increase the ram usage.

One thing for sure, the only thing 128Gb of ram is going to hurt is the wallet, you'd need to be doing crazy amounts of work in several VMs to abuse that.

64Gb I can see as being a necessity. Whether 128Gb is a luxury or necessity is undecided. If you can justify the difference, go for it.
And if I was to move towards a 5950x build, would the amount of sticks change? (considering you said it isn't an issue for Intel). Somewhat of a sudden change, but now considering that I may want PCI-e 4.0 as well as the Samsung 980 Pro NVME 2tb's which aren't out yet.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Yes. Ryzens do not like 4 sticks. It messes with the Infinity Fabric used for core-core communication. The 2x primary slots (A2/B2) are full speeds, but generally the secondary slots (A1/B1) will limit ram speeds to 2666MHz or less, very few hitting 2933MHz. With some Ryzens, it was as low as 2133/2400MHz MHz.

It's the byproduct of Ryzen benefits for ram speeds, Intels don't get as much performance gains, but as a consequence have fewer issues with ram.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY