RAM Confusion Again

[Mike Soda]

Due to Linus's most recent video I'm now confused about what RAM & CPU I'll get for my new first build. I had previously picked out an R5 1500X & 2x8GB DDR4 3200 with 14 latency, prices of those kits ranging from $155-$187. Now I'm wondering if I should just go with 2133Mhz instead & get a better CPU such as a 1600. 2 more cores won't really benefit me either though for what I do, RuneScape, Light Video Editing, Multitasking (8 or less FireFox Tabs while gaming & video editing). So please everyone help me decided lol, I know in the video I'll link below he specifically compared 2133 to 3600 so I'm unsure if his CPU upgrading advice still applies to 3200. I want this PC to be the best it can be for the price but I also know that Ryzen does favor higher frequency RAM. So I'm worried that by going for more cores vs frequency I might see a bigger overall performance defecate regarding what I do. Unfortunately I have no idea if the things I do is even dramatically effected by RAM speed, for video editing I use OBS Studio & Hitfilm 4 Express. On a final note, I do prefer reliability over speed so let that be a factor in advising me on what to go with. For reference sake, let's just say my CPU & RAM budget is $365.00 or less.

 

 

[VVoltor]

Getting a 6 Core with slightly slower RAM instead of a 4 Core with fast RAM that you might not even be able to utilise? Easy choice really.

 

RAM speed doesn't matter that much, however it has a bigger effect on Ryzen systems compared to Intel PCs.

That's because the so called infinity fabric is directly linked to RAM speeds.

 

Now there are still a lot of problems with Ryzen and making RAM run at speeds over 2133Mhz.

 

What you need to look for is 2 Dimms of 'Dual Channel, Single Rank' memory, to achieve the current maximum of 2667Mhz on most motherboards. With 'Dual Channel, Dual Rank' memory at the moment you'll get stuck at 2400Mhz.

If you want to go for 4 Dimms, speeds will be even lower.

There is no clear information to indicate AMD can fix these issues with upcoming BIOS updates.

[crzyces]

8 minutes ago, VVoltor said:

Getting a 6 Core with slightly slower RAM instead of a 4 Core with fast RAM that you might not even be able to utilise? Easy choice really.

 

RAM speed doesn't matter that much, however it has a bigger effect on Ryzen systems compared to Intel PCs.

That's because the so called infinity fabric is directly linked to RAM speeds.

 

Now there are still a lot of problems with Ryzen and making RAM run at speeds over 2133Mhz.

 

What you need to look for is 2 Dimms of 'Dual Channel, Single Rank' memory, to achieve the current maximum of 2667Mhz on most motherboards. With 'Dual Channel, Dual Rank' memory at the moment you'll get stuck at 2400Mhz.

If you want to go for 4 Dimms, speeds will be even lower.

There is no clear information to indicate AMD can fix these issues with upcoming BIOS updates.

OK, now I am a bit confused here. I've seen many vids with people who bought 2600 and clocked it all the way to 3200, but were having trouble with their cpu overclocks scaling backwards, and vice versa, lowering the overclock was increasing ram speed on the overclocked RAM. ei. oc 1600 @ 4.0, oc ram @ 2600. Lower oc cpu too 3.5, ram speed increases to 2800. Now apparently this was fixed in the bios updates, at least with the Samsung B die, not sure about the others.

 

Whatever the case, I'd recommend he get the 1600, and the 2600 RAM, not 2133. I know Runescape is not very demanding, but it does still tax the CPU and system RAM more than GPU RAM. I can't believe that game is still around. My daughter used to play it 9 years ago. After playing maybe 10 hours I couldn't take it, and went back to a Neverwinter Nights server cluster.

 

Back on point, he can always OC the CPU like you said, as well as the RAM (The RAM changing speeds never took it below stock when overclocking the cpu while the bug was around).

[VVoltor]

2 minutes ago, crzyces said:

OK, now I am a bit confused here. I've seen many vids with people who bought 2600 and clocked it all the way to 3200, but were having trouble with their cpu overclocks scaling backwards, and vice versa, lowering the overclock was increasing ram speed on the overclocked RAM. ei. oc 1600 @ 4.0, oc ram @ 2600. Lower oc cpu too 3.5, ram speed increases to 2800. Now apparently this was fixed in the bios updates, at least with the Samsung B die, not sure about the others.

 

Whatever the case, I'd recommend he get the 1600, and the 2600 RAM, not 2133. I know Runescape is not very demanding, but it does still tax the CPU and system RAM more than GPU RAM. I can't believe that game is still around. My daughter used to play it 9 years ago. After playing maybe 10 hours I couldn't take it, and went back to a Neverwinter Nights server cluster.

