Question Recommended RAM for an Intel 285K CPU ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Regev

Regev

Honorable
Jul 3, 2020
290
18
10,685
I'm out of the loop. I'm seeing CUDIMM was introduced, and crazy speeds of 8000+. Last time I built a computer only a year or so ago it was 6000-6400 UDIMM the default :)

What should I get, to maximize 4K Gaming performance, as well as software performance ? Which one's most stable (no blue screens please) and is safest with data (production machine) ? Whats' the best bang for the buck these days for the 285k?

How much performance am I leaving on the table by going with a regular CL30 6400 kit?

Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
  • Like
Reactions: Regev
Upvote 0 Downvote
The fact you are looking at a 285k shows you are out of the loop. They are slower than a 14900k, in gaming, but at least no reports of them frying themselves like said 14900k, so far. 4k you are more GPU limited, so I doubt the ram speed is going to do much for you past DDR5 6000 CL30.

relative-performance-games-38410-2160.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark Lord of Tech
Upvote 0 Downvote
SyCoREAPER said:
Those "crazy speeds" take a lot of playing around to achieve let alone be stable. 6000 is easy OTB achievable. 6200 maybe. 6400 if you're lucky. Don't fall for the numbers game.
Click to expand...
Well, that's true to an extent. It's also true that Intel chips' IMC is much better with faster ram speeds than, AMD for example. There are many folks running a 285k with 7000/8000mts ram. The IMC can handle faster speeds if the mobo supports them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Roland Of Gilead said:
Well, that's true to an extent. It's also true that Intel chips' IMC is much better with faster ram speeds than, AMD for example. There are many folks running a 285k with 7000/8000mts ram. The IMC can handle faster speeds if the mobo supports them.
Click to expand...
Didn't know they stepped it up. Still, high speed RAM with low latency is stupid expensive. But High speed with high latency (depending on the scenario) is no better than lower speed at lower latency still holds true. The dollar to performance ratio at least for me isn't there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Regev and Roland Of Gilead
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lutfij said:
The sweet spot for DDR5 platforms is DDR5-6000MHz or slightly higher with tight latencies, for gaming.

You might want to see how much those CU-DIMM kits are costing you, versus the performance gains;
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/cudimm-memory-ddr5-explained-performance-benchmark/4.html
mind you, not all titles in gaming will respond the same way with regards to higher clock speeds for memory.
Click to expand...

Wow. according to what you sent - there's actually a legit difference, up to 15% in 1080p gaming, and up to 50% in software scenarios. But I'm wondering if it's because of the 52 timings on the 6400s (it's 6400@52 vs 9600@46) rather than the CUDIMMs themselves. Wonder how 6400@30 would do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SyCoREAPER said:
Those "crazy speeds" take a lot of playing around to achieve let alone be stable. 6000 is easy OTB achievable. 6200 maybe. 6400 if you're lucky. Don't fall for the numbers game.
Click to expand...

Isn't the whole idea of CUDIMM to take motherboard/stability issue out of the way?

Going much faster than 7,000 MT/s typically required buying special 'hand-picked' RAM modules and having an ultra-expensive motherboard.

With the launch of Arrow Lake, however, Intel introduced support for a new type of memory. Well, the DRAM itself is still good ol' DDR5, but these new kits sport something extra on their circuit boards—a clock driver chip or CKD for short.

This tiny integrated circuit takes the memory signals transmitted by the motherboard and stores them momentarily in order to tidy up and realign the signals, so that each RAM module on the circuit board gets its signal at the right voltage and timings. This ensures everything is stable, when the clock speeds are ramped up.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
logainofhades said:
The fact you are looking at a 285k shows you are out of the loop. They are slower than a 14900k, in gaming, but at least no reports of them frying themselves like said 14900k, so far. 4k you are more GPU limited, so I doubt the ram speed is going to do much for you past DDR5 6000 CL30.

relative-performance-games-38410-2160.png
Click to expand...

I'm not that out of the loop xD Well aware that the 9800x3d has been the King of Gaming chip. I picked the 285K for multiple reasons:

1. 30% of my gaming is on Football Manager, which favors productivity chips. It's technically a game, but runs like a video editing software. It runs something like 23,000 mathematical calculations in a second. I actually have the 14900K as we speak, it was the best chip for FM, followed closely by AMD's high-end X productivity chips, and Apple's M4 Max Ultra. Because 285K blows the 9800x3d out of the water when it comes to productivity, I leaned more towards it.

2. I read they improved the performance of the 285K by about 5-10% in January with a BIOS update. If you look at reviews pre/post 2025, the differences are obvious. Now, I think they improved performance further with April's bios update.For instance, look at this benchmark from last month, where it shows the 285K on April 18th BIOS update vs the 9800x3d:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-ewtP6aEg

I couldn't believe it myself when I saw it. It is weird tho that his 285K used more watts and produced much less heat (Liquid Freezer 360 vs 420 can't explain a difference of 10-15c). I'm wondering if he had a different curve or bad thermal paste application or something. Anyhow, doesn't seem like the CPUs were throttling (looking at Mhz).

P.S I'm also using it on Linux, and 285K performs better on Linux than on Windows:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...-is-6-to-8-percent-faster-on-average-in-linux

Upgrading the Linux kernel to 6.13 pushed the 285K just a bit further, running 8% faster using this combo of Ubuntu 24.10 and Linux 6.13. Looking closer at the individual benchmarks reveals that the 285K struggles with a few things on Windows. The top-end Intel CPU coped poorly with rendering, ray tracing, compression and decompression, encoding, Java, and sometimes chess simulators in particular. In one encoding test using the SVT-AV1 program, the 285K was nearly twice as fast on Ubuntu than it was Windows, and many other benchmarks showed double-digit percent performance gains when going over to Ubuntu.
Click to expand...

3. I do more than just game on it. I work from that computer (although, mostly heavy browser work). Just thought of slapping a 9070XT on it to be able to play on my S95B OLED TV every once in a while, and see how it looks compared to my PS5 Pro. I don't need a GPU at all for Football Manager. I may start playing more games on my 2K work monitor though :) I saw Tempest Rising (PC exclusive), reminds me of the glory days of Red Alert!

4. I got the 285K for a sweet 55% employee discount. Hard to pass that deal. Probably just keep my 14900K if I had to pay full price.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Roland Of Gilead said:
Well, that's true to an extent. It's also true that Intel chips' IMC is much better with faster ram speeds than, AMD for example. There are many folks running a 285k with 7000/8000mts ram. The IMC can handle faster speeds if the mobo supports them.
Click to expand...

Actually, my uncle is managing a team at Intel responsible for their Memory Controller :) Told me they've done a lot of work to accomodate CUDIMM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Of Gilead
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt said:
What is the make/model of the motherboard?
Click to expand...

Haven't chosen yet. But I saw here that all the z890 boards have passed tests with 8200 or 8400 (but not 8800):


Memory validation took a long time due to the sheer number of boards – 50 in total – and we conducted only a one-hour stress test per board. All boards passed Gear 2 validation at 8200 MT/s and 8400 MT/s, but 8800 MT/s proved to be more challenging. Only 15 boards successfully passed the hour-long stress test, while 19 failed to POST. The remaining boards either crashed when loading into Windows or failed during stress testing.
Click to expand...

Any recommendation?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom