Ryzen 7600 ram 64gb vs 2 /4 channel,vs higher speed

[ir_cow]

And you read right past where they say dual channel on a single stick, but wtf do I know....lol

The argument is still the same. You are considering the sub-channels / half-channels as full channels. It still goes over the same single bus to the memory controller. While they can be controlled independently, it is still sharing the same 72-bit bus. Dual-Channel would be 2x72, not 1x72 as it is currently configured as (since we are counting ECC to be "correct").

If we want to get really technical here, we can say DDR5 is dual channel over a single 72-bit bus, which is split into two half-channels. There now everyone is happy

 

[igormp]

And you read right past where they say dual channel on a single stick, but wtf do I know....lol

So? I wasn't arguing against calling it each one of those a channel, just that there's a convention in the desktop world, and this nomenclature causes ambiguity.
And I was trying to make it clear to you that no matter if you have 128x 1-bit channels, or 1 single 128-bit channel, bandwidth would be the same for the same frequency.

Oh bullfeathers! Come on dude? How is a user supposed to determine compatibility otherwise? And do you not realize that not all motherboard makers use the term "QVL"? Do you see "QVL on this Gigabyte page? How about this MSI page?

And what is the QVL but a list of "compatible" devices?

It still does not change the fact you took only a portion of my comment out of context which then changed the meaning of what I said.

You still did not make it clear if you're considering XMP/EXPO stuff or not. If you take the QVL into account and you're talking about XMP, adding 2 extra sticks goes straight out of the window since those are not considered in the QVL whatsoever, as it only takes into account sets of 4 sticks out of the box, not adding a 2-kit, and then another 2-kit.
Fun fact, even some 4-dimm kits the QVL only has support for when you use 2 of those, not 4, here's one example from Asus:

(notice the "1,2" socket support).
Whereas for Ryzen 7000:

You are totally contradicting yourself with those points.

 

[sneekypeet]

You are considering the sub-channels / half-channels as full channels.

Sorry, I didnt write that white paper, RAMBUS did. I guess we follow personal preference over what the RAM manufacturers say it is.

IR, hit up shannon, he will enlighten you

 

[Bill_Bright]

You still did not make it clear if you're considering XMP/EXPO stuff or not.

Nonsense. I don't care about that "stuff". It has nothing to do with the point I made.

I was perfectly clear. Sorry you refuse to take your blinders off to see outside your tunnel vision. Let me say it for the 4th, or is it 5th time? I've lost count. In bold this time.

I will say it again - please take my entire comment as a whole and not portions out of context. If the motherboard supports 4 sticks, and you buy 4 sticks listed on the QVL, and you don't dink with the default settings, there is no reason to suspect the 4 sticks will not work perfectly, right out of the box, starting with the first boot.

 

[ir_cow]

Sorry, I didnt write that white paper, RAMBUS did. I guess we follow personal preference over what the RAM manufacturers say it is.

IR, hit up shannon, he will enlighten you

Shannon is a smart cookie, but you should tell Intel and AMD they have it wrong. Until they say two DIMMs is Quad-channel, I will continue to say it is dual like they do.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Shannon is a smart cookie, but you should tell Intel and AMD they have it wrong. Until they say two DIMMs is Quad-channel, I will continue to say it is dual like they do.

This is easy. Let I help us!!

Motherboard is Dual channel 4 slots.
3 channels would be 6 slots
4 channels would be 8 slots.

The memory sticks it's self is essentially dual channel. So it's 2+2 channel board and ram.

So it's 4 channel memory in a dual channel slotted motherboard.

Lehmans terms. Why get super deep and technical and confused me? This thread has me baffled!!

It's always been, without any doubt "easier" on the memory controller to run less dimms. If you think you hit max clocks with 2 dimms, remove one, push harder. And that dates all the way back to 1st gen ddr.

Performance. Heck, I haven't even gotten a set of A-Dies yet. Lol. And I still have fun either way

7zip tuning 2 sticks 32gb Samsung B-Die.
Raptor Lake 16t at 230w

 

[Princess Garnet]

Which is it? A universal truth? Or moot? It can't be both.

