I want to upgrade my ram to this : http://www.corsair.com/en/vengeance...am-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmy16gx3m2a2400c10r

Currently running ddr3 1600mhz 4x4gb Kingston hyper-x blue heat spreader ram (im actually running it @ 1866 mhz since it has no problem running a bit faster)

my motherboard is : ASUS z-97A https://www.asus.com/ca-en/Motherboards/Z97A/

so my question is will it actually run at 2400mhz (1200 dual channel)?

 

If you remove all 4 of your Kingston ram and replace it with the vengeance yes it will work, how ever if you mix them all will run at the slowest common speed which is 1600mhz

 

Sweeeet. thanks

 

you do realise youll get a much more benifit from adding more ram capacity then speed just buy more of the kingston ram, 32 gigs of kingstom ram at 1600mhz ( buy 8 gig sticks)will out perform by miles the veengence 2400mhz ram at 16 gigs

 

already got the ram and it kicks ass, its close to ddr4 clocks, so i cant complain. there is a little difference maybe 5% less cpu usage in task manager for example, other than that a bit more responsiveness in apps

 

in things like daws and games etc ram speed dosent matter i do pc repair as a job

 

ram will always have some sort of latency/delay that is probably the bigger factor i guess than going from lower clock to higher clock, the only thing i really notice is higher temps of the ram itself

 

Then you obviously haven't checked enough games and daws, to be polite your reply is at least generic and doesn't apply to all. Why? Because everybody doesn't play the same game or use the same daw with identical setup configurations and components, especially in the pc world.
example 1: Metro Last Light had a 0.5 fps increase from ddr3 1600 to drr3 2400, with the same cas latency. But F1 on the same setup, had a 10+% increase, some report up to 12%.
example 2: Cubase 8.5 had an average 1-2% gain in ram performance when switching from ddr3 1333 to ddr3 2400, when running a 40 ch/80 vst fx at 24bit/96khz on z97 with i7. Sonar Platinum upped this to about 4% with the same project channels and fx. We also did this in the studio, by switching platform but trying to maintain as close to cpu power and ram amount as possible. So from ddr3 1333 on z97/i7, to ddr4 3200 on z170/i7, the gain was 3% on Cubase 8.5 and about 5% on Sonar with the same project files. No oc was involved in any of those tests. Obviously for some reason Sonar favored ram a little better in our tests but this was at the expense of slightly more cpu usage than Cubase, so i would consider both equal, each with their own perks. What matters here is, there IS a difference with higher frequency (and faster ram as well), and it becomes more significant the more channels and vst/ vstis you need to run. Also what is not mentioned, if you do not have a dedicated graphics card then the higher frequency+faster ram will yield significantly better results.
Cheers
Ps: I am at the reverse side of repairing pcs, i "break" them lol. The only way to be on top of your game imho, is to know your gear's limits and your own of course

 

Last edited: Jan 25, 2017

My question is, will you notice?

My answer, no.

Spend the money elsewhere.

You'd never notice. It's nothing to notice? ;)

Save the dough for a next major upgrade, or something. Or buy a load of beer. :D Much wiser. ;)

 

@taskforce on the cpu front commercial cpus fromn intel havent seen that much of a incresse since sandybridge there really is not to much of a difference between a 4790k and a 6700k for people to consider upgradeing imo. The only innovation ive seen is in xeon processors and the enthusiest grade i7s but even then i was going to get the 6950 but stuck with the 5960 because in terms of per core performance when both were clocked at the same speed doing the same tasks they were identical. So yea thats why my main rigs useinbg the 5960 and 64 gigs of ram and 2 1080s

 

i would totally get a badass eight core setup in a few years, maybe when the prices come down and the base clock goes up, for example if it was

CPU : ?i7-8xxx? 4ghz x 8 cores (3ghz times 8 cores is still too low in my opinion single threaded/single core only apps could lag a bit)
PRICE : $350-450 (cad lol)

 

Nearly 2 years ago I picked up an FX8350. 8 cores @ 4Ghz. For £120. [That's $120US according to Apple]

That's got to be the best chip for music, or any multi-threaded apps, in terms of value (not outright performance).

If you have the dough, spend it. Otherwise, bangs for bucks is where you want to be. Ram speed is a very marginal factor.

RAM only really matters for samples (the audio equivalent of textures in gfx?) It's already one of the fastest parts of the system, so gains in speed/clock rate don't make much odds. The size of your RAM matters - it needs to be "enough". Whatever that is.

Save the dough for something that really makes a difference? Buy your fave synth instead? A compressor? A controller? A new chair? Find someone to buy your present kit and add the money to that......?

