# If i have 3x8gb = 24gb on a dual channel mobo, is it still dual channel?



## Space Lynx (Feb 19, 2019)

or will it default read to single channel?

Z390 mobo
9700k cpu.

was thinking of adding a third ram stick because i do sometimes go over 14gb of ram.  but I don't want to risk losing dual channel speeds.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 19, 2019)

Intel uses a hybrid approach to this.

With your 3 modules of 8GB of ram:
- First 16 GB of your memory will get dual channel speed
- Last 8 GB of it will get single channel speed.

Windows perfectly capable to handling this, as it existed for quite a while (Since the age of Core2 actually).

Quite ingenious, and if your memory utilization stays below the threshold, you'll see the same performance as with just pure dual channel.
p.s. - The unused memory is actually used as disk cache, but for that the single-channel speeds are WAY more than enough.

The same is valid for Quad-Channel systems - It uses as much as it can in the largest bandwidth possible, then dropping speed for the rest of the memory.
It is quite possible to make a crazy system on X299 with 32+16+8+4 ( 60 ) and still get full quad-channel bandwith on the first 16 GB, then triple-channel on the other 12, then dual-channel on 16 more and finally single channel on final 16 GB 

~~~
I do not know how Ryzen handles this, the last AMD that I used was an Athlon 64 and that one was reverting to Single channel in this case.
But I guess the new Ryzens are smarter and doing a similar approach as modern Intels...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Intel uses a hybrid approach to this.
> 
> With your 3 modules of 8GB of ram:
> - First 16 GB of your memory will get dual channel speed
> ...



So its 1.5 really


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> The unused memory is actually used as disk cache, but for that the single-channel speeds are WAY more than enough.


??

Link please.. never heard of this and would like to read about it...


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 19, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> So its 1.5 really


Not really. It's 2 AND 1
It depends on your workload size... if you run something that fully utilizes memory to the last megabyte, it will be more around "1.67", as 2/3 of the memory get full speed and 1/3 gets half speed.

But if your workload is less, then the single channel part of the memory will have less impact.
So, it can be anything between 1.67 and 2.0 "channels"


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Not really. It's 2 AND 1
> It depends on your workload size... if you run something that fully utilizes memory to the last megabyte, it will be more around "1.67", as 2/3 of the memory get full speed and 1/3 gets half speed.
> 
> But if your workload is less, then the single channel part of the memory will have less impact.
> So, it can be anything between 1.67 and 2.0 "channels"



Gtx 970 comes to mind with that last 512MB of what is really a 3.5 card.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 19, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ??
> 
> Link please.. never heard of this and would like to read about it...


Just open your task manger on the Memory tab.





I happen to have so much RAM that currently the system is not using all of it, but if I increase the workload and/or start moving data around, the cache size increases.

P.S. I'm in a similar situation as OP, but as quad-channel and dual-channel.

2x16 + 2x8, so a "3.33" channels config.



eidairaman1 said:


> Gtx 970 comes to mind with that last 512MB of what is really a 3.5 card.



Not exactly.
In that situation the last controller had to switch between the 7-channel wired memory as part of 3.5 and the 1-channel last 0.5
970 only had 7 functional controllers, last one shared.

It's completely different than here, when Intel CPU still has all 2 or 4 controllers intact, but is only using one when accessing portions of memory that are not matched.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2019)

Quad-channel DDR4 has replaced DDR3 on the Intel X99 LGA 2011 platform, and is also used in AMD's Threadripper platform.[18] DDR3 quad-channel architecture is used in the AMD G34 platform and in the Intel X79 LGA 2011 platform.  AMD processors for the C32 platform and Intel processors for the LGA 1155 platform (e.g., Intel Z68) use dual-channel DDR3 memory instead.
The architecture can be used only when all four memory modules (or a multiple of four) are identical in capacity and speed, and are placed in quad-channel slots.  When two memory modules are installed, the architecture will operate in a dual-channel mode; when three memory modules are installed, the architecture will operate in a triple-channel mode.


