ram Ram speed gaming preformance

[crazygamerfreak]

Dram speed gaming performance

Last year I upgraded & transferred parts over from from my old pc to a new build. My ram that I have is a 2x8gb 2666mhz that I had In my previous build. I wanted to know if upgrading to faster ram speeds would be a significant change in fps/preformance. I also do some music production as well. Here is my current build for reference:

PCPartPicker Part List: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NQHhW4

CPU: Intel Core i5-12400F 2.5 GHz 6-Core Processor  ($160.85 @ Amazon) 
CPU Cooler: Deepcool AG400 75.89 CFM CPU Cooler  ($24.96 @ B&H) 
Motherboard: Asus PRIME B660M-A D4 Micro ATX LGA1700 Motherboard  ($135.99 @ Newegg) 
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-2666 CL15 Memory  ($41.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 512 GB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive 
Storage: Sabrent Rocket Q4 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive  ($69.98 @ Amazon) 
Storage: Seagate BarraCuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200 RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($44.64 @ MemoryC) 
Video Card: XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Core Radeon RX 6650 XT 8 GB Video Card  ($268.36 @ Newegg Sellers) 
Case: Cooler Master MasterBox Lite 5 ATX Mid Tower Case 
Power Supply: EVGA 650 GQ 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply  ($159.90 @ Amazon) 
Total: $906.67
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-05-13 01:37 EDT-0400

[filpo]

2 minutes ago, crazygamerfreak said:

I wanted to know if upgrading to faster ram speeds would be a significant change in fps/preformance. I also do some music production as well.

There'd be an upgrade and performance uplift, but not a significant one 

 

[RONOTHAN##]

Just saying, it's pretty rare to find a kit of DDR4 that can't do 3200 CL16-18-18-38 at 1.35V. It would save you a bit of money if you just punched in those settings, see if the system POSTs, then run a memory stress test to make sure it's stable. It's technically possible to find kits that don't, I have found them, but they are far from common. It's worth a shot at least. 

 

You could probably push it a bit further as well if you want to, but at that point i gets a bit sketchy for if the kit can do it, plus the 12400F has a pretty weak memory controller so even if the sticks could do it there's no guarantee that you could do DDR4 3600 or anything kind of close to that. Do those above settings as a no effort attempt, worst case scenario you have to Clear CMOS and you're back to where you started. 

[crazygamerfreak]

22 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Just saying, it's pretty rare to find a kit of DDR4 that can't do 3200 CL16-18-18-38 at 1.35V. It would save you a bit of money if you just punched in those settings, see if the system POSTs, then run a memory stress test to make sure it's stable. It's technically possible to find kits that don't, I have found them, but they are far from common. It's worth a shot at least. 

 

You could probably push it a bit further as well if you want to, but at that point i gets a bit sketchy for if the kit can do it, plus the 12400F has a pretty weak memory controller so even if the sticks could do it there's no guarantee that you could do DDR4 3600 or anything kind of close to that. Do those above settings as a no effort attempt, worst case scenario you have to Clear CMOS and you're back to where you started. 

The previous motherboard, specially an msi b360m mortar, was from a cyber power prebuilt that only supported up to 2666mhz. The ram sticks them selves can’t hit anything above 2666mhz, as that is what they were advertised at. I transferred over the storage & ram from my previous build to the new one, as I didn’t think that the ram would have made much of a difference.

Here is the specific information page from gskill for the ram if you need more information:

https://www.gskill.com/product/165/184/1536032671/F4-2666C19D-16GVR

 

 

[RONOTHAN##]

2 minutes ago, crazygamerfreak said:

The ram sticks them selves can’t hit anything above 2666mhz.

Did you try? They're only rated for 2666MT/s, but that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of more. The last 2666MT/s kit I had was able to do 3600 CL18 when entering settings manually, others I've seen do well over 4000 with a good CPU and motherboard. There's very little DDR4 that I'm aware of that can't do at least DDR4 3000, and with most doing 3200 with ease. 

[crazygamerfreak]

23 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Did you try? They're only rated for 2666MT/s, but that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of more. The last 2666MT/s kit I had was able to do 3600 CL18 when entering settings manually, others I've seen do well over 4000 with a good CPU and motherboard. There's very little DDR4 that I'm aware of that can't do at least DDR4 3000, and with most doing 3200 with ease. 

I just upped the ram speed in bios. Task manager & bios report 3200 mhz, but benchmarks hit 2400mhz maximum. I don’t know if this is normal though.

