Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   RAM (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ram/)
-   -   IN Games woukd I even notice (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ram/58127-games-woukd-i-even-notice.html)

elmorejohn46 November 26, 2012 12:48 PM

IN Games woukd I even notice
I have a X79 board with a i7-3820 and I am useing 16gigs if I added another 16gigs and had a total of 32gigs,would I see any difference in my games.I am running windows 7 64bit.Plus in games would I really see a big difference if I ran faster memory then 1600mhz ,would running 2400mhz make my games any faster ,I am not talking about 1or 2 FPS faster would it make a big noticeable difference.

tethlah November 26, 2012 01:17 PM

Well, RAM is simply a place for your computer to place things until it writes it. Honestly, you shouldn't see adding RAM (unless you have very little RAM) affect your game play at all. Since the most RAM intensive game out there right now only uses about 2g of RAM, you should be fine. Where you are going to see a difference is if you do other things while playing your game. I could be wrong, but I think you will not see any increase from adding more than the 16g you already have.

bliz November 26, 2012 01:20 PM

For games :

16 to 32 gb ram , N.O.P.E
1600 to to 2400: N.O.P.E probably not even 0.5 FPS.

Some people say there is a 1 to 2% better performance from 1333mhz to 1600mhz,so you see... But it's proved that the "bandwith" of 1600 mhz is not saturated with today's games... with very very high end CPU's,(1000-2000$) maybe,idk,but the 2400 mhz ram is considerated as pure marketing.Sorry corsair platinium :bleh:

Actually , 2400mhz ram is more used by proffesionnals but useless for gaming

But,if i had choice between 1333 or 1600 i'd take 1600 but if i had choice between 1600 and 2400 i'd take 1600,to save money,because that would be a 0% increase in FPS.

elmorejohn46 November 26, 2012 01:34 PM

That is what I thought ,I think it is for bragging rights.I have 1333mhz 7-7-7-21 and when I increase it to 1600 9-9-9-24.I can not see no difference as for as game play goes.I think I saw a few 100 points difference in some benchmarks.But I just keep it at 1600mhz since most people say that 1600mhz is the fastest you will ever need in todays games.

dustin1706 November 26, 2012 01:35 PM

In a word... No.

If you are not using all of your ram (no game I've played uses anywhere near 16GB) then adding more will have no effect. Better ram frequency and latency technically will help certain things run faster, but I would expect to see 0-2fps difference in games.

I see you are running SLI 670s, so upgrading to 680s is a lot of expense for a tiny upgrade. Your best option for more FPS is to overclock your video cards.

bliz November 26, 2012 01:38 PM

I would be surprised to see a difference of 0.01 FPS,dat ram is not bottlenecked at all.

elmorejohn46 November 26, 2012 01:54 PM

My ASUS Direct CU II GTX-670's in SLI is plenty fast enough running games. I have it running at 1250mhz probally could get a little more if I turned the voltage up all the way ,but I see no need ,really no need in running it that fast.I was just hearing about a ramdisk drive ,but my 256mb SSD is plenty quick enough.I get a 7.9 in W.E.I.

Generic User #2 November 27, 2012 12:52 AM

basically any ram than you can fit in your mobo will already be more than enough (hyperbole, but not by much)

Perineum November 27, 2012 06:26 AM

With Windows 7 enough of my clients have said that there is a general speed up from 4 gigs to 8 gigs. I have noticed no such thing in any of my clients that went from 8gb to 16gb.

However, due to my browsing and usage habits, more RAM is definitely better for me. Too much shit running....

HoserEh November 27, 2012 10:21 AM

Oc'ing you ram from 1333 to 1600 wont do much as you latency goes up therefore counteracting the OC.You may see a bump in performance if you bought a 1600 set with CL 7 but like the others said not worth the cash.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:48 PM.