Jump to content



Photo

Is DDR3 3000oc worth it?

ddr3 memory 3000oc

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 sathenzar

sathenzar

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 12-June 06

Posted 31 July 2013 - 13:38

Just as the title describes, I'm asking if DDR3 3000oc is worth it. It seems to be around $600. I think I'm using DDR3 12800 or something like that atm. I'm going to build a new computer at the beginning of next year so I'm doing my research. Wanted to know how much of a difference it would make. I am a programmer so I actually use my computer to do things other then just play games.




#2 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 31 July 2013 - 13:41

Honestly, higher RAM speeds will give you very very little, if any, gains in noticeable performance.

 

A faster SSD, GPU, or even CPU will be much much more worth your money.



#3 +d5aqoëp

d5aqoëp

    Banned

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-October 07

Posted 31 July 2013 - 13:43

One word: No. (Unless you are a benchmark ######, it will give you a lot of trolling power on 3dmark forums)



#4 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 6/Nexus 5

Posted 31 July 2013 - 13:49

In benchmark scores, yes. In reality, not very much. 



#5 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 22
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 31 July 2013 - 13:52

Curious, when has faster RAM been better than MORE RAM???......

 

.......

 

 

Yeah, never :p



#6 Mindovermaster

Mindovermaster

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 13
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Location: /USA/Wisconsin/
  • OS: Debian Jessie
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy SIII

Posted 31 July 2013 - 14:36

No, I run 8GB of DDR3 1333 RAM, I'm happy...



#7 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 31 July 2013 - 17:49

no it isn't worth it.

 

CPUs care more about latency than bandwidth. just disassemble some programs,and all you'll see is a ton of load and store instructions. if the size of these memory operations is smaller than the cache lines, then for example writing 32 bytes will make the cpu read the whole cache line,modify it,then write it back. such a waste. even if you use sse, avx or non temporal instructions that bypass the caches, there is still this overhead. the only way to get the true potential out of this bandwidth is to use rep stosq and rep movsq string instructions, but this is only beneficial if youre transferring large amounts of data ,most of the time the cpu is working on smaller data sets,and in the real world, this is what the cpu does the majority of the time.



#8 Phouchg

Phouchg

    has stopped responding

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 28-March 11

Posted 31 July 2013 - 18:30

CPUs care more about latency than bandwidth. just disassemble some programs,and all you'll see is a ton of load and store instructions. if the size of these memory operations is smaller than the cache lines, then for example writing 32 bytes will make the cpu read the whole cache line,modify it,then write it back. such a waste. even if you use sse, avx or non temporal instructions that bypass the caches, there is still this overhead. the only way to get the true potential out of this bandwidth is to use rep stosq and rep movsq string instructions, but this is only beneficial if youre transferring large amounts of data ,most of the time the cpu is working on smaller data sets,and in the real world, this is what the cpu does the majority of the time.

 

See, the driver hooks a function by patching system call table...

 

(if URL is borked, 1:33 to 1:44 :p )

 

 

Anyway, access time is a function of frequency and an inverse of latency. So by increasing either access time is decreased.

Is that the gain from Ivy Bridge defaults 1600/9-9-9-24 to 3000/CL12-14-14-36 is very little - about 2 ns, because latency has been raised to maintain the frequency.



#9 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 14
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:38

Fast RAM matters a lot for integrated GPUs like the current AMD Trinity/Richland chips. I personally witnessed my framerates skyrocketing simply by enabling the memory profile in the BIOS, and many benchmarks online confirm this. I don't know what the situation is for Intel's iGPUs but I would assume it is similar. GPUs are very simple processors that deal with large amounts of data without complex caching mechanisms; accessing memory quickly is of the essence.

 

For pure CPU performance it doesn't matter much; performance is all about keeping things in cache. Accessing system memory is dreadfully slow from a CPU's perspective - a C++ compiler expert at BUILD 2013 compared it to taking a coffee break -, and shaving a few nanoseconds here and there is not what makes a program drastically faster. Even overclocking RAM by large amounts only show marginal improvements in CPU benchmarks.

 

So in short, if you're going with a traditional CPU + discrete GPU with its own VRAM, then RAM speed doesn't matter much; but it does matter on integrated GPUs and it will matter more and more as iGPUs get better. The next gen consoles are basically integrated GPUs similar to AMD Richland/Kaveri, btw, so the trend might end up on PCs sooner than later. Keep an eye on Kaveri when it's released early next year.



#10 roguekiller23231

roguekiller23231

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-March 11

Posted 01 August 2013 - 17:51

if your going to be overclocking, the RAM speed is important, if your going to be overclocking a huge amount, you will also need very good cooling, 

 

if you do not overclock, RAM that is over 1333mhz is pointless. 

 

when you put RAM that is higher than the default FSB speed of the CPU and what is set in the motherboard, say you put in 1600mhz RAM and are not overclocking, your ram will run at the default speed set by the FSB in the bios, which will be 1333mhz or 1066Mhz, you will only get the 1600Mhz out of your ram if you overclock or change the settings in the bios.

 

higher speed RAM is not really worth the price, even if your overclocking, 1600Mhz should be more than enough to get a good overclock.

 

if your a programmer, the higher speed ram is of no use, you need more RAM not higher speed.



#11 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 01 August 2013 - 17:57

if your going to be overclocking, the RAM speed is important, if your going to be overclocking a huge amount, you will also need very good cooling, 

 

if you do not overclock, RAM that is over 1333mhz is pointless. 

 

when you put RAM that is higher than the default FSB speed of the CPU and what is set in the motherboard, say you put in 1600mhz RAM and are not overclocking, your ram will run at the default speed set by the FSB in the bios, which will be 1333mhz or 1066Mhz, you will only get the 1600Mhz out of your ram if you overclock or change the settings in the bios.

 

higher speed RAM is not really worth the price, even if your overclocking, 1600Mhz should be more than enough to get a good overclock.

 

if your a programmer, the higher speed ram is of no use, you need more RAM not higher speed.

 

Hey hey, I'm a programmer in both c++ and opencl and ram speed does matter, not much, but does matter nonetheless. Games and other task normally don't see the benefit of higher speed ram though.



#12 +fusi0n

fusi0n

    Don't call it a come back

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • OS: OSX\Windows 8.1\Ubuntu 14.04
  • Phone: iPhone 6 Plus

Posted 01 August 2013 - 18:02

if you plan to OC then yes



#13 Farchord

Farchord

    Life is but a sum of your achievements

  • Joined: 06-November 01
  • Location: Shawinigan, Quebec, Canada
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 01 August 2013 - 18:22

I run 16gb of ram and I think I might have overdone it XD



#14 Ulpian

Ulpian

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-July 03
  • Location: Szczecin / Poland

Posted 01 August 2013 - 18:38

Better use 1866 CL9, still cheap, but better than most >2000MHz because of low CL.

 

Of course you CPU/MB pair can clock >1600MHz ?