3600 vs 3733 - What's the difference?

[mao91]

Inb4 "one's 133 MHz faster hur dur". The difference for the brand/model is only $10. Since I'll be (most likely) building Zen 3, and I'm really going to want to squeeze my CPU for all it's got, would I genuinely benefit from going with 3733? 

[Jurrunio]

Same timings?

[zeusthemoose]

What are the timings on them? I doubt there will be a difference between just speeds but my guess is one has better timings then the other.

[mao91]

3600 Memory Profile: 3600MHz, 18-22-22, 1.35V; 3000MHz, 16-18-18, 1.35V

3733 Memory Profile: 3733MHz, 19-23-23, 1.35V; 3600MHz, 17-21-21, 1.35V

[Letgomyleghoe.]

1 minute ago, CircleTech said:

But can your chosen CPU even run at 3600 to begin with? If it can't, it's kind of a waste of money.

I mean zen 3 fclk is rumored to clock to 2000+ obviously we don't have the benchmarks. So as usually wait.

[mao91]

3 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

But can your chosen CPU even run at 3600 to begin with? If it can't, it's kind of a waste of money.

It depends on what Zen 3 will offer at launch! Will have to wait for benchmarks.

[Jurrunio]

Just now, B.Toast said:

3600 Memory Profile: 3600MHz, 18-22-22, 1.35V; 3000MHz, 16-18-18, 1.35V

3733 Memory Profile: 3733MHz, 19-23-23, 1.35V; 3600MHz, 17-21-21, 1.35V

Get the 3733 then

[mao91]

17 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Get the 3733 then

I'm guessing lower timing numbers are better, but I really don't know what that translates to in terms of real-world performance.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, B.Toast said:

I'm guessing lower timing numbers are better, but I really don't know what that translates to in terms of real-world performance.

pretty much unnoticeable since the jump is so small, but $10 extra is pretty reasonable for a bin one step higher

[Chiyawa]

3600MHz and 3733MHz doesn't really give much impact on performance, so it's very hard to make a conclusion.

 

The RAM speed just gives you how fast it can run when the condition is right. For example, for 3600MHz, your theoretical bandwidth would be 28.8GBps, whereas 3733MHz would be about 29.87GBps (29.866666GBps). However, that's in ideal condition, when the processor is requesting a sequential of data from the RAM, I.E.: reading a memory location of 10000000h to 1FFFFFFFh. 3733MHz can transfer up to 29.87GBps, whereas 3600MHz RAM can transfer only 28.8GBps. Because RAM is Random Access Memory, usually, they have lots of read request and write request going on, so you won't be achieving that much performance.

 

What people actually look at is CL, or CAS latency (usually measure in clock cycle). This defines when will the RAM be able to start transferring the data requested after it has receive the command from the processor. A lower latency RAM means faster response time. Typically, the RAM will likely to have a delay of 10ns between the command receive and data output.

 

For your second RAM (3733MHz): 3733MHz CL19 has a typical delay of 10.1ns, 3600MHz CL17 has 9.4ns delay,

For your first RAM (3600MHz): 3600MHz CL18 has 10ns delay, 3000MHz CL16 has 10.6ns delay.

 

That means the 3733MHz RAM has a slightly lower delay. If you know how to adjust RAM timing, you can adjust the RAM to run at 3733MHz with CL18 (9.64ns delay), otherwise, you can use XMP Profile 2 and run 3600MHz CL17, it will still be faster than 3600MHz CL18 RAM.

 

Again, in real world performance however, you won't see much difference.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, B.Toast said:

3600 Memory Profile: 3600MHz, 18-22-22, 1.35V; 3000MHz, 16-18-18, 1.35V

3733 Memory Profile: 3733MHz, 19-23-23, 1.35V; 3600MHz, 17-21-21, 1.35V

What are the prices and Size and where are you purchasing this from? 

 

Really these are both awful if looking at performance numbers.

"Which one is better?" is laughable  here. 

 

In example, a Kit Running 16-16-16 at 3466mhz would probably perform better than the two examples above.

 

So really, aren't there better choices out there? Both are as bad as the other..... 16-18-18 at 3600mhz should be the loosest you want to buy at this speed.

[Chiyawa]

39 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

But can your chosen CPU even run at 3600 to begin with? If it can't, it's kind of a waste of money.

Zen 2 Ryzen CPU (Matisse), also known as Ryzen 3000 series desktop CPU (non-G variants), can support up to 3800MHz at maximum if you are lucky, and up to 3600MHz typical.

[Chiyawa]

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

In example, a Kit Running 16-16-16 at 3466mhz would probably perform better than the two examples above.