from wilki


----------



## SoNic67 (Feb 19, 2019)

Intel also have three channel DDR3 controllers in their LGA 1366 CPUs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-channel_memory_architecture


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Just open your task manger on the Memory tab.
> View attachment 116897
> 
> I happen to have so much RAM that currently the system is not using all of it, but if I increase the workload and/or start moving data around, the cache size increases.


It's cache, yes, but you are saying its page file/disk cache? I'm confused because, I have a static PF set and of course that cache value changes/dynamic (and well over what I set). A cursory google search yields nothing about a 'disk' cache (just cache - no disk references). Seems like its just memory that isn't being actively accessed...

Thanks.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 19, 2019)

So if I just buy 4 ram sticks instead of 3, I will always be in dual channel mode no matter what?


----------



## John Naylor (Feb 19, 2019)

1.  Yes always buy ALL your RAM sticks in a single package

2.  With dual channel boards that means 2 or 4 sticks.... tri channel 3/6 and quad channel 4/8


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2019)

Read your Motherboard manual and verify


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 19, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> or will it default read to single channel?
> 
> Z390 mobo
> 9700k cpu.
> ...


you sure that's not some ram leak caused by software ?
I have 16gb too and I hardly remember it ever coming close to 14gb even though I'm used to running a game on one display,watching a stream on the other and having a dozen pages open at the same time.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 19, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> 1.  Yes always buy ALL your RAM sticks in a single package
> 
> 2.  With dual channel boards that means 2 or 4 sticks.... tri channel 3/6 and quad channel 4/8




i plan to just buy two packages of these when they come back in stock. but i assume since they are the exact same sticks, its the same thing as buying all 4 in same package?








cucker tarlson said:


> you sure that's not some ram leak caused by software ?
> I have 16gb too and I hardly remember it ever coming close to 14gb even though I'm used to running a game on one display,watching a stream on the other and having a dozen pages open at the same time.



it's not


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 19, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> i plan to just buy two packages of these when they come back in stock. but i assume since they are the exact same sticks, its the same thing as buying all 4 in same package?



Binning is everything when trying to run 4 sticks without issues. Yes it can be done, but you should look for a 4 stick kit so that the kit is tested to work as intended.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 19, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> tri channel 3/6



For x58 boards, 2 or 3 sticks will get you dual channel.  At least the EVGA one I dove into.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 19, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It's cache, yes, but you are saying its page file/disk cache?
> ...
> Thanks.


It is disk cache. Has nothing to do with paging.
It's been like that since the age of Windows 3.1 and older.

An evolution of SMARTDRV for Dos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartDrive).

Without a disk cache, everything would be incredibly slow, as every little filename need to be accessed from the disk.
It is the main reason why computers with insufficient memory get so incredibly sluggish, because there's simply not enough spare memory for the disk cache, and if that's not enough, the system has to resort to paging memory in and out, compounding the problem.

The *Read cache is always on*, but by default the Write cache is OFF for safety (unless laptops, where it's on by default due to having battery-power)
However it can be turned on for any disk or ssd, very easily:
https://www.maketecheasier.com/disable-disk-write-caching-windows10/


----------



## animal007uk (Feb 19, 2019)

I could be wrong and sorry if its been said already but useless things have changed over time then in my head dual channel ram has always defaulted back to single channel if you have 3 sticks on a duel channel motherboard.

What i think has been missed out and might be where some people are confusing things is when intel came up with flex memory setting in bios, basically you could mix a 2 gig and 4 gig stick of ram and it would run in dual channel flex mode.

Again i could be wrong its been time since looked things up lol maybe flex mode was having say 2x2gig and then a single stick and it still runs dual channel mode.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 19, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> 1.  Yes always buy ALL your RAM sticks in a single package
> 
> 2.  With dual channel boards that means 2 or 4 sticks.... tri channel 3/6 and quad channel 4/8


False. (*Today)*.