It can be both, and here's an analogy example.

Imagine you're carrying some things in from your car. Let's presume you're capable of carrying something like 40 kilograms. You begin by carrying something that is 20 kilograms. Now let's say the next thing you carry in is 30 kilograms. It's technically harder to carry, but it's moot in that you can still carry it.

It's not a perfect analogy, no, but the point of the analogy here is if you're comparing "A" and "B" in an environment where anything at or below "C" is fine, then it may as well seem moot, but that still doesn't make A and B equal.

So yes, it can be both. They're not conflicting statements here.

I apologize if the "universally true" part was a bad choice of words that misled you, but it wasn't an incorrect choice of words. I figured the statement immediately following those words would make clear what I meant.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It can be both

No it can't. Universal truth means just that - it is universal, as in everywhere and "always".

I apologize if the "universally true" part was a bad choice of words

I appreciate the apology but you can't admit it was a bad choice of words, then claim they weren't wrong. Again, it can't be both.

I figured the statement immediately following those words would make clear what I meant.

It was your following statement that caused the contradiction. Claiming it is "always" harder to run, then immediately pointing out a scenario when its not, does not make sense because the latter contradicts the former.

It is either "always" harder to run, or its not. "Sometimes" is not "always".

When it comes to RAM (electronics in general), there is a HUGE difference between getting it "to run" and modifying the default published parameters in order to reach some out of spec performance levels.

There is no reason to doubt the OP could not simply add two more sticks of RAM, boot up and have it run just fine.

As I noted above (adding bold underline this time),

For the vast majority of users who simply wish to increase their RAM and intend to stick with the default settings, as the OP stated he intended, simply adding 2 more sticks is not harder to do and not harder to run.

I also said of your comment, while "perhaps true", it is "misleading" because it is not "always" harder to run.

Moving on.

 

[igormp]

When it comes to RAM (electronics in general), there is a HUGE difference between getting it "to run" and modifying the default published parameters in order to reach some out of spec performance levels.

There is no reason to doubt the OP could not simply add two more sticks of RAM, boot up and have it run just fine.

You should make up your mind.
Buying a set of 2 sticks, and then buying another 2 later is not covered in ANY QVL from ANY mobo, so it goes against your idea of "default published parameters".

 

[gasolin]

My ram,memory is tested alot of times using ibt (intel burn test that use both the cpu and ram) + a 45 min occt 80% ram,memory test, my ram,memory knock on wood is stable

 

[Shrek]

32gb 6000mhz cl 28 is to expensive (around 200 euros, cheaper to buy 6400mhz cl 30 memory)

How is 6000 MHz CL 28 faster than 6400 MHz CL 30?

given that the latter at 6000 MHz will run at CL 28

 

[gasolin]

4 ram sticks at 6400mhz cl30 might not run at that speed

 

[Bill_Bright]

You should make up your mind.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Buying a set of 2 sticks, and then buying another 2 later is not covered in ANY QVL from ANY mobo

That's total nonsense. For one, that scenario has absolutely NOTHING to do with the QVL. The QVL simply shows what RAM is compatible with that board.

And with ANY 4 slot board, it does not matter if you install 4 sticks at the initial build, or install 2 today and 2 more tomorrow. As long as the 2nd pair is compatible with the board and with the 1st pair (ideally the same specs) you can add them.

And to suggest the QVL for a 4 slot motherboard does not "cover" 4 sticks is simply ridiculous. Come on! Don't be silly.

Did you even bother to look at the OP's QVL? Here it is. Scroll down and note there are dozens of entries that show support for 2/4 sticks.

Now lets move on and PLEASE, do your homework to verify your facts before posting something that makes no sense again.

 

[gasolin]

The QVL simply shows what RAM is compatible with that board.

Some of the ram, i highly doubt they have tested all ddr 5 RAM

 

[Bill_Bright]

Some of the ram, i highly doubt they have tested all ddr 5 RAM

Right. My bad. I should have said it lists RAM they have tested and found to be compatible.

