DDR5 RAM Speeds and the future

[playerwhoplayyes]

I'm asking this because DDR5 RAM is getting really fast, and may not worth it to keep an old RAM module, they get a DDR5 kit run to 9000 MHZ, and today motherboard are kinda a limiting RAM speeds, and CPUs are next gen CPUs are going to use only DDR5, the motherboards improvement may leave a 6000 MHZ CL 30 32 GB RAM kinda slow good and even more when more apps and games start using more RAM, and in the future is probably going to be faster cheaper RAM, also Ryzen 9000 series are coming soon, and they are probably going to use faster RAM to operate properly, so, it's worth buy and kinda fast like a 6000 MHZ RAM Kit to keep it so it doesn't need to be upgrade or future CPU generations and RAM going to leave it slow?

 

[Hyderz]

With todays game titles I haven’t come across any that benefit from faster ram… cpu and gpu currently provides you with the fps boost… as ram speed goes maybe 5fps

 

[jxdking]

You need 2-dimm board to reliably run over 7000.

 

[ir_cow]

You need 2-dimm board to reliably run over 7000.

Only true for Intel Z690 motherboards.

so, it's worth buy and kinda fast like a 6000 MHZ RAM Kit to keep it so it doesn't need to be upgrade or future CPU generations and RAM going to leave it slow?

Don't forget that DDR is double-data rate, which means 6000MHz is DDR5-12000. Correct me, but you are asking is it worth buying DDR5-6000 (3000MHz) now and hope it is enough for new CPUs? My answer would be it is a balancing act. DDR5-6000 isn't going to magically make a RTX 3060 or RX 6600XT a better entry mid-tier GPU. In fact DDR5-4800 to DDR5-8000 will get the same frame rate if the graphical settings are high enough.


All these memory kits are within 2 FPS.

With todays game titles I haven’t come across any that benefit from faster ram… cpu and gpu currenty provides you with the fps boost… as ram speed goes maybe 5fps

Prepared to be amazed

 

[Hyderz]

Prepared to be amazed

View attachment 343120

Okay 27fps… for cs2 I wonder how much are the top of the line ram kits. but I think ram speed impacts more on the productivity side of computing rather than gaming but I might be wrong

 

[ir_cow]

but I think ram speed impacts more on the productivity side of computing rather than gaming but I might be wrong

Yes, but really it doesn't in the grand scheme of things. If you are doing large compute projects, more memory outweighs faster. 12:27 (8000 MT/s) vs 13:03 (4800 MT/s). If I need 128 GB, that isn't possible on 8000 MT/s



Edit: To be clear, I would rather buy "slower" memory and put that saved money towards a faster graphics card for gaming.

 

[Evelynn]

Okay 27fps… for cs2 I wonder how much are the top of the line ram kits. but I think ram speed impacts more on the productivity side of computing rather than gaming but I might be wrong

I agree there aren't too many titles, but there certainly are some. FF14 Online is a game I often play and it scales really well with memory OC's. That's mostly due to the engine being severely single-threaded in high player / NPC populations scenarios. Raytracing also seems to enjoy tight timings and high speeds, Spiderman RT is a really good example. But you have to be running something like a 4090 to ever see such benefits.

I'm asking this because DDR5 RAM is getting really fast, and may not worth it to keep an old RAM module, they get a DDR5 kit run to 9000 MHZ, and today motherboard are kinda a limiting RAM speeds, and CPUs are next gen CPUs are going to use only DDR5, the motherboards improvement may leave a 6000 MHZ CL 30 32 GB RAM kinda slow good and even more when more apps and games start using more RAM, and in the future is probably going to be faster cheaper RAM, also Ryzen 9000 series are coming soon, and they are probably going to use faster RAM to operate properly, so, it's worth buy and kinda fast like a 6000 MHZ RAM Kit to keep it so it doesn't need to be upgrade or future CPU generations and RAM going to leave it slow?

Honestly, if you're gaming my recommendation is to buy an X3D CPU. They don't scale nearly as much compared to their non-3D counterparts in RAM speed, because so much of the data being sent to the cores is stored on cache rather than RAM. If you're asking about the future, no one can tell you for certain what's to come, however: I see that L3 Cache sizes continue to increase. RAM is becoming less of a bottleneck over time. There are rumors of Intel bringing back an L4 Cache as well, though I'm uncertain if there's any engineering samples in the wild.

