Does Memory Speed Matter or is Capacity More Important?

[CeremonialSnips]

Done a bit of looking around on the forum.  Seems like people generally consider the amount of RAM more important than the speed.... is this true?  Is it likely to be true as we move forward?  Wondering if it is best to keep cheap with low speed and high capacity (for me 16gb/quad channel) or go with dual channel (8 gb) and high speed (3000 vs 2400).  So does Linus's video from 2 years ago still hold to be true in newer games?  what about DX 12... will that change things?  just making sure I understand what the preferred memory config for gaming is... also I don't want to pay 200+ for a kit of ram....

[SPAS-ID]

AFAIK nah, on Linus vid it only shows 2FPS difference

[ImBleu]

I'd go low speed High capacity over high speed low capacity any day. I normally buy the second-tier of ram speed available, for DDR3 that was 1600Mhz instead of 1333Mhz

 

Linus talks about it here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWgzA2C61z4

[CeremonialSnips]

4 minutes ago, ThatCoolBlueKidd said:

I'd go low speed High capacity over high speed low capacity any day. I normally buy the second-tier of ram speed available, for DDR3 that was 1600Mhz instead of 1333Mhz

 

Linus talks about it here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWgzA2C61z4

What about if I'm running a igpu (6600k) until polaris releases....

[-rascal-]

Capacity is usually considered more than the operating frequency.

 

You will have a very bad computing experience if you run out of RAM -- and data starts getting stored / swapped into your SSD or HDD (i.e. pagefile).

 

Higher frequency memory will have it's performance benefits, but the gain starts to level off as frequency increases.

Think of an logarithmic plot frequency on the x-axis, and performance benefit on the y-axis.

Spoiler

 

Have a look:

1. DDR4 Memory Scaling on Intel Z170 -- http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-scaling-intel-z170-finding-the-best-ddr4-memory-kit-speed_170340
2. DDR4 Haswell-E Scaling Review -- http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/ddr4-haswell-e-scaling-review-2133-to-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial

[ImBleu]

4 minutes ago, CeremonialSnips said:

What about if I'm running a igpu (6600k) until polaris releases....

When it comes to iGPUs, system ram is used as pseudo-VRAM so higher speeds can come in handy, and by especially decent margins. However I would still rather go for more ram than more ram speed, personally as a chrome user with 30+ tabs open always. 

 

 

 

[Streetguru]

14 minutes ago, CeremonialSnips said:

 

Skylake seems to gain more from memory speed than anything else, but for 99% of cases it's not going to matter what speed you're at.

Far as capacity goes, 8gbs is fine, even 4gbs if fine for most people, but 16gbs is so cheap now that you might as well get it for the most part

[CeremonialSnips]

4 minutes ago, ThatCoolBlueKidd said:

When it comes to iGPUs, system ram is used as pseudo-VRAM so higher speeds can come in handy, and by especially decent margins. However I would still rather go for more ram than more ram speed, personally as a chrome user with 30+ tabs open always. 

 

 

mmmmh... well this is making me think I should just go dual channel at 3000 for 16gb , it's only a bit more and that is a decent fps increase.... not that I intend to run on igpu for long.... but... interesting.

[Torn]

Keep in mind you can OC Ram. my dual chan 2666 set is running at 3333

[Guest]

I don't know about your chipset my x99 loves speed, 

[CeremonialSnips]

Just now, Slickwicked said:

I don't know about your chipset my x99 loves speed, 

z170

[The_Denks]

27 minutes ago, CeremonialSnips said:

Done a bit of looking around on the forum.  Seems like people generally consider the amount of RAM more important than the speed.... is this true?  Is it likely to be true as we move forward?  Wondering if it is best to keep cheap with low speed and high capacity (for me 16gb/quad channel) or go with dual channel (8 gb) and high speed (3000 vs 2400).  So does Linus's video from 2 years ago still hold to be true in newer games?  what about DX 12... will that change things?  just making sure I understand what the preferred memory config for gaming is... also I don't want to pay 200+ for a kit of ram....

When you get to capacities above 16GB, no benefit.

 

[ybriK]

Capacity > Speed. However some titles are already seeing performance improvements, so yes RAM speed does have an impact on gaming. I wouldn't be surprised if law of diminishing returns kick in at 3000MHz+.

https://youtu.be/mSU0UWFCa1Y?t=34

[DXMember]

if you're not doing heavy scientific computations or benchmarks all day all night, then RAM speed doesn't really impact much

[kronickiller]

 

[Quaker]

It's worth pointing out that much of the software actually runs in the cache RAM inside the CPU, which is why the RAM speed makes so little difference.

Except, of course, for the IGP which uses system RAM directly.

So, overall, more RAM is better than faster RAM, but both have limits of diminishing returns.

I'd say that 16Gigs of slower RAM is better than 8Gigs of faster RAM. But 16Gigs of faster RAM is even better of course.

Personally, I just went for 16Gigs of DDR4-2133 in my latest build. I didn't think it was worthwhile paying extra to get 108 fps vs 102 (or w/e)

[Coaxialgamer]

6 hours ago, kronickiller said:

 

nope , this doesn't apply to OP. This is a situation where the cpu is a severe bottleneck , so anything making the cpu a bit faster will help . But this situation applies to littleraly no one . Stop using it.

[kronickiller]

lol i like 10 bucks xtra for the 3200mhz ram

gta loves it lol

[Snadzies]

Digital Foundry has some Youtube videos testing CPUs in games with various RAM speeds.

In some CPU heavy games higher RAM speeds can net you 5-10fps.

