My findings there in the thread you linked point in the opposite direction. Just saying :)If you go through the whole thread (post #21 to be more precise) you'll see what I meanThat's not to say that at current RAM prices it makes sense to go with 2133 CL9 for some €70 to get the outmost performance out of your system for just an extra €30 and a 5% FPS increase, which in turn equates to a 200MHz CPU clock bump

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by dazz

.

?

My findings there in the thread you linked point in the opposite direction. Just saying :)If you go through the whole thread (post #21 to be more precise) you'll see what I meanThat's not to say that at current RAM prices it makes sense to go with 2133 CL9 for some €70 to get the outmost performance out of your system for just an extra €30 and a 5% FPS increase, which in turn equates to a 200MHz CPU clock bump

I must have remembered incorrectly then. I remember results of slower latency and increased stutters. I must have missed something then.I only know I have owned 1600 CL7 on my previous machine, and they were performing great.IMO, 30€ difference is justified for top performance RAM. In the end, we are not building computers to have a mediocre performance but to pull the most out of our systems.

I have currently 2 x 2GB sticks running at CL7 @1600 MHz and the´re working all right. I could maybe instead of getting 2 x 4Gb another pair of 2 x2 GB of the same and retain the CL7.Btw. if I understand that corectly, CL7 is faster than CL9. The higher the number, the slower it is. Am I right on this?

Latency lower (CL7) is better (faster) than CL9.What do 2x4GB 1600 CL7 cost compared to CL9? And what is the price difference 2x2GB and 2x4GB?

Hey guys, more general follow-up I have ram in my main rig that I can run at low latency or overall higher frequency:1600 @ lower timings or1866 @ higher timings,which of these should I go with?

What do 2x4GB 1600 CL7 cost compared to CL9? And what is the price difference 2x2GB and 2x4GB?

I thought of these one http://www.alternate...00_Kit/791906/? They´re 8 GB CL9 for 42,99€And these are the ones I´m currently using: http://mushkin.com/M...ine/996782.aspx It seems they aren´t sold anymore at Alternate.de and Mushkin doesn´t have any Blackline RAM with timings lower than 8. I´d like do go on with the Blackline cause I´ve very little room left and they were pefrectly fitting.

I have Mushkin Redline 1600 Mhz sticks at 6 latency which were a significant improvement over the previous Kingston Hyperx 1600 Mhz at 9 latency. Makes me wonder why this contrary advice is so prevalent here, because imho it is entirely incorrect. :huh:Kind regards,

With Sandy Bridge, the better timings won't mean a thing for you and FPS.

I don't believe that is correct.Kind regards,

I have Mushkin Redline 1600 Mhz sticks at 6 latency which were a significant improvement over the previous Kingston Hyperx 1600 Mhz at 9 latency. Makes me wonder why this contrary advice is so prevalent here, because imho it is entirely incorrect. :huh:Kind regards,

Hi Stephen, you mean these ones here http://www.alternate.de/html/product/Mushkin/DIMM_8_GB_DDR3-1600_Kit/862696/?

Hi Stephen, you mean these ones here http://www.alternate...600_Kit/862696/?

No Steffen, these ones here:http://www.mushkin.c...ine/996805.aspxOut of production now, so glad I was able to get them when I did. They are trouble free.Kind regards,

I don't believe that is correct.Kind regards,

If you can quantify a 1/2 to 1 FPS gain, I'd love to see it (though you won't get that much gain with tighter timings.). 1600MHz is the sweet spot. Readily available latency options show no differences in FSX performance.

• Changing my BIOS latencies shows no performance differences.
• Changing RAM speeds shows no performance differences (that are noticeable).
• Using only one of my two 4GB modules shows no performance differences and no OOMs.

I 100% stand by my statement. At the >/=1600MHz level, latencies are much less important for FSX. Much, much less.

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by ZachLW

I don't believe that is correct.

I 100% stand by my statement.

Ah guess this is wot ya'll call a Mexican standoff partner! :Cowboy:Revolvers at 100 paces at 12:00 noon in front of saloon? :rofl:

Ah guess this is wot ya'll call a Mexican standoff partner! :Cowboy:12:00 noon in front of saloon?

See ya there! :Cowboy:I'd be interested in you proving me wrong, Stephen, but latencies just aren't all that important on the 1st/2nd Gen i7s. The differences in respect to FSX performance are minute enough (IMO) to be thrown out as coincidental. Or so that was my observation when screwing around with the timings (rather unscientifically). Other benchmarks point to the same conclusion, and I believe the generally accepted consensus is the same as well. Even our very own FSXMark11, based on Gary Dunne's benchmarking program, points to the same conclusion (or at least the fact that RAM timings shouldn't be a major concern for our FSX rigs).Either way, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by ZachLW

The differences in respect to FSX performance are minute enough (IMO) to be thrown out as coincidental.

Placebo effect doesn't exist in the forum! :LMAO:But seriously speaking, I am going to have to side with Stephen on this one [We had a thorough discussion about this in the new Avsim teamspeak].He basically summed it up as this:FSX will always take advantage of faster hardware.When you have a really fast CPU, GPU, and SSD, FSX will take advantage of them.But your performance will always "fall to the lowest denominator" of your system.If you don't have the fastest RAM in place, data will not be fed as quickly to the CPU...

Edited February 13, 201214 yr by benorg