# Single channel VS Dual Channel RAM (8700K)



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 6, 2018)

Greetings!
Recently I bought:
1080TI TRIO GAMING X,
i7 8700K,
Asus ROG STRIX Z370-H Gaming motherboard
and EVGA SuperNova 750W PSU
but I decided to stick with only 8GB of HyperFury DDR4 (2400mhz) RAM memory, in one stick, since I didnt have more budget to buy aditional RAM.
I noticed that my PC is underperforming unlike same build that I see on youtube.
Like The Witcher 3 game. Everyone with 2x8 or 4x4 RAM gets 150 frames in places like towns where CPU usage is intensive, but I only get 80-100.
My GPU in Witcher 3 which is highly demanding game, on ultra, reaches 60-70 celzius temperature and my CPU 65, which are optimal temperature since we are talking about witcher 3.
There no thermal throttling I guess.
So I wonder is it because of my one RAM stick. I read on internet that my CPU is working only with dual channel memory. My question is do I need to upgrade my pc with one more slot od DDR4 8GB for better FPS?
I am really struggling with this for almost one month. I updated everything to latest drivers, set GPU to max performance and set windows power settings to maximum performance, but theres no improvements. I also update BIOS and set everything to default.
Thank you for any kind of help.


----------



## nomdeplume (Aug 6, 2018)

Unless you plan to fill the second slot in short order.  2x4GB with the option to install a second set of RAM is the correct choice for a dual channel board.  So either a matching 8GB stick or somehow getting 2x4GB for even money is your best path forward.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 6, 2018)

This is on 7820x but you get the picture

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,22
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,21
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,20
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,19
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,18
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,17
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,16
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,15
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,14
https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,13


2400mhz is slow to begin with, and if it's in single channel then your cpu is suffering a huge bottleneck.

get 2x4gb 3000 cl15 at least. 16gb 3200 cl14 is the sweet spot perf/price. 16gb 3600 cl15 is the fastest you can get without breaking the bank, +4000 cl17 sticks are faster but cost ridiculous amounts of money.


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 6, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> So I wonder is it because of my one RAM stick. I read on internet that my CPU is working only with dual channel memory. My question is do I need to upgrade my pc with one more slot od DDR4 8GB for better FPS?


Short answer is yes
Longer answer is
Duel Channel Ram is the Prefered Choice for your Setup so your gain the Performance you think you should have compared to others with similer layouts.
YEH Cost is the bugbear and I'm sure you can put up with the performance untill you can go duel channel

PS ( your system will be better all round with MORE Ram ) 8 gig is more or less the "Acceptable min these Days" and many people now advocate 16 Gig


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 6, 2018)

Settings in game play also play a big part in FPS.
Run identical settings to them or optimal for your own set up, and see what you get.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 6, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> This is on 7820x but you get the picture
> 
> https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,22
> https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,21
> ...


Thank you very much for your reply.
Though I am still scared because this is the framerate that I get while runing through novigrad with my 8700k and 1080ti.
I get same amount of FPS as this guy on 1070 gtx.
https://www.clipzui.com/video/54x3a5i3d484z2u38564q3.html
Do you still think its my RAM?
Outside of Novigrad I get 130-150 FPS on 1080P 60HZ monitor.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 6, 2018)

This is 100% your ram speed. Your memory bottlenecks the cpu,which bottlenecks the gpu. Just look at your gpu usage vs the usage that people are getting in those videos you've mentioned, your gpu is underused.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 6, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> This is 100% your ram speed.


Thank you  I am feeling little better after your reply . I will send feedback after I get better and more RAM.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 6, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> Thank you  I am feeling little better after your reply . I will send feedback after I get better and more RAM.


Get dual channel,but also get sth faster than 2400. Like I said, 3000 cl15 is good enough but get 3200 cl14 if you can afford it.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 6, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> This is 100% your ram speed. Your memory bottlenecks the cpu,which bottlenecks the gpu. Just look at your gpu usage vs the usage that people are getting in those videos you've mentioned, your gpu is underused.


Actually that link is video of some guy that is using 1070 GTX. Thats not my benchmark video. I think there was misunderstanding there  I wanted to show his fps and compare it to mine. In that video he gets max 90 FPS in novigrad, same as me on 1080ti


----------



## silkstone (Aug 6, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Get dual channel,but also get sth faster than 2400. Like I said, 3000 cl15 is good enough but get 3200 cl14 if you can afford it.