There's absolutely no need to buy anything in multiple sticks.

In the past (DDR1, DDR2) manufacturers were not respecting standards exactly, and there was a chance of the two different brands interfering with each other. (And also not all modules have the SPD chip in them, so the BIOS had no clue whatsoever what memory chips are installed)

Today however that is long past history, DDR3 and DDR4 follow JEDEC standards very strictly.

When everything is on "Auto" in BIOS, the system will simply boot with the slowest settings from SPD, the bios is reading settings as it's enumerating chips, and the picking the numbers that apply to all, and boot with that.
When setting manually, obviously all modules on the same channel group must be able to run them, otherwise booting will fail.



animal007uk said:


> I could be wrong and sorry if its been said already but useless things have changed over time then in my head dual channel ram has always defaulted back to single channel if you have 3 sticks on a duel channel motherboard.


I've already said that Intel CPU's are using a Hybrid approach.

Long read, warning:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/how-memory-is-accessed

It's called FLEX MODE, not Hybrid mode. My mistake in previous posts.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005657/boards-and-kits.html#flex


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> So if I just buy 4 ram sticks instead of 3, I will always be in dual channel mode no matter what?


On a dual channel platform, yes.



Wavetrex said:


> Today however that is long past history, DDR3 and DDR4 follow JEDEC standards very strictly.


The concern is with stability... users should ALWAYS strive to purchase matching sticks!!!


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 19, 2019)

Some screenshots:

Observe the Quad channels, with this odd memory quantity; Also the different manufacturers, slightly different timings as well.








The system simply picked "36" for tRAS which works with both (It's also using 69 for tRC, even if the Corsair modules support faster 52)

What do you know, Corsair and Kingston can be friends ;-)


----------



## agent_x007 (Feb 19, 2019)

Just install two Single Sided sticks in channel "A" and one Dual Sided stick on channel "B".
That way you will get "standard" Dual Channel (no flexmode).
Of course if you already two dual sided modules, you are screwed :/

Also, if memory can work on current UEFI/BIOS setttings - it doesn't matter who made it it should work in Dual/Triple/Quad/Hex Channel (assuming IMC is any good).

EDIT : Forgot to add : Each single sided module must have half of the capacity of the Dual Sided one


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2019)

agent_x007 said:


> Just install two Single Sided sticks in channel "A" and one Dual Sided stick on channel "B".


I don't think it works that way... dual-sided shouldn't have anything to do with channels...


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 19, 2019)

agent_x007 said:


> Just install two Single Sided sticks in channel "A" and one Dual Sided stick on channel "B".
> That way you will get "standard" Dual Channel (no flexmode).
> Of course if you already two dual sided modules, you are screwed :/
> 
> Also, if memory can work on current UEFI/BIOS setttings - it doesn't matter who made it it should work in Dual/Triple/Quad/Hex Channel (assuming IMC is any good).




i will just buy a 4 stick kit together to be safe. thanks everyone and take care


----------



## SoNic67 (Feb 19, 2019)

I'm with the "buy close enough chips" group here too. You don't need binned chips anymore today, that's from a decade ago.
Personally I run a Quad channel with equal size memory sticks, but two channels use single rank chips, and faster and the other two channels use dual rank and slower. The frequency is selected to match the lowest. Single rank and dual rank have to be on separate channels, and start filling slots with white and further away from CPU. That's all I need to care  for my motherboard and Intel CPU.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 19, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> p.s. - The unused memory is actually used as disk cache, but for that the single-channel speeds are WAY more than enough.


Ummm, no it's not. It is just used as slower RAM. The CPU may use it to temporarily store (cache data), or it may use it for something else - but that is totally different from a disk cache. 

What you see in task manager as Cached is not the same thing at all as a disk cache. A disk cache, by definition, is a mechanism used to improve the time it takes to read from or write to a disk *drive*. 

