RAM clock speeds (for gaming). 1600MHz vs. 2133?

[martinlest2 58]

Hi. Specific question re. RAM and FS9/FSX.

 

I'm putting together specs for a mini-PC (I need one for travel that will go onto a plane as hand luggage, as I spent most of the year abroad working) for FSX & FS9. Basic specs I am probably going with:

ASUS® H97I-PLUS: Mini-ITX, LG1150, USB 3.0, SATA 6GBs

Intel® Core i7-4790k (4.0GHz) 8MB Cache
4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 970
1x480GB KINGSTON HYPERX SAVAGE SSD, SATA 6 Gb/s
1x240GB KINGSTON HYPERX SAVAGE SSD, SATA 6 Gb/s
Windows 7 x64 Premium

But as for the RAM?

 

16GBs is not so much of an extra layout over 8GBs (though it may be just psychological to go over 8GBs?) and 2133MHz RAM not so much more expensive than 1600MHz. However, that M/B doesn't support 2133MHz RAM and to get one that does adds some £100 sterling to the overall cost of the PC. So with the H97I M/B I'd get:

16GB KINGSTON HYPER-X FURY DUAL-DDR3 1600MHz (2 x 8GB)   - or maybe just 8GBs???

Question is, would that be false economy?? It's quite an increase in price to get the M/B to support the 2133MHz RAM, as I say, and my very strong feeling is MS FS will run just great with the 1600MHz RAM and that in practice I'd notice no difference, if I could run them side by side; but any input to confirm or dispute that would be welcome before I pay out such large sums!

Thanks

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

I would say, go with 8 gb of the 1600 ram.

 

But get the fastest 1600 ram you can find. CL9 if possible.

[martinlest2 58]

Yes, thanks. I am getting an online company to build this for me (my eyesight isn't good enough these days to build it myself, as I used to), so the choices are limited. That RAM, according to Kingston is CL10.

 

16GBs is so much nicer psychologically, but reason may possibly prevail when I come to order in a couple of weeks (costs £50 per 8GB stick) - I doubt I'd even use 8GBs (my PC back home has just 6GBs and runs FS just fine).

[gmoneyprs 2]

Last fall I ran a series of benchmarks to see the difference between RAM frequencies.

 

Ceteris paribus, there's a solid gain to be had between 1600 and 1800 mhz. After that, the gains become exponentially smaller. If you want to see it, I can post one of the graphs and some of the test data here. I'll have to find it but as the saying goes, "it's somewhere"...

[martinlest2 58]

Thanks. Unfortunately for the mini-form PC only 1600 or 2133MHz are on offer, so the graph wouldn't really help. To go for the 2133MHz RAM will cost me a LOT more (due to the change in M/B needed, as I said). :o

[gmoneyprs 2]

Part of the point of that graph is to illustrate the fact that if you're willing to overclock your RAM, you only need to get up to 1800 or 1866. I'm confident that most RAM binned for 1600 can make it that far. That's especially true for smaller sticks; if there's an option for 2x 4gb sticks, you may want to consider that. Which should also answer your other question: you should be fine on 8gb unless you do a lot at once, e.g. watching a movie, crunching a huge sheet in Excel, re-encoding a video file... and running FSX at the same time.

[martinlest2 58]

I can only opt for 1x8GBs, not 2x4GBs. I guess that leaves an upgrade option for later!

 

My home PC overclocks the CPU and I rarely have issues. Never tried overclocking RAM - I tend to err on the side of caution. If it goes west/fries whilst I am here in my small town in Sri Lanka, I am scuppered till my next visit to the capital (very rare), or the UK..

[Djang0 1]

Hey make sure you go for 2X sticks to take advantage of the dual channel capability! For future RAM upgrades different sticks will make for a less stable system when overclocking.

[martinlest2 58]

You seem to live near me - I am just a few miles from Farnborough airport (good for the air show - lots of free views, haha) - when I am in the UK!

 

Yes, I'll get two sticks of RAM no doubt. In for a penny...

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Definitely 2 sticks... 2x4 would be my suggestion.

[martinlest2 58]

I can only opt for 1x8GBs, not 2x4GBs.  as mentioned. That's Ok... 2x8GBs it will have to be

[ckyliu 1,749]

The graphics memory is overkill for FSX/P3D, perhaps you could reduce it to 2 GB and spend the money on faster RAM?

[martinlest2 58]

Hi, thanks, but as I said in my original post, faster RAM would require a different M/B, which would add about £100 sterling to the overall cost.

 

As for graphics, also considering a 2GB GTX 960.... Would that 'cut the mustard'? a 4GB GTX 960 is £25 more expensive. Any advantage at all to the extra memory in FS9/FSX? The kit will be running FS9 95% of the time I think anyway.

[ckyliu 1,749]

If you're just running FS9 the whole system is enormously overkill, you could use an i5 with 8 GB of RAM and you'd still get 3 digit framerates! Suppose it depends what else you intend to do with it or what you might use it for in future.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

The OP mentioned fsx...

 

But as for 4 gb video memory, yes, that is overkill.