Question RAM speed vs timings

[Finnegan1616]

So I'm saving for a new pc (here's an idea of the specs https://pcpartpicker.com/list/hCbdBc), but I want to make sure I get it right (don't really want to spend $7,000+ on the second best if the best was <1000 more), so I'm trying to choose RAM, but I'm not sure whether how much I should prioritize Speed/Timings/Latency/something else, I thought I read that you can divide the timings by the speed, but I'm not sure, the two main RAM sticks are these G.Skill Trident Z RGB and the Crucial Ballistix MAX, both are 16gb modules, and both have good timing/speed etc, but I came to ask which is better (also don't be bothered by budget, unless it's really crazy like this $4000 ram bundle thing https://pcpartpicker.com/product/ny...8-x-16gb-ddr4-3200-memory-cmd128gx4m8b3200c16, I'm not a millionaire)



tldr: I'm limited to 1.4v by my processor, and want the best ram, so how to I make use of timing/speed/latency etc to find the best, and budget isn't a problem

thanks in advance

 

[Finnegan1616]

That was the most current information about Flex system requirements that I found. From Stackoverflow in 2017 "Flex is technically still officially supported (since 2011, by the Apache Foundation rather than by Adobe), but considering the deprecation of Flash, along with its diminished presence in developer questions, it’s hard to say that it’s a technology with a future." Basically flex is a dead technology and thinking that you need more specs than the official 2008 ones for Flex is not worth while.

128GB RAM for a desktop is not worth the money. Sure you have bragging rights but by the time 128GB is needed for a desktop that one will be LONG dead. In 2012 4GB RAM was minimum, 8GB was mainstream, and 16GB was high-end. 9 years later we have only doubled those recommendations. Once you get to 32GB RAM, Windows is able to expand out almost fully into RAM so most things are cached. For example my desktop after 8 years of use will boot using 8GB RAM. Right now I am running Slack, a VPN, Outlook, RDP secession, and 4 tabs in Firefox and I'm using 10GB RAM out of 32GB. Of the 22GB free, Windows is using 21GB for cache. It will probably be AT LEAST 5 years before 32GB is more mainstream. As I've said before, unless you are doing certain professional work or using it as a home lab you won't see any benefit going more than 32GB RAM. Whenever I get around to building my next desktop I am going to go 64GB RAM. However, I will be using it for a VMware home lab so lots of RAM is required.

Right now we don't know if Intel is going to be king. All we have are rumors. AMD has shown that adding their V-Cache can increase gaming performance by 15% or a generational performance growth. That added V-Cache could keep AMD on top of Intel when Intel released Alder Lake. Most people in the industry figure Intel won't be caught up to AMD until at least 2025. Rocket Lake is at an IPC disadvantage compared to Zen 3 and Alder Lake might only slightly overtake Zen 3 for IPC. On the server side the Ice Lake Xeons have only caught up to Zen 2 based Epycs. Sapphire Rapids (the server equivalent to Alder Lake to be released H1 2022) will only get them to current Zen 3 based Epycs (those were released 5 months ago).

also that's why there was also the reason of liking intel


also minecraft performance is heavily based on single-threaded performance, so with intel's superior single-threaded performance, it is still the best cpu for minecraft

 

[jeremyj_83]

also minecraft performance is heavily based on single-threaded performance, so with intel's superior single-threaded performance, it is still the best cpu for minecraft

Intel is not the leader in Single Threaded performance right now. The i9-11900k is only slightly faster single threaded than the 5800X. The 5900X & 5950X both have higher boost clocks to they are faster than the 11900k in single threaded.

 

[Finnegan1616]

Intel is not the leader in Single Threaded performance right now. The i9-11900k is only slightly faster single threaded than the 5800X. The 5900X & 5950X both have higher boost clocks to they are faster than the 11900k in single threaded.

they have lower boost clocks though, 5950x is 4.9ghz, 11900k is 5.3+

and again, adding to that is that I like intel

 

[jeremyj_83]

they have lower boost clocks though, 5950x is 4.9ghz, 11900k is 5.3+

and again, adding to that is that I like intel

Clock speed isn't everything. Your absolute performance is IPC * Clock Speed. Intel needs the higher clocks to make up for the 10% lower IPC. In order to achieve these high clock speeds, Intel has needed to throw power requirements to the max. This means you need beefier cooling as well. I understand the liking of Intel. I just want you to have the facts straight before you buy something and open your mind to more than just Intel.

 

[Finnegan1616]

Clock speed isn't everything. Your absolute performance is IPC * Clock Speed. Intel needs the higher clocks to make up for the 10% lower IPC. In order to achieve these high clock speeds, Intel has needed to throw power requirements to the max. This means you need beefier cooling as well. I understand the liking of Intel. I just want you to have the facts straight before you buy something and open your mind to more than just Intel.

I'm aware I need beefier cooling, but either way I'm buying intel, I'd like to support them, and at the time of buying the pc, intel will probably be on top, though it may fall under several months later