3466MHz CL16 has a delay of 9.2ns, but when in sequential read, it can only churn out 27.73GBps, whereas 3733MHz RAM can churn out 29.87GBps, even if the delay is 10ns.

 

So while the 3466MHz has a lower delay, its sequential read is slower compare to 3733MHz.

[mao91]

33 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

pretty much unnoticeable since the jump is so small, but $10 extra is pretty reasonable for a bin one step higher

That's what I was thinking, $10 difference at 64GB is negligible.

20 minutes ago, Chiyawa said:

3600MHz and 3733MHz doesn't really give much impact on performance, so it's very hard to make a conclusion.

 

The RAM speed just gives you how fast it can run when the condition is right. For example, for 3600MHz, your theoretical bandwidth would be 28.8GBps, whereas 3733MHz would be about 29.87GBps (29.866666GBps). However, that's in ideal condition, when the processor is requesting a sequential of data from the RAM, I.E.: reading a memory location of 10000000h to 1FFFFFFFh. 3733MHz can transfer up to 29.87GBps, whereas 3600MHz RAM can transfer only 28.8GBps. Because RAM is Random Access Memory, usually, they have lots of read request and write request going on, so you won't be achieving that much performance.

 

What people actually look at is CL, or CAS latency (usually measure in clock cycle). This defines when will the RAM be able to start transferring the data requested after it has receive the command from the processor. A lower latency RAM means faster response time. Typically, the RAM will likely to have a delay of 10ns between the command receive and data output.

 

For your second RAM (3733MHz): 3733MHz CL19 has a typical delay of 10.1ns, 3600MHz CL17 has 9.4ns delay,

For your first RAM (3600MHz): 3600MHz CL18 has 10ns delay, 3000MHz CL16 has 10.6ns delay.

 

That means the 3733MHz RAM has a slightly lower delay. If you know how to adjust RAM timing, you can adjust the RAM to run at 3733MHz with CL18 (9.64ns delay), otherwise, you can use XMP Profile 2 and run 3600MHz CL17, it will still be faster than 3600MHz CL18 RAM.

 

Again, in real world performance however, you won't see much difference.

Okay this is also very good for me to know. 

 

15 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

What are the prices and Size and where are you purchasing this from? 

 

Really these are both awful if looking at performance numbers.

"Which one is better?" is laughable  here. 

 

In example, a Kit Running 16-16-16 at 3466mhz would probably perform better than the two examples above.

 

So really, aren't there better choices out there? Both are as bad as the other..... 16-18-18 at 3600mhz should be the loosest you want to buy at this speed.

https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX437C19FB3_16.pdf

 

I need low-profile memory, as I am an air cooling die-hard and won't let go of my NH-D15's dual fan configuration. 

If there are low-profile options out there that would allow me faster timings / lower CL (thank you @Chiyawa for explaining), then I'm interested.

As it is, I'm coming up from HyperX Fury DDR4-2400 on X99, when DDR4 first launched (I paid a rather ridiculous $282 for just 32GB in a 4x8GB config for quad channel). 

14 minutes ago, Chiyawa said:

Zen 2 Ryzen CPU (Matisse), also known as Ryzen 3000 series desktop CPU (non-G variants), can support up to 3800MHz at maximum if you are lucky, and up to 3600MHz typical.

See and this what I was thinking about... 

[mao91]

I do audio production professionally, so I'm all about optimizing my system. It looks like this post on another forum from a few years ago basically mentions that RAM speeds don't make a huge impact except maybe for better bussing to allow higher OC capabilities, and that...

"As a general matter you need to think about other system bottlenecks. Some look easy to identify (e.g. maybe SSD vs HDD). Some are not so easy (e.g. hidden bus limitations, crippled USB ports, immature nvme tech, secret TB3 compability issues, limited BIOS adjustments, locked down CPUs, operating system optimization, etc.) Some computers will have built-in huge bottlenecks that kill audio performance, regardless of tweaking and optimization."

 

What this tells me is that  RAM speed isn't as important as overall system optimization. 

My biggest concern and reason for looking at upgrading right now is that even with optimization, some of my tools are so heavy that trying to load multiple instances across multiple tracks in larger projects can peg my 5820k to 100% for a solid three to four minutes just trying to load up a bigger project before my DAW either opens the project or straight up crashes. And for the record, I'm loading everything off of SSDs (250GB 850EVO OS & Software, 250GB 850EVO WAV & project/config file depository, 1TB 860EVO for all sample libraries and synth engines). Right now my bottleneck is my CPU. So, if upgrading to Zen 3 and getting faster RAM means being able to push that new CPU even harder to give myself just that much more of a performance lead over my current system, then I'm willing to do it. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, B.Toast said:

I do audio production professionally, so I'm all about optimizing my system. It looks like this post on another forum from a few years ago basically mentions that RAM speeds don't make a huge impact except maybe for better bussing to allow higher OC capabilities, and that...