 

 

 

[ybriK]

17 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

nope , this doesn't apply to OP. This is a situation where the cpu is a severe bottleneck , so anything making the cpu a bit faster will help . But this situation applies to littleraly no one . Stop using it.

So what you're saying is an i5 6500 is a shit tier CPU that no one uses? So in accordance to your logic, every single i5 generation is shit tier?

 

Ok got it.

 

EVERYONE QUICKLY STOP BUYING i5's THEY'RE BOTTLENECKING EVERY SINGLE CONSUMER COMPUTER IN THE WORLD!

I don't know about you but an i5 isn't a "severe bottleneck" for GTA V http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

[Coaxialgamer]

46 minutes ago, ybriK said:

So what you're saying is an i5 6500 is a shit tier CPU that no one uses? So in accordance to your logic, every single i5 generation is shit tier?

 

Ok got it.

 

EVERYONE QUICKLY STOP BUYING i5's THEY'RE BOTTLENECKING EVERY SINGLE CONSUMER COMPUTER IN THE WORLD!

I don't know about you but an i5 isn't a "severe bottleneck" for GTA V http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

That is not at all what I said.  What i meant is that,  the i5 is a bottleneck IN THIS SITUATION.  Seriously, ANY cpu will bottleneck an OC titan X at 1080p. It is not meant for 1080p. Resolution affects gpu load,  but not cpu load,  so the i5 cant keep up.  However,  if you were to play at 1440p/4k,  the situation would be quite different.  In fact,  in the video itself,  they stated that they where trying to remove the gpu as a bottleneck,  making the cpu the remaining bottleneck. 

 

Same goes for any regular setup.  You cant expect a 390/i5 setup to play well at 480p. It is not meant for that.  The titan x was not DESIGNED  for 1080p.

 

Show me a balanced setup where RAM speed makes a difference,  and i might just agree with you. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

If the GPU isn't 100% utilized, the GPU is either:

• Not bothering with rendering more frames because the framerate is fast enough
• Is being bottlenecked, but not necessarily by the CPU.

But the thing is, bottlenecking is not a bad thing if it's not putting a damper on your requirements. As long as the system continues to meet your requirements, then what difference does it make? And no, I don't consider "it should be running as fast as possible" a requirement, because it's vague.

 

Anyway... Capacity or speed of memory also depends on what you're doing. For most use cases, speed does very little to ... speed things up.

[ybriK]

32 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

That is not at all what I said.  What i meant is that,  the i5 is a bottleneck IN THIS SITUATION.  Seriously, ANY cpu will bottleneck an OC titan X at 1080p. It is not meant for 1080p. Resolution affects gpu load,  but not cpu load,  so the i5 cant keep up.  However,  if you were to play at 1440p/4k,  the situation would be quite different.  In fact,  in the video itself,  they stated that they where trying to remove the gpu as a bottleneck,  making the cpu the remaining bottleneck. 

 

Same goes for any regular setup.  You cant expect a 390/i5 setup to play well at 480p. It is not meant for that.  The titan x was not DESIGNED  for 1080p.

 

Show me a balanced setup where RAM speed makes a difference,  and i might just agree with you. 

Nope, no bottlenecks here. i5 and Titan X are more than capable at 1080p.

 

" a point of congestion in a system that occurs when workloads arrive at a given point more quickly than that point can handle them. "

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bottleneck.asp

 

There's no "congestion" in an i5 + Titan X setup for gaming at 1080p.

 

" The titan x was not DESIGNED  for 1080p. " - So in any given system setup/scenario a Titan X is not "DESIGNED" for 1080p? Got it.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/images/crysis3_1920_1080.gif

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/images/gta5_1920_1080.gif

 

[Coaxialgamer]

9 minutes ago, ybriK said:

Nope, no bottlenecks here. i5 and Titan X are more than capable at 1080p.

 

" remove the gpu as a bottleneck" - That's why they used a Titan X.

 

" a point of congestion in a system that occurs when workloads arrive at a given point more quickly than that point can handle them. "

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bottleneck.asp

 

There's no "congestion" in an i5 + Titan X setup for gaming at 1080p.

 

" The titan x was not DESIGNED  for 1080p. " - So in any given system setup/scenario a Titan X is not "DESIGNED" for 1080p? Got it.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/images/crysis3_1920_1080.gif

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/images/gta5_1920_1080.gif

 

Again,  show me a balanced setup that people actually have,  where ram speed makes a difference.  No one uses a titan x at 1080p. The only benchmark you provided was 1600p.

[Sintezza]

13 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Again,  show me a balanced setup that people actually have,  where ram speed makes a difference.  No one uses a titan x at 1080p. The only benchmark you provided was 1600p.

Yeah well i had this endless debate in the past aswell.

I'm not even going to bother to go into it anymore.

But indeed ram speeds dont realy matter a whole lot in most situations with a dedicated gpu.

Maybe a very few games at low res.

But definitely not manny.

 

Unless you use an igpu / apu based system, or if your setup is realy unbalanced like Digital Crappery proofed with their overclocked TitanX at on a core i3 at 1080p.

In which the cpu is the obvious limmited factor.

But tests like that dont make any sense what so ever.

 

But the matter of fact is, that nowdays a faster ram kit barely costs more then a slower kit.

Like with DDR4 there isnt much of a diffrence in pricing between 2133mhz and something like 3000mhz for example.

This price diffrence has been way bigger in the past.

Of course highspeed memory kits with tight timings are ofc a littlebit more expensive.

But yeah i think you see where i´m getting at.