AM4 and Combining Different RAM?

[AusWolf]

since i just did a clean install and hadnt run any benches yet, 1080P 3DMark11.

3200 3600
results
14602 14725
13763 13857
25262 26261
15638 15697
fps
74 75
70 70
70 71
40 41
80 83
73 73

while its not a huge difference, its there, and that's on a card slower than 3060Ti, and not even using things like rebar, where i doubt having 5-7GB/s less, wont matter.
heck just even looking at kits, 3600C18 runs at least at the same level as 3200C14, while usually same/cheaper, and definitely more common to be found in shop than 3200C14.

part why i always stick to getting ram that allows for 1:1 with bus clock, and the lowest timings buyer can afford, unless they dont just game, and can actually name 2 things
they do, that are known to use more ram (than they need for gaming).

1 (one!) FPS on average? That's well within margin of error.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Two possible reasons:
The apps don't benefit from a jump to AM5 era CPUs+memory and there's no foreseeable updates that would make one reconsider.
The preferred offerings on AM5 boards still aren't financially sound or perpetually MIA/OoS.

I'm still on AM4 and staying here for a LOOOONG time. There's maybe one or two things where AM5 would be a benefit but I won't see it for years anyway.
It's a pattern and there are others that can see past the pattern as well. Making decisions like this is perfectly fine. Not everybody needs the new thing.

It was the same argument from ddr1 to 2. 2 to 3. 3 to ddr4, not the same speech ddr4 to ddr5.

Sure there's an overlap there.

But in the mean time.... save the money. I didn't say go spend money right this second or anything...

 

[DaemonForce]

It was the same argument from ddr1 to 2. 2 to 3. 3 to ddr4, not the same speech ddr4 to ddr5.

I've been through this noise since EDO was still relevant and started when making the jump from SDR to DDR.
These were all their own standards on each platform. I skipped RAMBUS and DDR2.
Went from the worst DDR kit to the worst DDR3 kit. Needed experience with Crucial and G.Skill to get out.

Ryzen and DDR4 appealed to me during that golden era of Micron E-die and I don't regret choosing it.
Can you say the same about any DDR5 kits? Didn't think so. I think many of us are still waiting for the moment.

 

[AusWolf]

It was the same argument from ddr1 to 2. 2 to 3. 3 to ddr4, not the same speech ddr4 to ddr5.

Sure there's an overlap there.

But in the mean time.... save the money. I didn't say go spend money right this second or anything...

As far as I've seen, the old standard usually becomes obsolete when the one after the new one gets released. Basically, DDR2 got obsolete when DDR4 dropped, so DDR4 will probably get old when DDR6 is out.

I've been through this noise since EDO was still relevant and started when making the jump from SDR to DDR.
These were all their own standards on each platform. I skipped RAMBUS and DDR2.
Went from the worst DDR kit to the worst DDR3 kit. Needed experience with Crucial and G.Skill to get out.

Ryzen and DDR4 appealed to me during that golden era of Micron E-die and I don't regret choosing it.
Can you say the same about any DDR5 kits? Didn't think so. I think many of us are still waiting for the moment.

I'm fine with DDR5. I wouldn't say it's night and day difference, especially with an X3D CPU that just doesn't care about RAM speed, but it's nice anyway. I wouldn't recommend ditching a Zen 3 platform for it, though.

 

[Waldorf]

@AusWolf
i repeated it 3 times each, ignoring the 3200 runs were technically better off (0.3 MHz higher cpu base clock), and started with a colder loop.
and while low, its not nothing, and that's on older gpu and an old bench, and not accounting for things like rebar, where bus/ram speed will make much bigger impact.

in short, for almost all gaming, having highest clocks that allow for 1:1 (ram/bus), is better than more ram (above 16gb).

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
i repeated it 3 times each, ignoring the 3200 runs were technically better off (0.3 MHz higher cpu base clock), and started with a colder loop.
and while low, its not nothing, and that's on older gpu and an old bench, and not accounting for things like rebar, where bus/ram speed will make much bigger impact.

in short, for almost all gaming, having highest clocks that allow for 1:1 (ram/bus), is better than more ram (above 16gb).