"As a general matter you need to think about other system bottlenecks. Some look easy to identify (e.g. maybe SSD vs HDD). Some are not so easy (e.g. hidden bus limitations, crippled USB ports, immature nvme tech, secret TB3 compability issues, limited BIOS adjustments, locked down CPUs, operating system optimization, etc.) Some computers will have built-in huge bottlenecks that kill audio performance, regardless of tweaking and optimization."

 

What this tells me is that  RAM speed isn't as important as overall system optimization. 

My biggest concern and reason for looking at upgrading right now is that even with optimization, some of my tools are so heavy that trying to load multiple instances across multiple tracks in larger projects can peg my 5820k to 100% for a solid three to four minutes just trying to load up a bigger project before my DAW either opens the project or straight up crashes. And for the record, I'm loading everything off of SSDs (250GB 850EVO OS & Software, 250GB 850EVO WAV & project/config file depository, 1TB 860EVO for all sample libraries and synth engines). Right now my bottleneck is my CPU. So, if upgrading to Zen 3 and getting faster RAM means being able to push that new CPU even harder to give myself just that much more of a performance lead over my current system, then I'm willing to do it. 

In my opinion, this platform isn't worth sinking more money into. It's ready for a system upgrade. 

Gen 4 Ryzen real soon. 2nd Gen 2700X is spanking your 5820K in productivity. 

Maybe save some coinage for upgrades??

[mao91]

3 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

In my opinion, this platform isn't worth sinking more money into. It's ready for a system upgrade. 

Gen 4 Ryzen real soon. 2nd Gen 2700X is spanking your 5820K in productivity. 

Maybe save some coinage for upgrades??

Yes that is the whole point of this thread. I'm planning to upgrade to Zen 3 so am trying to find an ideal RAM match.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, B.Toast said:

Yes that is the whole point of this thread. I'm planning to upgrade to Zen 3 so am trying to find an ideal RAM match.

OK, makes sense. Zen 3 will be easier to cool. 

Configure the system for performance and re-think the cooler.

Probably looking at 32GB of memory or more, expectations of memory at 3200mhz or less.

 

 

 

 

[mao91]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

OK, makes sense. Zen 3 will be easier to cool. 

Configure the system for performance and re-think the cooler.

Probably looking at 32GB of memory or more, expectations of memory at 3200mhz or less.

Why re-think the cooler? NH-D15 should be plenty. I'll be looking at 64GB (40GB of which will be cache). 

[Guest]

Just now, B.Toast said:

Why re-think the cooler? NH-D15 should be plenty. I'll be looking at 64GB (40GB of which will be cache). 

Because you want to run 2 fans on it. And force yourself to use low profile low end memory kits.

I'm saying you might be able to run just one fan, and can get into better performance memory.

Then you can use standard and extended height memory modules if you wanted.

Or just not use the cooler. I know my Wraith Prism cools 105w Zen chips nicely. 

[mao91]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

Because you want to run 2 fans on it. And force yourself to use low profile low end memory kits.

I'm saying you might be able to run just one fan, and can get into better performance memory.

Then you can use standard and extended height memory modules if you wanted.

Or just not use the cooler. I know my Wraith Prism cools 105w Zen chips nicely. 

I'd have to go with an x62 if I do anything other than the D15 then since I need to also optimize cooling-to-noise performance.

[Guest]

Just now, B.Toast said:

I'd have to go with an x62 if I do anything other than the D15 then since I need to also optimize cooling-to-noise performance.

Now you're talking! 

 

But yeah, those sticks you're looking at probably won't do their rated XMP on Ryzen chips. Hate to say that.

 

[mao91]

1 minute ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Now you're talking! 

 

But yeah, those sticks you're looking at probably won't do their rated XMP on Ryzen chips. Hate to say that.

 

And honestly that's good to know. What would you recommend I look at then? 

[Guest]

Just now, B.Toast said:

And honestly that's good to know. What would you recommend I look at then? 

Well what capacity and speed.

Are you going to go with the flashy rainbow barf, or is non rgb ok?

[mao91]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

Well what capacity and speed.

Are you going to go with the flashy rainbow barf, or is non rgb ok?

RGB is really of no importance to me. As long as it's black, I don't really care.