Asus UX32VD put in 10GB 1600MHz RAM

OK so mine came with 10GB but because a free upgrade Xotic put in a 1333MHz 8GB SoDimm. So I spent about $40 and bought a 1600MHz low voltage (1.35v) 8GB SoDimm.

I am happy with my upgrade but not really much of a performance boost. I am happy spending what for me not really much money to get a very incremental boost. Say 8% at best and 0% on some. I found the single SoDimm does close enough it really looks like a bad "Dual" Channel implimentation. I even set up so 4GB was a RAMDisk to get greater pairing and that had little effect with the 10GB.

I paid nothing for original 10GB upgrade. I spent $40 for the full speed 10GB and I get lower voltage. I am cool with it. But if anyone got the same free upgrade as I did not sure 1600MHz makes any difference in realworld performance.11.xxGB/s vs 12xxGB/s.

I dig my Zenbook. My last notebook was a G73JH bought when they were on back order. I love the size/mobility/performance of this. I liked the G73 but mobility has become King for me.

Just thought I would share.

 

I am even surprised if you could notice a performance boost moving from 1333 to 1600. General consensus is that the user would notice performance boost by increasing the amount of ram which didn't change in your case (10GB). I upgraded mine from 6GB to 10GB. The aextra ram is helpful for ram demanding applications such as Photoshop, etc.

On the positive side, you can sell the original ram for about the same price as the new one on Ebay. So you won't lose much money. I bought the new 8GB module for $40 and sold the 4GB that came with the laptop for $20.

 

Each revision of DDR has slower latency timings. So even though the data rate, bit time, command rate, etc. is faster, the access time/latency is slower from DDR to DDR2, and even slower from DDR2 to DDR3.

Too bad RAMBUS didn't make the cut.

 

OK I will run with that but........ No it is not "per se" yes the Cas and the few after it do suffer a very slight latency hits. But the cumulative effect is far exceeded. What I mean by that is lets say for CAS, a request goes out. Sure it will be slightly faster on the 1333/CL9 vs 1600/CL11 but once that starts the speed takes over. To simplify or maybe exemplify it is similar to sequential reads vs random reads on disks. Higher speed wins for sequential. Not sure how to create the random that in theory slower lower latencey would have advantage.

To put more clearly. DDR with low latency clearly loses. Each request is not going out for one "bit"? If it was then yes lower CL would be king and it is not. The gained advantage of increased speed is realised when the actual transfer happens.

You in no way are trying to say DDR is better than DDR3 because of lower latencey? Of course you aren't. But if you aren't than what are you saying and why are you bringing it up?

We are talking about two units of RAM from the same class (DDR3). 1333/9=148, 1600/11=145, this is inverse so higher is better. All that said I find thos to be very small and speed does win. Even as I got 13GB range vs 11'ish in a synthetic bench. I did and do have interest in the fact that 20GB is done on notebooks with my 1600MHz RAM. And I said the chipset likely is the issue. It certainly restrains all speeds so not so much an "us against" them mindset. More of an observation.

Pro Star I actually have concern on your post insofar as slower should be expressed as "lower" and further you saying command rate is faster is maybe beyond ambigious and maybe even flat out incorrect.

That said I do want to hear all you guys think because I am still trying to figure things out myself. SSD's are my latest issue.

 

I did type "slower" rather than "lower", didn't I? I apologize for the confusion for the typo. I was trying to express simply that DDR has lower CAS than subsequent revisions. And yes, I am aware that clock frequency/data transfer speeds render tighter timings in older revisions somewhat moot.

On the subject of command rate, I'm going to go with "ambiguous", since the performance differences between T1 and T2 are subtle, and vary (albeit mildly) depending on application use ( The difference between memory T1 and T2 - AnandTech Forums).

- source

 

I understand that the 2GB ram soldered on the Mother board is a 1333MHZ .. and that any new 1600MHZ RAM upgrade on the ram slot would be automatically downgraded to 1333MHZ .. is that correct?

 

Yes... Ivybridge only uses 1333mhz

 

I don't think it's a limitation of Ivy Bridge (see specifications here). The memory controller that's built into i5 and i7 Ivy Bridge CPUs at least, should support up to 1600 MHz.

 

Ivy bridge supports 1600MHz, Sandy bridge supports 1333MHz. The soldered is 1600MHz. Mine runs at 1600MHz.

 

NM, it is running 1600 MHZ.

I dunno why I read 1333mhz