1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Kingston HyperX Blu DDR3 1333MHz -- worth upgrading?

By Schmutz ยท 4 replies
Jan 1, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. I used Kingston HyperX blu 4GB memory (4x = 16GB total) for my desktop upgrade 6 months ago.

    I am curious if there is superior RAM out there. I don't refer to a 0-5% improvement. Is there significantly better RAM available for my setup? (lets say 15%+ faster than what I use)

    I am constantly in Adobe After Effects eating up all of my memory. I also multi-task frequently switching between memory intense programs. I will squeeze every bit of performance out of faster memory.

    Here is my configuration:

    i7 2600K @ 4.4Ghz
    ASRock extreme4 Motherboard
    16GB RAM (4x 4GB HyperX blu DDR3 1333MHz)
    2x Gigabyte 560ti SLI
    Crucial M4 128GB SSD
    Windows 7 64bit

    When I upgraded I was advised to go with 1333MHz. Is there significant performance to be had beyond this? It is an inexpensive area to upgrade so I am very curious.
  2. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,415   +145

    Not at all worth upgrading IMO.
  3. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,047   +4,769

    This is confusing. You mention your applications eating up all your ram and then finish with a statement about memory speed. Size and speed are two different things.

    If your applications are 32-bit, there will be a limit of 4GB that the application can use regardless of how much memory you have. Sure you can get faster RAM but that has nothing to do with how much memory you need for your applications to run.

    I noticed you are Over-clocking your CPU. Are you also Over-clocking (or plan too) your memory?
  4. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,840   +1,267

    In absolute terms? Yes
    Not really. A quad (matched) 16GB kit is exceedingly more expensive at any timings other than standard binning (9-9-9-24 / 9-9-9-27) than a dual-module or lower density (2GB module) kits. Moving to CL8 would likely be triple the cost of CL9
    Then latency isn't the problem. Look at a 32GB kit if time is that pressing
    Then get high bandwidth 32GB. Use the higher bandwidth or slacken the speed and tighten up the timings (see the trade offs here). Problem solved.
    Bear in mind that LGA1155 is usually RAM limited to 32GB.

    In general terms, what you were told regarding 1333 is correct. On a performance/price basis, 1333 is hard to beat. 1600 as it becomes more mainstream also becomes relatively inexpensive, but unless you're willing to pay a high premium for an incremental increase in performance then 1333 will suffice -both as 4GB and 8GB density modules.
  5. Schmutz

    Schmutz TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 124

    thanks. I was curious if there was an opportunity to get more performance because I noticed 1333MHz/1600MHz memory is incredibly cheap.

    "I am constantly in Adobe After Effects eating up all of my memory"

    Opps, this has led to a lot of misunderstanding, sorry. I realise this would be a size related problem. I wrote that to justify why I installed 16GB. I was only interested in discussing faster performing RAM.

    Well, on the subject of faster performance there isn't much worth considering then. I am surprised to see 4x 8GB kits are out there. Will definitely invest when it becomes more mainstream/I can find it in the UK!

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...