I wouldn't stress over RAM speeds, this is coming from someone who spent months trying to get 7200 MT/s stable. Like ir_cow stated, just purchase some inexpensive memory and call it a day. 2x32GB @ 6000. Use your system for 6+ years and be happy with it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I'm asking this because DDR5 RAM is getting really fast, and may not worth it to keep an old RAM module

Not sure what you mean by "worth it" in terms of an "old RAM module".

First, we must assume you are referring the same type RAM. DDR4, for example will not physically fit in a DDR5 slot. So if you mean hanging on to "incompatible" RAM, then no, not "worth it" if you can, perhaps, sell it.

Second, in most cases, more RAM trumps faster RAM. So if the old RAM module is still compatible with the rest of the platform, it may very well be "worth it" to keep it since replacing it (spending good money) with faster RAM may not yield any significant or noticeable (except on paper and benchmark tests) performance gains. If you cannot "see", in real-life use, genuine gains, then yes, it is worth keeping the old and saving your money for something else.

 

[overclockedamd]

There are pretty significant gains in faster ram for 1% and .1% lows for almost all games which while make all games look smoother if pushing you over a threshhold and helping maintain a more stable FPS.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

There are pretty significant gains in faster ram for 1% and .1% lows for almost all games which while make all games look smoother if pushing you over a threshhold and helping maintain a more stable FPS.

This is where most are going to "Feel" the benefit of faster ram but its still
A. Ridiculously expensive to get that benefit
B. Regarding these thresholds I would assume some form of VRR display would be better for "smoothing" that experience out vs putting the extra money spent on that bling ram into a higher tier GPU/CPU depending on the bottleneck

more RAM trumps faster RAM.

Again that gets into areas where lots of arguments can be had

Is 32Gb of 4800 better than 16GB of 8000 for most people? Yes
Is 64GB of 4800 better than 32Gb of 8000 for most people? ........Possibly but we are definately getting into the 50/50 areas with asterisks, caveats and gotchas all around.
Is 128Gb of 4800 better than 64Gb of 8000 for most people? Definately not

TL: DR
Currently in the end of DDR4/Mainstream DDR5 RAM is one of those things to buy as much and as fast of memory as you can get with "spare" budget that you have. Sacrificing CPU/GPU/PSU etc for that next tier of RAM is nearly never worth it except in extremely niche scenarios (think LLM AI use cases and Server workloads) and even then its very dubious at times

 

[playerwhoplayyes]

So, seeing the replies, it's not worth it to get a faster kit because the difference is going to be minimal. I'm going for an AM5 system, so I just need to update the bios, put a new CPU and done, my problem was the RAM because they are getting really fast but in gaming they are not worth it, I'm doing some video editing but not always, and I have some patience, and I am editing with a 1333MHZ DDR3 kit with and old xeon that are limiting davinci resolve, upgrading will make it much faster and smother.

I agree there aren't too many titles, but there certainly are some. FF14 Online is a game I often play and it scales really well with memory OC's. That's mostly due to the engine being severely single-threaded in high player / NPC populations scenarios. Raytracing also seems to enjoy tight timings and high speeds, Spiderman RT is a really good example. But you have to be running something like a 4090 to ever see such benefits.


Honestly, if you're gaming my recommendation is to buy an X3D CPU. They don't scale nearly as much compared to their non-3D counterparts in RAM speed, because so much of the data being sent to the cores is stored on cache rather than RAM. If you're asking about the future, no one can tell you for certain what's to come, however: I see that L3 Cache sizes continue to increase. RAM is becoming less of a bottleneck over time. There are rumors of Intel bringing back an L4 Cache as well, though I'm uncertain if there's any engineering samples in the wild.

I wouldn't stress over RAM speeds, this is coming from someone who spent months trying to get 7200 MT/s stable. Like ir_cow stated, just purchase some inexpensive memory and call it a day. 2x32GB @ 6000. Use your system for 6+ years and be happy with it.

