Is DDR4 really faster than DDR3

[xXCrossfireXx]

People keep saying that DDR4 is faster than DDR3, it's more expensive because it's clocked higher in MHz. But here's the thing: Both of the standards have higher CAS latencies as they go up in speed. So something like DDR3 2133 CAS 9 would be faster than DDR3 3200 CAS 14 correct? So why do people say DDR4 is faster?

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

http://www.corsair.com/en-us/blog/2015/november/ddr3-vs-ddr4

 

[Dugimodo]

It is faster, but the real world gains from RAM speed is not noticable for most users so it's really not important.
I use mainstream RAM at stock speeds, no point spending more money for an imperceptible performance increase IMHO

As the speed in MHZ increases more clock cycles happen per second, CAS latency is in clock cycles so you have to take the frequency into account to compare. Is 9 cycles @ 2133 faster than 14 cycles @ 3200 ?
1/2133 x 9 = .00422 second, 1/3200x14 =.004375seconds so yes, but not by much. Any CAS less than 14 @ 3200 would be faster than 2133 CAS 9 though

 

[Pinhedd]

People keep saying that DDR4 is faster than DDR3, it's more expensive because it's clocked higher in MHz. But here's the thing: Both of the standards have higher CAS latencies as they go up in speed. So something like DDR3 2133 CAS 9 would be faster than DDR3 3200 CAS 14 correct? So why do people say DDR4 is faster?

Yes it is faster. CAS is largely meaningless to modern memory controllers

 

[xXCrossfireXx]

People keep saying that DDR4 is faster than DDR3, it's more expensive because it's clocked higher in MHz. But here's the thing: Both of the standards have higher CAS latencies as they go up in speed. So something like DDR3 2133 CAS 9 would be faster than DDR3 3200 CAS 14 correct? So why do people say DDR4 is faster?

Yes it is faster. CAS is largely meaningless to modern memory controllers

Cool, so assuming I would do processor intensive tasks, would you say I should overclock my memory as high as possible while keeping it at a safe temperature?

 

[Dugimodo]

I'd say leave it at stock settings and don't worry about it, you won't notice the difference.
Leave overclocking to the hardcore enthusiasts, it's not worth the trouble for anyone else.

 

[xXCrossfireXx]

I'd say leave it at stock settings and don't worry about it, you won't notice the difference.
Leave overclocking to the hardcore enthusiasts, it's not worth the trouble for anyone else.

I do want to try overclocking it though, would you say I should overclock my CPU and graphics card first?

 

[Dugimodo]

Overclocking can be fun, and for some users gives a very real boost to their PC use. For many though it's all academic. If I check my CPU usage while gaming for example is usually under 50% and turbo isn't even kicking in. Your choice but be prepared to be underwhelmed.

What do you use your PC for that will benefit from more performance? answering that will tell you where to put your overclocking effort. If the answer is nothing then why take the risk. For Games the GPU has the largest effect followed by the CPU then the RAM, for CPU intensive tasks the GPU make not have any effect at all. There are memory intensive tasks, but I personally don't have any experience with those.

To give you an example of how pointless overclocking can be, I had an i5 2500K which I did a fairly conservative overclock of about 8% on. Everything was stable and worked perfectly for a few months. About a year later I realised I'd done a BIOS update 3 months after overclocking it and everything had reverted it back to stock settings, for 9 months I had not noticed the difference at all. My next CPU was not a K version.

 

[xXCrossfireXx]

Overclocking can be fun, and for some users gives a very real boost to their PC use. For many though it's all academic. If I check my CPU usage while gaming for example is usually under 50% and turbo isn't even kicking in. Your choice but be prepared to be underwhelmed.

What do you use your PC for that will benefit from more performance? answering that will tell you where to put your overclocking effort. If the answer is nothing then why take the risk. For Games the GPU has the largest effect followed by the CPU then the RAM, for CPU intensive tasks the GPU make not have any effect at all. There are memory intensive tasks, but I personally don't have any experience with those.

To give you an example of how pointless overclocking can be, I had an i5 2500K which I did a fairly conservative overclock of about 8% on. Everything was stable and worked perfectly for a few months. About a year later I realised I'd done a BIOS update 3 months after overclocking it and everything had reverted it back to stock settings, for 9 months I had not noticed the difference at all. My next CPU was not a K version.

Well I plan to do programming, which I hear compiling is memory intensive. I also plan to do gaming, and video editing/rendering, so I guess practically everything would matter when I overclock.