RAM, 1866 is obviously better than 1600 isn't it?
When you look at RAM for your performance PC you will see the likes of "1866", "2133" or "2400" and of course these have to be a lot faster than "1600" modules.
Well let's take a closer look at the specs of the 1866 RAM, and we will see something like "CL10". Now we look at the cheaper 1600 RAM and we see "CL9". What does this mean?
The 1866 RAM is about 16.5% faster than the 1600 RAM - so the choice is a no-brainer.
But wait, at CL10 vs CL9 the 1866 RAM is 12% slower than the 1600 RAM.
Let's do the arithmetic, (1866 / 10) / (1600 / 9) *100 = 104.625%
This means that you are paying quite a bit more for a a measly 4.5% performance gain.
As it says in the Bible (and every EULA - never mind "Warranties"), "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away".
For the purposes of overclocking, RAM "speed" is the least performance enhancing factor. I would defy anyone to run a system with settings at 1600 and then at 2400 and tell me they notice any difference. If you save the money for the "high performance" RAM and stick that into a processor which has 2MB more cache then you will get a hell of a lot more of a performance boost for your money.
Let's take an example, 2*8GB 2400 RAM will cost you about Â£70 more than 2*8GB 1600 RAM, whereas you could save that Â£70 and buy an i7-4770k Haswell processor instead of an i5-4670k Haswell processor.
Now given the same motherboard which do you think will be the higher performance machine for the price? A system with an i7-4770k and 1600 RAM or the system with an i5-4670k and 2400 RAM?
The whole RAM "speed" hype is essentially a con game. On any benchmark you would like to use which is not RAM specific the difference in the results will be about 1%-2% at best (in most cases however it will simply be non existent). Considering the amount of money one is asked to fork out for "overclocking RAM" this result is pathetic.
Increased RAM speed does not (at all) translate to higher system performance in the way a higher clocked CPU with 33% more Cache does.
So don't be stupid and don't be fooled. The only people who are excited about faster RAM are either ignorant, salescritters or marketdroids (members of the latter two categories pretty much presupposes the first category in my professional computer experience).
And don't even get me started on the idiocy of so-called "heat-spreaders" placed over the RAM which in many cases actually INCREASES the heat of the RAM because they essentially insulate the RAM and because of the proximity to each other in the RAM slots they won't even allow for effective ventilation of the heat-spreaders themselves (hint if you cannot get your overclocked RAM to run stably try prying off the "heat-spreaders" and you could well find your problems going away).
Last edited by Nec_V20; 31-07-13 at 02:37.