Quote:

---

There's nothing there in Cas 7 that's not designed for Sandy bridge. They also don't list any AMD motherboards on the approved list for the 1600 Cas 7, only cas 9. Everything listed is for Intel!

---

Originally posted by Estuansis:

---

Nonono Russ specifically meaning CAS 9 RAM. The CAS 7 stuff is way more expensive. Was personally looking around for RAM for AM3 and noticed that the 1600MHz CAS9 RipJaws were only a few bucks more than the 1333MHz ones. Higher speed at the same latency, is a no brainer in my book.

---

Originally posted by N_3_Days:

---

As. I see omegaman7 has the F3-12800CL7D-4GBRM G.Skill. I wonder what his opinion would be on issue sense he has AM3 MB between 1333 and 1600 sticks.If your doin alittle gaming among other things. I would prefer 1600mhz cas 7 over any 1333mhz sticks when you got alittle Oc going on plus they give alittle more head room...and for $10 more you can't lose
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231303



Like Russ Said

Quote:

---

There's nothing there in Cas 7 that's not designed for Sandy bridge. They also don't list any AMD motherboards on the approved list for the 1600 Cas 7, only cas 9. Everything listed is for Intel!

---

As many have already said, if you use this RAM on an AMD system, you will need to set the timings manually and set voltage adjustments to run smooth. I believe you would be happier with 1600mhz starting out with a AM3 board instead of 1333mhz believe me. I started out with 1333mhz and wished. I brought 1600mhz instead when. I saw other peoples results...But it's your choice Russ

---

Originally posted by N_3_Days:

---

Russ. I think he's saying that case 7 , 1600mhz would be a better route to go for a few dollars more

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Estuansis: Nonono Russ specifically meaning CAS 9 RAM. The CAS 7 stuff is way more expensive. Was personally looking around for RAM for AM3 and noticed that the 1600MHz CAS9 RipJaws were only a few bucks more than the 1333MHz ones. Higher speed at the same latency, is a no brainer in my book.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Is there actual proof AMDs run badly on CAS9 memory? This is the first I've heard of this.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Is there actual proof AMDs run badly on CAS9 memory? This is the first I've heard of this.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Everything I've read in the past suggested memory latency only really matters for AMDs. I'm fine with CAS9, as there's nothing I do where I'd benefit from more memory response.

---

Quote:

---

Here is what he said! He was talking about Cas9 all the way, saying that the Cas7 was way more expensive, which it isn't!

---

Originally posted by Estuansis:

---

Quote:

---

Here is what he said! He was talking about Cas9 all the way, saying that the Cas7 was way more expensive, which it isn't!

---

There really is no reason not to jump up to higher speed RAM anyway, if they're all in the same general ballpark and you can benefit from it.

---

Originally posted by omegaman7:

---

I remember when I went from cas 3 to cas 2 in my older Pavilion in 2004. I thought it was a noticeable difference. But who knows. Perhaps the memory I replaced had errors :S

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Is it just me, or are the benchmarks for these CPUs really terrible? It's been pitted against a dual core Core i3 2100, and a lot of the time it loses, when it wins it's only 10-20% faster at best. Given the 100W TDP, and the fact that the i3 2100 is $15 cheaper, and is only a dual core, something seems a bit wrong here...

---