Would DDR3-1333 to DDR3-2100 make a difference?

[probedb]

I've had my system for a while but always had 8GB of DDR3-1333. I have no need of more memory but wondered if an upgrade to DDR3-2100 would make any difference?

The most processor intensive stuff I do is Photoshop CC and even that doesn't get used that much.

System is Win 7x64, Asus P8P67 Pro, i5 2500k (stock speed), OCZ Vertex 3 (updating this to a Samsung 850 Pro soon).

Cheers!

[Biscuit]

I suspect you wouldn't notice a single difference. The officially supported speeds of Sandy Bridge (which is the name of the family of chips the 2500K comes from) is only 1066/1333 anyway.

[probedb]

Thanks. That's what I was hoping I'm slowly convincing myself I don't need any of the upgrades I was looking at! It means the money can go elsewhere.

[RoryMcK]

I am planning a build with a 4690k. Should I get DDR3-2133 for an extra pound over 1600?

[Lee H]

Your probably best checking the following link ; http://www.corsair.com/en/blog/2014/...swellrealworld

The tables show how the different speeds will affect various tasks - If I was doing a build now I'd use 2133 MHz over the 1600 MHz 1.35V RAM I've got with the 2500K at the moment

[vicar]

Very interesting read, many thanks.

[RoryMcK]

Thanks for the link!

[KeyboardDemon]

I am planning a build with a 4690k. Should I get DDR3-2133 for an extra pound over 1600?

If it's only £1 more to go for the 2133 instead of the 1600 ram then I would pay the extra £1, even if you end up running it at 1600 you know you have the scope to increase the FSB speed and not have to worry about your RAM not being able to cope. If it was a bigger difference then I would have to think hard about paying the extra.

[legitfromtheman]

+1 for the link. Have bookmarked that for future reference

[Bradeh]

There are some nice deals going around, should be able to snag some rather cheap 2133 or 2400.

[pastymuncher]

Keep a eye open for a second hand kit of Samsung Green. It's fantastic stuff that will hit a max of 2400mhz or if you get restricted to 1600mhz you can really tighten the timings up. I have 16GB (4x 4GB sticks) of it and went inbetween running it at 2133mhz with tight timings of 9-10-10-21-1T and second and third timings also tightened with only 1.5v.

[Falc]

Unless the system is being designed for a very specific memory-intensive purpose, as a general rule it is not cost-effective to go beyond 1600 speed.

[pastymuncher]

When the price difference is a pound or two of course it makes sense to go with the faster ram.

[shaithis]

I recently upgraded RAM and it was a quid cheaper to get 1866......replaced the RAM in my gaming rig and can honestly say (as I expected) I cannot see anything running faster.....even Starcraft 2 (which is the last game to try and rinse for performance as it runs at the speed of the slowest players system anyway!)

[OneIT]

Generally speaking you'll never notice the difference.

Whilst the bandwidth may be significantly higher its like 16x PCI-E 3.0 - you don't use all of the speed that you have available!

[Gronich26]

Having been sold on the fact that DDR3-2400 would offer me a 5% speed increase while encoding with Handbrake, I bought some Kingston HyperX Beast 8 GB 2400 MHz CL11 DDR3 memory for a bargain price of £45.

After testing at 1600, 2133 & 2400Mhz I found a 1 second time difference between 1600 & 2400 for a approximately 9 minute encode.

So, I conclude, don't spend extra for the Mhz unless you have a specific task which WILL benefit from more bandwidth.