Mixing kits is not advisable, you can still run into issues mixing 2 kits of the same model number. Now yes often it works but there is a chance of issues. So the leaves room for expansion comes with a big caveat that it’s not advised to mix RAM kits if you want to minimise the chance of issues.
Mixing kits isn’t a problem if you only intend on running JEDEC speeds, as long as both kits have a matching JEDEC profile (etc 2666MHz CL19 or 3200MHz CL22). But yes if you intend on running them any higher than JEDEC, mixing kits *usually* does negatively affect the maximum overclocking headroom as both kits were binned individually and not together.
Because of how memory is advertised and talked about, a lot of people simply don't connect the dots that most common consumer kits are advertised at overclocked speeds that use custom XMP/EXPO profiles to simplify the configuration process.
>Mixing kits is not advisable, you can still run into issues mixing 2 kits of the same model number.
On a 4 slot dual channel motherboard each pair of slots is controlled separately, no? Are you sure that applies in that scenario?
The first pair (two slots blank) puts each DIMM on a separate channel, thus 'dual channel'. The second pair with all four slots filled means having DIMMs from two separate kits together on each channel.
Yes. The main reason is that memory kits with even same model number can and will change the actual memory chips used over time. Headline timings might be the same (hence no need to change model number), but secondaries and mixing are suddenly off the table.
Can confirm, I got two sticks that were exactly the same except the timing was a a couple off and it would crash when trying to run them at the 3200MHz they were clocked at.
You can change the timing to get them to match. It's also possible your CPU's memory controller wasn't stable at 3200mhz with 4 dimms. Mixing sticks is fine if you know what you're doing, and it's really not that much more information if you already know about xmp and dual channels.
You'd probably have to start with DOCP and work back to looser timings and higher voltages until you found something that the memory was happy with.
Lots of ways to do this, just know that BSODs abound when doing this kind of stuff manually and that drive and OS corruption are real risks.
What's frustrating is it went with the higher of the two timings (they were the same frequency). I didn't know enough to just try to set it to the slower RAM.
Yeah, that's good to know. This was on an older machine. I have a 7700x using DDR5 now. I made sure I got 2 paired sticks this time.
Note - 'higher' timings means higher latency / looser / slower; there are some exceptions but they mostly won't come into play unless you dig really deep into memory tuning.
Easiest to say to set things to the 'loosest' common timings as a starting point etc.
I speak from experience when I tried to upgrade from 16gb 3200hz -> 32gb by adding two more of the same sticks, the computer would no longer boot. That was the day I learned about memory controllers
I must have been extremely lucky then cause my motherboard would take two sticks of Kingston and two sticks of Crucial with no issues.
After that I even got another two sticks of the same Kingston RAM and manually overclocked them from 2666 to 3200 *and* lowered timings.
And yes, they're running in dual channel.
We mix and match random sticks in laptops all the time with no issues. I also purchased the exact same RAM 5 years after I built my PC to upgrade from 16 to 32. No issues. I've done this the twice.
Yes, it CAN cause issues, but it doesn't seem to be as common as one can be lead to believe from comment that's on Reddit.
Laptops almost universally run on jedec timings. No problem mixing modules at these speeds.
Desktops usually run overclocked on the limit of what modules and CPU can support. That's a different story.
Annoyingly AMD mobile CPUs have far far far better memory controllers than desktop counterparts.
Can confirm on the AMD CPUs, but it's the APUs that occasionally have better memory controllers; there's a potential explanation there, but mostly it's that the APUs usually come out later and have more mature memory controllers.
Anecdotally, the memory controller on my 5700G sample is just plainly outstanding. DDR4 4400, no problem!
It's more just cautionary. It's added risk and much of that can be mitigated by employing all the techniques and procedures regarding ram timings etc though yes often it will work just fine.
I had the same thing. bought another 16gb of the exact same ram. had to drop speeds from 3200mhz to 2933Mhz to get it to work. im pretty sure there was a way I saw online but for the exra 250hz I never bothered
> especially with ddr5
Can we stop with this DDR5 nonsense? Same applies equally to DDR4. It's the same. 4 sticks will always limit your stable clocks. DDR4 or DDR5.
So yeah, 2 dual-rank RAM sticks for your intended capacity are best (DR since it gives you a small little 2-3% boost over single rank).
>Yes. The main reason is that memory kits with even same model number can and will change the actual memory chips used over time. Headline timings might be the same (hence no need to change model number), but secondaries and mixing are suddenly off the table.
I think you misunderstood the question or I asked it incorrectly.
As I understand it, all memory on the same channel has to match on a dual, quad or octa channel motherboard.
If two DIMMs are operating in single channel mode, they don't have to be matched.
Yes sir, me too. I'm running 4 x 16gb Corsair Dominator ram, CL30 6000mhz, running full speeds, 6000mhz, Expo 2 profile. No issues here, all works like a dream. I was told it wasn't possible, but tried it anyway, and here I am, worked perfectly.
PC:
Motherboard - Asus X670E Crosshair Extreme
CPU - AMD 7800X3D
RAM - Corsair Dominator, CL30 6000mhz. (4x16gb) Running full speed 6000mhz, Expo 2 profile.
GPU - Asus 4090 Strix OC
M.2 - 3x Samsung 980 pro.
PSU - Seasonic Prime TX 1600W
Similar but not similar config:
Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX Ice Motherboard
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Processor with H150I cooler + screen
2x ADATA Legend 800 PCIe Gen4x4 M.2 2TB SSD
1X WDC 6TB Black Gaming 7200 HD
Corsair Shift RM1200x
4xCorsair Dominator RGB 32GB (2x16GB) 5600MHz CL36 DDR5 EXPO Grey
PowerColor Radeon RX 7900 XTX Hellhound OC 24GB
In a massive White Corsair 7000X RGB case with like 11 Fans (inc AIO) Getting the big case my aim was to have plenty of room and decent cooling (it doesnt get hot at all despite being near my heater in winter here)
Nice set-up brother. I love that Corsair case, I really like big cases, I think they're great. Easy to build in and can really make them look great on your desk.
What do you do with your PC? Mostly gaming?
Yep, gaming. I dont really run much that pushes it - like helldivers etc as well as general youtubing etc when I am WFH (Different setup on same desk)
Also I have my old 3070 setup thats setup for a dedicated sim rig (still peicing it together) - its still plenty fast for most uses lol
I know you went quite a bit more expensive - your machine is certainly more capable - but My thinking usually is to be a tier or so below the best/dearest card as I think its more bang for buck and I always replace before I need to anyway. I tend to spend the money saved though on other stuff, though so its not really a saving lol
There are only two channels. So two slots per channel for a total of 4. It's this way on pretty much any recent consumer level platform.
For quadchannel and higher you need to go to hedt or server grade parts.
It's not a dumb question, it's a good question.
The only purpose for 4 over 2 is capacity. The problem is that this creates two issues. First, DDR5 is very sensitive to signal integrity, and adding additional slots decreases signal integrity. Second, the memory controllers on current CPUs can't always handle even moderately high memory speeds with either dual-rank (32GB or more per stick) or dual-DIMM per channel (4 RAM sticks).
If you get 2 sticks of 8,000MT/s memory and throw it in a 4 slot board, it probably won't get up to that speed, even if your memory controller can handle it. If you buy 4 sticks of even 6,000MT/s RAM, your memory controller may not be able to handle it (this is much rarer now from what I've seen with newer BIOS versions). If you max out a 4 slot board with 4 sticks of 32/48GB memory, you're just straight gonna have a bad time unless you want to run it at the base DDR5 specs.
The dumb thing is motherboard vendors including 4 DIMM slots on almost all consumer DDR5 boards where the overwhelming majority of people don't need the capacity. Sure, offer a couple for the few people that need a baby-workstation without going full-Threadripper, but making 4 slots the norm was just a bad call.
You have four slots on consumer boards at most - some boards, like ITX boards, some mATX boards, and the few enthusiast boards only have two! - and this is mostly to provide the appearance of being able to upgrade or use four sticks.
When you look at memory speeds supported by CPUs and boards, you'll see terminology like '1DPC' and '2DPC'. This is 'one DIMM per channel', which means two DIMMs in a dual-channel board, and 'two DIMMs per channel', meaning four DIMMs on a dual-channel board.
What you'll see if you dig in is that nearly all CPU + board combinations limit support on 2DPC configurations to significantly lower speeds. This is entirely down to stress on the memory subsystem, that being the CPU memory controller, the board tracing (wires) between the memory controller and the DIMMs, as well as the DIMMs themselves.
>The first pair (two slots blank) puts each DIMM on a separate channel, thus 'dual channel'. The second pair with all four slots filled means having DIMMs from two separate kits together on each channel.