My AM5 system is going to use a Ryzen 5 7500f but seeing the benchmarks comparing RAM Speeds, there is no much difference, and when AM5 is getting replaced with AM6 or whatever wants AMD, we're probably going to get like a Ryzen 5 11600X3D(11600 because the next gen is going to be the 9000 series and AMD leave the 4000 series for the notebook sector and some low-cost CPUs with PCI3.0 and other cuts, the 6000 Series for the notebook sector only and the 8000 series for the G series and again the laptop sector) or maybe even a 13600X3D if AMD can and wants, or if I get a decent B650 or wait until the next AM5 motherboards I could get upgrade to a Ryzen 7 11800X3D without a problem. But talking again about RAM speeds, seeing what you're saying makes extremely fast RAM unnecessary.

Yes, but really it doesn't in the grand scheme of things. If you are doing large compute projects, more memory outweighs faster. 12:27 (8000 MT/s) vs 13:03 (4800 MT/s). If I need 128 GB, that isn't possible on 8000 MT/s

View attachment 343122

Edit: To be clear, I would rather buy "slower" memory and put that saved money towards a faster graphics card for gaming.

Although I'm doing some video editing, I don't care about if I'm going to lose some seconds, I just want to get a modern system with good specs, so I don't need to upgrade every 2 years, I'm going to play primarily the Doom series, like Doom Eternal, Doom 2016 (Don't have it but probably soon going to get it), and the next Doom games, they aren't RAM heavy, the only RAM heavy game that I'm going to play (really heavy on RAM) is Cities skylines 1, and even with that I'm not going to use like 300 mods and 5000 assets at once.

I have a 75HZ monitor, so I can put V-SYNC (Free Sync if I get an AMD GPU, which is primarily what I want) and get the same FPS always, making a faster RAM unnecessary, I'm probably going to upgrade my monitor in a bunch of years, but even with that FPS difference is going to be the same taking what all of you are you saying.

Not sure what you mean by "worth it" in terms of an "old RAM module".

First, we must assume you are referring the same type RAM. DDR4, for example will not physically fit in a DDR5 slot. So if you mean hanging on to "incompatible" RAM, then no, not "worth it" if you can, perhaps, sell it.

Second, in most cases, more RAM trumps faster RAM. So if the old RAM module is still compatible with the rest of the platform, it may very well be "worth it" to keep it since replacing it (spending good money) with faster RAM may not yield any significant or noticeable (except on paper and benchmark tests) performance gains. If you cannot "see", in real-life use, genuine gains, then yes, it is worth keeping the old and saving your money for something else.

I mean with an "old RAM module", and old DDR5 kit comparing to the 11000 MHZ RAM that are probably going to exist, but with what now I see the performance difference is minimal.


But, it's worth to pay a slower RAM, like a 5600 MHZ CL 42 instead of a 6000 MHZ CL 30 to get that money in a better GPU?

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

But, it's worth to pay a slower RAM, like a 5600 MHZ CL 42 instead of a 6000 MHZ CL 30 to get that money in a better GPU?

So for AM5 it seems that 6000mhz is the sweet spot for most, then getting the tightest timing that you can. Higher speeds are rare to get stable at a 1:1 with the Infinity Fabric speeds and even with the BIOS work to "unlock" faster speeds it hasnt translated into performance.

So is it worth getting 6000 or 5600? I would say Yes* but its not essential, but getting like 7200Mhz kits are wasted on AM5.

*If however that money spent on the 6000 kit means a downgrade in a CPU/GPU you wouldnt be massively disadvantaged being on 5600 only.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Again that gets into areas where lots of arguments can be had

Convenient (and a bit deceiving ) how you cherry-picked out and quoted only a part of my sentence.

What I said was, "in most cases, more RAM trumps faster RAM". And then what did you illustrate - even using the word "most" multiple times?

Most cases!

But let's add a couple more VERY COMMON scenarios.

Is 8Gb of slow RAM better than 4GB of fast RAM for most people? Absolutely! In fact, assuming a 64-bit OS, virtually everyone will benefit from 8GB over a measly 4GB (even if for no other reason than the OS and CPU will not need to bang on the page file near as often).

