Memory Speed

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

See that I do not understand.

 

Why is RAM & CPU connected? To me overclocking 1600 to 1866 isn't much of an overclock and should be easy.

 

And if I want to overclock to 4.6, I should be able to without affecting the RAM. Makes no sense to me.

[tsupersonic]

You really won't gain much in real life performance by overclocking your RAM. Anandtech recently did an article - Memory scaling on Haswell. Unless you're running RAM benchmarks, you most likely won't notice the difference of RAM running at DDR3-1866 vs. DDR3-2400. 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

You really won't gain much in real life performance by overclocking your RAM. Anandtech recently did an article - Memory scaling on Haswell. Unless you're running RAM benchmarks, you most likely won't notice the difference of RAM running at DDR3-1866 vs. DDR3-2400. 

 

I like the methodology and testing there, but good god they need to spruce up on their labeling. General rule of thumb is that you label axes for what they actually are  :)

[tsupersonic]

I like the methodology and testing there, but good god they need to spruce up on their labeling. General rule of thumb is that you label axes for what they actually are  :)

Heh, I guess they go for the more "advanced" audience. For the most part, you can figure out what the graphs/charts are showing. 

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

I suppose you are right, but I just feel like I should be overclocking instead of underclocking.

 

Right, cause as I said, two sticks are 1600, and two are 1866...but they are running at 1600. To me it makes more sense to overclock to make both 1866.

 

I know no major performance will be seen.