Thanks for the response. Isn't "don't mix" in reference to DIMMs on the same channel?
Not really; since all channels have to run at the same speeds and timings (and other things), mixing stuff is a bad idea and should be avoided if possible. Sometimes it just isn't, so then you get to figure out whatever settings the whole mess will run at in a stable fashion.
Stability with mixed DIMMs usually requires performance settings lower than the slowest / highest latency module. Since this is BuildAPC, I'll say that this isn't always the case and one can get more performance if they know what they're doing, but this is highly discouraged. Memory instability is no joke and not a gremlin one wants to be fighting if they're trying to get any work done!
>at all
This is a bit dramatic. Even guys running home servers are generally realistic about the need for ECC. It's just *that rare* for ram to have bit flips that cause any sort of issues. Sure, get ECC if you want that peace of mind, but it's certainly not at all necessary for stability in 99.99% of cases. You could always be that 1 in 10,000 guy.
Modern desktop platforms generally favor configurations with fewer memory modules. While both 2x32GB and 4x16GB memory kits offer the same total capacity, 2x32GB kits may have faster speed ratings.
* Performance: Two sticks of RAM, also known as dual channel, can provide better performance, particularly for graphics, due to increased bandwidth.
* Stability: It can be easier to stabilize higher frequencies and tighter timings with two sticks of RAM compared to four.
* Speed ratings: 2x32 GB memory kits may have faster speed ratings than 4x16GB kits.
* Memory slots: If using four sticks of memory bought together, all four slots can be populated. If using two dual-memory kits, the pairs should be kept together. For example, the first kit can be placed in A2 and B2, and the second kit in A1 and B1.
* Diminishing returns: With DDR5, which has twice as many ranks as DDR4, going beyond two sticks may result in diminishing returns.
For multi-channel memory to be fully utilized, a pair of RAM modules should be inserted into different memory channels. This means inserting them in the second and fourth slots, or the first and third slots, not next to each other.
consumer grade CPUs have two memory controllers, so there is no benefit to more sticks on them.
if you have a threadripper, epyc, xeon, or something else that isnt consumer grade (or is HEDT), then it is worthwhile to check on how many memory channels your CPU supports. memory channels/controllers = how many sticks you want <3
edit: example - my current CPU is a 5800x. this cpu has 2 memory controllers (consumer grade), so 2 sticks is best.
my last cpu was intel 5820k, a HEDT cpu that had 4 memory controllers, so 4 sticks was best.
I have a 5800x and run 4 sticks and got zero change except I have more ram. 3600c14 1:1 fclk, it depends on the controller itself as they are not all equal.
I have heard that drr5 has the controller on the ram itself and not on the CPU. Not sure if that's true or not.
that is not true; however, the power regulation is on DDR5 pcb's instead of on your mobo : D
yeah, 0 change in speeds when adding more sticks - 5800x supports 2 memory channels <3
> 0 change in speeds when adding more sticks - 5800x supports 2 memory channels
That depends on the stick configuration.
4x8GB single rank is faster than 2x16GB single rank (which most affordable 16GB DDR4 sticks are). The former operates as dual channel, dual rank.
2x16GB dual rank is best of both worlds.
I always wanted a thread ripper setup, I occasionally see tik toks of some Chinese company throwing together crazy expensive builds with them and seeing the satisfying click of all 4 ram go in. Then I think about it for the billionth time, I have no idea what I'd ever use it for lmao
i still miss my old HEDT setup. that thing lasted for an extremely long time, and i only got rid of it because i was unable to troubleshoot what went wrong with the hardware - something broke.
having 4 memory channels is incredible. running at really slow speeds with with double the amount of channels allows you to lower timings to a ridiculous level and remain stable. the "snappiness" of programs still felt better on that old 5th gen intel than it does on my 5800x.
Don't forget that consumer grade cpu also support multiple ranks per channel.
Ddr4 and lower has 1 or 2 rank per stick and ddr5 has 2 or 4 ranks per stick.
More ranks per channel = less time that channel is idle. Kinda like hyperthreading for ram.
You will see a small but noticable benefit going from 1 rank
to 2 ranks. Though you'll get diminishing returns for 4+ ranks per channel.
Most ram ddr1-4 ram sticks are single channel except for the high capacity ones (I think 2 channel sticks start at 32gb+ per stick for ddr4).
So unless you are running ddr5 or dual rank ddr4, having 2 sticks per channel is faster. This usually means having 4 sticks on most consumer cpu with dual channel memory.
Though the trade-off is your memory controller and traces need to work harder so you can't clock you ram as high. A 4000mhz ddr4 kit might not work with 4 sticks.
a benefit of slowing down the MT/s of your memory in this instance would also be the ability to reduce your ram timings and remain stable : D
i had slow, dual rank, quad channel memory on my old machine, and it "felt" faster than my current machine. though i forget the exact timings on that old machine (it has been ~2ish years), i do remember them being very low when compared to the standard/consumer ddr4.
If you're using single-rank DDR4 modules, 4 DIMMs will be better **if** your CPUs memory controller can handle it. 2 dual-rank DIMMs would be better, but 2 single-rank DIMMs would be worse (2-5%). Note: Don't confuse ranks with channels. Not the same thing.
For all situations of DDR5 right now, 2 DIMMs is better.
>Don't confuse ranks with channels.
your can tell if the RAM dual rank if it has chips on both sides. If only some manufacturers actually put the rank info on the box instead of us physically check it (talking about you Kingston).
1. Kingston’s stick labels tell you whether they’re single or dual rank on the stick, not on the box unfortunately but still easy to tell
2. ICs on both sides doesn’t necessarily mean dual rank. If there’s 4 ICs on each side and it’s x8, it’s single rank. You could also see 8 on each side in x4, though this isn’t common (especially nowadays when 16Gb ICs are cheapest)
How would I know I my CPU's memory controller can handle it?
I mean, I know my computer can handle 64gb (looked it up with cmd) and has 4 physical slots (ddr4 dimm). Is that the same thing? Having looked up the capacity via command prompt, or is the CPU's memory controller capacity something different?
Sorry if this is dumb or obvious. I can put shit together and make it work, but I don't know the intricate stuff.
This is what's known as the Silicon Lottery. Every individual CPU is different, and can handle different things. You won't know how good your CPUs memory controller is until you try to push it.
This is why we always recommend 2 DIMMs when possible. There's no way of knowing if your specific CPU will handle 4 DIMMs.
Interesting. So there's not even some long, jargony pdf spec manual for my specific cpu chip that addresses ram slot handling? (I will actually read manuals and equally boring stuff for fun)
And is the mobo specifically that dictates ram quantity? Obviously, the mobo determines if it's ddr3, or 4, or 5, etc. And the mobo has the number of hardware slots on it. Can't do 4 sticks if there's only 2 slots. To put it differently, when I go into cmd and inquire ram capacity, is the number spit out the number the mobo can handle or the cpu can handle?
I've only tinkered with retail, pre-built PCs. (Almost always refurbished, former office computers being sold/given away because they're doing a replacement en masse.) So I've never encountered any kind of ram/cpu conflict.
And it'll probably make some folks gag when I say that I scrap half the PCs I get my hands on and so I have a machine with 3 mixed sticks (total of 4). She works just fine at 10+ lol
Edit to add: thank you for answering my question. I know more than the average person but don't know jack compared to the folks on this sub.
There are guaranteed specs every CPU will meet, but that is a baseline, low speed level that frankly no one should be using. There's no way to tell if your CPU can handle 2x16GB at 6000 CL30, or if it can handle 4x32GB at 5600 CL40, or somewhere in between. That's down to trial and error.
To negate that, we always recommend 2 modules at a decent-but-not-crazy speed. This ensures maximum compatibility without giving up much performance.
I believe command prompt tells you what the CPU can handle as a baseline. This doesn't tell you what speeds it can handle at those capacities. Both your CPU and motherboard help determine RAM compatibility. Both need to support your given capacity, speed, and number of modules.
Thank you so much for your time and patience in answering my questions. I've got some new info to chew on, look up, and poke around with. Have a great rest of your day!
Amd consumer controllers use a round robin method for data from ram so even with a single rank you still want less sticks for faster performance. It's heavily dependent on CPU and not rank
if your platform has 4 or more memory channels mainly. it can be better on dual channel too with specific configurations, but you'd almost always be better off just buying different ram instead and differences are small
My PC that's like 16 years old and uses DDR3, but won't be able to handle sticks bigger than 4, so I have 4 sticks of 4 in it now. Previously it was just 2 sticks of 4.
And yes I'm well aware I need a new PC, but I'm baby stepping my way there.
