RAM brand mixing question

[spamseptictank]

I've been a member for a while, but haven't posted much (if at all) since I tend to lurk and learn from you guys. Thanks for the help.
Anyway, I recently built a new computer (my first time) to do voice work, audio editing, and some video editing (for fun), using the Ivy Bridge i7-3770, Biostar TZ77B mobo, 16GB DDR3 RAM, 1TB HDD, and 64GB SSD.
When I got the mobo, it came with a bonus: an 8GB Corsair Vengeance series stick. Hooray! Free RAM. (V) (O,,,,O) (V)

My question is: Since I need to use twin sticks (I remember something about EDO requiring that, too), do I need to use the same brand? Or can I spend less on a stick that has the same specs with little or no decrease in performance?

P.S. I've used the search and found old (2007) posts, but not anything that's new enough to help me.

[TheGreatSatan]

No, I would just stick to the same voltage and speed. Brand or capacity doesn't matter

[spamseptictank]

Thanks.

[Konrad]

Separate RAM sticks (usually) don't strictly need to be the same speed. Although the mobo will (almost always) bottleneck all RAM channels/banks at the slowest speed when mismatched components are used.

@YeOldeGreatSatan: I'd thought RAM would always be at the same voltage, assuming that it properly fits within the slot connector? Unless dealing with bizarre hybrid mobos, hardware haxx, and wild extreme overclocking and such stuff, of course.

[TheGreatSatan]

Most DDR3 running at 1333 will be 1.5V. When you get to 1600 it changes. Still most RAM, (Corsair, Crucial, Patriot, etc) will still run at 1.5V. Kingston however jumps to 1.65V, OCZ was the same when they still made RAM. Samsung low profile RAM runs at 1.2V and the new low profile RAM from Crucial runs at 1.35V.

They're not all the same.

Higher frequencies also mean looser latencies, but it doesn't really matter. DDR3 1066/PC3-8500 will have the lowest latencies, usually around 7. Mushkin has 1600MHz RAM with CL7, but at 1.65V. GSkill and Corsair have samplings of CL7 1600 at 1.5V. But you'll pay for it. Normal 8GB kits are around $35-40, but these are $80!

Some people will still come in and try to get the lowest latencies they can find, but in the grand scheme of things, you'll ony shave of milliseconds in your tasks.

You won't notice it.

If you have a SSD in your system, you won't see the MHz either. I only run SSD's, no mechanical drives, and run 32GB of 1333. Going to 1600 or even higher won't make a difference.

[Konrad]

Nice, and thx 4 teh info as always, +rep for anticipating and answering my questions ... amazing how quickly all those years of nerding become obsolete when you take a little break from the race. Or maybe I'm just going senile, which kinda sounds cool actually.

Kind of odd that a DDRn specification would permit different voltages in a way which isn't somehow physically keyed or backwards compatible, but hey, technologies and times change.

I'm not so sure I can readily agree that faster RAM has such a minimal impact. I suppose it depends on what you do with your computer and where the other bottlenecks are located in your particular hardware configuration ... even the half-meaningless so-called Windows Experience Index usually gets truncated by scores on SDD/HDD performance instead of scores on RAM performance.

From a bang-for-the-buck standpoint, I guess a 16GB+ block of 1333 is good enough and money would be better spent on beefing up the video cards or something.