It should be noted that, unlike CPUs, there are just too many RAM makers and RAM models for any motherboard maker to test them all. So while we should buy listed CPUs to ensure compatibility, we don't have to buy listed RAM. HOWEVER, we should buy RAM with the same specs as listed RAM to ensure compatibility.

I will add this - RAM manufacturing techniques have improve tremendously over the past 10 to 20 years. Not only have the raw materials improved in terms of purity, the manufacturing/production has improve too. These improvements have resulted in the actual specifications of the individual modules and sticks to much more precisely match published specs.

Why does that matter?

Way way back in the day, manufacturers had to test each stick before it left the factory to make sure it worked and was "close enough" to published specs. Not only that, they then would pair the closest matching sticks and bundle them for "dual channel".

Today, the manufacturing process is so precise, they no longer test each stick. Nor do they test to match sticks for dual channel. The ONLY reason RAM is bundled in packages labeled as "Dual Channel" is because it is cheaper to put 2 sticks in one package. But there is no reason one could not buy two of the same sticks (or 4 of the same sticks), one at a time and have them run perfectly, as expected, in dual channel mode.

AT THE SAME TIME, motherboard and CPU makers have improved their memory management capabilities tremendously such that they are VERY CAPABLE at making slightly mismatched RAM to play well together.

In fact, the odds are in the user's favor they could buy 2 (or 4) sticks with the same specs from 2 (or 4) different manufacturers and expect them to work perfectly fine in dual channel mode. While we prefer going with the same brand and model number, we've mixed both many times here with great success.

Now if the user intends to do some extensive changes to the default clock and voltage settings, then all bets are off and one would be best served if they bought 2 (or 4) identical sticks from the same manufacturer to ensure the best chance of total compatibility.

At the very least, one sure buy RAM from well known manufacturers if they expect accurate adherence (tightest tolerances) with published specs.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

All this hoopla.

Do you overclock?

Yes = performance user.

Seeks lower quantity to achieve higher performance.

No = redundant system, needs the quantity, doesn't care about performance.

I personally do not consider 6000mt/s performance until it's overclocked at least 400mt/s with tweaked memory timings.

Fuckin QVL is hot trash. They release the board with a list on w/e bios they used, 6 months later, unless they test all if it again with updated bios revisions and ALL bios revisions tested.... the QVL doesn't mean shit to anyone.

Why do we argue petty semantics about qvl lists?
It's not even the topic.

 

[Bill_Bright]

How is it helpful to anyone to gripe about QVLs being worthless, then provide no alternative solution?

The QVLs are not perfect but they are not "shit" either. At the very least they are a research "starting place". Where else would you have people look to learn what's compatible with their board? The board's advertising/marketing hype? PCPartPicker? Crucial Memory Finder? You offered nothing.

PCPartPicker and Crucial memory finder are good, but I put more faith in the motherboard maker. ASUS and Gigabyte, as examples, only have to maintain small databases for their own ASUS and Gigabyte boards.

Those aftermarket 3rd party sites have to keep up with every motherboard maker out there. And the RAM wizards also have to keep up with every PC and laptop maker too. And where do they get their information but from the board/computer makers and, likely, their QVLs.

I do totally agree with you that the board makers do need to do a MUCH BETTER job at keeping their QVLs current after the initial release of the board. But again, what's a better option for consumers to learn what is compatible?

I'm not sure they need to go back and retest everything again after a BIOS update - I've not personally seen or heard of any instance where RAM was compatible, then after a BIOS update, was no longer compatible. If it happened, it is a rare exception to the norm.

But certainly there are cases where compatible RAM (by specs) is not listed. I find that frustrating especially since, in some cases, new BIOS versions are released just to add support for new RAM (and CPUs) that came out after the boards left the factory. That makes no sense to me not to update the QVL too. So I am with you there.

It is not semantics when one is reality and the other is false.

That said, I totally agree the QVL is not the topic here.