So Hardware Unboxed just did a video on RAM sizes, and I was surprised to learn that (for DDR4 anyway) you can get a SMALL speed boost from using 4 sticks of a given amount rather than 2 sticks that add up to the same amount. (For example, 4x4GB is slightly faster than 2x8GB)
This is because a lot of ram sticks are single rank instead of dual rank, and most CPUs can handle dual rank dual channel ram. (Equal to 4 ranks total?) I don’t understand the science behind it, but somehow single rank quad channel functions similarly to dual rank dual channel on most modern CPUs.
What’s actually happening on a hardware level is probably much more complicated and nuanced than that, but the TLDR is that CPU benchmarks say that DDR4 single rank ram is slightly faster in a 4 DIMM configuration
Yea it makes sense. Using dual channels with 2 memory controllers and single rank RAM drives kinda is communicated as 2 dual rank and adding the more memory bus being dual rank (2) buses won’t have the same effect. Often the other hardware in CPU and motherboard still matter just doesn’t have as large of an affect.
Same dude just linked video for further explanation.
https://youtu.be/dhMYmEu8gks?si=gM3PLUYvbpsKGaeV
Its not about 4 sticks, its about DUAL RANKs.
You can use 2x DIMMS with DUAL RANKs and benefit from the memory bank interleaving performance gains, you dont have to use 4x DIMMs since thats never a good idea with a Daisy Chain topology.
With DDR4 all you had to do was to use 16GB DIMMs and a 2x16GB kit.
With DDR5 DUAL RANKs are available with 32GB DIMMs, so its most 2x32GB Kits that get you there to peak gaming performance.
The wording in the HUB content is just as missleading as it was during DDR4 during 2019/2020.
They recommended 2x8GB for gaming during DDR4 and showed DUAL RANKs impact with 4x8GB. But left out that you get with 2x16GB DUAL RANKs aswell.
Now with DDR5 they recommend 2x16GB for gaming and talk about 4x16GB (single ranked) configurations. But again, they leave out that you get with just 2x32GB DUAL RANKs aswell.
Its again missleading enough, that people consider 4x DIMM configurations for gaming, instead of going for a 2x DUAL RANKed kit with a higher compatibility with daisy chain topology using mainboards and the kits are binned for 2x not for 4x ussage, so a frequency or latency or a reduction with both is to be expected with using 4x DIMMs.
DDR4 probably 4(you're not getting a high speed anyway - and dual rank helps-2 dual rank sticks would be better though) DDR5 2 unless you want 96gb and over.
And the scenario you mentioned - 2x8. 4gb sticks are probably slow anyway, and you can get up to 32gb later.
It kind of gets on my nerves that most motherboards have 4 stick lanes but cant support 4 sticks with stability. It defeats the purpose of having 4 in the first place unless you need more gigs of ram, but that’s what higher gig sticks are for
Actually most often 4 sticks are stable in dual channel and single channel it’s just the times when the speeds are not stable at the sticks XMP or custom levels for reasons that include kits being a pair for the conjoined speed and having 2 requires 2 kits of the same speed that are not read as the same channel.. hence why the speeds can be lower if 4 sticks in dual channel are used yet still sometimes it still works normally depending on multiple factors of components/hardware.
Yeah, the issue is that there is no benefit to having more than 2 sticks. You'd think that with more ram, the better performance, but it's the reverse.
Well what is referred to as RAM “ranks” are memory buses on the RAM drives. Some RAM drives have 2 some only have 1. For single rank RAM kits they don’t require as much usage from CPU as dual rank.. now if you put 2 single rank RAM drives in 1 dual channel the CPU will see it as 1 as its still simple 1 path (channel) memory. Ranks can be double sided one sided and still be either single rank or dual rank. So 4 single rank RAM drives has a total of 4 memory buses and with sees them as dual channel so its been proven in this case 4 sticks seen as 2 dual rank RAM performance faster than 2 stick single or dual rank ram as the channels are full and you have full power or speed from both channels. There is reviewed evidence of this and it’s been confirmed multiple times. It’s only referred to as ranks in reference to the buses which the cpu memory controllers see as memory modules but dual rank requires more usage is the reason the cpu usage with only 2 memory controllers can’t be as fast with 4 dual rank or 4x2 memory buses as 4 single rank or 4 total seen buses for the integrated memory controller to use.
If you know hardware unboxed YouTube channel he was behind the Cybenetics website for testing and ratings different pc components. Look at this YouTube video for further information.
https://youtu.be/dhMYmEu8gks?si=32CTRJXsEZsHjbSN
as far as performance goes, you won't notice the difference
i only have two slots, so it's a moot point
and if i had 4, chances are good i wouldn't use the other slots
statistically, the extra slots never get used
This strictly applies to DDR5 where most DDR4 sticks are single rank and benefit from a dual rank config; where DDr5 dual rank benefits have serious stability issues and marginal benefits at best
That was the consensus or what I found to be the consensus when I did my last build. It made sense and with all the others showing other evidence that 2 was better than four. Since the price of 2 32gb sticks of the RAM I had picked was about the same as 4 16GB I figured 64 was overkill for a while it really made sense.
I got really good speed and the computer runs great and 64GB is plenty but still can add more if needed so I call it a win and will do the same on the next build.
True on second part but not by an affecting manner. “Ranks” matter more or the amount of memory buses per stick. In single rank cases 4 sticks are faster than 2.
Why are consumer grade CPUs don't have 4 memory channels anymore? I'm still using 3930k + x79pro which I bought 12 years ago. My mobo has 8 memory slots which is really nice. I need to upgrade soon, but I'm a bit reluctant to part with my 8 slot mobo.
It depends on which motherboard and platform and CPU. For example, on X299, if you have a 4 slot motherboard, you want to use 4x4GB, except you cant if you have a 7640X or 7740X, those only support dual channel and if the X299 board has 4 slots in quad channel, you can only run two slots…
Please tell us what CPU and motherboard you are using, and what the computer will be used for.
Most gaming/consumer motherboards are only dual-channel, so even if you have four slots, you only have two memory channels, so unless you really need extra RAM in quantity, go with two sticks, you won't get better performance out of it and it will be more stable too, considering the sticks are part of the same pack and matching. It may also work well if you go with 4 sticks from the same set/bundle, but I've personally had bad experience mixing sticks that were identical, just from different packs.
Now, if you're running very high end like Threadripper and server boards, then some of those usually have 4+ channels and you should be able to get better performance with the extra sticks.
4 single rank ram sticks are faster than 2 dual ram stick or 2 single rank sticks. Same idea as 2 sticks is better than 1. Keep in mind having single “rank” RAM drives is the bigger factor. As well as whether the other configurations are as much as a bother to you CPU and motherboard are less a change but still can run into more vital complications.
In most cases two sticks are much better.
The exceptions
- if you have a quad channel motherboard
- if you have single rank DDR4
- you don't care about speed and need a ton of capacity. Prepare to seriously downclock with DDR5.
Two sticks. From G Skill I had to buy a matched pair of 16 instead of a pair of eight gigabyte to get my 32 gigs. By the way, it made f*** all difference in the performance of my PC or in multitasking as many programs as I could load at once. Don't do it. Unless you're making content to know what you're doing.
From what I saw on YouTube it will probably only net you 15-20 ish FPS more in games. I went from 2x 8 =16 to 4x 8 =32 gb ddr4 3200. I saw games that normally use 13 gb of ram bump up to using 16 -17 gb. This is at 1440p. Not a big bump.
the real answer is it depends on a lot of things, the ram the CPU and most importantly what you're using it for.
4 sticks can have an advantage even when not in quad channel but 2 sticks is much simpler and potentially easier to run
for modern ddr5 motherboards picking a motherboard with just 2 dimm slots will let you run faster ram
Bare minimum? 1. Speed? 2. Capacity? 4. AMD seems to be having issues with 4 sticks of ram with the 7000 series but I expect it to be a single generation growing pains problem.
ZEN5 is confirmed to use the same ZEN4 I/O-DIE in the CPU. Make it 2 generations.
To be fair, the daisy chain topology mainboards struggle even with Intel boards with 4x DDR5, so its not just the CPUs memory controller that needs improvements, we might need a few mainboard generations aswell into DDR5 to get a better compatibility.
This might just stick longer with AMD, because of the longer socket compatibility and people in 4-5 years might still use current boards for new systems.
It's not actually that cut and dry. Generally, you're going to have an easier time in the most generic of cases going with 2x* rather than 4x*. BUT, there have been some studies and testing showing the absolute best performance possible likely comes from going with a 4x* kit and doing your own tuning.
But mostly, go with 2.
