Question Whats the best balance between latency & ram speed for highest fps?

[sxk1277]

I've seen fps max out around 3200 on Apex Legends. However, I noticed that latency is inversely correlated. I couldn't find a test where users have tested different ram speed & different latency on those same ram speed on some computer specs using same game. Even if they did, it is possible how different ram brands could still bridge that gap closer.

So, in your experience, for max 1080p low setting fps, which ram speed/latency should I go for? (I'm interested in Corsair especially)

I've also read that 1 ram of 16 gb is better than 2 8 gb ram as it lessens processing delay. Thoughts?

 

[kanewolf]

I've seen fps max out around 3200 on Apex Legends. However, I noticed that latency is inversely correlated. I couldn't find a test where users have tested different ram speed & different latency on those same ram speed on some computer specs using same game. Even if they did, it is possible how different ram brands could still bridge that gap closer.

So, in your experience, for max 1080p low setting fps, which ram speed/latency should I go for? (I'm interested in Corsair especially)

I've also read that 1 ram of 16 gb is better than 2 8 gb ram as it lessens processing delay. Thoughts?

Each CPU was designed with an optimum number of DIMMs. That is based on the number of memory controller channels on the CPU. Most gaming CPUs are dual channel memory controller CPUs. They are optimal with two DIMMs. One DIMM cuts the memory bandwidth in 1/2. That slows things down.

 

[Darkbreeze]

^^^That.

One DIMM DECREASES bandwidth, and makes things slower, not faster, for dual channel consumer platforms. Even more so if you're on an HEDT system with quad or higher channel memory.

 

[sxk1277]

Okay, so if I go with 2 sticks, which clock cycle and latency balance should I go for?

 

[MasterMadBones]

Latency is a little more complicated than just the CL number. You have to divide it by the clock speed to get the absolute latency. Beyond that, there are dozens of timings that affect both latency and bandwidth.

AMD CPUs benefit more from increased frequency than Intel CPUs, but for 3rd gen Ryzen, the trend stops above 3600 MHz because the CPU goes into a 2:1 mode, which clocks the internal fabric down by 50%.

Generally speaking, 3200CL14 is a good choice, but there is no shame in going up to 3600CL16, especially on AMD. Absolute latency is fairly close but bandwidth is higher, which should offset the difference in many cases. Of course it also depends on the game.

 

[sxk1277]

Does your advice hold the same for intel processor like i7 9700? Random question: Is it worth waiting for gen 10?

 

[Darkbreeze]

If I was going to wait, it wouldn't be for the Intel 10th gen CPUs. Those are supposed to have minimal gains and MUCH higher power consumption.

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...en-desktop-due-to-high-power-consumption.html


Note that those are IDLE power consumption figures, not peak power consumption. That 10 core 125w model supposedly breaks the 300w mark, which makes it a very high power consumer indeed. Comparable Ryzen processors use MUCH less power for pretty comparable performance. Ryzen 4000 series which are supposedly going to start showing up at the end of the year, will likely strip the gaming performance title from Intel in addition to productivity and power consumption. But that's a long wait.

Better might be to go with something high end Ryzen for now, using a board that can used with Ryzen 4000 when those do release, hopefully. I haven't heard anything about them requiring a different socket or pinout so I believe they will be compatible. The next gen after that, will likely not be. Nothing is certain until it is though.

For the memory, Intel isn't particularly picky nor does it benefit tremendously from high speed RAM. Any existing Intel platform will mostly see any benefit from memory speed, at least for gaming, peak at around 3200-3400mhz. Obviously the lower the latency the better but also the more expensive. If you can afford 3200mhz CL14 sticks, then that's great. If not, as was mentioned, even 3200-3600mhz CL16 is fine.

 

[sxk1277]

That's what I was gonna go with, thanks! Rizen suck right now though in fps compared to intel because their mhz is lower. Also, you have to overclock them, something I dont prefer because it goes against factory settings and is unadvisable as opposed to turbo boosting by intel.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Actually, that's all completely wrong.

Overclocking Ryzen is practically non-existent because there is no headroom for it. They are already pushing the boundaries of what the silicon is capable of in most cases. In some cases you might be able to push up the all core boost a little bit, and there is some variance depending on model, but mostly the precision boost already takes these as far as most people would easily be able to take them anyhow. So overclocking on Ryzen is not common, popular or necessary.

Secondly, mhz has ZERO to do with it. Trying to compare processors based on Mhz is a fool's game that ended back in the mid to late 2000's, if not earlier, because trying to compare Mhz does not factor in the far more important aspects of IPC/Instructions PER clock/cycle or other factors such as specific cache packages, what instruction sets a given CPU is able to use or many other factors including the number of cores and threads.

A current gen i5, for example, at 3.5Ghz, will easily beat a 3rd Gen Intel i5 at 4Ghz. No question. A current gen Ryzen 5 3600 with a base clock speed of 3.6Ghz will best a 4th Gen i7-4690k with a base clock speed of 4Ghz. And that's core to core. That doesn't even factor in the fact that the Ryzen part has two more cores and four more threads to work with, so for anything that is optimized for threaded performance, the performance margin is going to be even larger.

Both Intel and AMD Ryzen have standard boost profiles that are used by their processors. It's not an either-or type situation. Both have them. It's not Intel boost against AMD overclock. That's nonsense and wherever you heard that is someplace you should stop looking to for information.

