Need help bad

Awesome. I might do that. I can go over budget if I need to. I just want to stay around my budget. Thanks for all the help guys.
 
Mguire, why run RAM at 1.65V when he can get stock ram @ 1600 MHz CL9 at 1.5V only? Then he can overclock those even beyond 1600 MHz if he wants to up the volts. It's only 7$ difference, I can't see why he shouldn't do the RAM exchange. In fact I'd do it if I'm in his place.
 
You won't get to 1866 on those Vengeance RAM even if you put them to 1.65v. You would have to loosen the timings making the swap over moot. Either RAM set will give him the exact same real world performance whether the timings are 11s or 9s.

Besides that, I only linked the XMS because Jason already had the link there, and they are cheaper. Upping only a few bucks I would get these instead if I was in his place.
Patriot Intel Extreme Master, Limited Edition 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model PVI38G160C9K - Newegg.com

I know at 10s and 1.65v they will do 1866, but doesn't really matter much as real world performance won't change much between anything mentioned here.

Edit: To go even further I bet if I took the Vengeance and XMS apart the ICs would probably be the same. Different heatspreader, name, and XMP profile with the same RAM stick underneath.
Edit 2: For a few more I bet these would do 2133 @ 11s.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104362
 
Last edited:
i just made the build before i saw the budget.

the only thing i would change would be to the 660 ti that pp linked. if the budget could take it, go for the i5, but youll want the gpu power over the cpu power. once over a 660 ti, i would go for added cpu power.

re: ram. for a couple of bucks, who cares? you arent going to be able to notice any difference.
 
i just made the build before i saw the budget.

the only thing i would change would be to the 660 ti that pp linked. if the budget could take it, go for the i5, but youll want the gpu power over the cpu power. once over a 660 ti, i would go for added cpu power.

re: ram. for a couple of bucks, who cares? you arent going to be able to notice any difference.
There have been reviews that better ram will result in better minimum FPS in games.
If it's just a difference of a few bucks, why go for something that's theoretically slower?
 
RAM speed, as in the difference between 1600 and 2133. I can sit here and tell you, it's not worth the cost, and the FPS difference RAM speed makes is incredibly minimal. 1-3 at best.

Google and any good site will tell you, RAM is far from being a system bottleneck for any task. It's not worth dropping a ton of cash over.
 
The review I'm telling you about is from a user experience on another website.
Either way I still don't understand why you're so stubborn on giving him something that's theoretically worse... Tighter timings are theoretically better than higher looser timings. If he can buy better RAM within almost the same price, why not really?
 
Who said I was stubborn? I already told you I linked what I did originally because it was simply easier to copy Jason's link because I knew it was the cheapest decent kit of RAM. I also already put what I would purchase if he wants to spend a few extra bucks. I was simply stating exactly why none of it matters. Look at my sig, I have 64GB of RAM that can run 2133, and OC to 2400 if I wanted to. I run them at 1600 with 9's for timings. If I wanted to run 1.65v I could run at 8's or maybe 7's if I tried. Do I waste my time? No, because it doesn't matter.
If you don't believe me, by all means take a look at one of my friends reviews who shows the difference between 1333 and 2666 on a game using the HD4000 which uses system RAM for VRAM. So technically faster RAM speeds should help FPS. The difference here? 2fps. When using an actual graphics card, probably going to be the same or less.

Kingston HyperX Predator 2666MHz 8GB Memory | Bjorn3D.com
 
Back
Top Bottom