 

Back on point, he can always OC the CPU like you said, as well as the RAM (The RAM changing speeds never took it below stock when overclocking the cpu while the bug was around).

Overclocking is possible in certain cases, but heavily depends on the actual RAM, just like some CPUs OC better than others. Speeds I mentioned are what is properly supported and won't need terribly slow timings.

 

The whole situation is rather complicated, especially compared to Intel systems and just enabling XMP profiles.

 

Here's a great video from Wendell the omniscient, if you are interested in a more in-depth explanation on overclocking RAM on Ryzen: 

 

[Evanair]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233859&cm_re=corsair_lpx_3200-_-20-233-859-_-Product
 

Go with this, I had it running 3200/C16 on day two (only because I didn't get my processor till day two)

 

Two reasons: 

1. On that note, on an 1800x, I see a very large performance hit when my OC fails and I don't see the screen to fix it.  2133 vs 3330 is a big hit. Depending on the game, between 5 and 15% FPS.
2. CAS Letency does almost nothing for Ryzen.  I have a  2400/C10 kit (now an expensive display piece).  I have clocked my current ram at 2400 c18 (to test) and saw Margin of Error differences in the performance.  This is across rendering AND gaming.

AS for the 1500 vs 1600, I haven't looked into the Quad core but if it doesn't use two Zen Cores, then we're in a whole different ballgame.  Personally, I'd go with 6 cores if you're doing Ryzen anyway.  Otherwise, for a quad core, get a 6700k or 7700k.

 

All the above is based on personal experience.  Some online youtube videos disagree with me, but I can get what I get out of my rig.

 

http://valid.x86.fr/n6npde vs http://valid.x86.fr/35jrml 

 

I get much better performance out of the lower clock cpu and higher ram than a low latency 2400 kit.

[Mike Soda]

11 hours ago, FriendlyNonMurderingSort said:

If you browse the AMD subreddit, you'll find a lot of obsession over people wanting Samsung B die RAM. Specifically, the 3200MHz CL14 one from G.Skill.

 

Linus' point in that video, is the impact of RAM speed is often dependent on the application, even for Ryzen. Therefore, people on low budget builds should not be putting all their money on RAM.

 

If you have a disposable income and you want to eek out every possible % of performance, then sure, spending a little more makes sense.

 

As for 1500x vs 1600:

 

Although the stock clock speeds are lower on the 1600, it can be overclocked. Obviously there is no guarantee of reaching the same clocks as the higher clocked SKUs, but you should be aware that it is possible to close the gap or even surpass the 1500x in clock speeds, depending on your luck.

 

11 hours ago, VVoltor said:

Getting a 6 Core with slightly slower RAM instead of a 4 Core with fast RAM that you might not even be able to utilise? Easy choice really.

 

RAM speed doesn't matter that much, however it has a bigger effect on Ryzen systems compared to Intel PCs.

That's because the so called infinity fabric is directly linked to RAM speeds.

 

Now there are still a lot of problems with Ryzen and making RAM run at speeds over 2133Mhz.

 

What you need to look for is 2 Dimms of 'Dual Channel, Single Rank' memory, to achieve the current maximum of 2667Mhz on most motherboards. With 'Dual Channel, Dual Rank' memory at the moment you'll get stuck at 2400Mhz.

 

11 hours ago, crzyces said:

OK, now I am a bit confused here. I've seen many vids with people who bought 2600 and clocked it all the way to 3200, but were having trouble with their cpu overclocks scaling backwards, and vice versa, lowering the overclock was increasing ram speed on the overclocked RAM. ei. oc 1600 @ 4.0, oc ram @ 2600. Lower oc cpu too 3.5, ram speed increases to 2800. Now apparently this was fixed in the bios updates, at least with the Samsung B die, not sure about the others.

 

Whatever the case, I'd recommend he get the 1600, and the 2600 RAM, not 2133. I know Runescape is not very demanding, but it does still tax the CPU and system RAM more than GPU RAM. I can't believe that game is still around. My daughter used to play it 9 years ago. After playing maybe 10 hours I couldn't take it, and went back to a Neverwinter Nights server cluster.

 

Back on point, he can always OC the CPU like you said, as well as the RAM (The RAM changing speeds never took it below stock when overclocking the cpu while the bug was around).

@ your post specifically, Haha yeah it's still around & has been updated to be less CPU intensive with it's new client. Although using the CPU intensive Java client is still nothing for a modern CPU, even an i3-6100 only has about 10% usage on max detail.