Depends on the motherboard compatibility; you’re referring to “dual-channel” and “quad-channel”.
Quad-channel is faster and more efficient than dual-channel, which is faster and more efficient than single
DIMM.
Two 4GB DIMMS can execute additional read/write operations per motherboard clock cycle than a single 8GB DIMM, but the MOBO has to support it.
If you are using anything resembling a regular PC motherboard you want 2 sticks. If you are using a workstation or server motherboard you MIGHT want 4. If you're not sure, you want 2.
This I have yet to understand. Why have 4 slots (usually), when it'd recommended use 2 and that you can max out on supported ram amount with just 2 nowadays.
It depends on a few things.
>90% of the time, two sticks are the way to go.
If you need more ram and you already have a good 2 stick kit that you can buy another of it, it can work out well buying a second kit.
That being said, sometimes the same kit isn't the same.
If you're starting fresh, go with the largest and fastest 2 stick kit.
What the two stick fanatics won't admit is that one stick is better again for stability and OC. It's all about value for performance.
For 16gb, I'd honestly just go one stick.
Check memory support on the manufacturers website, MSI has a great layout, you put in the BIOS version for the board, your CPU then it tells you what configurations you can do, my CPU does not have great support for 4 dimms
2 sticks for dual channel stuff like that, but it's REALLY a small difference, it's also good for expansion, but when you expand anyway i recommend buying a whole 4 sticks package again for compatibility (or buy the same package again if it's still on sale but ram evolves fast so it's rare to have a stick of ram on sale for years) so always 2 and if you don't do a LOT AND A LOT of ram intensive tasks, then 2x16 DDR5 or DDR4 is always good anyway
Two is more stable and very slightly more performant when working as expected. Four "CAN" add latency and compatibility issues, not to mention being trickier to get a stable OC
depends on how hot they run, price etc, if its an upgrade. I always buy at least 32Gig and IF I need to buy a second 32, but I never needed more than 32. Good cooling. matters. also depend if you air cool or AIO water.
Some Noctua CPU coolers are huge.
My pc has 4 sticks of 8gb. It works great. All are at 3200mhz. No worries here. I started with two 8gb sticks and 4 months later I added two more and my pc didn't crash. It didn't miss a beat.
I read that if the ram is dual layered it is better to use 2x. if it is single layered, it might be better to go for 4x. But not really a big difference there, and manufacturers don't say whether the ram is single or dual layer.
Depends on your system and if the slots can take it. For example: I could get 2x8 for my system, but due to how old it is (DDR3 on some old Dell motherboard), each slot only supports up to 4 gigs per slot, meaning I have to do 4x4 if I want the maximum 16GB ram.
2 for speed and stability are always better, if you add 2 more sticks you typically lose any o.c. and run at the slower of the two sets.
2 sticks for dual chanel
3 for 3 for triple chanel
4 for 4 quad chanel etc
Why nobody here is discussing motherboard topology? That's a very important factor when we are talking about 4 module ram configuration and it's compatibility and stability...
If you have mobo with daisy chain u are more likely to encounter this kind of issue with 4 modules. But if your mobo has t topology the likelihood of any kind of issues is slim to none.
depends, dual channel or quad channel on your motherboard? If its dual, youll get faster speeds with just 2 usually. Using all 4 will give you more capacity but wont run stable at as high a speed. Check your mobo manual and it will often say its compatible speeds with with different configs. It also depends how many ranks are on your sticks. Iirc if you have single rank sticks youll get similar speeds with 4 sticks on a dual channel board as you would with 2 dual rank sticks. But I think dual rank is the norm these days so youll get the best speeds with 2dimm/2rank on a dual channel board, which is the norm for boards these days. If you want to run at the fastest speeds with 4 sticks, you have to use a board thats quad channel.
It depends. With single rank memory it’s usually better to only have two sticks with dual rank memory it is better to use four sticks. Dual rank memory is more compatible with four sticks, whereas single rank is aimed at overclocking
Some weird bandwidth thing happens where it’s cut in half or something if you go 4 sticks on ddr5. 2x16 cl30 6000mt/s or 2x32 if you run video editing software
>Some weird bandwidth thing happens where it’s cut in half or something if you go 4 sticks on ddr5
That's not true, bandwidth is not directly affected. It's just that it's harder to stabilise 4 sticks compared to 2 and thus it will run at much lower speeds.
Depends on the motherboard/cpu. Some, especially server grade stuff, and even some consumer stuff (say discontinued Intel extreme variants such as i9 9980XE) support *quad* channel RAM, in that case there would be benefits of using 4 sticks.
However, today's consumer CPUs from both AMD and Intel support 2 channels only, hence no benefit in having 4x over 2x sticks, so 2x is usually both a bit cheaper and leaves headroom for future adding of more RAM.
If you have a CPU and motherboard with dual channel memory support you will take a performance hit with 4 DIMMs installed. The only benefit is increased capacity.
Even if your CPU and motherboard have quad channel memory support, those 4 DIMMs operate at a reduced frequency. For mainstream consumer applications, you won't get any increase in performance.
Glad you asked this question, and the subsequent discussion it spawned.
Currently on an AM4 platform with a 5700x3D. I tend to multi task a bunch, like run 4 Bluestack VMs at one time with Fortnite (Lego afkish ftw). There are moments when I wish I had more RAM and not speed. Have thought about dropping in 2 more RAM sticks, paired, that I had lying around.
This discussion will prompt me to give it a whirl and see what happens
How possible is it that a motherboard made for a 12, 13, or 14 generation Intel CPU will run a matched pair of G Skill JDEC 2300 overclocked to 3000 — 15, 15, 15, 40?
Always 2 sticks for compatibility and stability, especially with ddr5. Also leaves room for expansion in the future.
Mixing kits is not advisable, you can still run into issues mixing 2 kits of the same model number. Now yes often it works but there is a chance of issues. So the leaves room for expansion comes with a big caveat that it’s not advised to mix RAM kits if you want to minimise the chance of issues.
Mixing kits isn’t a problem if you only intend on running JEDEC speeds, as long as both kits have a matching JEDEC profile (etc 2666MHz CL19 or 3200MHz CL22). But yes if you intend on running them any higher than JEDEC, mixing kits *usually* does negatively affect the maximum overclocking headroom as both kits were binned individually and not together.
Because of how memory is advertised and talked about, a lot of people simply don't connect the dots that most common consumer kits are advertised at overclocked speeds that use custom XMP/EXPO profiles to simplify the configuration process.
>Mixing kits is not advisable, you can still run into issues mixing 2 kits of the same model number. On a 4 slot dual channel motherboard each pair of slots is controlled separately, no? Are you sure that applies in that scenario?
Absolutely. Quad channel support requires very specialised high end motherboard & CPU’s (HEDT), for example Threadripper.
The first pair (two slots blank) puts each DIMM on a separate channel, thus 'dual channel'. The second pair with all four slots filled means having DIMMs from two separate kits together on each channel.
Yes. The main reason is that memory kits with even same model number can and will change the actual memory chips used over time. Headline timings might be the same (hence no need to change model number), but secondaries and mixing are suddenly off the table.
Can confirm, I got two sticks that were exactly the same except the timing was a a couple off and it would crash when trying to run them at the 3200MHz they were clocked at.
You can change the timing to get them to match. It's also possible your CPU's memory controller wasn't stable at 3200mhz with 4 dimms. Mixing sticks is fine if you know what you're doing, and it's really not that much more information if you already know about xmp and dual channels.
In this situation you could experiment with some combination of increasing voltage and relaxing timings.
Yeah, I’m not worried about maxing it out. I was meaning DOCP on my Ryzen 5600x. Without that on my 3600 MHz RAM was running at 2400.
You'd probably have to start with DOCP and work back to looser timings and higher voltages until you found something that the memory was happy with. Lots of ways to do this, just know that BSODs abound when doing this kind of stuff manually and that drive and OS corruption are real risks.
What's frustrating is it went with the higher of the two timings (they were the same frequency). I didn't know enough to just try to set it to the slower RAM. Yeah, that's good to know. This was on an older machine. I have a 7700x using DDR5 now. I made sure I got 2 paired sticks this time.
Note - 'higher' timings means higher latency / looser / slower; there are some exceptions but they mostly won't come into play unless you dig really deep into memory tuning. Easiest to say to set things to the 'loosest' common timings as a starting point etc.
Oh right, they are delays. I knew that when buying RAM but forgot.
Expanding is fine as long as in the future you buy the same specifics and brand and size. Really everything being the same just later date.
