Does 3000mhz ram run hotter than 2400mhz?

I currently have a laptop that came with 1 16gb stick of 3000mhz ram. Ideally I don't want to do anything that would noticeably increase the overall temperature of the laptop. I am wondering which of the following option would be best -

1. Add another 16gb stick of 3000mhz ram.
2. Replace the 16gb stick with 2 8gb @ 2400mhz.
3. If dual channel ram is more about performance gains during benchmarks as opposed to noticeable framerate increases in games, I am ok keeping the setup as is.

I guess my question is, what would be the general difference in temperature, if any, between having 2 sticks at 3000mhz vs 2 sticks at 2400mhz?

 

It'll make the CPU run hotter due to more stress on the IMC, however the CPU will be doing more work at the same time.

Dual channel makes a huge difference in many games such as the Battlefield series, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, The Division 2, Witcher 3, Watch Dogs 2, Assassin’s Creed, etc. If a game is CPU-intensive, there’s a good chance it benefits from the increased bandwidth.

 

I don't think 1C or so would be enough to keep you from not putting in another 16GB 3000MHz stick.

With more capable hardware, if you're running a continuous load, yes, it may be a few degrees warmer.

If you're running a given/identical productivity-based load (i.e. convert 1,000 RAW image files to jpg) then the load may spike higher, but it will drop back towards ambient much sooner too.

In my experience, I always max out the platforms I use with the most RAM I can buy at any given time and also buy the fastest RAM too, even if the higher spec'd RAM is not nominally made for the platform I use it on.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...p-screenshots-appreciate.699186/#post-8976613

Faster, bigger is better. I don't notice an appreciable difference in battery life or higher temps. A few minutes less or a couple of C higher is nothing when the better RAM nets me increased productivity and responsiveness too.

These types of improvements can't usually be measured (or, when they are, they seem negligible), but I feel them and I see the benefits they offer too.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/ahci-vs-raid-performance-test.828139/

The above link is an example of what I 'feel'. But an objective one.

I have stated in other threads that a clean install in RAID is much preferred over AHCI because it is noticeably snappier to me - even when run with no RAID arrays at all. Others said that not only is boot time slower with RAID vs. AHCI, but it will be slower because it's 'RAID'.

Well, thanks to @Ultra Male, my statements have been proven (via a third party, thanks UM!) once again.