Is 16Gb of slow RAM better than 8GB of fast RAM for most people? Definitely!

Of course, if one already has lots of RAM, 32GB for example, adding more RAM will likely give marginal, if any noticeable performance gains. However, if the 32GB is slow RAM, replacing it with 32GB of fast RAM "may" indeed yield noticeable gains. But I emphasize, "may". It may not - depending on the task and other components in the system.

I also note "replacing" RAM, as opposed to "adding" more RAM also typically means the old RAM goes in a drawer somewhere. So replacing slow RAM with faster RAM can be a costly upgrade many may not want to do.

And before you cherry-pick and quote only part of my comment again, of course, much depends on the tasks the user is performing with their computer as well as remaining components which may (or may not) introduce bottlenecks.

And did you note the excellent charts @ir_cow included? And his comment,

In fact DDR5-4800 to DDR5-8000 will get the same frame rate if the graphical settings are high enough.

I note the biggest gains were just 27FPS which may "appear" like a lot. But its not when the staring point is 599FPS. All that extra 27FPS will get you is bragging rights.

Edit: To be clear, I would rather buy "slower" memory and put that saved money towards a faster graphics card for gaming.

Totally agree - unless I (heaven forbid!) was still using a hard drive. Then I would definitely go for a SSD first.

 

[ir_cow]

Finished the Intel side of testing. Have AMD 4800, 6000 and 6800 done. Probably another week before all the data is ready.

If the op doesn't want to wait, I would just get 2x24GB at 6000 or 5600 because you will need more memory for video editing and it's cheaper than 64/96GB.

AMD likes low timings and it will benefit frames rates. However if your using a mid-tier card and locked to 75hz, I don't see a reason to spend more money.

 

[playerwhoplayyes]

Finished the Intel side of testing. Have AMD 4800, 6000 and 6800 done. Probably another week before all the data is ready.

If the op doesn't want to wait, I would just get 2x24GB at 6000 or 5600 because you will need more memory for video editing and it's cheaper than 64/96GB.

AMD likes low timings and it will benefit frames rates. However if your using a mid-tier card and locked to 75hz, I don't see a reason to spend more money.

I can wait, I wait like 6 months for my current PC, and getting slowly the parts, I just need a motherboard, the RAM, and a Graphics card for my new PC and waiting for some sales or good deals, I'm not doing a lot of video editing or complex video editing, just some simple video editing, and also if the rumored Windows 12 is bad, like bad optimization, a lot of features that I'm not gonna use, I'm considering switch to Linux, also I normally close Firefox, and other applications when gaming or doing video editing, so 32GB of RAM is going to be perfect for me, I don't use Discord, Wallpaper Engine, and more, I'm saving some money, so I can get the fastest GPU my budget can have, so saving a little bit of money on the RAM, motherboard maybe will be good.

 

[Bill_Bright]

and getting slowly the parts,

Not always a good idea. Remember the "no questions asked" return policies, and the warranties start with the date of purchase. It would be upsetting if your warranty or free return period expired before you even had a chance to put the computer together.

Another issue is a new revision or something totally new you would rather have could be released in the next few months after you already bought the last version.

For these reasons, I typically just recommend saving your money until you can buy everything all at once.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Would it blow your mind that DDR6 could be released on desktop as early as 2026 and some people will still be gaming on DDR4!!!!

Just get what fits your budget. Gamers should spend more on GPU than system memory anyways.

Need it, use current budget.
Want it, save your money.

 

[tabascosauz]

But, it's worth to pay a slower RAM, like a 5600 MHZ CL 42 instead of a 6000 MHZ CL 30 to get that money in a better GPU?

I'd still get the 6000CL30/32 kit just to have Hynix, but if you really need to save a buck then performance won't be much different.

AMD needs to make groundbreaking changes to the slow ass over-the-substrate interconnect it uses in its chiplet CPUs to truly make good use of faster RAM speeds in the future (ie. bringing over some innovations from GPU side). Even if we assume that its memory controllers keep pace with DDR5 development, which isn't a given seeing what they did between 2019 and 2022 (nothing). Get what you can afford now, it's not a big deal that DDR5 will get faster in the future.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

.....

