16GB DDR3 1600Mhz OR 8GB DDR3 1866Mhz RAM?

Quick question...hopefully...

Which is better to get?

1) 16GB - DDR3 1600MHz Dual Channel Memory (4 SODIMMS)

OR

2) 8GB - DDR3 1866MHz Dual Channel Memory (2 SODIMMS)

I am a 3D artist and am purchasing a new laptop to function as my primary workstation. I will need to render (for several hours at a time) and run particle and fluid simulations. I'm customizing a new laptop, but when I got to the RAM choices I wasn't sure if the higher Mhz (1866) would be equivalent to more RAM (16) at a lower Mhz (1600.)

Any info is much appreciated!

 

If your work involves low memory usage, the 1866MHz RAM will be a little faster. However, if your work could use more than 8 GB of RAM then the excess will be handled by a pagefile, which is much slower than any DDR3 RAM, whereas 16 GB of slightly slower RAM would not have to resort to that and thus offer faster overall performance.

I don't know much about 3D rendering and particle simulations, but my guess is that they would take advantage of more than 8GB.

You might also consider getting the minimum RAM option factory-installed and buying 16 GB of 1600/1866 DDR3 and installing it yourself. A lot of the time that will save you tens or even hundreds of dollars.

Oh, and depending on what CPU you're getting, it may or may not be able to use RAM at speeds over 1600MHz, so that's worth asking about as well.

 

I add that you can buy Corsair 1600 RAM and OC it to 1866. But even without OCing Corsair iss the fastest 1600 ram. 44 bucks on Amazon for 8gb now. grab till you can.

 

Depending on the extent of your usage, 3D modeling and rendering can take advantage of more than 8Gb.

Higher frequency RAM sticks can even hardly make a difference in benchmarks(usually 1-5%) compared to lower frequency sticks, in real world scenario, the difference will be a lot smaller than that, there is no way you can perceive such a miniscule difference. 16Gb RAM will give you far more benefit if your 8GB RAM ever runs low.

If you going to do lots of 3d modeling/rendering, fluid/particle simulation, make sure you get a i7 quad core(model number ends with QM, like i7-2630qm, i7-2670qm), they will significantly hasten the rendering process, as well as helping the simulation.

 

16 GB 1600MHz for shure.

You won`t have any performance increase at all with going from 1600 to 1866MHz RAM. 3D software take a huge toll on RAM which means that more RAM is always better.

 

I vote for 16GB as well, even if your modeling software isn't that much of a RAM hog (it'll be a RAM hog, but how much will vary), you won't have to close your other apps just for the software to run properly.

Particle and fluid simulations are definitely RAM hogs, depending on the software you use and precision you need/want you can easily use up most of 16GB. I mean i went over 12GB just by simulating a rectangular duct once because i had an insanely fine mesh. That's a bit extreme, but should you ever find yourself in a similar case, you'll appreciate the extra RAM or you'll have to go through the trouble of finding a lighter solver algorithm.

 

Corsair or Kingston XMP 1600 and flash to 1866MHz

 

Thank you everyone for the information. One of the things I love about this board is that I can always find quick, reliable information.

I do have three other questions. I did plan on buying the min RAM set and then purchasing the RAM I want and installing it myself. One of the other options for RAM is to bump it up to 32GB of 1600Mhz with 4 sodimms. I figured that if I had the option to buy 32GB of RAM then the CPU I chose should be able to run it. So for my question...

Would you go with:
Mushkin Enhanced Essentials 16GB (2 x 8G) 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1333

OR

CORSAIR 16GB (2 x 8G) 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1333

btw...is laptop memory 204 pin and desktop RAM 240pin?

Last question:

I was wondering about which one to get and haven't followed notebook CPU's since I bought my last notebook 4 years ago. I want to obviously get the best value, but don't want to overspend hundreds of dollars if I will only see a small fraction of improvement.

I had decided to get this one until I read lidowxx's post:
2nd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-2670QM, 2.2-3.1GHz, (32nm, 6MB L3 cache)

But I'd like to know if getting this one is really worth $160 more?
2nd Generation Intel® Core™ i7-2760QM, 2.4-3.5GHz, (32nm, 6MB L3 cache)

I was thinking all along that more RAM would be the answer instead of faster and less RAM so I'm glad that I was on the right path.

