Hi guys what the tittle says i have a question, i want to upgrade from 16gb to 32 gb, but now comes the qustion is it smart to get another corsair lp 4x4 kit [16 gb] for 32 gb, then al my banks are full in quad channel, or is it better just to go straight 4x8gb memory for quad channel ? I want stability and performance so whats the best thing to do ?, the speed is the same just 1600 mhz. Edit: i heard stories that if u make all memory banks full, sometimes the cpu OC wont like that, is that true ? my max OC is just 4 ghz and thats also my limit.
It might be a bit of a hit and miss running 8 RAM modules, get the wrong combination of motherboad and RAM modules and you could well still run into issues. Just a comparitive note, from what I understand about DDR4 you can only have one module per RAM channel, not two. They made it that way for better compatibility. Anyways, it would be safer running 4x8 GB modules than 8x4 GB modules. Also 4x8 GB modules would use less power and be a tad cooler. Not sure how hot the middle RAM modules would get unless you have good airflow over the RAM (not side on, actually through the modules). If you do decide to go 4x8 GB, there would be no point getting DDR3-1600, you might as well get at least DDR3-2133 and make it more worthwhile. The added cost of getting a 32 GB kit(s) versus just getting another 16 GB kit can be partially made up if you sell off your existing RAM. Now I have heard that if you run two modules on the same RAM channel you incur an extra latency penalty, in addition to not being able (at least mostly) to change the Command Rate to 1T instead of 2T and not being able to set the refresh interval as high. In other words, running 8 modules could be detrimental to memory bandwidth/latency/random throughput.
RAM speeds and timings have virtually no impact on the performance of modern systems, DDR and DDR2 yes but not anymore.
Sure, 4x8 GB at 2133 won't be a night and day difference compared to 8x4 GB DDR3-1600, but since 4x8 GB is by far the 'safer' option in knowing that it will work as expected you might as well go 2133 RAM, since it's only fractionally more (if at all). It does make a little difference, otherwise the following would be true: i7-49xx are pointless, because quad channel is blatently pointless might as well all get DDR3-1333 RAM, since faster RAM makes no difference look for the slowest timings possible, you might safe a few dollars I think you would notice that! It's true that faster RAM than DDR3-1600 doesn't show up so much in gaming benchmarks, but that's understandable. Gaming benchmarks are more about the GPU. When it comes to system RAM based applications, the faster RAM can be of benefit. Since the only reason to got to 32 GB would be for running RAM intensive applications, DDR3-2133 with good timings would be advantageous. Maybe not massively so, but enough to show in benchmarks. Also keep in mind if looking up any benchmarks of RAM speeds to only look at those on the Ivy-Bridge platform (i5/i7-3xxx AND Z77) or later, since earlier platforms don't show the same benefits. Many of the comparative benchmarks out there are for the Sandy-Bridge platform so aren't representative of what actually happens with the later processors.
This is true i rather have stable ram speeds @ 1600 mhz then 1866 or 2133 and get random bsods. On my mainbord anything above 1600 is an overclock so i rather not.
On any motherboard anything above 1600 is technically an overclock. In fact, getting 4x8 GB 2133 RAM is considerably safer than trying to run 8x4 GB at 1600. You would have to be extremely unlucky to run in to any issues with 2133, especially if your bios is up to date. Worst case you can run your 2133 at 1600, 2133 RAM is so similar in price there's no point not getting it.
I had similar problems with the Bang Bang Xpower x58 mainbord, bord was getting unstable after a while with 1600 mhz for some reason, so i needed to put it on 1333 to let it stable. I think same thing goes with this bord anything higher then 1600 can cause instability problems, if not tuned right, so i rather not, and performance wise its not a really a big leap, hell ddr 1600 vs 2133 is like 1 to 3% performance win, not worth the upgrade imho. Maybe maybe 1866 will turn out good as the CPU supports it, but i dont know man risky stuff.
The X58 situation is different, the benefit only started from Ivy Bridge CPU's and Z77 (and X79). Like I said, you can always run it at 1600 absolute worst case! Or even 1866. Are you running BIOS v2.7? If you're really concerned, try running RAM on the OC memory compatibility list: http://www.msi.com/support/mb/Big_BangXPower_II.html#support-ocmem As you can see, it can even run 2400 RAM. Notice on the right hand side it says whether it's fully qualified to run 4 DIMM's or 8 DIMM's at that speed and module type. Plenty of 2133 8GB DIMM options there for you. If you look at the standard list: http://www.msi.com/support/mb/Big_BangXPower_II.html#support-mem Yours isn't even there! But if you look at the number of DIMMS supported, you will see most don't support 8 DIMM's, and the Corsair only supports 4. Because it's a high end motherboard they went for compatibility with performance parts, not standard/mainstream parts. Your current RAM is very much mainstream oriented.
You aren't missing anything going from 1600 to 1866. I went from 1600 to 2133 and didn't notice a difference. I went 2133 cus it was just a few bucks more than slower ram.
Going by the compatibility list on their website, it looks like there's better compatibility with 2133 RAM etc than 1600. In fact, his RAM is really only qualified for 4 DIMM's it seems, so he is almost obliged to get 4x8 GB instead. Why not go for 2133 RAM, especially if it's the one from the qualification list? 2133 RAM will have better saleability in a couple of years for the next upgrade.