1600 Vs 1866

[Macphisto]

Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Jet Black, PC3-14900 (1866) cost £61
Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Jet Black, PC3-12800 (1600) cost £40

Would i really see much diff in speed for an extra £21?

and if the 1866 is better which of these am i better going with?

Corsair DDR3 Vengeance 8GB (2x4GB) PC3-12800 (1600) CAS 8-8-8-24, £63
Corsair DDR3 Vengeance 8GB (2x4GB) PC3-14900 (1866) CAS 9-10-9-27 £62

[kalniel]

If you're running a llano chip and using the integrated GPU then yes. Otherwise no, get the £40 set.

[Hoonigan]

If you decide to go for the 1866MHz memory then you'll be better off going for the 8-8-8-24 for the extra £1

[Millennium]

Hoonigan, the 8-8-8-24 memory is only 1600 mhz though.

I would say go for the cheaper memory (1600 9-9-9-24) as long as you are using an intel system and you don't do anything unusual with it (maybe video encoding, etc). If you have not got an intel system or you do wierd stuff with it, do a bit more research, but bang for buck the 1600 9-9-9-24 is likely to still come out on top.

There was a similar thread recently I will see if I can find it.

edit: this thread post 6 might be useful if you have Sandy Bridge

[Macphisto]

Hoonigan, the 8-8-8-24 memory is only 1600 mhz though.

I would say go for the cheaper memory (1600 9-9-9-24) as long as you are using an intel system and you don't do anything unusual with it (maybe video encoding, etc). If you have not got an intel system or you do wierd stuff with it, do a bit more research, but bang for buck the 1600 9-9-9-24 is likely to still come out on top.

There was a similar thread recently I will see if I can find it.

edit: this thread post 6 might be useful if you have Sandy Bridge

Thanks for the link and advice. after looking at where you sugested i went with

16GB (4x4GB) Corsair Vengeance Blue 1600MHz CAS 9-9-9-24 @ only £70 for the lot.

[Pancake]

If anyone is interested, here is a very interesting benchmark

[ZaidSaleh]

yup, not much difference beteen the 2 so best option is the price and how much you can buy them for.

[dilson]

Very little difference between them, i'd go for the cheaper 1600 kit.

[8 Pack]

I would go for the cheaper kit also as in everyday use you wont benefit from such a small increase in MHZ. If you bench your PC and care about the scores then faster means better scores!!!

[alex_stanhope]

I'm trying to make a decision about a new rig (ivy/sb-e i7). I'm leaning towards Z77 or X79, both of which take quad-channel memory, but quad kits tend to clock slower. I'm trying to work out if there's greater performance to be found in quad@1600 or dual@2133.

This review leads me to believe that the frequency is less important:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3100-10.html

[Krono5]

Two dual kits in a Z79 board is the same as quad channel.

[alex_stanhope]

Now that's interesting. Dual kits are not only cheaper but faster clocked. Are quad kits just a marketing gimmick? I remember that motherboards used to be pretty sensitive about modules. My old Gigabyte EP35-DS3R would accept a pair of modules, but sometimes fail to accept a second pair of the same modules.