As always...thanks again for any info you can provide.

 

Unless you need the extra features provided by the 2760qm or the few minutes per hour of rendering that you'd save are enough to justify the cost, then yes. Otherwise, stick to the 2670qm.

 

Great! I think that I have all of my questions answered for now.

I sent an email a few days ago to Sager asking them if they were going to release any new notebooks in the next couple of months. I received a reply a few minutes ago from them saying that they would be in April. So I'm going to wait to make my purchase until I can see what they release. Otherwise, I'm ready to go.

Thanks again to everyone who responded.

 

how complex are the 3d animations you do? when i was using after effects cs5.5 with fluid simulations it rendered painfully slow on my cpu which i basically equivalent to the 2670qm you are planning to get.

if you are using this for work and have the technical know how to use it, you may want to consider getting an extreme edition laptop cpu, and overclocking it. you will basically have desktop performance in a laptop making it a true workstation. imho, the difference between the price of a 2920xm (or its replacement, the 2960xm) as compared to the 2670qm is well worth it in your situation.

 

When it comes to animation the GPU is most important since it can significantly improve rendering times as well as dramatically boost real time effects. Get the best GPU you can afford; and the more RAM the better.

 

Most 3d programs need to support CUDA technology in order to switch rendering over to the GPU in the first place - which leaves the OP with Nvidia since developers won't even touch AMD as of yet.

As for RAM, get the cheapest option with most RAM (16GB most definitely).

 

My 3D work varies in complexity so it's really a difficult question to answer. I've been able to model, texture, render, and simulate on my current laptop pretty well and it's a centrino 2 with a 900m graphics card and 4GB of RAM. Where I see it come to a halt is when I try to open certain projects that are several million poly's with full hi-res textures. I have one environment that I've been trying to render and am having to do it in small sections. It's pretty frustrating.

I built a great workstation (desktop) about a year ago and it's incredibly fast, but I haven't been able to use it much due to an injury and I have had to use my laptop instead. Also, I primarily need this new laptop to remain mobile, but with power, so I need to find a compromise. I'm leaving the country and don't know when I'll have access to my desktop again.

I'm just going to wait now to see what Sager releases in April and then make my purchase after that.

 

You don't have to wait (unless you're a fan of Sager?), as there are plenty of machines that will satisfy all your needs on the market right now.

Just pick a workstation that can support a CUDA card and you shouldn't have any problems.

 

Sager or not there's no point in buying the 1866MHz RAM if the laptop you end up buying has the overclocking options in its BIOS/UEFI to go above the standard 1600MHz DDR3 level in high-end 2nd generation Intel i7 mobile CPU's.

If you're an artist then the GPU is first and foremost with CPU and RAM in 2nd and 3rd (close) place. Depending on the type of artist you are. i.e. CAD then you're better off with a Quadro/FireGL rather than standard GeForce/Radeon GPU.

If given the choice I would go 16GB PC3-12800.

 

A quadro card won't do anything for render times (only viewports) unless the software used can offload rendering to the gpu in order to significantly expedite the process, plus it will be far more expensive compared to a gaming gpu.
My advice would be not to mess around with 'pro cards' (seeing how they are merely modified gaming gpu's anyway with exact specs that have been optimized to use OpenGL).

I'd rather go with 16GB 1600MhZ RAM (faster RAM won't show anything in terms of performance gain - and even now, it's better you get 8GB in 2x4 sticks and upgrade by buying 2x4 GB sticks yourself seeing as that option is cheaper), an Nvidia CUDA gpu such as the GTX 580M, and a relatively decent SB quad core to boot.

Given that new gpu's are quite literally right around the corner (which should be released with IB cpu's), my advice would be to wait and see how much of an increase in performance they'll bring over the current generation and then decide if they are worth buying.
The CPU alone will be only 10% increase in performance over the current SB generation with slightly better efficiency - so that much is not worth the trouble.

 

How urgent is this laptop? Can it wait? Can you wait til Ivy bridge? Another question to consider.

