I don't think this takes a monster machine to get benefit from.

58 versus 62 FPS is actually pretty significant overall, but we are talking about a 980ti.

I assume any money spent after you have the top end graphics card is what we are talking about now.

If not, absolutely put that 30 quid into consideration for a higher GFX card.

As for a higher CPU, there is probably lower returns on a CPU as compared to RAM.

An i5 6600k versus an i7 6700k almost surely benefits more from the £30 in Ram as compared to £30 in CPU upgrade (The difference is nearly £120 quid I think between i5 and i7).

It's just something people need to consider. 4fps is still a 7% performance boost (final slides, comparing 2133 to 4000).

Not to mention, the magical '60 fps' number is pretty big for game play smoothness.

Yes but you need to already have the most expensive fastest hardware is really what I said. In such a system the cost of RAM represents a much smaller amount relative to the overall system cost anyway, so it is justifiable.

On anything less than that monster machine however the £30 is better off toward a higher model CPU or GPU.

Good spot. Might pick some up for a future AM4 build.

Absolutely agree. As I said, we *may* be talking about it. We have to see how the next gen cards + lower CPU overhead actually push the next bottleneck to.

Heck, look at the cost difference between the 1070 and 1080. Nearly 60% more expensive for what is reported as 20% faster.

20% translates to 25 FPS in CoD. While going from 2133 to 4000 gives you 20 FPS, for a much lower cost.

I think you are underestimating just how big of difference we do see in all of the games.

We're talking a much smaller amount of money for pretty decent gains, snobbing off results as 'only 4% or only 7%' is crazy, when we are talking about only 30 quid!

Has decreased to £39.99 today.....

I'll soon be selling 2x8gb G.Skill Trident Z 3200mhz if any one is interested.
I'm upgrading to 2x16gb

Clarify? Certainly 12 percent memory clock speed gains which don't translate in 12 percent better system performance aren't worth the extra £30 when you would see greater gains if you invested that money into an altogether better CPU model or GPU model or possibly something else useful.

The above graph represents the most anomalous result found on memory performance in games, not typical. It also required the most powerful i7 6700k CPU and hugely powerful SLI GPU setup.

Tested on a single still very powerful GPU (lone 980ti) memory speed made virtually zero difference on the Skylake platform for the same games.

Considering the cost of 'just 12 percent' for graphics cards upgrades... 30 quid is an absolute bargain.

We may be talking about 'putting more money to your RAM budget' instead of GPU budget for the biggest framerate gains.

Silly question, are these good for a 2012 Macbook Pro?

Back up to £57 now, just as I was about to pull the trigger. Expired.

I've mentioned this before also, 3000 seems to be the sweet spot. If you can find a pair of 2400 or so and OC them to 3000 you're good to go (if looking for cheap RAM that is)

I have this board and have no complaints about it so far but unfortunately the price hasn't come down at all since I bought it 6 months ago. In fact it was a better offer when I bought it because it came with a free steelseries headset and a code for rainbow six siege.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B012EHP7ZE/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1465197200&sr=8-1&pi=SX200_QL40&keywords=gaming+m5&dpPl=1&dpID=51GHWmx2KZL&ref=plSrch

Why would you buy a CPU like that and then look for a crappy board to go with it? That CPU is designed to be tinkered with and overclocked and you can't really do those things on a budget board.

Fallout 4 is definitely the exception rather than the rule though. Most other titles you're nearly doubling the memory clockspeed from these jedec 2133 up to 4ghz modules but adding just 5-10 percent to minimums in most gaming scenarios.

The price sweet spot is I think what I said for this moment in history. You can now get 3200mhz 16gb kits for under £70, but it's very difficult to find even 3466mhz kits for less than £90 and the performance difference is next to nothing. 3600mhz is about £100.

2133 to 3200 costs £18 more for a 16GB kit but you gain 50 percent more clockspeed at a basic level.

3200 to 3600 costs £30 more but you gain like what, 12 percent?

Any more speed than even this and the prices start to go even more crazy like most high end stuff, doesn't seem worth the money for RAM. Spend it elsewhere to find frames.

Any budget ATX boards for the i5 6600k?

Macs will get DDR4 in 2021 only it will be rebranded as Thunder iMemory and will cost £100 for a 4gb stick.

NO

DDR4 which didn't exist in consumer products in 2012 and was only using in sample tests in enterprise equipment in 2012. The other issue is this is desktop RAM and not laptop RAM.

Therefore taking the above in to consideration, this is absolutely and definitely no way ever compatible with a Macbook Pro 2012. Also I'm not aware of any Mac products being DDR4 compatible yet.

No not compatible :smiley:

Skylake actually benefits more from faster RAM than any other recent Intel architecture. It can make a huge difference in more demanding games, both to minimum and average framerates. Fallout 4 is one example of a game that loves memory bandwidth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er_Fuz54U0Y
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

OcUK have the 2400mhz version at £47.99, better deal for those with free delivery.

I bought some Corsair 16GB 3200mhz for £67 last week. DDR4 has come down a lot now.

I think the price of 3200mhz is currently the sweet spot, because it's the fastest you can get before the price jacks up like another £20+ on top of those modules for just another ~200mhz.

Saying that with the likes of Skylake memory speed isn't a massive differentiator, but it is nice knowing there is a lot of CPU bandwidth in the machine.

Yep. Silly question.

Are these twice as fast as my DDR2s?