ram on 1333 mhz and 1600

[Filip Trusk]

Hello. I want to know diference when ram is working on 1333 mhz and 1600

 

[Filip Trusk]

this is my pc cpu amd fx 8350 4 ghz gpu amd r9 285 8 gb ram. Now i want to know diference

 

[Tesla_Whizz]

Hello. I want to know diference when ram is working on 1333 mhz and 1600

The frequency is expressed in Hertz, which means "cycles per second". So, the DDR3 2000 will perform 2000 cycles a second while the DDR3 1600 will do, well, 1600.

The CAS latency is given in cycles. So, a CAS9 RAM will take 9 cycles to respond and the CAS6, 6 cycles.

Now putting it together: the DDR3 2000 CAS9 will take 9/2000 seconds, which is equal to 0,0045 seconds, to respond while the DDR3 1600 CAS 6 will take 6/1600, which is equal to 0,0038 seconds, to respond. Thus, the 1600 one is faster.

Less RAM sticks generally means less load to the memory controller. So, 2x4GB is better than 4x2GB.

The above is just an example, what are the CAS latency of your 1333 and 1600mhz ram?

 

[VincentP]

DDR means double data rate RAM. When you see a spec like DDR3-1600 this actually means 1600 million transfers per second. The clock rate (in mhz) is actually half this value.

The more transfers per second, the more data can be read from or written to memory per second.
DDR3-1866 is faster than DDR3-1600, which is faster than DDR3-1333, etc.
The difference between these won't have a huge impact on performance that because your home PC is usually waiting resources other than memory.

The latency mentioned above is a bit more technical than you probably need to worry about.
As the speed in mhz increases, the latency numbers increase because it is expressed as a number of cycles.
This isn't anything to worry about.
DDR3-1600 C9 (e.g. timing 9-9-9-24) is a little better than DDR3-1600 C10 (e.g. timing 10-10-10-24).
You certainly would not choose ram with a slower transfer rate though to get lower latency timing.

The comments about load on the memory controller are not true. Typical desktop CPUs have two memory channels, so the ideal number of dimms is 2 or 4. Having two dimms per channel will not reduce performance, but the ram does have to be compatible.

Ideally for your CPU you should use DDR3-1866 because this is the fastest memory officially supported by your CPU.
DDR3-1600 is the next best thing, then DDR3-1333.
Use 2 or 4 dimms for maximum performance. Using only one dimm means the memory bandwidth is halved.

 

[Tesla_Whizz]

DDR means double data rate RAM. When you see a spec like DDR3-1600 this actually means 1600 million transfers per second. The clock rate (in mhz) is actually half this value.

The more transfers per second, the more data can be read from or written to memory per second.
DDR3-1866 is faster than DDR3-1600, which is faster than DDR3-1333, etc.
The difference between these won't have a huge impact on performance that because your home PC is usually waiting resources other than memory.

The latency mentioned above is a bit more technical than you probably need to worry about.
As the speed in mhz increases, the latency numbers increase because it is expressed as a number of cycles.
This isn't anything to worry about.
DDR3-1600 C9 (e.g. timing 9-9-9-24) is a little better than DDR3-1600 C10 (e.g. timing 10-10-10-24).
You certainly would not choose ram with a slower transfer rate though to get lower latency timing.

The comments about load on the memory controller are not true. Typical desktop CPUs have two memory channels, so the ideal number of dimms is 2 or 4. Having two dimms per channel will not reduce performance, but the ram does have to be compatible.

Ideally for your CPU you should use DDR3-1866 because this is the fastest memory officially supported by your CPU.
DDR3-1600 is the next best thing, then DDR3-1333.
Use 2 or 4 dimms for maximum performance. Using only one dimm means the memory bandwidth is halved.

Yeah more MHz would be better but you would chose the one with the lower CAS timings like the G Skill ripjaws series.

Lol I must have read wrong about the load on memory controllers. I retrieve my comment 😛

 

[J_E_D_70]

It is preferable to run 2 sticks vs 4 - takes more power to constantly refresh 4, sometimes have to relax timings (or add voltage) to make them stable, and its harder to dissipate heat with them packed together. Does it actually make a real world difference? Not so much.