Ram speed isn't actually that important on the latest Intel systems. I can't remember where I saw the benchmarks, but there was v. little differece between 2400 & 3000 Mhz. AMD, however, is a different story.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 6, 2018)

It should be noted that not all applications will behave the same way. The fact is, dual channel typically does not provide the performance gains marketing claims initially promised. In many cases, there is no "noticeable" gains. And in almost all cases, more RAM in single channel mode trumps less RAM in dual. Same with faster RAM. That is, more slower RAM trumps less faster RAM in almost all cases.



cucker tarlson said:


> 2400mhz is slow to begin with, and if it's in single channel then your cpu is suffering a huge bottleneck.


A "huge" bottleneck? For sure there are some performance hits there, but huge? Not sure I would go that far. 

If you look at the Kingdom Come: Deliverance test, the difference between 2 x 8GB and 1 x 16GB are 35.2FPS vs 32.6FPS (just 2.6FPS) and 31.0FPS vs 28FPS (3FPS). Does 2.6 and 3FPS suggest a "huge" bottleneck? Even 4 x4GB vs 1 x 16GB takes only a 4FPS hit. Yes, that's a hit. But I don't believe in a blind test most users would notice. 

So again, it depends on the program running. 

@RedeyeLegend - I think you will definitely benefit and see significant performance gains if you add another 8GB stick. But I believe that will be primarily because you doubled the amount of RAM Windows and your programs have to play in, and not because Dual Channel will be enabled.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 6, 2018)

Yes,on 1080Ti at 1080p in cpu heavy novigrad it is going to be huge.Why are you referring to kingdom come tests when the OP stated his problems are in witcher 3 and there's a witcher 3 chart in the ones I posted too.
The main benefit will not be from double the memory,it will be ram speed and wider bus.

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,22

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,46




silkstone said:


> Ram speed isn't actually that important on the latest Intel systems. I can't remember where I saw the benchmarks, but there was v. little differece between 2400 & 3000 Mhz. AMD, however, is a different story.



That's cause reviewers are lazy, they're not looking for cpu limited scenarios cause it requires work.

look at some of those purepc does on a regular basis

https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/test_pamieci_ddr4_2133_3600_mhz_na_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,11


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 6, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> It should be noted that not all applications will behave the same way. The fact is, dual channel typically does not provide the performance gains marketing claims initially promised. In many cases, there is no "noticeable" gains. And in almost all cases, more RAM in single channel mode trumps less RAM in dual. Same with faster RAM. That is, more slower RAM trumps less faster RAM in almost all cases.
> 
> A "huge" bottleneck? For sure there are some performance hits there, but huge? Not sure I would go that far.
> 
> ...


So you think other then RAM, theres more thats causing my FPS problems? As Witcher 3, same thing happens in Battlefield 1. Youtubers show 130-150 FPS with same build (other then RAM) on 1080p, mine never goes above 100. Its usually 80-100. Other games like Crysis 3 shows almost exact fps like other gamers on youtube, at 1080p. It has definetly something to do with CPU and RAM, which is my guessing.


----------



## Gasaraki (Aug 6, 2018)

Put another 8GB stick in. I don't get how you can spend so much money on that system and then save the ~$80 for a 8GB stick of ram...?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 6, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Why are you referring to kingdom come tests when the OP stated his problems are in witcher 3 and there's a witcher 3 chart in the ones I posted too.


I am pointing out that YMMV depending on the tasks you will be performing. I would hope no one's entire computing world (and component purchasing decisions) revolves around 1 single game. And if you look, the OP also states he sees the same issue with Battlefield 1, not just Witcher 3.


RedeyeLegend said:


> So you think other then RAM, theres more thats causing my FPS problems?


Huh? I don't see how you got that from what I said. I thought I was pretty clear when I said, "_I think you will definitely benefit and see significant performance gains if you add another 8GB stick. But I believe that will be primarily because you doubled the amount of RAM Windows and your programs have to play in, and not because Dual Channel will be enabled."_

But to your question, FPS is always a factor of many things. These include the CPU's capabilities, bus speeds, graphics solution, even disk access in some cases. Bottlenecks can occur almost anywhere, not just with RAM. And reduced FPS does not necessarily suggest a "problem" as in a "fault" or "defect" some where. Even a 10 lane highway can turn into a gridlock if too many vehicles try to traverse it at the same time. That does not mean the highway is defective.