That "cached" value show in Task Manager is exactly what it says it is when you hover over it. It is "_Memory that contains cached data and code that is not actively in use._"

If you open Resource Monitor and check the Memory tab, you will see the "Cached" memory equals "Standby + Modified" - again, nothing to do with disk cache. Hover of Cached and you will see the following:


> Cached: Amount of memory (including Standby and Modified memory) containing cached data and code for rapid access by processes, drivers and the operating system


Now if you hover over "Modified" you will see that tiny amount (just 181Mb on my 16GB system) is data waiting to be written to the drive - but that is not considered part of the system cache. That is just a method to keep the OS from going into a "wait state" while low priority data is saved to disk. That again, is different from a disk cache.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 20, 2019)

Do people seriously not remember ram based disk caching?  Guess it was a bigger tunable item in the dos days...

Anyways, it's a thing.  I guess you could argue it's not a "disk cache" in the strictest sense of the word, as it's not on the disk, but it is a cache, in memory, of your HDD contents.  This is splitting hairs really lol as the end result is the same:  Queries to what would've hit the HDD platter are answered faster.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 20, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Do people seriously not remember ram based disk caching?


Who said anything about not remembering something?

Just because something is a cache, that does not mean they are all the same. Most CPUs have 2 or 3 built in caches. The Page File is considered a cache. The built in memory on disk drive controller boards - often called buffers - are caches.

The point here is, don't confuse unused system RAM with a RAM Disk. They are not the same thing. Unused system RAM is just that. It is NOT cache memory. That has to be manually setup to act as such and then it becomes dedicated for that use, and is unavailable to be used as regular system memory.

Unused system RAM is available, if needed. It is NOT automagically used as a disk cache as was claimed. It is simply unused.


----------



## Gasaraki (Feb 20, 2019)

Sasqui said:


> For x58 boards, 2 or 3 sticks will get you dual channel.  At least the EVGA one I dove into.



Wow, so much fud in this thread. I'm running a X58 right now. 3 sticks ill give you triple channel. That's the whole point...   6 sticks will be triple channel also.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 21, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> The point here is, don't confuse unused system RAM with a RAM Disk. They are not the same thing. Unused system RAM is just that. It is NOT cache memory. That has to be manually setup to act as such and then it becomes dedicated for that use, and is unavailable to be used as regular system memory.



With SuperFetch and similar things in modern kernels that is really not so true anymore.  The OS considers unused ram "wasted" and caches as much as possible with the idea it can (and often is) rapidly freed for immediate use.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 21, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> But I guess the new Ryzens are smarter and doing a similar approach as modern Intels...


Maybe with a good motherboard, but by default my Ryzen's approach with an ASUS B350  to this is to either refuse to post, or put the odd stick in "hardware reserved" and not be usable.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 21, 2019)

It depends on the board  but there is a *Dual Channel Asymmetric* that will run different sticks as dual channel. I had a Dell laptop that was like this. 
maybe its  possible if the board support it to run three. Exactly how it does it, not sure


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 21, 2019)

https://www.compuram.de/blog/en/single-dual-and-multi-channel-memory-modes/


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 21, 2019)

Yes, that was incorrect. Triple vs Dual is correct.  The speed difference between triple and dual isn't particularly noticeable. In theory, it sounds like it should be 30% faster, but in reality it's far from it.


----------



## Berfs1 (Feb 21, 2019)

Flex mode, where u flex to the world that u can run odd ram confíes lmao (it is actually called flex mode, which allows for more flexibility of ram configurations)


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 21, 2019)

> With SuperFetch and similar things in modern kernels that is really not so true anymore.  The OS considers unused ram "wasted" and caches as much as possible with the idea it can (and often is) rapidly freed for immediate use.


 Just a tiny bit of homework shows that is not even how superfetch works. 

Superfetch works by learning how the user uses his or her computer, then preloads them into RAM. Not into "unused" RAM, and not as cached data, just loaded programs.