 

From what I read and heard IB is more then 10% it is 20-30% I thought. Also definitely those new gpus will be way better. Especially, with both new designs it'll offer better performance and lower heat.

 

Newegg.com - Official Newegg Promo Codes, Coupon Code, Coupons, Discounts, Promotions, Free Shipping Codes

49 bucks for a 8 gig stick of geil

 

CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (2 x 8G) 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Laptop Memory
Free 8G USB drive with purchase!
$169.99
Your Price: $143.99
With Promo Code
EMCNGHH27

This looks better

 

mine is 50% cheaper and he needs 4 sticks....

plus 8 gig usb drive is useless. if you dont at least buy a 32g your not the brightest apple on the tree. At this point you might as well get a 64gig stick because they are super cheap now...plus faster

 

Really?

They're not all created equal:

Amazon.com: Kingston Digital HyperX 3.0 DataTraveler (DTHX30/64GB): Computers & Accessories

 

over priced


Newegg.com - Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, LED LCD TV, Digital Cameras and more!

Adata's are very good. plus afforable. unless you need every little MBs go ahead and waste your money.

EDIT:
(Also the Adata 64 gig is like 105 bucks...cheaper and faster) scratch that its cheape but not as fast. I thought i read 135 read. My bad.

my S102 is on the slower side but you can get it for 35-40 bucks on a sale on newegg. They always have it on sale. Performance is more like 50 write and 20-30 read in reality

 

In this case I will give you US shipping address so you could send me all flash drives up to 8GB you have and I will pay shipping cost. Deal?

 

i got a couple 4 gig ones but no 8 gig. PM me and address and send me the money for shipping through paypal and i'll give you my 4 gig one.

 

IB as such offers barely in between 5% to 10% higher performance clock per clock, and the base version will probably be clocked 100MhZ or 200MhZ higher... so overall, the gain might top off at 20%

20% is NOTHING.
You won't feel it in games.
The only place you might see the difference is 3d rendering, and even there it will be minimal (in other words, not worth the premium price tag).

As for the new gpu's... make no mistake, only the mid-range ones are seeing 50% to 70% performance increase in benchmarks (while real-world testing such as games have been telling us a different story).

To top it off, the high-end mobile gpu's will be within 5% of performance gain of current generation.
Kepler is actually worse performance-wise than Fermi, but it's more efficient.

To sum up... going with a SB quad core, a GTX 570M and 16GB of RAM would in no way be a downgrade (or definitely not one that people would feel).

Though sure, if you are getting a new computer and you can get latest hardware at a bargain, then go for it.
I just wouldn't do it if the new system will be overcharged in terms of value (and both Intel/Nvidia have a tendency to do that) when you can get the 'previous generation' for much less.

 

Did you see what is written in the 1st post ?

Spoiler

I am a 3D artist and am purchasing a new laptop to function as my primary workstation. I will need to render (for several hours at a time) and run particle and fluid simulations. I'm customizing a new laptop, but when I got to the RAM choices I wasn't sure if the higher Mhz (1866) would be equivalent to more RAM (16) at a lower Mhz (1600.)

Any info is much appreciated!

 

i am no expert in this matter but i dont think there will be much of a gain worth the moneyeven between 1333-1866. Synthetic sure but in reality i doubt he would save much time for couple extra hundred bucks

 

James was refering to Deks comment about Ivy Bridge, not about the RAM, i'd say.

 

16 GB of 1600 MHz RAM is a much better choice - you have to consider they'll be running in dual channel mode, which further makes up for the speed difference. Plus, twice the RAM is more useful in general than a small increase in top speed.

Also, as far as I remember, the 2670qm only supports 1333 MHz RAM, you'll need the 2720qm or higher for 1600 MHz RAM. But I may be wrong about that...

 

Go fo 16G and 1866 and u have highest and fastest option

 

cost another 100-200 bucks....

@jotm all ram is duel channel....You mean triple channel? I know there are a couple notbooks that have triple channel but does this one have it?

 

buy then 16g 1600 same perform.

