667MHz vs 1600Mhz

I currently have G.Skill DDR3 667MHz RAM in my computer. Would I notice a difference if I upgraded to Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600MHz? I'm using a Samsung 830 Series SSD and my processor is a 2.3GHz i7 3610QM. I confirmed my MoBo as being 1600MHz capable.

I'm not having performance issues per se, but I'm willing to spend the money if it'll make any noticable difference. Obviously I won't if it'll do nothing for me. I know the theory is there...increase the clock, increase the performance. But how would it be in reality? Would menus be even more instant? Would Lightroom conversions churn faster? Would web pages load more quickly?

Do you have the opportunity to get more RAM in addition to bumping the clock speed? because that would be a greater benefit I think. You already have fast I/O with the SSD so I don't think it will be a game changer.

I'd be going from 8 to 16 but I didn't mention it since I don't even max out the 8 that's already installed. It wouldn't be a capacity upgrade as much as a hopeful latency improvement.

More ram would provide more noticeable gains even if your not using half of what's currently available. If your board is dual channel however just add more of the same. If you can use quad channel then toss the 667 and buy the 1600 because it's the smart thing to do.

isoMorphic wrote in post #15853049
More ram would provide more noticeable gains even if your not using half of what's currently available.

How does that figure?

isoMorphic wrote in post #15853049
If your board is dual channel however just add more of the same. If you can use quad channel then toss the 667 and buy the 1600 because it's the smart thing to do.

I only have two slots total with each being 4GB currently.

I strongly suspect that your 667 (the memory frequency) is the same as DDR3-1334.
In the same manner, the DDR3-1600 you're considering runs at 800Mhz.
You aren't gaining nearly as much as it seems.

Grab this handy program, CPU-Z, http://www.cpuid.com/s​oftwares/cpu-z.html and report the dram frequency on the Memory tab.

The next tab, SPD, may show an 800/1600 option, usually requiring relaxed timings and a minor voltage bump.

Geonerd wrote in post #15853500
I strongly suspect that your 667 (the memory frequency) is the same as DDR3-1334.
In the same manner, the DDR3-1600 you're considering runs at 800Mhz.
You aren't gaining nearly as much as it seems.

Grab this handy program, CPU-Z, http://www.cpuid.com/s​oftwares/cpu-z.html and report the dram frequency on the Memory tab.

The next tab, SPD, may show an 800/1600 option, usually requiring relaxed timings and a minor voltage bump.

Yeah I've had that program for awhile now. I've had the laptop apart actually and installed this set myself.

Here's the RAM I currently have: http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6820231295

Benchmarks suggest the difference between 1333 and 2000MHz (ish) makes little difference. If you have a machine old enough that it has 667MHz RAM there are probably other bottlenecks. I'd probably suggest you save your money for a big upgrade.

Extra RAM is used as a disk cache. For example working with a set of 10GB of images once they're loaded once the disk isn't touched again. If I had 8GB of RAM instead of 16GB i'd be hitting the disk a lot more.

tim wrote in post #15853565
Benchmarks suggest the difference between 1333 and 2000MHz (ish) makes little difference. If you have a machine old enough that it has 667MHz RAM there are probably other bottlenecks. I'd probably suggest you save your money for a big upgrade.

Extra RAM is used as a disk cache. For example working with a set of 10GB of images once they're loaded once the disk isn't touched again. If I had 8GB of RAM instead of 16GB i'd be hitting the disk a lot more.

My system isn't old. I did misread the RAM though. It's 1333MHz.

My laptop has the Samsung 830 SSD primary drive as well as a 32GB miniPCI express SSD for caching. I'm not sure going to 16GB of RAM would actually benefit me on a strictly capacity level.

As you can see below increasing from 1333 to 1600 is fairly substantial. Also it's all relevant to how fast everything else in your system is able to move data to and from. Slower Ram has an impact on processing time as your CPU can only go as fast as your Ram is able to deliver the data which needs to be processed. As for the SSD your using for cache it's a snail in contrast to the speed of DDR3.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Memory_bandwidt​h

DDR3-1333 167 MHz 10.667 GB/s (your current rate)
DDR3-1375 172 MHz 11 GB/s (.33 Gb/s increase)
DDR3-1600 200 MHz 12.8 GB/s (2.13 GB/s increase)

http://en.wikipedia.or​g …dths#Random_acc​ess_memory

cdifoto wrote in post #15857419
My system isn't old. I did misread the RAM though. It's 1333MHz.

My laptop has the Samsung 830 SSD primary drive as well as a 32GB miniPCI express SSD for caching. I'm not sure going to 16GB of RAM would actually benefit me on a strictly capacity level.

Ah that changes things.

All real world benchmarks I've seen say faster ram makes little practical difference. Caching probably explains it.

Going to 16GB RAM will just give you more file caching. If you work on large data sets, yes it may help a little. For working with a couple of hundred images at a time I predict little real world benefit.

I'm more used to thinking of RAM in multiples of 100GB... I do lots of server work with some rather large databases.

I did not realize sandy bridge caps at 1333 so my advice was wrong here.

Basically you would see very minimal gain from 1600. If you did serious overclocking it would be worth having faster ram. But nobody in their right mind would do that with a lappy.

tim wrote in post #15857611
All real world benchmarks I've seen say faster ram makes little practical difference. Caching probably explains it.

Faster ram will help speed things along as it cuts down on CPU wait state cycles. You can't see this in benchmarks because they rarely simulate real world use where a combination of applications are often being utilized simultaneously.

http://www.wisegeek.co​m/what-is-a-wait-state.htm

isoMorphic wrote in post #15859587
I did not realize sandy bridge caps at 1333 so my advice was wrong here.

Basically you would see very minimal gain from 1600. If you did serious overclocking it would be worth having faster ram. But nobody in their right mind would do that with a lappy.

Sorry but what does Sandy Bridge and its 1333MHz cap have to do with my Ivy Bridge with its 1600MHz cap?

isoMorphic wrote in post #15859658
Faster ram will help speed things along as it cuts down on CPU wait state cycles. You can't see this in benchmarks because they rarely simulate real world use where a combination of applications are often being utilized simultaneously.

http://www.wisegeek.co​m/what-is-a-wait-state.htm

Between the increased bandwidth and faster response (in spite of higher timings), most of the time faster RAM can help, I've seen evidence it can be quite useful for integrated graphics as well (if you use that).

I don't know if you're more limited by the amount of ram or the speed of your ram (speed differences are ultimately not enormous most of the time), having more RAM alone (even at your current 1333) will be more helpful than just upgrading to 1600 at the same overall capacity. Especially if you're running out, obviously. I found 8GB was not enough on my old system but the board wouldn't allow for more, so after about five years I decided it was finally time for a new workstation.

I'm running 1866 since I got it for the same price as 1600 when I built my system, but it's not a big deal otherwise.