I'll say it again, unused RAM is just unused. If the OS uses it, it is now used RAM. That is NOT the same as RAM designated as cache.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 21, 2019)

Sasqui said:


> Yes, that was incorrect. Triple vs Dual is correct.  The speed difference between triple and dual isn't particularly noticeable. In theory, it sounds like it should be 30% faster, but in reality it's far from it.


In theory it should be 50% faster (adding 1 more to 2 things is 50% more). But as you said, it isn't.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 21, 2019)

*FUD *=* F*ear *U*ncertainty and *D*oubt. It's typically used to describe something that the truth is not yet known, or fully known, about. But a common human response to the unknown is often in the form of fear, uncertainty, and/or doubtfulness. Leading to statements, claims, or questioning which constitutes FUD. Which typically represents the worst possible assumptions. Such as those of a conspiratorial, conjectural, hypothetical, cynical, and/or pessimistic nature. However, just because a statement or claim is merely not true/false, or questionable, does not make it FUD. To be considered FUD it needs to manifest the aspects of the acronym. Is it based on fear, uncertainty, or doubt of the unknown? If so, it's FUD. If not, it's simply not true/false.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 22, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> and not as cached data



I think you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what a cache is in basic premise.

It's in essence, copying something into a fast place for rapid access.

How is this not describing a cache?



Bill_Bright said:


> Superfetch works by learning how the user uses his or her computer, then preloads them into RAM.



If you think it's executing the programs or something, you'd be wrong, anyhow.

So yeah, and I understand Superfetch on a better level than the simple consumer provided marketing description btw, so you can trust me on this one.  Or not.  It's your choice, I really don't care.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 22, 2019)

I chose not to continue to argue with him about the subject of RAM usage, caches, preloading and the rest of the things.
His current knowledge of how CPUs, RAM and operating systems work seems to be a complete chaos and a spagetti of misunderstanding and false information. And a brick wall of stubbornness above it.

@R-T-B , perhaps you should back off as well and just let him believe whatever he wants to believe.


----------



## king of swag187 (Feb 22, 2019)

Curious, but would dual channel work in a way that say, I have 2 8GB sticks for 16GB (2x8GB=16GB) and a 16GB stick (1x16GB=16GB), so 32GB in total. If I put the 16GB stick in Channel A, and the two 8GB sticks in channel B, would dual channel work for a full 32GB of dual channeled memory?


----------



## Shambles1980 (Feb 22, 2019)

SoNic67 said:


> I'm with the "buy close enough chips" group here too. You don't need binned chips anymore today, that's from a decade ago.


i didnt bother back then either. i just changed the timings on all the ram to match the timings of the worst stck.



king of swag187 said:


> Curious, but would dual channel work in a way that say, I have 2 8GB sticks for 16GB (2x8GB=16GB) and a 16GB stick (1x16GB=16GB), so 32GB in total. If I put the 16GB stick in Channel A, and the two 8GB sticks in channel B, would dual channel work for a full 32GB of dual channeled memory?



not really how it works imagine that every stick of ram has a pipe connecting it to the cpu. and you can fit x ammount of data in that pipe per hz of the ram
(x2 in ddr because it can do the work on the peak and the trough in ddr) dual channel ram uses 2 sticks of ram and pretends that it is 1.. so it now has 2 "pipes" that way it can send 2x the data to the ram in the same time.
the third stick of ram only has 1 pipe.. and no stick to pair with to get a second one. so you cant send twice the ammount of data to it in the same amount of hz it just wont fit down the pipe..
but you can argue that 1 stick of ddr ram with more space and really tight timings may perform better than 2 smaller sticks with higer latency.

but thats a different discussion.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 22, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> @R-T-B , perhaps you should back off as well and just let him believe whatever he wants to believe.



I have no desire or will to argue with him so no worries.


----------



## Countryside (Feb 22, 2019)

Personally i would stick with 2x8 or 4x8 but is up to you.


----------



## SoNic67 (Feb 22, 2019)

Shambles1980 said:


> every stick of ram has a pipe connecting it to the cpu.