Do you overclock?

Yes = performance user.

Seeks lower quantity to achieve higher performance.

No = redundant system, needs the quantity, doesn't care about performance.

I have never heard of anyone who "seeks lower quantity" - regardless the reason.

Of course they care about performance. Why would anyone add RAM if not trying to improve performance? The OP specifically said,

only interested in getting just a little more out of my system without having to oc

That clearly reflects the most common scenario among the vast majority of users - they want to increase their RAM to get "a little more" performance out of their system, without having to dink with clocks and voltage settings.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

How is it helpful to anyone to gripe about QVLs being worthless, then provide no alternative solution?

The QVLs are not perfect but they are not "shit" either. At the very least they are a research "starting place". Where else would you have people look to learn what's compatible with their board? The board's advertising/marketing hype? PCPartPicker? Crucial Memory Finder? You offered nothing.

PCPartPicker and Crucial memory finder are good, but I put more faith in the motherboard maker. ASUS and Gigabyte, as examples, only have to maintain small databases for their own ASUS and Gigabyte boards.

Those aftermarket 3rd party sites have to keep up with every motherboard maker out there. And the RAM wizards also have to keep up with every PC and laptop maker too. And where do they get their information but from the board/computer makers and, likely, their QVLs.

I do totally agree with you that the board makers do need to do a MUCH BETTER job at keeping their QVLs current after the initial release of the board. But again, what's a better option for consumers to learn what is compatible?

I'm not sure they need to go back and retest everything again after a BIOS update - I've not personally seen or heard of any instance where RAM was compatible, then after a BIOS update, was no longer compatible. If it happened, it is a rare exception to the norm.

But certainly there are cases where compatible RAM (by specs) is not listed. I find that frustrating especially since, in some cases, new BIOS versions are released just to add support for new RAM (and CPUs) that came out after the boards left the factory. That makes no sense to me not to update the QVL too. So I am with you there.

It is not semantics when one is reality and the other is false.

That said, I totally agree the QVL is not the topic here.


I have never heard of anyone who "seeks lower quantity" - regardless the reason.

Of course they care about performance. Why would anyone add RAM if not trying to improve performance? The OP specifically said,

That clearly reflects the most common scenario among the vast majority of users - they want to increase their RAM to get "a little more" performance out of their system, without having to dink with clocks and voltage settings.

Well, wording on my end wasn't the greatest.

Getting a little more performance over XMP/DOCP profiles is exactly that. Overclocking what is already to make it faster.

Adding RAM doesn't increase performance ever. And if so, in an amount that we could consider within a margin of error.

Even those that buy budget gets can get way better performance.

Here is an example of an overclock with budget memory that produces performance gains. Very highly measurable performance gains.

I wrote this, but no longer a user there.

Memory overclock *The 70$ PNY 2666 kit

This thread is designed to help with overclocking on budget memory modules. (At your own Risk!!!) You know, the memory kits that Thaiphoon burner doesn't seem to read? (I'll show you here how to get the information. Be it complete or not....) But just to let you know, this will be a fresh start O...

linustechtips.com

If I where to had added 2 more sticks of the same memory, this OC would not be accomplished and the performance would be lower from adding in more dimms. As explained why earlier in the thread by several people, the reason is because the memory controller doesn't handle more dimms at higher frequency. It is the truth and always has been. At least from performance tuning perspectives.

But no, not interested in QVL talk. I've never once referenced a QVL list for any build and never do I suggest people to encounter and believe a QVL list.

There is also another thread where I was asked if bios should be updated because XMP doesn't work on the stock bios. The QVL is useless in that case.

Mobo choice for 12600k after returning MSI Tomahawk ( Broken M2 shield standoff )

After returning my Broken standoff holder I need a need mobo. This are the options I have currently in my country MSI PRO Z790-A WIFI DDR4 Intel Z790 Soket 1700 DDR4 5333(OC) = Same mobo but Z790 versionn around 230 $ MSI MAG Z790 TOMAHAWK WIFI DDR4 SOKET 1700 DDR4 5333MHZ(OC) = Tomahawk 790...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Bill_Bright]

Adding RAM doesn't increase performance ever.