[RONOTHAN##]

5 minutes ago, crazygamerfreak said:

I just upped the ram speed in bios. Task manager & bios report 3200 mhz, but benchmarks hit 2400mhz maximum. I don’t know if this is normal though.

I personally wouldn't trust Task Manager, I've seen it false report too many times, though I've also never heard of that particular RAM benchmark, so I don't know what its results are either. Check using something like CPU-Z instead, that's usually the most accurate (do note that CPU-Z reports the actual memory clock, which will be half the data rate because RAM is double data rate, so it's at 3200MT/s if CPU-Z reports 1600MHz). 

 

Either way, technically the max bandwidth for RAM is calculated by data rate * 64 bits * # of channels (in this case 2), so 2666MT/s would result in a max theoretical bandwidth of 341,248Mb/s or 42,656MB/s and 3200MT/s would result in a max theoretical bandwidth of 409,600Mb/s or 51,200MB/s. In the real world you will always be a bit below those theoretical max figures, though neither of those numbers line up at all with what that program is outputting in the slightest, so I'd say it's probably just wrong. It doesn't help that it looks like you have a ton of stuff open in the background though, and if you didn't have everything open it might be more in line with those theoretical numbers (or not, I have never touched it before in my life). 

 

the real way to do this is to run some sort of RAM benchmark before and after entering those settings, that way you don't have to go off theoretical numbers. The 4 I'd check using are Y-Cruncher, PYPrime, Aida64 Memory Benchmark, and Intel Memory Latency Checker (GUI version). I'd only really use one or two of those to check performance is actually going up, and Y-Cruncher/PYPrime are usually the most consistent in my experience. Aida64 Memory Benchmark is by far the most popular so you can find results to compare to the easiest, though it is the least consistent out of these. Intel MLCC is a more consistent and free version of Aida64, though it only works on Intel CPUs, is a little harder to setup initially and is not as popular, so comparing results is a bit harder (even though the numbers it puts out are labeled the same as Aida, the numbers themselves are not directly comparable between the two). 

 

 

Also, did you enter the timings manually? If you're still running at the JEDEC 22-22-22-52 that could be contributing to the not as good performance. You should be able to get the CL16-18-18-38 to work on most RAM sticks if you want to get a bit more performance out of it. 

[crazygamerfreak]

18 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

I personally wouldn't trust Task Manager, I've seen it false report too many times, though I've also never heard of that particular RAM benchmark, so I don't know what its results are either. Check using something like CPU-Z instead, that's usually the most accurate (do note that CPU-Z reports the actual memory clock, which will be half the data rate because RAM is double data rate, so it's at 3200MT/s if CPU-Z reports 1600MHz). 

 

Either way, technically the max bandwidth for RAM is calculated by data rate * 64 bits * # of channels (in this case 2), so 2666MT/s would result in a max theoretical bandwidth of 341,248Mb/s or 42,656MB/s and 3200MT/s would result in a max theoretical bandwidth of 409,600Mb/s or 51,200MB/s. In the real world you will always be a bit below those theoretical max figures, though neither of those numbers line up at all with what that program is outputting in the slightest, so I'd say it's probably just wrong. It doesn't help that it looks like you have a ton of stuff open in the background though, and if you didn't have everything open it might be more in line with those theoretical numbers (or not, I have never touched it before in my life). 

 

the real way to do this is to run some sort of RAM benchmark before and after entering those settings, that way you don't have to go off theoretical numbers. The 4 I'd check using are Y-Cruncher, PYPrime, Aida64 Memory Benchmark, and Intel Memory Latency Checker (GUI version). I'd only really use one or two of those to check performance is actually going up, and Y-Cruncher/PYPrime are usually the most consistent in my experience. Aida64 Memory Benchmark is by far the most popular so you can find results to compare to the easiest, though it is the least consistent out of these. Intel MLCC is a more consistent and free version of Aida64, though it only works on Intel CPUs, is a little harder to setup initially and is not as popular, so comparing results is a bit harder (even though the numbers it puts out are labeled the same as Aida, the numbers themselves are not directly comparable between the two). 

 

 

Also, did you enter the timings manually? If you're still running at the JEDEC 22-22-22-52 that could be contributing to the not as good performance. You should be able to get the CL16-18-18-38 to work on most RAM sticks if you want to get a bit more performance out of it. 

CPU z reports the ram speed changes correctly. Xmp is unavalible, so the most I can do is up the frequency to 3200. thanks for the help.