More like highway lanes. One stick has 8 byte wide lanes (64 bits). Using two sticks in "dual channel" mode is like putting two of those highway lanes one next to another - for 16 byte (128bits) width. Now you have doubled the number of lanes, you can double the number of cars that can travel in that direction, at the same speed of travel (access).


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I think you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what a cache is in basic premise.
> 
> It's in essence, copying something into a fast place for rapid access.
> 
> How is this not describing a cache?


 Gee whiz! Please follow the context of the thread!

I never, as in NEVER EVER said the unused RAM cannot be used to cache data. In fact, I specifically said right from the start in post #27 above (my *bold underline* added), 





Bill_Bright said:


> The CPU may use it to temporarily store (cache data), or it may use it for something else - but *that is totally different from a **disk** cache*.



The point of dispute was a poster stating (again, my *bold underline* added)  "_The unused memory is actually used as *disk* cache_". That is incorrect. It is not in any way used as "disk" cache. Nor is it, by default or automatically, used as "_RAM based disk caching_" as you suggested above - a RAM disk must be set up manually by the user.

Now if you are going to continue to suggest unused RAM is, by default, the same as a disk cache, then it is you who have a fundamental misunderstanding of how system RAM is utilized - as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of RAM Disks.

See: RAM Disks Explained: What They Are and Why You Probably Shouldn't Use One

I absolutely understand the basic premise of a what a cache is. But that is NOT what this discussion is about! So I say again,  "_Just because something is a cache, that does not mean they are all the same_." Many network cards have built in RAM for buffering. Does that mean it is a "disk" cache? NO! Are L1, L2, L3 "disk" cache? NO! CPU cache is not the same as disk cache or RAM cache.

Bill: "Dogs are mammals, have 4 paws, fur, and a tail".
Fred: "That animal is a mammal, has 4 paws, fur and a tail".
R.T.B: "Then its a dog. Clearly Bill has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of a dog".



I'm done here.

(Edit comment: Fixed typo and spelling error missed by spell checker)


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 22, 2019)

No worries bill.  You don't need to get worked up.  I just misunderstood your angle.  Don't have as much time to read posts as I used to.

Your example is silly.  As someone used to classful programing that's something drilled into me from day 1.

I also understand ramdisks well, used to set them up on OS/2 back a bit ago...



Bill_Bright said:


> The point of dispute was a poster stating (again, my *bold underline* added) "_The unused memory is actually used as *disk* cache_". That is incorrect. It is not in any way used as "disk" cache.



I agree.  I simply meant Superfetch caches disk based data.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Your example is silly.


It is not silly if you got the point - which it appears you finally did. 



R-T-B said:


> I just misunderstood your angle. Don't have as much time to read posts as I used to.



I fully understand and respect the fact time is limited. This is especially pertinent when it comes to all of us who volunteer what little free time we have to help others. With that in mind, to avoid such misunderstandings in the future, I might suggest finding the time to actually read and understand what someone is saying before accusing them of not knowing what they are talking about - as that will get anyone "worked up".


R-T-B said:


> used to set them up on OS/2 back a bit ago...


Been there, done that too.  I actually miss that OS, but that's for another discussion. And actually my first RAM disk experience was with the C64 and a Commodore RAM Expansion Unit years before OS/2 came out - but that's another discussion too.


----------



## aMpeDuP (Feb 26, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> you sure that's not some ram leak caused by software ?
> I have 16gb too and I hardly remember it ever coming close to 14gb even though I'm used to running a game on one display,watching a stream on the other and having a dozen pages open at the same time.



The more RAM you have, the more Windows uses. Unused RAM is wasted extra performance. One wants to use as much RAM as possible, really - but still have enough free RAM ready to be used.

Only Chrome usually takes up ~ 5GB or more for me (multiple windows, many many tabs). So it all depends on how you use the computer and what. There is nothing strange about using 14GB. 

 Attached picture is when I'm not gaming or using any heavy software.


----------

