2133Mhz or 3000Mhz RAM, does it really matter?

[ILKA]

Hello folks, after looking at some motherboards, it is clear to me that for some bizzare reason, 2133mhz RAM is far more expensive than 3000Mhz RAM, which is supposed to be better?

What do you think?

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ILKA:

Hello folks, after looking at some motherboards, it is clear to me that for some bizzare reason, 2133mhz RAM is far more expensive than 3000Mhz RAM, which is supposed to be better?

What do you think?

Yes it matters.
But it's not easy to say what's best.

For Skylake 2133 MHz is what's officially supported and for Kabylake 2400 MHz is what's supported, anything else would be over-clocking.

Some games like for instance Fallout 4 like faster RAM.
http://wccftech.com/fallout-4-performance-heavily-influenced-by-ram-speed-according-to-report/
Fallout 4 with i5 4690K:
1600MHz: 36.0/54.6
2133MHz: 39.0/61.0
2400MHz: 44.0/66.9

With timings instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL_2rELqng

http://www.gamesas.com/fallout-ram-speed-testing-t399497.html
with a test system with an i7 4770k Gtx 980ti and ddr3 memory at 1133mhz and 2400mhz and the differences are:
1080p
1133mhz min 51 fps max 72 fps
2400mhz min 85 fps max 106 fps

Before the RAM speed usually just showed up in benchmarks but not in games but nowadays it DOES show up in games.

Digital foundry test with faster RAM, among other things an i3 with large results (maybe because of the lower amount of cache on i3?) but I don't know where!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwB1KRMpFdw

Anyway. Faster RAM is definitely better when it comes to performance.
There's two aspects of it though. First there's the clock which is measured in periods in a second and there higher is better and it decide how many bits the RAM module can work with in total over some amount of time. The other is latency which is measured in clock cycles in the specifications and which may not warry as much as the clock-rate so usually in a higher clocked RAM module you'll see higher CL (CAS latency) values because the actual latency is one in time measured in seconds where time = length of period (1/frequency) * number of periods. So as frequency goes up the periods will be shorter and shorter and to get the same length of time the number of periods will go up. However there is also RAM which can reply faster and hence have a lower latency measured in seconds so you can also find higher clocked RAM with a pretty low CL value. Both latency and bandwidth can decide how soon the information will be available for the processor but the latency do so always (but then processors have cache memory and graphics cards have video memory and so the data may be available there too), which matter the most is different but if some components need lots of data then bandwidth will likely matter more.

So that sounds just fine? Higher frequency preferably at low CL is better?

No.

Because as the chips are just designed for 2133 or 2400 MHz the system may become unstable with faster RAM and faster running memory controller. So the problem with getting 3000 MHz RAM for instance is that your system may become unstable (also you can only use it as that with a Z-motherboard (or X I assume) which support overclocking over in the Intel camp.)
If you bought a 3000 MHz memory module and were experiencing an unstable system I don't know whatever scaling it back / setting up to use it at 2133 MHz CL15 1.2 volt would definitely make the system stable or not. I want to know that myself because if so then I don't consider it much of a risk to get faster RAM (one can also check on the motherboard manufacturer webpage for the specific motherboard whatever it support the RAM one have in mind) because one could always run it at the "right" settings for the system anyway in case it didn't worked at faster settings.

If I were to build a system myself I would make sure to actually understand that, maybe by asking DigitalFoundry and then likely go with the faster RAM since it does seem to matter and I would prefer that if so. However I won't recommend it to randoms for their build as I don't know whatever it's safe from a stability stand-point and I don't want to recommend people components which will cause them troubles.

So 2133 / 2400 MHz for Skylake and Kabylake is the safe choice but if it work then faster RAM is better. Depending on how large gain there is I may not want to spend all that much on faster ram but something like 2133 vs 3000 MHz I don't think matter all that much in price? Especially if you said were to gain 20% advantage in some title you like.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

@ Etnopluralism / Aliquis
You just took the most time consuming and tedious work, of explaining this, you have earn this.
http://i.imgur.com/BaBNHp4.jpg

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Hatman:

There can be a notable performance difference in certain configurations. Like when using an i3 and the game is RAM intensive. But i'm guessing you're aiming at i5 or i7 anyway. So get what's cheaper. Just take note of CL latency values. Try to get modules with 15 or lower. I'm guessing the reason for weird prices is just supply & demand. People like to buy things with higher numbers, so they get produced more and suddenly they're cheaper than the "worse" product. Same thing is happening with monitors where 24'' screens are more affordable then 20''-23'' simply because of demand.

