DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) or DDR3 1800 (PC3 14400)

Is it really worth a $20 jump per stick to use DDR3 1800 (PC3 14400) rather then DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600)?

I also heard that using 4x1GB sticks, while a bit harder on the North Bridge, OC a little bit better then 2x2 GB sticks. Is that true?

 

If you have a 1366-based system, the best performance is gotten from 6 matched sticks, with the second best performance from 3 matched sticks. Most other platforms (including the new low-end I7) will do best with 4 matched sticks.

DDR3 1800 VS DDR3 1333 is not a complete question. CAS speeds (for example, 4-4-4-20) make a big impact on performance. DDR3-1333 with low CAS numbers can outperform DDR3-1800 with high CAS numbers.

 

You mean i5 will do best with 4 sticks?

Anyways, sorry I wasnt more clear, just not feeling well.

I am going to be using 1156. My title was off but heres the sticks I had in mind:
DDR3 1333
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148338
DDR3 1600
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148332
The 1333 is cheaper and has lower timings.

 

Ugh, not crucial ballistix tracers.
Use this instead:
AMD/Core i5: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145248
Core i7: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145223

I'm assuming this is for an absolute minimum budget system? You would normally spend 2-3x this much on RAM for a good system.

Also no, the opposite is true of RAM. 4 sticks always makes overclocking harder than having 2 sticks.

 

Whats wrong with the tracers?

Why? Because there Corsair and DDR 3 1600?

Not really. Nor am I trying to spend a fortune. I was thinking the crucial tracer ballistix, the core i5, and gigabyte mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128401

 

Because the majority of ballistix tracers for DDR2 didn't work even at their rated speed, I wouldn't risk the DDR3 ones.
I recommended the Corsair ones as they're a more popular speed for performance and proven to be reliable. I would expect the same from similar G-Skill and Mushkin RAM, but not from Crucial.

 

I would recomend Corsair over Crucial or Muskin, as I have had a lot of failures from the later two. The memory that sam recomended is good stuff for 1GB sticks, but better performance can be gotten from 2GB sticks. This is why going high-end will cost a lot more...you have to buy twice as many GB to fill all your slots, and then you have to pay a price premium to get the CAS7 memory instead of the CAS9 (like the 1GB sticks) memory.

 

You dont have to sell me on them. I know there great sticks.

Really you said the exact opposite in your initial post.

And lower cas is better is it not? The 1333 Crucial sticks have the lowest cas of all 4 sets of RAM.

I am well aware high end costs more, but if i understand it the curcial have the best performance over all.

Also I am a bit stuck on deciding if I should go Core i5 or i7 920. My Q6600 just doesnt get the job done as well as I like, and I saw a comparison of the i5 and i7 the other day explaining which one is better based on what you do with your pc. Based on what I read(sorry cant recall details) it sounded like I should get an i5, but I am worried that an i5 wont pack a punch long enough and a year down the line I will be regretting not getting an i7.

I do alot of video conversion, some video editing, Autodesk 3ds and similar apps, photoshop, lots of firefox tabs, and some more light weight tasks.

 

No, that's not actually what he said Xplorer. He said it's best to use all of the slots, but best to use 2GB sticks rather than 1GB sticks (So, only use all 6 slots if you're going to have 12GB of RAM rather than just 6). How true the using 6 slots argument is I'm not sure, but I definitely agree on using 2GB sticks these days, 1GB sticks are very outdated.
CAS latency isn't as huge a thing for Intels as it is AMDs. Intels tend to favour more memory speed as it means more memory bandwidth. I only say 1600mhz instead of higher speeds like 1800 as they represent better value, and the speed gains going higher than 1600mhz are relatively minimal.
The i5 750 and i7 920 are almost the same for performance in games, but the i7 920 is faster in applications like video editing, photoshop and 3d applications, i.e. everything you listed. Unless you play a lot of games as well, I would get yourself an i7. Which i7 though? It really depends on the applications you use and how they are affected by memory bandwidth. If they function very well with extra memory bandwidth, get an LGA1366 i7 (triple channel, 900 series). If they don't see that much difference, get the i7 860 on LGA1156 because it's much better value for money as a whole (CPU, Motherboard and RAM). If you do go LGA1156 obviously you want dual-channel memory not triple-channel.

 

For 3D model I use a few different apps. 3ds, Zmoddeler, and sketch up pro.

For imaging, Photoshop CS4.

Video Apps - Nero, ConvertXtoDVD, Virtual Dub, DVD Rebuilder with CCE SP2, Handbrake

Games - There all several years old, but I wouldnt mind trying out some sims. Tried Railworks but my 9800GTX+ couldnt run it that well, which I will be upgrading but thats another issue and we covered that awhile back.

 

To be honest, the i5s aren't wildly better than i7s in games, with that many CPU-intensive applications being used, I would recommend an i7.

 

Well I was asking which i7 you would recommend based on those apps. I was thinking 920 for the triple channel. I dont for see a need for 6 GB RAM atm, but it doesnt hurt to have some head room for the future.

 

If you see yourself using 6GB of RAM (Quite likely I suspect) then yes, the 920 is your best bet.

 

No I dont usually go much over 3 GB, but with a $10 difference I am looking for the CPU with the most bang.

 

Well no, don't forget that the motherboards and memory for the LGA1366 CPUs cost a lot more as well.

 

lol so now your saying i5?

 

No, I'm saying an i7 on LGA1156, with 4GB of RAM (initially, with the option of using 8GB later).

 

Yeah, sorry I keep forgetting the socket is different on the 920 and 860.

Another thing that was said on the crucial forums, was that the sticks included in dual channel kits are the same as what you would get if you bought 2x2 GB of the same speed sticks. Is that true?

For example:
2 of these sticks
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148309
are the same as 2 of these aside from the heat spreaders.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148261

 

Not necessarily. It is wise to avoid making that assumption.
I stand by what I said about the Ballistix, by the way.

 

I didnt maen any assumptions. This is what I was told and asked here to get more feedback.