If you're not loaded with dough, buying faster RAM won't give you much satisfaction. Having those bucks in the bank might. ;)

 

the 5960x is still an 800 pound uk priced cpu and its also the instructions it can deal with vs core speed, put it this way the amd 8 core thats at 5 ghz will not beat my intel 5960x at 3.5 ghz even though it looks faster, even with hyperthredding turned off.

 

Last edited: Jan 26, 2017

Actually, going from lower to higher clock will always get you a bit more RAM speed than just tweaking the RAM timings from, say, 11-11-11-24 to a lower latency like 9-9-9-18. However, RAM can be really tricky to tweak so I tend to run it at stock speed and just fiddle a bit with the timings. It's really time consuming to tweak the RAM as you have to run memtest for a couple of hours every time you change something.

You seem to misunderstand the dual-channel thing. Dual channel works every time you have at least two RAM sticks installed in the same coloured RAM slots, and they always work at the set speed, like 1600MHz for example. The difference between having one or two sticks of RAM in differently coloured slots [thus being 1-channel only] is like a road with one lane, or two lanes. You can move more cars through a two-lane road. You get double the bandwidth with RAM, but dual-channel gives you only up to ~20-30% better RAM performance [yes - not double the performance].

Cheers!

 

Agreed about the cpus and i can even add there is little difference between ddr3 and ddr4 in terms of real world performance. BUT if your audio/vsti track count is huge, higher frequency/lower latency ram can make a difference up to 10%. Most users here are home users so i would agree for the most part, but considering everyone here a home user is simply not the case, so i had to comment.

Quite correct. It is also why ppl who need a really high performance pc should move to the 2011-3 platform which is quad channel. The x99 desktop boards (now most have a v.2) allow for a total of 128gb of DDR4 which can cover even musicians who produce classical music or soundtrack with VSL or other high ram demanding plugins/libraries like Kontakt.

I have to say joem is right here. G String, my friend your FX-8350 can compete only with intel i5s and it's a bang for the buck for this reason. But is it really? Read on please. People who need more performance will spend the extra dough, and i hate to say it because i like AMD, but this extra cash will not be on the AMD side as atm they have nothing to compete with Intel's i7 6-8-10 core desktop cpus, which in real world terms are re-branded xeons with an unlocked multiplier. Even the 4core i7s are 20-25% faster than the current top of the line AMD cpus, all with consuming much less power. 4core intel i7s are rated @95w, AMD FX-9590 5ghz (on turbo speed) cpu is rated at a whopping 220w and still falls behind in performance. Oh and the Fx-8350 is a 125W cpu. Intel i5 7600k is 91w (better performance than the 8350) and the i5 7500 is 65w (almost the same performer as the 8350 or about 10% less performance in some scenarios but with almost half the power consumption). Remember this when you pay your electricity bill.
PS: I just hope Zen will change this Intel "monopoly" as atm they control the market and act anyway they see fit, which in my sense is a political issue as well.

 

Last edited: Jan 26, 2017

I've no doubt it has better performance in most situations.

But what's the price?

i5 7600k == £250

8350 = £120

It's apples and oranges. A better price comparison is i3 6100 - 2 cores @3.7

With watercooling 8350 has been OCd to 8Ghz. I'm not recommending it, just saying that on a budget, 8350 is banging - for multithreaded stuff (which audio is). I was determined to switch to Intel, i7. But when looking at the price/perf I couldn't justify it. The motherboard costs more too. But generally, yeah, forget AMD.

 

im actually curious how modern AMD's perform, forget ''internet benchmarks'' id like to actually try one.. last one i tried was a socket 754 a64 3400

 

8350 is HOT.....so also noisy. I have 3rdparty cooler, and the PC is 10m away in the cold :D (I use long HDMI and USBs).

One might find a very good price on one soon, as AMD's new stuff comes in. But likely the new stuff is better....so...pfft.

Unless you're on a pretty low budget, forget AMD imo. Well, unless their new kit makes astonishing improvements.

But.......8350 is 8@4. And easily/very overclockable. I haven't felt a need to. I haven't felt a need for any more power at all, tbh. Before my next upgrade (a long way off) I'll get water cooling and see how high the clock will run. As a hobbyist, it's cheap and good. The motherboards were (are?) cheap too, perhaps because they supported at least two generations of CPU.

The "efficiency" of new CPUs is seemingly being used (mostly) to reduce power consumption rather than raise outright performance. No bad thing, just like mileage over top speed in cars, perhaps.

I don't have dog in the race - I don't give a fig who makes the chips. :D I always look for the sweet spot of price/performance, and that's invariably in the budget/mid position. Price/Performance falls away with rising performance....or falling cost.

 

What did you do with your old ram? @DJSabreblade
I have 4x2gigs ddr3
I was just pricing out 16 gig and noticed it went up 20 bucks since a couple months ago

 

if you really want a decent cpu thats bang for the buck intel xeons go down drastically in price since release.