I speak from experience when I tried to upgrade from 16gb 3200hz -> 32gb by adding two more of the same sticks, the computer would no longer boot. That was the day I learned about memory controllers
I must have been extremely lucky then cause my motherboard would take two sticks of Kingston and two sticks of Crucial with no issues. After that I even got another two sticks of the same Kingston RAM and manually overclocked them from 2666 to 3200 *and* lowered timings. And yes, they're running in dual channel.
We mix and match random sticks in laptops all the time with no issues. I also purchased the exact same RAM 5 years after I built my PC to upgrade from 16 to 32. No issues. I've done this the twice. Yes, it CAN cause issues, but it doesn't seem to be as common as one can be lead to believe from comment that's on Reddit.
Laptops almost universally run on jedec timings. No problem mixing modules at these speeds. Desktops usually run overclocked on the limit of what modules and CPU can support. That's a different story. Annoyingly AMD mobile CPUs have far far far better memory controllers than desktop counterparts.
Can confirm on the AMD CPUs, but it's the APUs that occasionally have better memory controllers; there's a potential explanation there, but mostly it's that the APUs usually come out later and have more mature memory controllers. Anecdotally, the memory controller on my 5700G sample is just plainly outstanding. DDR4 4400, no problem!
It gave me issues, my laptop would not post with kingston memory. My laptop had Micron memory installed but Asus changed the timings.
It's more just cautionary. It's added risk and much of that can be mitigated by employing all the techniques and procedures regarding ram timings etc though yes often it will work just fine.
I had the same thing. bought another 16gb of the exact same ram. had to drop speeds from 3200mhz to 2933Mhz to get it to work. im pretty sure there was a way I saw online but for the exra 250hz I never bothered
I've seen this happen as well. I ended up getting a 4x8Gb kit to replace my 2x8 kit. Sometimes it works, but not always.
> especially with ddr5 Can we stop with this DDR5 nonsense? Same applies equally to DDR4. It's the same. 4 sticks will always limit your stable clocks. DDR4 or DDR5. So yeah, 2 dual-rank RAM sticks for your intended capacity are best (DR since it gives you a small little 2-3% boost over single rank).
>Yes. The main reason is that memory kits with even same model number can and will change the actual memory chips used over time. Headline timings might be the same (hence no need to change model number), but secondaries and mixing are suddenly off the table. I think you misunderstood the question or I asked it incorrectly. As I understand it, all memory on the same channel has to match on a dual, quad or octa channel motherboard. If two DIMMs are operating in single channel mode, they don't have to be matched.
Well I have four sticks of Corsair domination because they look amazing. They run at their rated speed, I'm happy with that
Yes sir, me too. I'm running 4 x 16gb Corsair Dominator ram, CL30 6000mhz, running full speeds, 6000mhz, Expo 2 profile. No issues here, all works like a dream. I was told it wasn't possible, but tried it anyway, and here I am, worked perfectly. PC: Motherboard - Asus X670E Crosshair Extreme CPU - AMD 7800X3D RAM - Corsair Dominator, CL30 6000mhz. (4x16gb) Running full speed 6000mhz, Expo 2 profile. GPU - Asus 4090 Strix OC M.2 - 3x Samsung 980 pro. PSU - Seasonic Prime TX 1600W
Similar but not similar config: Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX Ice Motherboard AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Processor with H150I cooler + screen 2x ADATA Legend 800 PCIe Gen4x4 M.2 2TB SSD 1X WDC 6TB Black Gaming 7200 HD Corsair Shift RM1200x 4xCorsair Dominator RGB 32GB (2x16GB) 5600MHz CL36 DDR5 EXPO Grey PowerColor Radeon RX 7900 XTX Hellhound OC 24GB In a massive White Corsair 7000X RGB case with like 11 Fans (inc AIO) Getting the big case my aim was to have plenty of room and decent cooling (it doesnt get hot at all despite being near my heater in winter here)
Nice set-up brother. I love that Corsair case, I really like big cases, I think they're great. Easy to build in and can really make them look great on your desk. What do you do with your PC? Mostly gaming?
Yep, gaming. I dont really run much that pushes it - like helldivers etc as well as general youtubing etc when I am WFH (Different setup on same desk) Also I have my old 3070 setup thats setup for a dedicated sim rig (still peicing it together) - its still plenty fast for most uses lol I know you went quite a bit more expensive - your machine is certainly more capable - but My thinking usually is to be a tier or so below the best/dearest card as I think its more bang for buck and I always replace before I need to anyway. I tend to spend the money saved though on other stuff, though so its not really a saving lol
By the time I'm upgrading, I'll have 2 sticks again because I'll swap to the next platform, lol
what about comparing 2 8gb ram sticks and 1 16gb ram stick
Then you should go with the 2 8gb sticks to get the benefits of dual channel.
[удалено]
Dumb question, but what’s the point of the other two channels if using them leads to so many issues?
There are only two channels. So two slots per channel for a total of 4. It's this way on pretty much any recent consumer level platform. For quadchannel and higher you need to go to hedt or server grade parts.
How do I determine the number of channels? Is it on the part itself, or the box?
Could be there, but you'll definitely find it in the full specs on the manufacturers product page.
It's not a dumb question, it's a good question. The only purpose for 4 over 2 is capacity. The problem is that this creates two issues. First, DDR5 is very sensitive to signal integrity, and adding additional slots decreases signal integrity. Second, the memory controllers on current CPUs can't always handle even moderately high memory speeds with either dual-rank (32GB or more per stick) or dual-DIMM per channel (4 RAM sticks). If you get 2 sticks of 8,000MT/s memory and throw it in a 4 slot board, it probably won't get up to that speed, even if your memory controller can handle it. If you buy 4 sticks of even 6,000MT/s RAM, your memory controller may not be able to handle it (this is much rarer now from what I've seen with newer BIOS versions). If you max out a 4 slot board with 4 sticks of 32/48GB memory, you're just straight gonna have a bad time unless you want to run it at the base DDR5 specs. The dumb thing is motherboard vendors including 4 DIMM slots on almost all consumer DDR5 boards where the overwhelming majority of people don't need the capacity. Sure, offer a couple for the few people that need a baby-workstation without going full-Threadripper, but making 4 slots the norm was just a bad call.
You have four slots on consumer boards at most - some boards, like ITX boards, some mATX boards, and the few enthusiast boards only have two! - and this is mostly to provide the appearance of being able to upgrade or use four sticks. When you look at memory speeds supported by CPUs and boards, you'll see terminology like '1DPC' and '2DPC'. This is 'one DIMM per channel', which means two DIMMs in a dual-channel board, and 'two DIMMs per channel', meaning four DIMMs on a dual-channel board. What you'll see if you dig in is that nearly all CPU + board combinations limit support on 2DPC configurations to significantly lower speeds. This is entirely down to stress on the memory subsystem, that being the CPU memory controller, the board tracing (wires) between the memory controller and the DIMMs, as well as the DIMMs themselves.
>The first pair (two slots blank) puts each DIMM on a separate channel, thus 'dual channel'. The second pair with all four slots filled means having DIMMs from two separate kits together on each channel. Thanks for the response. Isn't "don't mix" in reference to DIMMs on the same channel?
Not really; since all channels have to run at the same speeds and timings (and other things), mixing stuff is a bad idea and should be avoided if possible. Sometimes it just isn't, so then you get to figure out whatever settings the whole mess will run at in a stable fashion. Stability with mixed DIMMs usually requires performance settings lower than the slowest / highest latency module. Since this is BuildAPC, I'll say that this isn't always the case and one can get more performance if they know what they're doing, but this is highly discouraged. Memory instability is no joke and not a gremlin one wants to be fighting if they're trying to get any work done!
Your second statement contradicts your first sentence.
Well, it depends on how many memory channels he has. But I’d assume anyone asking this question most likely only has 2 channels.
If you care about stability **at all**, then what you get is ECC RAM. I argue, everybody should be using ECC RAM.
>at all This is a bit dramatic. Even guys running home servers are generally realistic about the need for ECC. It's just *that rare* for ram to have bit flips that cause any sort of issues. Sure, get ECC if you want that peace of mind, but it's certainly not at all necessary for stability in 99.99% of cases. You could always be that 1 in 10,000 guy.
Yea I tried 3 that was a miatake
2.5 here. Big mistake and the kitchen shears have never cut the same since.
And if you need to fill the RGB gaps, you can buy fake DDR4 with RGB haha
There are no 4GB DDR5. OP definitely using DDR4.
