To be honest for $127 for slightly faster ram is deffinately not worth it. Maybe if it was like $20 - $40 I say go for it...
There isn't much in terms of difference really, its only a small hardly if noticeable difference in speed. As you mentioned I would agree with going with a SSD with the extra money. That would be where you'll get performance increases.
EDIT: You could probably buy 8GB DDR3 at 1600MHz memory for like $50 and then put it in later if you wish. (Depends on what the prices are in your location.)
You most likely won't notice the difference. At all. There's a good chance your fast memory will even run at slower speeds to match your processor speeds. If you can tell us the type of processor you'll be using, we can give a better advice
First of all your motherboard must support higher RAM clock, timings and voltage modifiers, otherwise you're just wasting money. Secondly, 1600 vs 1333 is a very negligible improvement, you'll not have noticeable impact on performance. Now if it were 2333 vs 1333 then you'd have some difference. However going with overclocked RAM has many risks, most notably incompatibilities with your motherboard and your CPU not capable of working with that, plus stability is often an issue there.
You'll definitely get improvement by using good SSD instead of higher clocked RAM. Traditional mechanical hard drives are significant performance bottlenecks in modern mid-high PC configurations. However they are not replacement for hard drive, I would rather say they can compliment your storage system and improve performance considerably, but don't throw off hard drives just yet. Rational method would be having both SSD and traditional hard disk: use SSD for operating system, programs and current games you play and leave all other data to hard disk, i.e. downloads, music, movies and so forth. SSD can saturate SATA transfer capacities, hence going with SATA 6gb/s (incorrectly known as SATA III) SSD would be even better, provided your motherboard supports it. I would suggest two vendors: Intel and Crucial. Particularly Intel 520 series and Crucial m4. Intel 520 are based on SandForce controller and Intel custom firmware, they seem to be both reliable and fast. Crucial m4 series are based on Marvell chip, also great and reliable choice (be sure to update firmware to latest version), but slightly less fast.
The Processor & motherboard do support the faster ram...
the processor is 2.40 ghZ Intel Mobile Core i7-2760QM
and I think I am gonna go for the hybrid drive because I dont really use any program enough to put it on an SSD and even the 120GB Intel SSD is much, much more expensive.
Perhaps wait a little and buy SSD when you'll get extra money? Hybrid drives may be a good idea in theory but in practice they don't quite improve much performance, mostly due to them not knowing what is important to keep in cache and what not to, you'll get benefit of a better speed when re-running something that you just ran, otherwise it's just a typical hard drive. Additional points of SSD in a laptop is reduced power consumption, running on a fracture of power consumed by hard drives, they don't have mechanical parts and don't generate heat either, plus they're shock resistant.
I hope you're running a 64bit OS. Otherwise you're wasing 4GB of RAM.
As to your question - take Tree's advice. No, getting 1600 over 1333 is not worth the $127. Save up the cash and get a larger SSD - the hybrids honestly aren't worth the cash right now for the reason Tree said.
You're not just getting a much faster start up time with a SSD - you're getting a piece of hardware that eats less power (thus a longer battery life for your laptop), is shock resistant (meaning dropping the machine while it is on won't damage the drive like it would a HDD; might damage other stuff though!), and produces far less heat.
I have a 64GB in my new desktop and the start up time is amazing. Only drawback is that I have to have a seperate storage drive to install programs on - but that wasn't an issue.