This make no sense since there's even less reason to be bothered about CL and a CL13 2133 MHz stick and a CL18 3000 MHz stick have the same latency.

For 2133 MHz memory the CL 12 stick will have lower latency than a CL 15 one.

But for instance CL 16 3000 MHz memory will have lower latency than CL 13 2133 MHz memory.
16*1/3000000000 = 5.33333333e-9
13/1/2133000000 = 6.0947023e-9
5.33 nano-seconds is shorter than 6.09 nano-seconds.

CL15 is the standard for the DDR4 2133 MHz memory sticks.

As for the rest of what you say I guess a faster memory module doesn't necessarily cost more to produce. I know here a 2400 MHz memory module is usually cheaper than 2133. Why? No clue.

Back before Intel moved the memory controller / north-bridge / one functionality of what was previously considered part of the chipset into the processor. That made them handle over-clockers memory worse because while the standard for DDR3 is 1.5 and 1.65 volt the modules which supported faster settings could do so using higher voltages but increasing the voltage meant higher voltages in your processor which wasn't necessarily stable and or good for it even if the RAM as such could run with those settings. So back then getting faster RAM could actually be WORSE because you'd use more power, maybe got an unstable system, maybe damaged your processor. And it's kinda that way now too. However I assume as long as one stick to 1.2 volt DDR4 from a damage-CPU-perspective it's fine. I think my friends 3000 MHz or whatever RAM use 1.35 volt with the XMP profile. So not only is it overclocking it's also overvoltage. I know he used to say Civilization V crashed so maybe that was because of that? I think he has an i7 6700K on MSI Z170A Gaming M3 and is using 3000 MHz Corsair Vengeance LPX CL 15.

Edit: One reason for cheap overclockers RAM could had been if it was say actually WORSE chips / chips which needed higher voltages but was clocked higher or whatever. I'm not saying it is that way or has been that way or that it make sense to make entusiast RAM that way but since it actually ran at higher voltages and for instance there can be a higher demand for lower voltage stuff to save on energy consumption and not make as hot laptops and what not ..

Edit2: I don't know all the reasons to move the memory controller into the processor instead of the chipset but maybe it was more expensive to produce more chips in case they could completely ditch the north-bridge (and hence the south-bridge would no longer really be part of a "set" but just a "chip"), I think AMD had moved it into the processor earlier which increased the power consumption of AMD processors so people in the Intel camp could say "OH THE TDP IS SO HIGH ON THOSE AMD PROCESSORS!" but on the other hand since they didn't need that other chip the total power consumption went down. There may simply be power advantages to have it in the processors rather than externally. (The resistance of a wire for instance increase with the length of it and the wires in the processor will likely be shorter than those on the motherboard I guess, on the other hand larger cross-surface area would mean lower resistance and the wires in the processor will have a very small cross-surface area I assume =P)

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

@ Etnopluralism / Aliquis
You just took the most time consuming and tedious work, of explaining this, you have earn this.
http://i.imgur.com/BaBNHp4.jpg

TL;DR:
YES.

TL;DR2:
What I know:
2133 CL 15 1.2 volt: Standard. No problems.
3000: Faster. Possibly problems.

Kabylake / 7000-series CPU: Go 2400 MHz (at-least) rather than 2133.

[Hatman]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Etnopluralism / Aliquis:

This make no sense since there's even less reason to be bothered about CL and a CL13 2133 MHz stick and a CL18 3000 MHz stick have the same latency...

I should have made that more clear. What i meant is, once he is set on a certain speed (ie 2400) he should look for lower CL values among those modules. Because price is often the same but the retailers try to get rid of higher latency modules first and don't advertise them on the front page.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

It couldn't be simpler to view all those specs if you look in the right way.
Use something like PCPartPicker.
If you already have a config, then launch the site in a Private Browser, so there is no saved cookie. Then go to Memory (not the Search); from pages such as Memory, you will see basically everything, now narrow down what is shown based on ram type, speed, size, etc...

Notice the finder details on the right hand side; Speed, Size, Type, CAS, Price/GB

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Hatman:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Etnopluralism / Aliquis:

This make no sense since there's even less reason to be bothered about CL and a CL13 2133 MHz stick and a CL18 3000 MHz stick have the same latency...