Frankly, I think too many get caught up in benchmark "numbers" and not in the actual "escape" from the stresses of the day's reality and the "entertainment" value of the "game play".


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 6, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> Thank you very much for your reply.
> Though I am still scared because this is the framerate that I get while runing through novigrad with my 8700k and 1080ti.
> I get same amount of FPS as this guy on 1070 gtx.
> https://www.clipzui.com/video/54x3a5i3d484z2u38564q3.html
> ...



Yes this is RAM. And yes, it is also in part due to single channel that the difference is so big. But, a decent 8700K rig also contains *faster* RAM. Both matter. The 8GB is the least relevant metric here, doubling to 16GB is a benefit but the other two aspects matter more when it comes to FPS. 8 > 16 GB will reduce stuttery behaviour (or remove it).

There is a big 'BUT' in the whole picture though. You have a 60hz monitor. Lock your FPS to 60 or adaptive vsync it to 60 and your 'problems' go away. Put the single 8GB stick and add another when you feel like the budget allows you to. You benefit only marginally from any FPS above 60 (slight reduction in input lag from higher fps, and only in certain games).


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 6, 2018)

@RedeyeLegend  remember to keep us posted with tests before and after the ram upgrade.

I was in the same spot when I built my first gaming machine in 2013, then upgraded to one of the fastest gpu on the market (r9 290 trix) but everyone said: leave the ram, it doesn't matter. Then I thought my gpu was malfunctioning when I played far cry 3 at locked 60 fps but as soon as I went into any outpost I dropped to 50, sometimes to 40. When I upgraded from 1333 ram to 2133 I got back to locked 60.
Truth is,ram speed doesn't matter that much in *most* scenarios,but* when it does it can be friggin disgusting what can happen*.

btw with 1080Ti at 1080p 60Hz I'd rather use some serious *DSR *than use uncapped framerate. You can probably run something close to 4K and still get 60 fps. And more importantly, the higher the resolution,the less heavy cpu load is, making your memory speed problem less visible.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 6, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> @RedeyeLegend  remember to keep us posted with tests before and after the ram upgrade.
> 
> I was in the same spot when I built my first gaming machine in 2013, then upgraded to one of the fastest gpu on the market (r9 290 trix) but everyone said: leave the ram, it doesn't matter. Then I thought my gpu was malfunctioning when I played far cry 3 at locked 60 fps but as soon as I went into any outpost I dropped to 50, sometimes to 40. When I upgraded from 1333 ram to 2133 I got back to locked 60.
> Truth is,ram speed doesn't matter that much in *most* scenarios,but* when it does it can be friggin disgusting what can happen*.
> ...


I am currently uploading benchmark test so I will post it later with all info. Interesting thing is that I set DSR x4 and got more FPS then wirhout DSR, but funny thing is my GPU worked only on 50% and CPU on 50%. Even on 1080p DSR x4 I got 85 FPS. Does that tells something?



cucker tarlson said:


> @RedeyeLegend  remember to keep us posted with tests before and after the ram upgrade.
> 
> I was in the same spot when I built my first gaming machine in 2013, then upgraded to one of the fastest gpu on the market (r9 290 trix) but everyone said: leave the ram, it doesn't matter. Then I thought my gpu was malfunctioning when I played far cry 3 at locked 60 fps but as soon as I went into any outpost I dropped to 50, sometimes to 40. When I upgraded from 1333 ram to 2133 I got back to locked 60.
> Truth is,ram speed doesn't matter that much in *most* scenarios,but* when it does it can be friggin disgusting what can happen*.
> ...


here is my benchmark with all info. I hope you can see something in those numbers . Later with DSR turned to x4, my FPS increased for 20.