My apologies for snipping only a part of the comment but for some reason it seems to be one thing that confuses/people dont research more of and look at very specific areas where "faster" RAM makes a change (that 27 FPS on an already 600fps game example) and people seem to fixate on it.

In all honestly I cannot really see a massive change in RAM benefit until there is a fundamental change in cache on mainstream CPUs especially after the evidence of the X3Ds showing a lower need/less benefit from faster/tighter ram speeds

 

[playerwhoplayyes]

My apologies for snipping only a part of the comment but for some reason it seems to be one thing that confuses/people dont research more of and look at very specific areas where "faster" RAM makes a change (that 27 FPS on an already 600fps game example) and people seem to fixate on it.

In all honestly I cannot really see a massive change in RAM benefit until there is a fundamental change in cache on mainstream CPUs especially after the evidence of the X3Ds showing a lower need/less benefit from faster/tighter ram speeds

Well, I'm happy and more than fine with 100 FPS vs 120, I was asking because may future CPUs will be limited by RAM speeds, and getting 50 FPS instead of 75, but now I see that's not the case, I play mostly GPU heavy games, and the games that aren't GPU heavy games, for example CS2, I'm not going to see a difference between 120 FPS and 300 FPS if I'm using a 75hz monitor.

I'd still get the 6000CL30/32 kit just to have Hynix, but if you really need to save a buck then performance won't be much different.

AMD needs to make groundbreaking changes to the slow ass over-the-substrate interconnect it uses in its chiplet CPUs to truly make good use of faster RAM speeds in the future (ie. bringing over some innovations from GPU side). Even if we assume that its memory controllers keep pace with DDR5 development, which isn't a given seeing what they did between 2019 and 2022 (nothing). Get what you can afford now, it's not a big deal that DDR5 will get faster in the future.

Seems reasonable to get a slightly faster RAM, although, I'm kinda sure that getting a slower RAM is "good" so I can get a GPU that's much better. I'm probably going to say something wrong but, I think AMD is going to makes changes to their chip to make use of faster RAM WHEN more competitors enter the CPU market, like Qualcomm entering the desktop CPU market, and more, then there are going to change a lot the silicon, IDK if "silicon" is the correct word, but they are going to make a lot of changes to compete, even though if this is not correct, more competition is always good.

 

[tabascosauz]

Seems reasonable to get a slightly faster RAM, although, I'm kinda sure that getting a slower RAM is "good" so I can get a GPU that's much better. I'm probably going to say something wrong but, I think AMD is going to makes changes to their chip to make use of faster RAM WHEN more competitors enter the CPU market, like Qualcomm entering the desktop CPU market, and more, then there are going to change a lot the silicon, IDK if "silicon" is the correct word, but they are going to make a lot of changes to compete, even though if this is not correct, more competition is always good.

Generally at least here, the cost savings from going with a non-Hynix kit isn't enough to step up a big tier in GPU, so 6000CL30/32/34(?some kits) is just a staple recommendation. DDR5 hasn't been very expensive for a while. There is also likely Hynix hiding in other specific budget bins aside from 6000CL30/32 (some 5600 products off the top of my head), so the price gap becomes even smaller.

AMD won't change anything until their IFOP strategy becomes seriously inadequate in some way and core/cache advancements alone aren't enough to compensate. The whole point of their cheap interconnect strategy (unlike monolithic in the APUs and fancy interconnects in GPUs) is saving costs, reusing silicon for multiple generations (ie. I/O die) - ie. putting in minimum effort for years. So I wouldn't hedge my bets on any changes.

Honestly, I'm not sure where grounds for this expectation of yours lie. DDR5 memory controllers today are not expected to handle crazy fast new DDR5 products 2 years down the line. Just like 2017 Ryzen 1800X that released to 3200CL14 A0 B-die contemporaries aren't expected to be able to run 2023's Hynix DJR 5333 kits.