 

if you plan on doing(even 720p) any hd work i strongly recommend buying the best cpu you can afford. its not only a matter of rendering speed, it will also be difficult to preview a complex hd project if the cpu is not up to task. this can make editing a serious pain. you will probably have to edit in wirefram mode, etc.
but as others have suggested, buy as much ram as possible, 16 gig, as ram is so cheap. but this ram will basically be waiting on a bottlenecked cpu if its (cpu) not up to task.

 

I'm a 3d artist as well and I can tell you that 20% is MINIMAL gain.
SB would be enough for his needs.
To top it all off, have you even seen the benchmarks of the newest gpu's?
Most gain has been seen in the mid-range segment (real-world use though was much less than the benches) and high-end solutions seem to be renamed old hardware. OVERHYPED!!!

But as I said, if he can get IB at a respectable price without being ripped off in the process (which is exactly what manufacturers will be doing), then sure, he should go for it... but for the love of man, do NOT say that 20% is 'huge' gain (because it's insulting to common sense).
Render times will be affected in a minimal capacity (or are you going to tell me that 5 to 8 seconds less waiting for a high quality picture to render is going to kill you?).

Seriously... I feel the urge to weep because people's perceptions of technology went into bust.
And for what?
Just because companies can make more money out of simple revisions and minor bumps while advertising it as something huge (and you buying into it) when all of that technology is at least a decade old?
Scraps... that's what it came down to.
If this is what people associate with 'progress', I have to say... it's downright sad.

 

I meant that 1x4 GB stick of 1600 MHz RAM is single channel and slower than 1x 4GB stick of 1866 MHz (though really not by much), while 2x2 GB sticks of 1600 MHz RAM is dual channel and actually faster than 1x4 GB of 1866 MHz RAM.

Obviously, 2x2 GB 1866 MHz RAM is again a bit faster, but with dual channel, you'll probably never reach the point where RAM is the bottleneck, even with 1066 or 1333 MHz sticks - the CPU or graphics adapter will be overloaded long before that...

 

I feel skeptical about ignoring 20% increase but in any case if he waits for new version of Clevo and IB release he may get either faster laptop with better mobility (power savings technology) or get older version for cheap.

Every person is unique. And his needs too.

 

It is exactly the reason why the 20% gain (if that) SHOULD be ignored.
People treat it as a big thing when it's not. Buying into the advertisement hype is just calling for trouble (and disappointment).

The OP is doing 3d art... not much power-saving with that at the cpu (and possibly the gpu) working on full load.
Oh and let's not forget that such intense workload has a tendency to kill the pathetic excuse we have as 'batteries' (which haven't seen advancement in roughly 2 decades) rather fast - while the screen remains the biggest power sucker of all the hardware in a laptop.

To top it all off, the latest nvidia GPU 640m demonstrated aptness for overheating (or reaching 93 to 97 deg C under full load coupled with an ULV IB cpu) - which is simply speaking 'not-acceptable'.
Granted, that was one case, and we don't know which other factors contributed to it, but until we have more information, I would advise the OP to wait and not jump the gun.

 

so my point is accurate than. Get the 16 gigs of 1333. It'll only cost you 200 bucks compared to how much 1600 or 1866. plus i dont think IB supports 1866 anyways...or even MBs

 

I agree on the RAM thing.
1333MhZ type RAM will be a cheaper option than 1600 (unless you can get 1600 for the same price) and performance will NOT be affected even if you jump from 1333MhZ to 1866MhZ.

Stick to the cheaper option and just upgrade the RAM yourself (that will be much cheaper than having manufacturers do it for you).

 

though on your statement about 20% increase...it all depends on how big on projects he is doing. If he is having 10 min wait times then 20% will matter a lot. but if he is not having any wait times and doing smaller projects then IB wont matter that much. Now if he is going to be getting a pause here and pause there because SB is just a hair too slow then IB will give him a fluid experience and IB would be better. It all depends on how demanding of project he is doing.

 

He said he's doing multi-hour renders. Every bit of speed helps with that. It can turn a two day project into a single day.

More RAM is better than faster RAM, especially for the OP's uses. The RAM speed will give a 1-5% difference in performance at most, as most things are not limited by RAM speed, and even if the renders don't use all that RAM, multitasking heavy apps like that quite possibly will.

Get as many cores as you can on the CPU, and then go for faster cores within your budget.