Vayra86 said:


> Yes this is RAM. And yes, it is also in part due to single channel that the difference is so big. But, a decent 8700K rig also contains *faster* RAM. Both matter. The 8GB is the least relevant metric here, doubling to 16GB is a benefit but the other two aspects matter more when it comes to FPS. 8 > 16 GB will reduce stuttery behaviour (or remove it).
> 
> There is a big 'BUT' in the whole picture though. You have a 60hz monitor. Lock your FPS to 60 or adaptive vsync it to 60 and your 'problems' go away. Put the single 8GB stick and add another when you feel like the budget allows you to. You benefit only marginally from any FPS above 60 (slight reduction in input lag from higher fps, and only in certain games).


here is my benchmark with all info. I hope you can see something in those numbers . Later with DSR turned to x4, my FPS increased for 20.











Bill_Bright said:


> I am pointing out that YMMV depending on the tasks you will be performing. I would hope no one's entire computing world (and component purchasing decisions) revolves around 1 single game. And if you look, the OP also states he sees the same issue with Battlefield 1, not just Witcher 3.
> Huh? I don't see how you got that from what I said. I thought I was pretty clear when I said, "_I think you will definitely benefit and see significant performance gains if you add another 8GB stick. But I believe that will be primarily because you doubled the amount of RAM Windows and your programs have to play in, and not because Dual Channel will be enabled."_
> 
> But to your question, FPS is always a factor of many things. These include the CPU's capabilities, bus speeds, graphics solution, even disk access in some cases. Bottlenecks can occur almost anywhere, not just with RAM. And reduced FPS does not necessarily suggest a "problem" as in a "fault" or "defect" some where. Even a 10 lane highway can turn into a gridlock if too many vehicles try to traverse it at the same time. That does not mean the highway is defective.
> ...


here is my benchmark with all info. I hope you can see something in those numbers . Later with DSR turned to x4, my FPS increased for 20.











Caring1 said:


> Settings in game play also play a big part in FPS.
> Run identical settings to them or optimal for your own set up, and see what you get.


here is my benchmark with all info. I hope you can see something in those numbers . Later with DSR turned to x4, my FPS increased for 20.


----------



## John Naylor (Aug 6, 2018)

Your are suffering from inadequate RAM as well as the lack of dual channel.  In gaming, the dual channel can add a smuch as 5%.  the amount of RAM is hitting you hardest w/ main frame rates rather than average.

ALWAYS but RAM in matched pairs in the same package; I would sell ya current stick and replace it with a mached pair.   Buying a 2nd stick gives you no recourse should the two not play well together.  With a matched pair, it's guaranteed to work.


----------



## Voluman (Aug 6, 2018)

Yes, you should stick with dual channel (2 modules at least). Later you can switch to a higher frequency ones.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 7, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Your are suffering from inadequate RAM as well as the lack of dual channel.  In gaming, the dual channel can add a smuch as 5%.  the amount of RAM is hitting you hardest w/ main frame rates rather than average.
> 
> ALWAYS but RAM in matched pairs in the same package; I would sell ya current stick and replace it with a mached pair.   Buying a 2nd stick gives you no recourse should the two not play well together.  With a matched pair, it's guaranteed to work.










In my benchmark video, that second number in RAM section, that is about 12000+ is actually my pagefile that game is using, not a second RAM. I only have one RAM stick with 8GB (2400mhz). So you think that RAM is the problem?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 7, 2018)

Your gpu is at 50% utilization, no wonder you're way off with fps numbers compared with other people.

you need:
more ram
faster ram
dual channnel ram



John Naylor said:


> In gaming, the dual channel can add a smuch as 5%.  the amount of RAM is hitting you hardest w/ main frame rates rather than average.



With 1080Ti (AIB) at 1080p it's gonna be more.



Voluman said:


> Yes, you should stick with dual channel (2 modules at least). Later you can switch to a higher frequency ones.


There's no point in getting another 8gb 2400 stick if he's going to replace it anyway.Do it once for all, get a 3000 CL15 2x8GB kit and forget about it.


----------



## Voluman (Aug 7, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> There's no point in getting another 8gb 2400 stick if he's going to replace it anyway.Do it once for all, get a 3000 CL15 2x8GB kit and forget about it.


Well, yes, you are right. Just guessing if he is out of money for now, with dual channel he is up for a bit.

Best solution as mentioned above, dual channel, high frequency, low latency. Now depending on your needs and funds: dual channel (more bandwith to system), high freq (also more bandwith) and lower latency (CL) (faster response). In reality lower latency probably you wont notice if you arent use memory intensive application (like filecompressing a lot, or photo imaging/editing, im not sure what are other mem intensive stuffs nowadays) or are you an experienced user with that or a bencher.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 7, 2018)

Don't waste your money on faster ram for gaming, just get a second stick.