For 4 years now AMD has used cache to compensate for any potential memory-side weaknesses - it clearly works, and if that's not enough to assuage your fears then maybe AM5 isn't for you. Just get a decent value kit, dial it in at 6000-6400 and call it a day. Not like reaching 8000+ has crazy gains to be had either, if you were on Intel and actually managed to pull off true 8000+ stability.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

I would like to see who adopts something like the Open Memory Interface as I believe it would be the next big shakeup in memory but I suspect it would be an enterprise only thing for quite a while

 

[playerwhoplayyes]

Generally at least here, the cost savings from going with a non-Hynix kit isn't enough to step up a big tier in GPU, so 6000CL30/32/34(?some kits) is just a staple recommendation. DDR5 hasn't been very expensive for a while. There is also likely Hynix hiding in other specific budget bins aside from 6000CL30/32 (some 5600 products off the top of my head), so the price gap becomes even smaller.

AMD won't change anything until their IFOP strategy becomes seriously inadequate in some way and core/cache advancements alone aren't enough to compensate. The whole point of their cheap interconnect strategy (unlike monolithic in the APUs and fancy interconnects in GPUs) is saving costs, reusing silicon for multiple generations (ie. I/O die) - ie. putting in minimum effort for years. So I wouldn't hedge my bets on any changes.

Honestly, I'm not sure where grounds for this expectation of yours lie. DDR5 memory controllers today are not expected to handle crazy fast new DDR5 products 2 years down the line. Just like 2017 Ryzen 1800X that released to 3200CL14 A0 B-die contemporaries aren't expected to be able to run 2023's Hynix DJR 5333 kits.

For 4 years now AMD has used cache to compensate for any potential memory-side weaknesses - it clearly works, and if that's not enough to assuage your fears then maybe AM5 isn't for you. Just get a decent value kit, dial it in at 6000-6400 and call it a day. Not like reaching 8000+ has crazy gains to be had either, if you were on Intel and actually managed to pull off true 8000+ stability.

I'm sorry if I wasn't correct, and also if I take a long time to respond, I'm always trying to learn something new instead of spreading misinformation, again I'm sorry if I wasn't correct from what I said, but thanks for the information about the slow "over-the-substrate" on the RAM speeds, also rethinking I will be better buying a faster RAM speed because for the price isn't much difference like all of you said. And also going to buy the rest of components at the same time which is going to be latter. Also, I'm going to say something that isn't about the topic, but my Ryzen 5 7500f now is at my Home, so I'm going 100% with AM5.

 

[tabascosauz]

I'm sorry if I wasn't correct, and also if I take a long time to respond, I'm always trying to learn something new instead of spreading misinformation, again I'm sorry if I wasn't correct from what I said, but thanks for the information about the slow "over-the-substrate" on the RAM speeds, also rethinking I will be better buying a faster RAM speed because for the price isn't much difference like all of you said. And also going to buy the rest of components at the same time which is going to be latter. Also, I'm going to say something that isn't about the topic, but my Ryzen 5 7500f now is at my Home, so I'm going 100% with AM5.

No problem. I wasn't intending to criticize or accuse, just that some expectation management may be in order.

A reasonably priced Hynix kit is a good place to start. Should last you years.

 

[RootinTootinPootin]

Honestly, if you're gaming my recommendation is to buy an X3D CPU.

At some point, even the X3D's doesn't scale well with some Games, also as the Resolution goes higher (2k and 4k) you're almost seeing less and lesser benefit, the only scenario I'd recommend one is its only on 1080p resolution plus you have the right GPU to scale it with.

Personally, I tried stuff from 7200mhz CL34 perspective and its not just a 2 fps average jump for me (on the games I mostly play), I tweak everything secondary and tertiary (YMMV), I kinda stopped at the point between 8000mhz and 8200mhz, that's where I saw just a minuscule jump in performance for a ton-loads of voltage to my chip and RAM. There are hardcore people out there who game on 8800mhz CL34 RAM and "they" say its a different side of the universe there, pretty much non-sense to 99.99% of people out there, but for those who can reach it, it matters.

That is why moving towards faster DDR5 alongside with architectural changes to the Silicon that could take advantage of such speeds and bandwidth + apps/games that can crunch on it are needed. been hearing that the new "CKD" equipped DDR5 modules should be arriving this year. Hope they improve signal strength/integrity + higher bandwidth/speed scaling.