Even if that 1 FPS difference is consistent across several runs, it's still only 1 FPS. Don't tell me you feel that in a live game.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I've been through this noise since EDO was still relevant and started when making the jump from SDR to DDR.
These were all their own standards on each platform. I skipped RAMBUS and DDR2.
Went from the worst DDR kit to the worst DDR3 kit. Needed experience with Crucial and G.Skill to get out.

Ryzen and DDR4 appealed to me during that golden era of Micron E-die and I don't regret choosing it.
Can you say the same about any DDR5 kits? Didn't think so. I think many of us are still waiting for the moment.

Say the same about ddr5 kits??

Of course I can. Release of DDR5 was low frequency, way loose timings and very high prices...

 

[Chrispy_]

OF COURSE IT'S OBVIOUS that no one in 2025 will "close browser and other stuff" just to play game!
So, 16 GB is "on the edge" for any average game, unless it's Solitaire.

Modern games don't need a lot of RAM and shouldn't need you to close browser windows unless you have a real tab-management problem. Most AAA games are designed to run on 16GB consoles so they have a 3-6GB RAM footprint to free up 10GB+ of the shared 16GB for graphics duty. If you watch any of the thousands of youtube videos showing the MSI afterburner overlay, you'll typically see the system using well under 16GB RAM even while screen recording is active.

16GB is enough for a modern AAA game, Windows, a few browser windows, music and voice/chat - you only need more than 16GB RAM if you're running a high-end GPU at max settings and have a bunch of other stuff that would make your 16GB system low on RAM before you even opened the game.

while its not a huge difference, its there, and that's on a card slower than 3060Ti, and not even using things like rebar, where i doubt having 5-7GB/s less, wont matter.
heck just even looking at kits, 3600C18 runs at least at the same level as 3200C14, while usually same/cheaper, and definitely more common to be found in shop than 3200C14.

3200 C14 is on the expensive, premium side of 3200 RAM, the cheap 3200 kits similar in price to 3600 CL18 were all CL16 over here.

Absolute latency in ns is the most important factor for DDR4 on Zen3, but if two latencies are the same, then the RAM with the higher clock wins - not because of the bandwidth, but because the CPU's infinity fabric is running faster.

AMD always said 3600 was the performance sweet spot beyond which you were looking at very marginal gains for increasingly exotic and pricey RAM. For most of AM4's lifespan, 3200 was the best performance-per-dollar at ~95% or more of the performance of 3600 and typically a significantly (10-25%) lower cost.

The preferred offerings on AM5 boards still aren't financially sound or perpetually MIA/OoS.

I'm almost done with an upgrade at home from 5800X3D to 9800X3D. Grabbed an AM5 board from work and ordered some fast 6000 CL28 Flare X5 ready for when the 9800X3D comes down to its MSRP (or below). It's been at scalper prices for at least the last 3+ months and is finally appearing in stock at MSRP.

As for gaming performance, nothing apart from the 7800X3D or 9800X3D are enough of an improvement over a 5700X3D to merit spending all that extra money on a new motherboard and new RAM. The 9700X is a good all-rounder at $315 or so, but it's ~$550 if you also have to buy a new board and DDR5, compared to the ~$200 5700X3Ds have been selling for recently. Yes, the 9700X is a bit faster than a 5700X3D, but it's $200 vs $550 and they're often neck-and-neck in gaming (only) performance.

AM4 is AMD's strongest compeition at this point. It's been around for so long and there are so many good deals on new boards, plenty of decent used bundles on ebay - and still good brand-new CPUs coming out of AMD to keep the platform relevant. I suspect the 5700X3D is the last product we'll see on AM4, but even as a dead-end platform, it's valid. It's not like Intel Core Ultra 285K has any future either, LGA1851 is looking to be a single-generation platform that will never get any faster CPUs, so it's unfair to call AM4 a bad investment in 2025 when you look at the competition's paltry platform life.