Here is the evidence: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews..._Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 7, 2018)

I asked the reviewer about the testing place and conditions in which he obtained these results:







I never got an answer.

sorry to say that,but TPU's memory testing methodology for gaming is just weak. *No way are you able to obtain such results (no difference between 2133 and 4000) unless you're 100% gpu bound,* and if you test memory in GPU bound places then you don't know what you are doing. That 3466 CL14 kit should run circles around 2133 cl15 in witcher 3 if you know where to test.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 7, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I asked the reviewer about the testing place and conditions in which he obtained these results:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have a read through the comments. Even on the 'old' 6700K, there is little difference going from slower to faster ram compared with single vs. dual channel.


----------



## therealmeep (Aug 7, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> In my benchmark video, that second number in RAM section, that is about 12000+ is actually my pagefile that game is using, not a second RAM. I only have one RAM stick with 8GB (2400mhz). So you think that RAM is the problem?


The fact that you are getting adequate pagefile usage while gaming does mean that more RAM is necessary. Ideally you should not have any pagefile usage, however at absolute worst, moving the paging file to an SSD could give you some performance boost, although this is going to shorten the ssd lifespan.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 7, 2018)

therealmeep said:


> Ideally you should not have any pagefile usage,


Ummm, not true. You can have 64GB of RAM and Windows will still use a PF - but that's a good thing, not bad! That's also why you should never disable the PF. Best to just let Windows manage it. Contrary to what some think and want others to believe, Windows really does know how to manage virtual memory (RAM + the PF) very well. 

What you don't want is for the OS to be constantly banging on the PF because there is too little RAM.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 7, 2018)

silkstone said:


> Have a read through the comments. Even on the 'old' 6700K, there is little difference going from slower to faster ram compared with single vs. dual channel.


You are generalizing too much. Cases of too slow ram will be different across the board. You can't take 6700K in arma 3 (and unknown gpu) and draw a conclusion about 8700k in witcher 3 on 1080ti.

btw the difference is almost the same anjd pretty huge in both cases, did you read the chart correctly ?






If you are referring to the top of the chart, then look at latencies. 3000MHz at cl12 is absolutely killer for gaming since latency is very,very important in single thread heavy scenarios. That's why 3000 cl12 is up there with 4000 at cl17.
Look at this, 2400 CL9 ddr3 can outperform 3333 cl16 in some cases













What I find especially interesting is stock (4.0GHz) 6700K with 3200 ram is 10% faster than oc'd (4700MHz, +18%) with 2133 ram.


----------



## therealmeep (Aug 7, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Ummm, not true. You can have 64GB of RAM and Windows will still use a PF - but that's a good thing, not bad! That's also why you should never disable the PF. Best to just let Windows manage it. Contrary to what some think and want others to believe, Windows really does know how to manage virtual memory (RAM + the PF) very well.
> 
> What you don't want is for the OS to be constantly banging on the PF because there is too little RAM.


Agreed, I'm amazed at how well Windows is able to manage the pagefile, my only complaint with it would be the space it takes up (somewhere in the 60 gig range for my 64GB of RAM), but in most conceivible builds with this much ram it isn't an issue. That and the performance is a decent bit better than Linux swap.



cucker tarlson said:


> You are generalizing too much. Cases of too slow ram will be different across the board. You can't take 6700K in arma 3 (and unknown gpu) and draw a conclusion about 8700k in witcher 3 on 1080ti.
> 
> btw the difference is almost the same anjd pretty huge in both cases, did you read the chart correctly ?
> 
> View attachment 105001


Unfortunately this is probably always going to be subjective, A3 has been something where I have yet to notice a difference between my 3770 and my 6800k. I have yet to see a noticeable difference between single, dual, and even quad channel in anything other than benchmarks.


----------



## Devon68 (Aug 7, 2018)

I have a motherboard with only 2 slots and was planing on getting 2x4GB sticks of ram but now I found a single 8GB stick for 50$ so I'm considering it. The 2x4GB option would be around 60$. Which option would make more sense?. I'm buying the ram for a pc that I'm planing to sell as soon as I get all the parts.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 7, 2018)

therealmeep said:


> Agreed, I'm amazed at how well Windows is able to manage the pagefile, my only complaint with it would be the space it takes up (somewhere in the 60 gig range for my 64GB of RAM),


I am not amazed. Microsoft has an army of world class experts in memory management and more than 20 years and many exabytes of empirical data to draw from to learn how to make it right. After all, they want our computers to run optimally too. 