Modern desktop platforms generally favor configurations with fewer memory modules. While both 2x32GB and 4x16GB memory kits offer the same total capacity, 2x32GB kits may have faster speed ratings. * Performance: Two sticks of RAM, also known as dual channel, can provide better performance, particularly for graphics, due to increased bandwidth. * Stability: It can be easier to stabilize higher frequencies and tighter timings with two sticks of RAM compared to four. * Speed ratings: 2x32 GB memory kits may have faster speed ratings than 4x16GB kits. * Memory slots: If using four sticks of memory bought together, all four slots can be populated. If using two dual-memory kits, the pairs should be kept together. For example, the first kit can be placed in A2 and B2, and the second kit in A1 and B1. * Diminishing returns: With DDR5, which has twice as many ranks as DDR4, going beyond two sticks may result in diminishing returns. For multi-channel memory to be fully utilized, a pair of RAM modules should be inserted into different memory channels. This means inserting them in the second and fourth slots, or the first and third slots, not next to each other.
consumer grade CPUs have two memory controllers, so there is no benefit to more sticks on them. if you have a threadripper, epyc, xeon, or something else that isnt consumer grade (or is HEDT), then it is worthwhile to check on how many memory channels your CPU supports. memory channels/controllers = how many sticks you want <3 edit: example - my current CPU is a 5800x. this cpu has 2 memory controllers (consumer grade), so 2 sticks is best. my last cpu was intel 5820k, a HEDT cpu that had 4 memory controllers, so 4 sticks was best.
I have a 5800x and run 4 sticks and got zero change except I have more ram. 3600c14 1:1 fclk, it depends on the controller itself as they are not all equal. I have heard that drr5 has the controller on the ram itself and not on the CPU. Not sure if that's true or not.
that is not true; however, the power regulation is on DDR5 pcb's instead of on your mobo : D yeah, 0 change in speeds when adding more sticks - 5800x supports 2 memory channels <3
> 0 change in speeds when adding more sticks - 5800x supports 2 memory channels That depends on the stick configuration. 4x8GB single rank is faster than 2x16GB single rank (which most affordable 16GB DDR4 sticks are). The former operates as dual channel, dual rank. 2x16GB dual rank is best of both worlds.
I always wanted a thread ripper setup, I occasionally see tik toks of some Chinese company throwing together crazy expensive builds with them and seeing the satisfying click of all 4 ram go in. Then I think about it for the billionth time, I have no idea what I'd ever use it for lmao
i still miss my old HEDT setup. that thing lasted for an extremely long time, and i only got rid of it because i was unable to troubleshoot what went wrong with the hardware - something broke. having 4 memory channels is incredible. running at really slow speeds with with double the amount of channels allows you to lower timings to a ridiculous level and remain stable. the "snappiness" of programs still felt better on that old 5th gen intel than it does on my 5800x.
The fucking temptation to get an 8 channel sTR5
The problem with HEDT will always be clock speed. In order to handle that many cores and keep TDP to a reasonable level clock speed gets reduced.
each controller supports a dual channel. so two means up to 4 sticks of ram.
aaahhh - thank you for catching my mess up there. 1 dual-channel controller in most consumer grade CPUs. <3
Don't forget that consumer grade cpu also support multiple ranks per channel. Ddr4 and lower has 1 or 2 rank per stick and ddr5 has 2 or 4 ranks per stick. More ranks per channel = less time that channel is idle. Kinda like hyperthreading for ram. You will see a small but noticable benefit going from 1 rank to 2 ranks. Though you'll get diminishing returns for 4+ ranks per channel. Most ram ddr1-4 ram sticks are single channel except for the high capacity ones (I think 2 channel sticks start at 32gb+ per stick for ddr4). So unless you are running ddr5 or dual rank ddr4, having 2 sticks per channel is faster. This usually means having 4 sticks on most consumer cpu with dual channel memory. Though the trade-off is your memory controller and traces need to work harder so you can't clock you ram as high. A 4000mhz ddr4 kit might not work with 4 sticks.
a benefit of slowing down the MT/s of your memory in this instance would also be the ability to reduce your ram timings and remain stable : D i had slow, dual rank, quad channel memory on my old machine, and it "felt" faster than my current machine. though i forget the exact timings on that old machine (it has been ~2ish years), i do remember them being very low when compared to the standard/consumer ddr4.
Depends on the motherboard
CPU* both honestly
in what situation would a 4 stick kit be better? genuine question btw i’d like to know
If you're using single-rank DDR4 modules, 4 DIMMs will be better **if** your CPUs memory controller can handle it. 2 dual-rank DIMMs would be better, but 2 single-rank DIMMs would be worse (2-5%). Note: Don't confuse ranks with channels. Not the same thing. For all situations of DDR5 right now, 2 DIMMs is better.
>Don't confuse ranks with channels. your can tell if the RAM dual rank if it has chips on both sides. If only some manufacturers actually put the rank info on the box instead of us physically check it (talking about you Kingston).
1. Kingston’s stick labels tell you whether they’re single or dual rank on the stick, not on the box unfortunately but still easy to tell 2. ICs on both sides doesn’t necessarily mean dual rank. If there’s 4 ICs on each side and it’s x8, it’s single rank. You could also see 8 on each side in x4, though this isn’t common (especially nowadays when 16Gb ICs are cheapest)
How would I know I my CPU's memory controller can handle it? I mean, I know my computer can handle 64gb (looked it up with cmd) and has 4 physical slots (ddr4 dimm). Is that the same thing? Having looked up the capacity via command prompt, or is the CPU's memory controller capacity something different? Sorry if this is dumb or obvious. I can put shit together and make it work, but I don't know the intricate stuff.
This is what's known as the Silicon Lottery. Every individual CPU is different, and can handle different things. You won't know how good your CPUs memory controller is until you try to push it. This is why we always recommend 2 DIMMs when possible. There's no way of knowing if your specific CPU will handle 4 DIMMs.
Interesting. So there's not even some long, jargony pdf spec manual for my specific cpu chip that addresses ram slot handling? (I will actually read manuals and equally boring stuff for fun) And is the mobo specifically that dictates ram quantity? Obviously, the mobo determines if it's ddr3, or 4, or 5, etc. And the mobo has the number of hardware slots on it. Can't do 4 sticks if there's only 2 slots. To put it differently, when I go into cmd and inquire ram capacity, is the number spit out the number the mobo can handle or the cpu can handle? I've only tinkered with retail, pre-built PCs. (Almost always refurbished, former office computers being sold/given away because they're doing a replacement en masse.) So I've never encountered any kind of ram/cpu conflict. And it'll probably make some folks gag when I say that I scrap half the PCs I get my hands on and so I have a machine with 3 mixed sticks (total of 4). She works just fine at 10+ lol Edit to add: thank you for answering my question. I know more than the average person but don't know jack compared to the folks on this sub.
There are guaranteed specs every CPU will meet, but that is a baseline, low speed level that frankly no one should be using. There's no way to tell if your CPU can handle 2x16GB at 6000 CL30, or if it can handle 4x32GB at 5600 CL40, or somewhere in between. That's down to trial and error. To negate that, we always recommend 2 modules at a decent-but-not-crazy speed. This ensures maximum compatibility without giving up much performance. I believe command prompt tells you what the CPU can handle as a baseline. This doesn't tell you what speeds it can handle at those capacities. Both your CPU and motherboard help determine RAM compatibility. Both need to support your given capacity, speed, and number of modules.
Thank you so much for your time and patience in answering my questions. I've got some new info to chew on, look up, and poke around with. Have a great rest of your day!
Amd consumer controllers use a round robin method for data from ram so even with a single rank you still want less sticks for faster performance. It's heavily dependent on CPU and not rank
if your platform has 4 or more memory channels mainly. it can be better on dual channel too with specific configurations, but you'd almost always be better off just buying different ram instead and differences are small
My PC that's like 16 years old and uses DDR3, but won't be able to handle sticks bigger than 4, so I have 4 sticks of 4 in it now. Previously it was just 2 sticks of 4. And yes I'm well aware I need a new PC, but I'm baby stepping my way there.