I should have made that more clear. What i meant is, once he is set on a certain speed (ie 2400) he should look for lower CL values among those modules. Because price is often the same but the retailers try to get rid of higher latency modules first and don't advertise them on the front page.

Yeah, going for lower latency is better. Kinda. But I guess if they use higher voltages to achive those specs then maybe not.

If one only look for lower CL though then one will end up with lower clocked RAM modules which isn't necessarily better at all. You can easily get CL <10 DDR3 modules.
Corsair CMSO8GX3M2A1333C9, 1333 MHz CL9 DDR3 (1.5 volt.)
Crucial CT2KIT12864AA667, 666 MHz CL5 DDR2 (1.8 volt.)
Not faster.

However:
5*(1/(666*10^6)) = 7.51 ns.
9*(1/(1333*10^6)) = 6.75 ns.
15*(1/(2133*10^6)) = 7.03 ns.
So the latency is really ~the same between DDR2, DDR3 and DDR4.

I don't really know how they have increased the frequency without googling it (DDR = double data rate, DDR3 = quadrupled clock with two transfers / period, but DDR2 and DDR4?)

[Bad 💀 Motha]

The voltage is only a real concern when not using Z170/Z270 boards; cause the lower tiered Chipsets can't handle those higher voltage RAM, like I said in my Post#9

As ones like 2133/2400/2666 it is typical to see them @ 1.2V
However the higher ones above this tend to be 1.35V, which is fine, but again you need the better chipset for this.

[Arya]

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I probably should have mentioned specs earlier; the CPU is an i7 6700K and the motherboard is a Z170A rated up to 3600 MHz.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από 狼 Wolfey 🔰:

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I probably should have mentioned specs earlier; the CPU is an i7 6700K and the motherboard is a Z170A rated up to 3600 MHz.

I would maybe at the moment check what RAM it for sure supported on the webpage of it and then get one of the faster ones hopefully not at a much higher price and I would likely pick one which either ran standard voltage or close to it with that spec and with low CL and then hope it worked ok =P, if nothing else at lower settings.

But I wish I was more educated about it and could be completely sure of what I should do.

[Arya]

Right now I'm looking at 3200 MHz and probably a CL of 15. That's about the best I can get without getting into ridiculous prices - above 3200/CL15 prices jump from $200-$300 AUD to $500-900 per kit. Even translated to US dollars that's still an insane jump - a 16 GB kit @ 3600 CL12 costs more than a GTX1080.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

LOL, only in Aussie land

[Arya]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Bad-Motha:

LOL, only in Aussie land

Australia prices are alright when you factor in the differences between the two economies. Your average Australian makes double to triple what the average American does per week, and our currency is worth almost 30% less. So a GTX1080 at $1000 isn't really that crazy, that works out to about $700 USD in a country with much higher mandated wages.

The one really crazy thing is RAM. And I have no idea why - most PC parts cost about the same once you translate the price, maybe a few percent more. But RAM is disproportionately more expensive, especially workstation kits which can approach $10,000.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από 狼 Wolfey 🔰:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Bad-Motha:

LOL, only in Aussie land

Australia prices are fantastic when you factor in the differences between the two economies. Your average Australian makes double to triple what the average American does per week, and our currency is worth almost 30% less. So a GTX1080 at $1000 isn't really that crazy, that works out to about $700 USD in a country with much higher mandated wages.

The one really crazy thing is RAM. And I have no idea why - most PC parts cost about the same once you translate the price, maybe a few percent more. But RAM is disproportionately more expensive, especially workstation kits which can approach $10,000.

Ok, going way off-topic. But yea your pricing never really translates well to be honest. What they charge in AUS is nothing short of scamming. But again, no reason to take this off-topic...

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από 狼 Wolfey 🔰:

Right now I'm looking at 3200 MHz and probably a CL of 15. That's about the best I can get without getting into ridiculous prices - above 3200/CL15 prices jump from $200-$300 AUD to $500-900 per kit. Even translated to US dollars that's still an insane jump - a 16 GB kit @ 3600 CL12 costs more than a GTX1080.

Considering I don't even know how well the faster ones run I wouldn't necessarily want to pay much extra at all for them.
However given about the same price and that faster is better in some games I would totally want to have the faster ones assuming they worked.