As far as your 60 gig of disk space issue, that is not really true either. That maximum size is not automatically set, nor is the size set in stone and never changes. It is called a dynamically management PF for a reason. It will expand and contract as needed and available disk space is one the parameters used to determine the size. I note right now, I have 16GB of RAM installed yet my Windows managed PF is set to 2938MB recommended with 2432MB "Currently allocated".


----------



## therealmeep (Aug 7, 2018)

Devon68 said:


> I have a motherboard with only 2 slots and was planing on getting 2x4GB sticks of ram but now I found a single 8GB stick for 50$ so I'm considering it. The 2x4GB option would be around 60$. Which option would make more sense?. I'm buying the ram for a pc that I'm planing to sell as soon as I get all the parts.


I'd say to get a single 8GB stick, as it shouldn't handicap too much performance, and the gains you would get from the 2x4 really shouldn't be noticable unless you are doing ram heavy work. This also gives you the option to go to either 12,16, or 24 gigs of RAM down the road.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 7, 2018)

therealmeep said:


> The fact that you are getting adequate pagefile usage while gaming does mean that more RAM is necessary. Ideally you should not have any pagefile usage, however at absolute worst, moving the paging file to an SSD could give you some performance boost, although this is going to shorten the ssd lifespan.



This is nonsense. Pagefile usage is a normal, documented Windows functionality that only improves performance, rather than decrease it. And it also does not necessarily rely on the amount of RAM you have at all. I have 16 GB and still see Pagefile over 10 GB quite often; with *more data* in there than what resides in RAM. What matters is how fast the system can access and use the data from pagefile, and that is where RAM bandwidth + single/dual channel comes in.

Don't spread BS pls

As for the video, you can clearly see that 6.7 GB of RAM is in use, which is quite fine as far as capacity is concerned. The problem here is single channel and speed. 8 >  16 GB is just bonus (for this game at least)


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 7, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> This is nonsense. Pagefile usage is a normal, documented Windows functionality that only improves performance, rather than decrease it. And it also does not necessarily rely on the amount of RAM you have at all. I have 16 GB and still see Pagefile over 10 GB quite often; with *more data* in there than what resides in RAM. What matters is how fast the system can access and use the data from pagefile, and that is where RAM bandwidth + single/dual channel comes in.
> 
> Don't spread BS pls
> 
> As for the video, you can clearly see that 6.7 GB of RAM is in use, which is quite fine as far as capacity is concerned. The problem here is single channel and speed. 8 >  16 GB is just bonus (for this game at least)


So final conclusion is that I get more ram to solve my problem?


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 7, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> So final conclusion is that I get more ram to solve my problem?



Faster > 2 sticks > more

In that order of importance (and performance benefit)


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 7, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Faster > 2 sticks > more
> 
> In that order of importance (and performance benefit)


I think all 3 are equally important.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 7, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I think all 3 are equally important.



Obviously, but the guy says 'more' as if its the takeaway here and it really isnt. 16 GB is the least immediate issue. He could start with one fast stick and already enjoy improved perf, then add another and boom problem solved.

It would ALSO be a bad route to stick another slow one next to what he has.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 7, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Obviously, but the guy says 'more' as if its the takeaway here and it really isnt. 16 GB is the least immediate issue. He could start with one fast stick and already enjoy improved perf, then add another and boom problem solved.
> 
> It would ALSO be a bad route to stick another slow one next to what he has.


Here are screenshot with detailed benchmarks
https://www.mediafire.com/file/pvl2eveppgljpkx/Benchmarks.rar/file


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 7, 2018)

Yup, 2x4 3000 cl15 would perfrom better than 2x8 2400.



RedeyeLegend said:


> Here are screenshot with detailed benchmarks
> https://www.mediafire.com/file/pvl2eveppgljpkx/Benchmarks.rar/file



synthetic benchmarks are worthless since they are very multithreaded, unlike real games which prefer fast single thread and low latency. In 3d mark 2700x is faster than 8700k, in real games it's the other way around.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 7, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Yup, 2x4 3000 cl15 would perfrom better than 2x8 2400.


