worse to best memory of the same type when it comes to benchmarks doesn't change that much, not that id go for bottom of the barrel ram but at the same time i don't see the point of doing nuts with top of the line when it comes to ram.
As well the more latency you have the more it zaps performance and that's the trade off that's bin going on for years on the topic of single vs dual vs triple vs quad channel ram setups and old 168pin SDR vs DDR4 topic, in a nut shell bigger numbers sell even if they don't do anything.
A lot of it is fake performance when it comes to ram on a lot of levels depending what yours doing.
As well when people of late talk about the speed of their ram their talking about the speed of the I/O bus not the speed of the ram, worse iv seen so far on this topic is some video card claiming the ram was 7000mgz, made me laff cus i know the real ram speed was probably like 300mgz, only way to can claim 300mgz ram is 7000mgz is by smoking a big one.
If you have piles of latency but a big speed number/bandwidth max for the cpu that doesn't mater, kind of like gaming if you have piles of speed on your net connection but a ping of 2000, you still can't game in anything even if you have the speed because you have too much lag/latency.
In the cast of main system memory if you have piles of latency what the cpu tends to do is stall.
Seen some benchmarks of late were single channel ram setup beats dual on the same mobo and ram depending whats being benchmark.
My self if it were my call id go for the best latency possible and whatever for max mgz ram, id go for the best timing possable and not the max ram speed or I/O bus speed numbers.