Huh? Come on! That is total nonsense. What rock have you been hiding under for the last 30 years?

There is a rate of diminishing returns but ask anyone who increased their RAM from 4GB to 8GB if they saw a noticeable performance boost.

Going from 8GB to 16GB will yield significant gains too.

16GB to 32GB, will increase performance, but it will, in most cases, be less noticeable, if noticeable at all.

Increasing from there and most gains will be due to the placebo effect, or on paper in stress tests.

 

[gasolin]

I was lucky to get better sub timings also in a few cases 0.1% and 1% can be improved with 64gb (don't ask me how it works)

Mabye when you start to get ddr 6 ram and gpu's ..60 cards has 16 gb vram not just a rx 7600 or 4060 ti that might lack power when they get close to 12 gb vram usage, then 64gb system ram might be the sweetspot

Great example when 16 gb isn't enough

 

[lexluthermiester]

I've only caught part of this conversation but to answer the OP's original question, @gasolin all modern motherboards are rated to run memory at it's rated settings. This is especially true for AM5 boards. So whether you by 4x16GB DDR5-6400 or 2x32GB DDR5-6400 will not matter. They should run just fine at their rated speeds. I personally would recommend buying 2x32GB so you have room to expand later should you need to.

That said, to address the debate about whether or not a user will need more than a certain amount, this is highly situational. MOST users who are not gamers or power users will see no benefit from the jump from 16GB to 32GB. Folks involved with general computing tasks are not going to breach the 16GB memory wall as a general rule. However for gamers and power users(I fall into both groups) the jump from 16GB to 32GB is important if one is gaming at higher resolutions and with higher settings on high end hardware.

1080p on a system with an IGP(any), 16GB is fine.
1440p starts to get beyond the 16GB boundary, especially for system with a DGPU with >8GB of VRAM. 24GB+ almost become essential.
2160p and DGPUs with 16GB+ VRAM, 32GB is becoming a bottleneck for some games.

In the case of the OP and their stated system specs, they could get away with 32GB for a short time because they're only running dual 1440p displays. However, the 64GB kit they're inquiring about will suit their needs for the next several years, even if they upgrade to dual 4k displays and a 4090/5090.

@gasolin
I hope I've been helpful to you here. There is also a lot of info provided by other users who are very passionate about tech and sorting through it can sometimes be a job unto itself.

 

[gasolin]

When i need more than 64gb it will be when ddr 6 are standard ddr memory and ddr 5 are outdated or atleast not used much + when i have a gpu with more than 16gb of vram

Update 16gb is no go alone chrome 2-3 streams or 2 streams and gaming 16gb is not enough

what we basically want is system that doesn't bottleneck

chrome or firefox 100+ tabs, twitch x2, if we,i wanna play a game we don't have worry about ram, we just open a game (don't need to close anything)

Shure a fast cpu and gpu is also good, ok gpu, cpu is downgraded under 10% when multitasking and cpu 25-30% when i played an older game, i didn't use enough of my cpu, my ryzen 7600 is faster than a 8 core 5700x

 

[Frick]

2160p and DGPUs with 16GB+ VRAM, 32GB is becoming a bottleneck for some games.

What kind of games? FWIW I never noticed that on a 6950xt, 16GB RAM and a Ryzen 5600.

 

[lexluthermiester]

When i need more than 64gb it will be when ddr 6 are standard ddr memory and ddr 5 are outdated or atleast not used much + when i have a gpu with more than 16gb of vram

Exactly. 64GB is enough gaming and will be for several years.

What kind of games? FWIW I never noticed that on a 6950xt, 16GB RAM and a Ryzen 5600.

There's a host of them. Do you really want a list? Also, your system specs say differently.

 

[Frick]

There's a host of them. Do you really want a list? Also, your system specs say differently.

If you're so inclined, sure! "Noticed" as in past tense. Recently upgraded.