Single channel VS Dual Channel RAM (8700K)

[RedeyeLegend]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

@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]

@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.

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?

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[RedeyeLegend]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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