what ram speed is best.

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 15:16

Deus Ex said:
2x8gb sticks, 1600hx, run a 4ghz ram drive, will be bang tidy.

i read somewhere that the bigger the ram stick the slower the performance, unless you buy silly price ram.

the cheap 16gb pack are £100 so i would guess a performance set would be £200?

would i not in that case be better off with a £50 pack of ram and 2 x 120gb SSD in raid

Koogle · 3 Sep 2013 at 16:28

would i not in that case be better off with a £50 pack of ram and 2 x 120gb SSD in raid

probably, though SSD in raid.. seems like a complete waste of time

wazza300 · 3 Sep 2013 at 16:38

8gb is plenty ram,16gb if you do a lot of editing/video rendering

1600mhz is fine for regular use/gaming

1600+ and higher for bragging/benchmarking

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 17:06

Koogle said:
probably, though SSD in raid.. seems like a complete waste of time

why is that?

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 17:07

wazza300 said:
1600mhz is fine for regular use/gaming

1600+ and higher for bragging/benchmarking

thats the best way anyone as put it.

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 17:35

Koogle said:
probably, though SSD in raid.. seems like a complete waste of time

found this, and i think i would say raid is ok.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

wazza300 · 3 Sep 2013 at 17:40

single ssd is/feels just as quick

plus in raid0 if one drive dies you've lost all your data on both drives

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 17:46

wazza300 said:
single ssd is/feels just as quick

well it's no is it..... the number don't lie

wazza300 · 3 Sep 2013 at 17:47

yes but you wont notice raid speeds,it looks good but it doesn't feel much if any quicker than a single ssd

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 19:20

wazza300 said:
yes but you wont notice raid speeds,it looks good but it doesn't feel much if any quicker than a single ssd

what about game, app's and windows loading times

Deus Ex · 3 Sep 2013 at 19:29

P4Clock said:
i read somewhere that the bigger the ram stick the slower the performance, unless you buy silly price ram.

the cheap 16gb pack are £100 so i would guess a performance set would be £200?

would i not in that case be better off with a £50 pack of ram and 2 x 120gb SSD in raid

Nope, maybe they dont overclock as well, but ram generally doesnt. I have heard many sticks make high overclocks on the cpu hard, but have not heard higher density ram does that.

wazza300 · 3 Sep 2013 at 19:34

P4Clock said:
what about game, app's and windows loading times

not much faster than a single ssd

only some games benefit from being on an ssd also,some there's 0 difference with load times

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 20:21

wazza300 said:
not much faster than a single ssd

only some games benefit from being on an ssd also,some there's 0 difference with load times

that nice to know, thanks

P4Clock · 3 Sep 2013 at 20:24

Deus Ex said:
Nope, maybe they dont overclock as well, but ram generally doesnt. I have heard many sticks make high overclocks on the cpu hard, but have not heard higher density ram does that.

no i mean the rams performance not OC'ing. the speed the ram dose its job. 2gb stick works better then a 4gb, and a 4gb stick works better then a 8gb stick

so dont get 8gb sticks if you dont need then.

wazza300 · 3 Sep 2013 at 20:46

not much diff

why not get one ssd first then add in another and re install for raid later

ssd = instant speed anyway over any mechanical hdd

oops the thread didn't update

regarding different memory size modules 2gb/4gb/8gb the bigger the size module the harder they are to get stable/overclock that's all ive noticed

teppic · 3 Sep 2013 at 22:27

Boards are generally happier having two slots filled instead of all four. They even tell you which two to use in preference.

High memory speeds give good memory benchmark results, but in many games and apps you get literally 0-1% improvement. Modern CPUs have large caches, and they spend very little time reading and writing large chunks of memory.

Avenged7Fold · 3 Sep 2013 at 23:46

P4Clock said:
what about game, app's and windows loading times

Unless you are loading HUGE things, far bigger than games, apps and operating systems, you wont notice the difference. I never noticed the speed difference when i installed a second SSD and set it to Raid 0. I have one pc running two SSDs now and another with just a single one and there is no noticeable difference in boot time or game loading. I have a feeling the numbers you posted are more what the read/write speeds spike to at first, rather than what it can constantly read or write at.

P4Clock · 4 Sep 2013 at 22:44

Avenged7Fold said:
Unless you are loading HUGE things, far bigger than games, apps and operating systems, you wont notice the difference. I never noticed the speed difference when i installed a second SSD and set it to Raid 0. I have one pc running two SSDs now and another with just a single one and there is no noticeable difference in boot time or game loading. I have a feeling the numbers you posted are more what the read/write speeds spike to at first, rather than what it can constantly read or write at.

you may be right on the number, but raid is still a cheap way to get a big SSD, very big ssd's are not cheap so you raid up 4 smaller drives and you get one nice big one. ppl always say what about if one fails you lose your dater, but i say if you only run one drive and it fails you still lose your dater and if you look is to get a bad drive it going to happen ever way

and i can say i am 30 and i have had a system of some type from the age of 12 and never had a drive fail.

Bluntwrapped · 5 Sep 2013 at 14:03

I think your CPU is going to hold you back before 1600Mhz DDR3 will. Unless you specifically need fast ram for something, you are never going to notice the difference.