Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   RAM (https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ram/)
-   -   Which of these ram speeds would you run (https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ram/66739-these-ram-speeds-would-you-run.html)

Bond007 June 19, 2014 05:12 PM

Which of these ram speeds would you run
 
As with all my OCing I don't push anything too hard and like to have voltage at or below its factory setting. That said I have played a bit with my ram lately and have found what speeds and timings I can get it stable with (leaving voltage at stock 1.5v....not increasing it).

Corsair vengeance 2x4gb 1600mhz rated for 9-9-9-24 2T. So far been able to get it to run in the following settings:

1. 1600mhz 9-9-9-24 1T (may be able to tighten timings a bit...haven't tested much at 1600mhz)
2. 1866mhz 9-10-9-24 1T (9-10-9 is as low as it will go at 1.5v. Was running 27 stable...testing 24 now)
3. 2000mhz 10-11-10-27 1T (booted to windows with this otherwise its untested, so it may not be 100% stable)

Any timings lowered at all gives errors or no boot at 1866 or 2000. 2133mhz is a no go (I have tried timings as high as 12-13-13-31 2T at 2133 with no post @ 1.5v). Might be able to get it with more voltage or very relaxed timings, but I won't be trying.

To me the minor increase in one timing to run 1866mhz makes it worth my while over 1600mhz. The increase in timings across the board to get it to run marginally faster at 2000mhz is a tougher call.

The question is which of the 3 settings above would you run?

JD June 19, 2014 06:53 PM

I think clock speed matters more than timings with recent Intel platforms. That being said, are you going to notice any difference when using your PC? I suspect not...

As you said though, 1866 seems like a fair trade off. Higher speed, slightly looser timings and you know it's stable.

Bond007 June 19, 2014 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD (Post 769363)
I think clock speed matters more than timings with recent Intel platforms. That being said, are you going to notice any difference when using your PC? I suspect not...

As you said though, 1866 seems like a fair trade off. Higher speed, slightly looser timings and you know it's stable.

Yeah I agree. From what I have read clock speed does have the largest affect, but likely I am looking at low single digit % performance differences at most.

I was leaning towards the 1866 setup, but am trying to see if anyone would recommend the 2000mhz setup with the looser timings. Basically as I said it is a higher frequency, but because its only 133mhz faster and I had too loosen all timings I am thinking there will be little to no benefit.

IRQ Conflict June 19, 2014 10:08 PM

I agree. Go the 1866 route. You will only notice 2000 with a magnifying glass and a synth bench.

Bond007 June 20, 2014 08:21 AM

Thanks. I will run the 1866 setup for now, but if anyone has a different opinion or more info please post.

CrazyCanukk July 1, 2014 12:18 PM

TBH 1866 is all you need unless you have some special uses that require blistering Ram speeds and there are precious few of those most consumer would ever use..even 1600 is more then enough honestly. There are little gains to be had with the higher speeds and potentially higher costs associated with them if purchasing. In other words..

you be spending more $$ for almost no noticeable gains in performance. I used to be a rabid memory overclocker..these days..memory is more then fast enough for most common uses. The only rule i follow for Ram is don't ever buy cheap ram..buy name brand well known and respected companies.

If 1866 is stable for you then stick with 1866 if you think it shows enough gains to justify the overclock. but make sure you see gains large enough since Oc'ing can introduce instability into a stable system sometimes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:24 PM.