But honestly, getting a dedicated desktop rendering station and a less expensive laptop that's "good enough" would probably be the best idea IMNSHO. That way he can keep working while the desktop is doing heavy renders. It will also allow much faster GPUs for OpenCL/CUDA/shader accelerated renders.

 

sorry i didn't remember he said that. Either way we both are right

 

Agreed on the meaningless gain of 20%: Twenty percent of a million dollars vs twenty percent of twenty dollars? Only your bank would be interested.

 

If you all were right then no one would buy any CPU higher than 2720QM.

What you say is your own opinion and most of people want the best even if it cost little bit more than we would want.

 

But most people if anything don't even buy the 2720QM.
They got the 2630QM (and later the revision that replaced it - 2670QM), unless the faster cpu was same in price or was by $50 more expensive (which was RARE... in most cases, Intel way overcharged for the minor bump in speed and people steered clear of them).
Look at the amount of threads people being advised on getting the cheaper option because the small bump in speed does not make for a good 'value' - even in cpu intense programs.

Furthermore, majority of those who got the higher clocked quad cpus were in the very small minority and were interested in overclocking them because they came with unlocked multipliers -and those cpu's cost a lot.

Also... even if you have a project that renders for 2 days on a SB,... IB would only take out less that 10 hours off that time table - not a whole day (so check your math)... and as I already said, for the base model, the difference is going to be in mere 15% (not 20 or 30) because the bump in clock speed will be by 100MhZ, and clock-per-clock ratio would be up to 10% faster (I said UP TO).

And, would you seriously pay $250 more for 15% because most of the work is going to be short handed and longer term projects will be done on a sparser basis?
I wouldn't.

If you have deep pockets, sure, go right ahead, but mostly, it's not worth it.

Finally, I maintain that the OP should wait until we have more serious testing done to see what kind of real performance increase will happen, plus the temperatures, etc.
I would hate to get a product that offers 15% more in performance over the present generation while creating much more heat in the process during workload (which the new 6xxx gpu's from Nvidia seem to do while effectively not offering anything new in the higher-end section - only in the mid-range - this was evident with a ULV IB model on top of everything else).

 

Are you seriously telling me that (using your example) 10 hours of couple days work is not enough? Because if you are then there is no point to talk with you about this. I don't need to count smth to know what is 20%. I was ready to pay more for 9% increase or so in 2 threaded apps going for 820qm instead of 740qm.

Why don't you understand that telling everyone that we don't need smth is useless because many people know that they need it. With your kind of thinking we would still have laptops which can't candle MS2010 while for our work we would use only desktops.

Btw People buy laptops with low cost i7 because shops sell such mainstream laptops. then people go and upgrade it in a year later (cpus if they are tech skilled and laptops if they are not).

anyway this is stupid to continue. I remember people who told that new I-core CPUs are just marketing and we don't need it. Then same people told about 2nd gen I-core cpus. Now same people ... about IB. Same bout 1600 mhz RAM. Then 1866. While DDR4 now is been created.
I am not going to talk with you guys today and in this thread furthermore.

 

Guys, sorry to butt in here but why is this even being debated?

For the 1866MHz DDR3 to have any meaning whatsoever thus performance influence the CPU needs to be able to set its speed to 1866MHz and not a maximum of 1600MHz unless the DMI is overclocked and/or the strap is changed. Because 98% of laptops don't even have BIOS/UEFI's that allow overclocking what's the point of arguing? If you add on the 8GB restriction rather than the 16GB if sticking with PC3-12800 DDR3 then there's even less reason for debacle.

So why argue like this?

 

If somone is a bit smart it's not about deep pockets ... it's working with less money
You need research and buy as cheapest as possible..
And all replaced parts sell quickly possible .. to get most of monies cos hardware getting cheaper and cheaper every day

I bought 2860qm for£300 (normally is £470 or £500 minus my old ones 2630 and 2820 so I sold them and purchased 2860 ..)
Then I purchased 16GB corsair £150 (I had 1333 8GB ram and I sold it. I had kingston 8GB 1866 and I sold it sold
and m4 cost me £100 six months ago ..
So it can be done cheaper ..