Here are screenshot with detailed benchmarks
https://www.mediafire.com/file/pvl2eveppgljpkx/Benchmarks.rar/file


----------



## silkstone (Aug 8, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I asked the reviewer about the testing place and conditions in which he obtained these results:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no way that any of those games are GPU bound on 1080p with a GTX 1080. There is also lots of technical analysis as to why the results are the way they were for the coffee lake chips. I agree that faster ram would be better, and with faster ram, you'd likely see an increase in the minimum FPS, I just think you are overestimating the effect and having more memory that is dual channel is much more important than having faster RAM. The best situation would be to buy as fast a RAM stick as possible from the outset, but as the OP already has RAM, junking it in favour of a faster stick would not be a wise investment.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 8, 2018)

silkstone said:


> Don't waste your money on faster ram for gaming, just get a second stick.
> 
> Here is the evidence: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews..._Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html


Do you think it is possible that my 60hz monitor is also causing low FPS? I read on internet that my GPU is in full power when I play 1440p on 144hz monitor. Do you think my GPU usage is low because of ram and also low refresh rate?


----------



## c0de (Aug 8, 2018)

> Do you think it is possible that my 60hz monitor is also causing low FPS? I read on internet that my GPU is in full power when I play 1440p on 144hz monitor. Do you think my GPU usage is low because of ram and also low refresh rate?



No, it wouldn't cause low FPS
Monitors don't make low FPS
They only display pictures at different refresh rates and times

Because 1440p on 144hz is your graphics card limit
It's the moment when your GPU hit full potential of power
Your GPU has got very good amount of power

Unless you have v-sync Enabled or capped frame limiter for example 60 FPS your GPU will use only power to generate and deliver only 60 FPS !
The rest power of GPU will be in IDLE mode for better cooling solution

So when your GPU have enough power capacity it will not hit 100% utilization when you have v-sync Enabled on monitor 60 Hz or frame limiter @ 60 FPS
Frame limiter is good choice when you don't need more than 60 FPS and want cooler GPU for example in very hot summer days

Frame limiter is better solution than v-sync Enbaled, because v-sync produce unnecessary input lags on devices

You can set frame limiter in RivaTuner Statistics, which comes with MSI Afterburner software at different FPS

I use frame limiter on notebooks which have bad cooling solutions on GPU chip to generate only 60 FPS especially for better cooling solutions

I don't need more than 60 FPS, because my monitor can display only 60 FPS@ 60 Hz
You use more FPS  when you play shooter FPS
More FPS decrease inputs lags from devices like.: wheels controler, gamepad, keyboard and mouse
But you will suffer from tearing problem unless you have monitor that can display more than 60 FPS
For example 140 Hz can produce max 140 FPS

You will have tearing problem always above refresh rate of your monitor


----------



## silkstone (Aug 8, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> Do you think it is possible that my 60hz monitor is also causing low FPS? I read on internet that my GPU is in full power when I play 1440p on 144hz monitor. Do you think my GPU usage is low because of ram and also low refresh rate?



Nope. Refresh rate and FPS aren't linked unless you turn on VSync, even then it would just make your FPS a constant 60 fps for 60 Hz.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 8, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> This is on 7820x but you get the picture
> 
> https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,22
> https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_ram/t...bach_single_vs_dual_vs_quad_channel?page=0,21
> ...


Man you saved me and you were right. It was about RAM. Today I bought 2x8 3200 MHZ and now my FPS is 140-160 in Novigrad.  Thank you very much


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 8, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> I bought 2x8 3200 MHZ and now my FPS is 140-160 in Novigrad.


Sweet! And thanks for posting your followup!


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 8, 2018)

RedeyeLegend said:


> Man you saved me and you were right. It was about RAM. Today I bought 2x8 3200 MHZ and now my FPS is 140-160 in Novigrad.  Thank you very much


What was it before ? Like 90 ? That's huge but no wonder the improvement is so big if your gpu was at 50% utilization.


----------



## RedeyeLegend (Aug 8, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> What was it before ? Like 90 ? That's huge but no wonder the improvement is so big if your gpu was at 50% utilization.


It was 65-85 Novigrad. Now is 135+. Outside is even 175


----------