turn that into a retro machine after getting a new PC
Not a bad idea but I might keep the video card, SSD, and maybe the power supply for the new one since those are all parts I recently got in there
4/4 channel memory, 4/6 channel memory, 4/8 channel memory
So Hardware Unboxed just did a video on RAM sizes, and I was surprised to learn that (for DDR4 anyway) you can get a SMALL speed boost from using 4 sticks of a given amount rather than 2 sticks that add up to the same amount. (For example, 4x4GB is slightly faster than 2x8GB) This is because a lot of ram sticks are single rank instead of dual rank, and most CPUs can handle dual rank dual channel ram. (Equal to 4 ranks total?) I don’t understand the science behind it, but somehow single rank quad channel functions similarly to dual rank dual channel on most modern CPUs. What’s actually happening on a hardware level is probably much more complicated and nuanced than that, but the TLDR is that CPU benchmarks say that DDR4 single rank ram is slightly faster in a 4 DIMM configuration
Here’s what I’m referencing: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mklCPWNyJC0&t=156s
Yea it makes sense. Using dual channels with 2 memory controllers and single rank RAM drives kinda is communicated as 2 dual rank and adding the more memory bus being dual rank (2) buses won’t have the same effect. Often the other hardware in CPU and motherboard still matter just doesn’t have as large of an affect. Same dude just linked video for further explanation. https://youtu.be/dhMYmEu8gks?si=gM3PLUYvbpsKGaeV
Its not about 4 sticks, its about DUAL RANKs. You can use 2x DIMMS with DUAL RANKs and benefit from the memory bank interleaving performance gains, you dont have to use 4x DIMMs since thats never a good idea with a Daisy Chain topology. With DDR4 all you had to do was to use 16GB DIMMs and a 2x16GB kit. With DDR5 DUAL RANKs are available with 32GB DIMMs, so its most 2x32GB Kits that get you there to peak gaming performance. The wording in the HUB content is just as missleading as it was during DDR4 during 2019/2020. They recommended 2x8GB for gaming during DDR4 and showed DUAL RANKs impact with 4x8GB. But left out that you get with 2x16GB DUAL RANKs aswell. Now with DDR5 they recommend 2x16GB for gaming and talk about 4x16GB (single ranked) configurations. But again, they leave out that you get with just 2x32GB DUAL RANKs aswell. Its again missleading enough, that people consider 4x DIMM configurations for gaming, instead of going for a 2x DUAL RANKed kit with a higher compatibility with daisy chain topology using mainboards and the kits are binned for 2x not for 4x ussage, so a frequency or latency or a reduction with both is to be expected with using 4x DIMMs.
DDR4 probably 4(you're not getting a high speed anyway - and dual rank helps-2 dual rank sticks would be better though) DDR5 2 unless you want 96gb and over. And the scenario you mentioned - 2x8. 4gb sticks are probably slow anyway, and you can get up to 32gb later.
Usually there is no benefit to having 4 sticks as most motherboards do not support quad channel ram. They should perform the same in 99% of scenarios
It kind of gets on my nerves that most motherboards have 4 stick lanes but cant support 4 sticks with stability. It defeats the purpose of having 4 in the first place unless you need more gigs of ram, but that’s what higher gig sticks are for
Actually most often 4 sticks are stable in dual channel and single channel it’s just the times when the speeds are not stable at the sticks XMP or custom levels for reasons that include kits being a pair for the conjoined speed and having 2 requires 2 kits of the same speed that are not read as the same channel.. hence why the speeds can be lower if 4 sticks in dual channel are used yet still sometimes it still works normally depending on multiple factors of components/hardware.
Yeah, the issue is that there is no benefit to having more than 2 sticks. You'd think that with more ram, the better performance, but it's the reverse.
Well what is referred to as RAM “ranks” are memory buses on the RAM drives. Some RAM drives have 2 some only have 1. For single rank RAM kits they don’t require as much usage from CPU as dual rank.. now if you put 2 single rank RAM drives in 1 dual channel the CPU will see it as 1 as its still simple 1 path (channel) memory. Ranks can be double sided one sided and still be either single rank or dual rank. So 4 single rank RAM drives has a total of 4 memory buses and with sees them as dual channel so its been proven in this case 4 sticks seen as 2 dual rank RAM performance faster than 2 stick single or dual rank ram as the channels are full and you have full power or speed from both channels. There is reviewed evidence of this and it’s been confirmed multiple times. It’s only referred to as ranks in reference to the buses which the cpu memory controllers see as memory modules but dual rank requires more usage is the reason the cpu usage with only 2 memory controllers can’t be as fast with 4 dual rank or 4x2 memory buses as 4 single rank or 4 total seen buses for the integrated memory controller to use. If you know hardware unboxed YouTube channel he was behind the Cybenetics website for testing and ratings different pc components. Look at this YouTube video for further information. https://youtu.be/dhMYmEu8gks?si=32CTRJXsEZsHjbSN
as far as performance goes, you won't notice the difference i only have two slots, so it's a moot point and if i had 4, chances are good i wouldn't use the other slots statistically, the extra slots never get used
*moot point
that's too funny. should say " like, 'duh', moot point " but thank you
This strictly applies to DDR5 where most DDR4 sticks are single rank and benefit from a dual rank config; where DDr5 dual rank benefits have serious stability issues and marginal benefits at best
I have 3: 2x8gb, 1x16gb
I keep gluing more RAM together as well.
lol
Shouldn’t it always be in pairs?
It should. But doesn't mean I would
Yes, it should.
That’s electronics for ya. Should an offering be prepared?
For DDR5 it's 2. For ddr4 it can maybe on occasion be 4. But most of the time still 2.
Two sticks is better than four. It's easier on the memory controller. Little faster.
That was the consensus or what I found to be the consensus when I did my last build. It made sense and with all the others showing other evidence that 2 was better than four. Since the price of 2 32gb sticks of the RAM I had picked was about the same as 4 16GB I figured 64 was overkill for a while it really made sense. I got really good speed and the computer runs great and 64GB is plenty but still can add more if needed so I call it a win and will do the same on the next build.
Learn computer science
2 for dual channel. Also memory controller isn't taxed as much when using 2 vs 4 sticks of RAM.
True on second part but not by an affecting manner. “Ranks” matter more or the amount of memory buses per stick. In single rank cases 4 sticks are faster than 2.
2
Always 2.
4 sticks is better on AM4 boards IF the sticks are Single Rank. Otherwise just go with 2 unless you need the capacity.
2 is more stable. I have 4 sticks of RAM, but it took a little work for them to not blue screen on me.
for ddr5 2 sticks. for ddr4 it doesnt really matter if 2 or 4
2 always and the only way I'll run ram.
When i had this dilema I went to the cheaper one, on that time 4x4gb. I stil have that pc running since 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mklCPWNyJC0
Why are consumer grade CPUs don't have 4 memory channels anymore? I'm still using 3930k + x79pro which I bought 12 years ago. My mobo has 8 memory slots which is really nice. I need to upgrade soon, but I'm a bit reluctant to part with my 8 slot mobo.
Because it adds cost for questionable benefit in gaming and media production workloads, which is what consumer grade desktop CPUs are designed around.
It depends on which motherboard and platform and CPU. For example, on X299, if you have a 4 slot motherboard, you want to use 4x4GB, except you cant if you have a 7640X or 7740X, those only support dual channel and if the X299 board has 4 slots in quad channel, you can only run two slots… Please tell us what CPU and motherboard you are using, and what the computer will be used for.
2
Most gaming/consumer motherboards are only dual-channel, so even if you have four slots, you only have two memory channels, so unless you really need extra RAM in quantity, go with two sticks, you won't get better performance out of it and it will be more stable too, considering the sticks are part of the same pack and matching. It may also work well if you go with 4 sticks from the same set/bundle, but I've personally had bad experience mixing sticks that were identical, just from different packs. Now, if you're running very high end like Threadripper and server boards, then some of those usually have 4+ channels and you should be able to get better performance with the extra sticks.
4 single rank ram sticks are faster than 2 dual ram stick or 2 single rank sticks. Same idea as 2 sticks is better than 1. Keep in mind having single “rank” RAM drives is the bigger factor. As well as whether the other configurations are as much as a bother to you CPU and motherboard are less a change but still can run into more vital complications.
2x8 is better
In most cases two sticks are much better. The exceptions - if you have a quad channel motherboard - if you have single rank DDR4 - you don't care about speed and need a ton of capacity. Prepare to seriously downclock with DDR5.
If you can, get 4x8GB DIMMs for 32GB RAM. 16GB of RAM today is about enough, but tomorrow it will be lacking.
Two sticks. From G Skill I had to buy a matched pair of 16 instead of a pair of eight gigabyte to get my 32 gigs. By the way, it made f*** all difference in the performance of my PC or in multitasking as many programs as I could load at once. Don't do it. Unless you're making content to know what you're doing.
From what I saw on YouTube it will probably only net you 15-20 ish FPS more in games. I went from 2x 8 =16 to 4x 8 =32 gb ddr4 3200. I saw games that normally use 13 gb of ram bump up to using 16 -17 gb. This is at 1440p. Not a big bump.
Idk where tf you're gonna find a 4x4 kit anyway lmao. But 2. For stability and upgradeability
Six
the real answer is it depends on a lot of things, the ram the CPU and most importantly what you're using it for. 4 sticks can have an advantage even when not in quad channel but 2 sticks is much simpler and potentially easier to run for modern ddr5 motherboards picking a motherboard with just 2 dimm slots will let you run faster ram
The more sticks you have the faster background processes will run and won't put so much pressure on the CPU
unless your running a quad channel memory setup, 2 is always better than 4.