Ryzen parts do NOT "suck". They have performance that is incredibly close to the best Intel has to offer, enough so that the difference won't even matter in most cases because you will already be either past your 60FPS marker or near enough to your FPS low/1% that you'd see with the Intel part that there is no discernible difference in most situations, plus, the Ryzen parts are significantly cheaper in most cases.

So you are of course welcome to go with whatever you want, I have no qualms towards either camp, but do so knowing the facts. Don't do it because of some bunch of misinformation and misconceptions that are guiding you.

 

[sxk1277]

So according to you overclocking is safe? Would you say the same about overclocking ram?

 

[Darkbreeze]

Whether or not overclocking is safe is a totally different discussion. What "I" am saying is that overclocking isn't even part of the discussion. There is no reason or need to overclock anything, unless you want to. That is how it has always been and how it will always be, regardless of whether we are talking old or new, AMD or Intel.

Whoever told you you have to overclock Ryzen is either lying to you or they are stupid. There is no need to overclock anything. Ryzen does have an automatic feature in the BIOS called Precision boost overdrive, which expands the stock boost profile for higher performance but it is not necessary or required to run that either. You can disable PBO and simply leave the standard Precision boost (No overdrive) enabled and get plenty good performance from Ryzen.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that overclocking on Ryzen was a requirement in order to get decent performance but I assure you that it is not. Ryzen 3000 series processors have excellent performance right out of the box with the default BIOS configuration for most all compatible motherboards.

That's not to say that Intel can't be a good option too, but given the high power consumption and generally higher prices, Ryzen 3000 series should be something that you at least consider before you make any decisions.

 

[sxk1277]

How is high power consumption bad? Electricity bill? I'm trying to build a 240 fps gaming system and intel is usually 20 fps ahead of ryzen. The reason I differentiate between turboboost and overclock because after using turboboost, people can also apply overclock over it. I think the person who said the thing about Ryzen overclocking was referring to AMD overclocking and I assumed he included Ryzen processors as well.

I had this list when I said that which had AMD processors at the bottom of the list: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...k-revisit-2018-benchmarks-vs-9900k-ryzen-more

Here is direct comparison though: https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

This thread is where I learned that tuboboosting is better than overclocking: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-turbo-boost-and-over-clocking

This article from this same forum by a mod says the same thing: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/manual-overclock-vs-intel-turbo-boost.2916876/

This says its safer version as well as its automatic so you don't have to worry about turning it on/off:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/54fwch/turbo_boost_vs_overclocking_for_gaming/


- So are they wrong?

 

[Darkbreeze]

Not getting into that discussion. Simply trying to encourage fact based decision making versus misconception. The idea that Ryzen MUST be overclocked, is not accurate. That is all. I don't care who you choose, so I have no opinion either way on that but if I'm being honest I don't much see the point of a 240 FPS machine anyhow because beyond 120hz you can't tell the difference anyhow and beyond 144hz, you definitely can't. Some people claim that they can tell the difference, but it never proves out in a blind test environment.

But I'm not against whatever anybody wants to do with their money either. More power to them, or you.

 

[sxk1277]

You are referring to average. A trained fighter pilot can identify an image at 1/250th of a second. Watch any gamer who gets used to 240 fps, he will tell you that even 144 starts to feel slow. Don't underestimate the power of mind to adapt.

 

[Darkbreeze]

And you believe that "any gamer" wanting to build a 240 FPS capable machine is on par with a trained fighter jet pilot? Alrighty then, I think that about ends it for me here. Good luck.

 

[sxk1277]

Mind you, those few percentages make the difference between who wins. Especially during fights, when fps drops and there is a lot of gun recoil, bunny hops & side to side motion. Those extra frames help create illusion of stillness even when the enemy is moving.

People said the same thing when going from 60 to 120 that those additional frames will be bled into 60 and how there is no real difference - failing to take into account how smoothness improved.

Anyways, I still have 2 questions outstanding in this thread.

1. What harm does more powerconsuming cpu bring?
2. Should ram be overclocked? Is it possible to do it safely?

And according to what you said, I see no use in overclocking Intel either. Because you said, in Ryzen, it almost makes no difference. Well, according to the charts here, it makes equal difference to both Intel & Ryzen in gaming: https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

 

[Darkbreeze]

There is ZERO mention of overclocking in that article. There is a referenced benchmark for PBO automatic overclocking, but that is not the same thing. PBO and manually overclocking are entirely different things. Regardless, I think it is time for me to bow out of this thread. You're beginning to show a pattern of behavior throughout your threads and while I posted initially in this thread to try and help you out with your memory question it's pretty clear that you are the type that wants to argue everything and I simply don't have the time or desire to do that right now. Plus, you obviously already know everything or can find it yourself so there is really no reason for you to even ask any questions. Seems like a useless waste of an extra step for somebody who already has all the answers. And I mean that truthfully, not snarkily. If you are able to find the answers elsewhere and simply want to argue with anybody who offers you advice that doesn't coincide with what you pull from other sources, why bother asking in the first place?

Again, good luck.

 

[sxk1277]

I NEVER asked for advice on eye's capability to view fps. I used to be top 10 in the world in gaming bro. I asked for hardware advice and was along the way correcting you when you tried to tell me there is no difference in fps gaming above certain threshold. You aren't the only one noticing patterns here Mod. I only tried to retaliate your input on how turbo boosting and overclocking are same with how there is advantage going with intel coz its safer for moderate overclocking (auto shut off when overheated, only on when required to lessen extra unneeded burden). If you expect me to follow you blindly and ignore all conflicting information instead of addressing it for clarity, then you're just answering for your own satisfaction rather than op's doubts.