10 hours ago, Evanair said:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233859&cm_re=corsair_lpx_3200-_-20-233-859-_-Product
 

Go with this, I had it running 3200/C16 on day two (only because I didn't get my processor till day two)

 

Two reasons: 

1. On that note, on an 1800x, I see a very large performance hit when my OC fails and I don't see the screen to fix it.  2133 vs 3330 is a big hit. Depending on the game, between 5 and 15% FPS.
2. CAS Letency does almost nothing for Ryzen.  I have a  2400/C10 kit (now an expensive display piece).  I have clocked my current ram at 2400 c18 (to test) and saw Margin of Error differences in the performance.  This is across rendering AND gaming.

AS for the 1500 vs 1600, I haven't looked into the Quad core but if it doesn't use two Zen Cores, then we're in a whole different ballgame.  Personally, I'd go with 6 cores if you're doing Ryzen anyway.  Otherwise, for a quad core, get a 6700k or 7700k.

Thank you all & here's the selection it comes down to I'd like all your final thoughts on, although I'm unsure if any of these are single or dual rank kits. I understand low latency with Ryzen isn't that big of an issue, but a low CAS higher speed kit I'd think would resell better if I ever wanted to someday or even work with Intel too. In short I want to know which of the below combos is the better performance per dollar as initially LTT's review placed the 1500X at top.

 

R5 1500X With Either: G.Skill Ripjaws V F43200C14D-14GVK, G.Skill TridentZ F43200C14D-16GTZSK or G.Skill Flare X F4-3200C14D-16GFX (Red or Black versions of 1st two & Flare X included in case price drops though not currently supported by my motherboard).

 

R5 1600 With With Either: ADATA XPG Z1 AX4U2133W8G13-DRZ, Hyper X Savage HX421C13SBK2/16, HyperX Savage HX426C13SB2K2/16 or Corsair Vengance LPX CMK16X4M2A2133C13 (Red or Black Verisons of LPX). ONLY the HyperX kits are currently supported by the MSI B350M motherboard I've picked out.

[Evanair]

17 minutes ago, Mike Soda said:

In short I want to know which of the below combos is the better performance per dollar as initially LTT's review placed the 1500X at top.

LTT Reviews everything from a gaming standpoint.  

 

If you're going to Game, get the 1500x.  If you're going to do multitasking only, go with the 1600.  

 

Here's where you stands.  The 1500x will be better at gaming because of the higher clock speed.  The 1600 will be better at video rendering.  That's really your choice, not the ram.  Even if Ram made a 20% difference between each kit listed above (which it doesn't) the difference between your choices of processor within the environment you're going to use them matter more than your ram.  Pick Gaming or Rendering.  Both will do both, but each is better than the other within the given usage of the system.

[Prysin]

The best advice i can give to you OP is, NEVER, listen to what Linus says aboutt RAM. He is more often then not so fucking clueless, or doing so poor testing that nobody in their right mind could take his results seriously.

[Mike Soda]

1 hour ago, Evanair said:

LTT Reviews everything from a gaming standpoint.  

 

If you're going to Game, get the 1500x.  If you're going to do multitasking only, go with the 1600.  

 

Here's where you stands.  The 1500x will be better at gaming because of the higher clock speed.  The 1600 will be better at video rendering.  That's really your choice, not the ram.  Even if Ram made a 20% difference between each kit listed above (which it doesn't) the difference between your choices of processor within the environment you're going to use them matter more than your ram.  Pick Gaming or Rendering.  Both will do both, but each is better than the other within the given usage of the system.

Thank you, I'll probably stick with the 1500x then as there's a wider selection of currently supported 2x8GB dual channel kits. At the very most I do video editing once a week, with gaming every day ranging from 6 to 16 hours.

 

[crzyces]

4 hours ago, Mike Soda said:

Thank you, I'll probably stick with the 1500x then as there's a wider selection of currently supported 2x8GB dual channel kits. At the very most I do video editing once a week, with gaming every day ranging from 6 to 16 hours.

 

The 1600 seems to beat the 1500 by about 10 FPS in almost every game at stock and overclocked. Watch this video please. Start around the 8:30 mark, as that is where the game testing starts. Yes they are using the x models of both chips, but I assume you will overclock to 3.9-4.1 anyway regardless of which chip you have, so it makes it moot (though again, at stock the difference is still roughly 10 fps for the 1600). Before the 8:30 mark are synthetics like blender, cinebench etc, which the 1600 obviously destroys in. Bare in mind, this site loves Intel and NVidea, so the scores are a bit skewed higher in Intel's favor (Though they still outperform Ryzen in gaming. Just a fact of life atm.).

 

 

[crzyces]

4 hours ago, Mike Soda said:

Thank you, I'll probably stick with the 1500x then as there's a wider selection of currently supported 2x8GB dual channel kits. At the very most I do video editing once a week, with gaming every day ranging from 6 to 16 hours.

 

Who would have thought 2 years ago we'd be debating what to purchase affordably, an 8 thread count cpu or a 12 thread? Good Fun! I'm sure you will be happy either way.