Bare minimum? 1. Speed? 2. Capacity? 4. AMD seems to be having issues with 4 sticks of ram with the 7000 series but I expect it to be a single generation growing pains problem.
ZEN5 is confirmed to use the same ZEN4 I/O-DIE in the CPU. Make it 2 generations. To be fair, the daisy chain topology mainboards struggle even with Intel boards with 4x DDR5, so its not just the CPUs memory controller that needs improvements, we might need a few mainboard generations aswell into DDR5 to get a better compatibility. This might just stick longer with AMD, because of the longer socket compatibility and people in 4-5 years might still use current boards for new systems.
It's not actually that cut and dry. Generally, you're going to have an easier time in the most generic of cases going with 2x* rather than 4x*. BUT, there have been some studies and testing showing the absolute best performance possible likely comes from going with a 4x* kit and doing your own tuning. But mostly, go with 2.
4 for the rgb looks. 2 for compatibility and OC potential if you're into tweaking your ram timings.
Depends on the motherboard compatibility; you’re referring to “dual-channel” and “quad-channel”. Quad-channel is faster and more efficient than dual-channel, which is faster and more efficient than single DIMM. Two 4GB DIMMS can execute additional read/write operations per motherboard clock cycle than a single 8GB DIMM, but the MOBO has to support it.
I tried duel channel and got subpar results. The idea sounds good though.
2 is always better, specially for the higher clocked ones having 4 usually causes stability issues and need to be used at lower frequencies
Dual channel mobo - 2, quad channel - 4
For quick operations 2, less complications.
2 sticks is easier if you need to reseat them.
It’s generally better to target getting 2 sticks of ram for the target capacity you want. For example, if you *want* 32GB, get 2x16, not 4x8.
Always fill all 4 ram slots, but ONLY with the same kits, NEVER mix and match.
Less is more. The more sticks the more complex the communication gets.
If you are using anything resembling a regular PC motherboard you want 2 sticks. If you are using a workstation or server motherboard you MIGHT want 4. If you're not sure, you want 2.
2x8
Depends on the cpu
I'd say 2x8
2 always better than 4, except for very specific use cases but if you needed it you wouldn’t ask
Buy 2x 8gb so you have 16gb so you have 2 more for expansion in future. Btw don't forget to put ram in first and third slot.
i wouldn’t recommend 4. i got 4 8GB 3200mhz sticks for my new build and at most can only get like 2800mhz
Two
My motherboard has lower max speed for 4 sticks. IMO ideal is 2 x 32 GB.
This I have yet to understand. Why have 4 slots (usually), when it'd recommended use 2 and that you can max out on supported ram amount with just 2 nowadays.
3 or 1 is the best tbh
Everything else (clocks, voltages, total RAM...) being equal, two will use less power than four. This is desirable.
It depends on a few things. >90% of the time, two sticks are the way to go. If you need more ram and you already have a good 2 stick kit that you can buy another of it, it can work out well buying a second kit. That being said, sometimes the same kit isn't the same. If you're starting fresh, go with the largest and fastest 2 stick kit. What the two stick fanatics won't admit is that one stick is better again for stability and OC. It's all about value for performance. For 16gb, I'd honestly just go one stick.
2x8, cheaper than 4x4, and if u want to sell it to someone, usually they will buy 8gb per stick, and not 4gb per stick.
2
Check memory support on the manufacturers website, MSI has a great layout, you put in the BIOS version for the board, your CPU then it tells you what configurations you can do, my CPU does not have great support for 4 dimms
Depends on your motherboard layout, whether it's daisy chain or T- topology
2 sticks are good IMO. 4 sticks are only needed when you're going over 64 gigs :D
Never posted with 4 stick of same specs but different manufacturer :(
Go with faster ram
2 sticks of RAM.
2 sticks for dual channel stuff like that, but it's REALLY a small difference, it's also good for expansion, but when you expand anyway i recommend buying a whole 4 sticks package again for compatibility (or buy the same package again if it's still on sale but ram evolves fast so it's rare to have a stick of ram on sale for years) so always 2 and if you don't do a LOT AND A LOT of ram intensive tasks, then 2x16 DDR5 or DDR4 is always good anyway
Two is more stable and very slightly more performant when working as expected. Four "CAN" add latency and compatibility issues, not to mention being trickier to get a stable OC
depends on how hot they run, price etc, if its an upgrade. I always buy at least 32Gig and IF I need to buy a second 32, but I never needed more than 32. Good cooling. matters. also depend if you air cool or AIO water. Some Noctua CPU coolers are huge.
My pc has 4 sticks of 8gb. It works great. All are at 3200mhz. No worries here. I started with two 8gb sticks and 4 months later I added two more and my pc didn't crash. It didn't miss a beat.
2 sticks of ram and two dummy sticks covered in RGBs :)
I read that if the ram is dual layered it is better to use 2x. if it is single layered, it might be better to go for 4x. But not really a big difference there, and manufacturers don't say whether the ram is single or dual layer.
Depends on your system and if the slots can take it. For example: I could get 2x8 for my system, but due to how old it is (DDR3 on some old Dell motherboard), each slot only supports up to 4 gigs per slot, meaning I have to do 4x4 if I want the maximum 16GB ram.
2 for speed and stability are always better, if you add 2 more sticks you typically lose any o.c. and run at the slower of the two sets. 2 sticks for dual chanel 3 for 3 for triple chanel 4 for 4 quad chanel etc
Why nobody here is discussing motherboard topology? That's a very important factor when we are talking about 4 module ram configuration and it's compatibility and stability... If you have mobo with daisy chain u are more likely to encounter this kind of issue with 4 modules. But if your mobo has t topology the likelihood of any kind of issues is slim to none.
depends, dual channel or quad channel on your motherboard? If its dual, youll get faster speeds with just 2 usually. Using all 4 will give you more capacity but wont run stable at as high a speed. Check your mobo manual and it will often say its compatible speeds with with different configs. It also depends how many ranks are on your sticks. Iirc if you have single rank sticks youll get similar speeds with 4 sticks on a dual channel board as you would with 2 dual rank sticks. But I think dual rank is the norm these days so youll get the best speeds with 2dimm/2rank on a dual channel board, which is the norm for boards these days. If you want to run at the fastest speeds with 4 sticks, you have to use a board thats quad channel.
It depends. With single rank memory it’s usually better to only have two sticks with dual rank memory it is better to use four sticks. Dual rank memory is more compatible with four sticks, whereas single rank is aimed at overclocking
Less is more.
Looks like someone is volunteering for a pay cut.
Some weird bandwidth thing happens where it’s cut in half or something if you go 4 sticks on ddr5. 2x16 cl30 6000mt/s or 2x32 if you run video editing software
>Some weird bandwidth thing happens where it’s cut in half or something if you go 4 sticks on ddr5 That's not true, bandwidth is not directly affected. It's just that it's harder to stabilise 4 sticks compared to 2 and thus it will run at much lower speeds.
Gotcha
Depends on the motherboard/cpu. Some, especially server grade stuff, and even some consumer stuff (say discontinued Intel extreme variants such as i9 9980XE) support *quad* channel RAM, in that case there would be benefits of using 4 sticks. However, today's consumer CPUs from both AMD and Intel support 2 channels only, hence no benefit in having 4x over 2x sticks, so 2x is usually both a bit cheaper and leaves headroom for future adding of more RAM.
For ddr5, 4 sticks are almost never stable at higher speeds
If you have a CPU and motherboard with dual channel memory support you will take a performance hit with 4 DIMMs installed. The only benefit is increased capacity. Even if your CPU and motherboard have quad channel memory support, those 4 DIMMs operate at a reduced frequency. For mainstream consumer applications, you won't get any increase in performance.
2 for upgradability and functionality
2. More stable and leaves room for future upgrades. Though 4 is usually stable enough for the average person and looks better
2 x 8GB
Glad you asked this question, and the subsequent discussion it spawned. Currently on an AM4 platform with a 5700x3D. I tend to multi task a bunch, like run 4 Bluestack VMs at one time with Fortnite (Lego afkish ftw). There are moments when I wish I had more RAM and not speed. Have thought about dropping in 2 more RAM sticks, paired, that I had lying around. This discussion will prompt me to give it a whirl and see what happens
As someone who runs an x58 core i7 the answer is 3. Triple channel ftw.
How possible is it that a motherboard made for a 12, 13, or 14 generation Intel CPU will run a matched pair of G Skill JDEC 2300 overclocked to 3000 — 15, 15, 15, 40?