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

[lexluthermiester]

If you're so inclined, sure!

Ok, Indiana Jones for example. If you're going to run that game at 4k, 16GB is not enough and you even need above 32GB or it's gonna stutter in places. There are other examples, including the recent patches for CyberPunk2077.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

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.

4gb to 8gb on what? A DDR3 platform?

OP inquired about 64gb of memory.

And no. I have a 16gb DDR5 kit which is 5200mt/s and that's the rated XMP bandwidth.

Adding more dimms does not increase bandwidth, it only increases capacity.

The entire point of the conversation in fact.

 

[Bill_Bright]

4gb to 8gb on what? A DDR3 platform?

Doesn't matter. DDR3, DDR4 - not the point. What matters is providing correct information and sadly, you haven't been.

You claimed people seek lower quantity to achieve higher performance. No they don't.

You claimed people wanting more quantity by adding more RAM don't care about performance. That, of course, is not true.

Then, after admitting your wording wasn't the greatest, you came back, doubled down and claimed (my bold underline added),

Adding RAM doesn't increase performance ever

You never said anything about the platform before. So if not "ever", it doesn't matter the platform.

Now if you misspoke, then just say so. It happens.

Lex is 100% correct. Regardless if running 4x16GB DDR5-6400 or 2x32GB DDR5-6400, it will not matter. They should run just fine. And going with 2 x 32GB to leave room (on a 4 slot) to add more RAM makes total sense, despite another's misguided claim about QVLs not "covering" that.

Lex is also correct to point out, that MOST users who are not gamers or power users will see no benefit from the jump from 16GB to 32GB. This is in agreement to my comment where I said going from 16GB to 32GB "in most cases, be less noticeable, if noticeable at all."

However, 4GB to 8GB will yield significant gains for most users and 8GB to 16GB will yield noticeable gains for many more users.

I have said before, for most users and most tasks, 16GB is the "sweet spot". Less RAM and performance will be noticeably less. More RAM and performance gains will be minimal, at best. I have also said many time, more RAM almost always trumps faster RAM. That is still true.

Yes, you are correct that overclocking RAM can increase performance (on some tasks) too. But that, by no means is the only way to achieve noticeable performance gains.

Now I see no reason to debate these OT sidetracks further. The OP has all the information needed to make informed decisions. So I am stepping out now.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Doesn't matter. DDR3, DDR4 - not the point. What matters is providing correct information and sadly, you haven't been.

You claimed people seek lower quantity to achieve higher performance. No they don't.

You claimed people wanting more quantity by adding more RAM don't care about performance. That, of course, is not true.

Then, after admitting your wording wasn't the greatest, you came back, doubled down and claimed (my bold underline added),

You never said anything about the platform before. So if not "ever", it doesn't matter the platform.

Now if you misspoke, then just say so. It happens.

Lex is 100% correct. Regardless if running 4x16GB DDR5-6400 or 2x32GB DDR5-6400, it will not matter. They should run just fine. And going with 2 x 32GB to leave room (on a 4 slot) to add more RAM makes total sense, despite another's misguided claim about QVLs not "covering" that.

Lex is also correct to point out, that MOST users who are not gamers or power users will see no benefit from the jump from 16GB to 32GB. This is in agreement to my comment where I said going from 16GB to 32GB "in most cases, be less noticeable, if noticeable at all."

However, 4GB to 8GB will yield significant gains for most users and 8GB to 16GB will yield noticeable gains for many more users.

I have said before, for most users and most tasks, 16GB is the "sweet spot". Less RAM and performance will be noticeably less. More RAM and performance gains will be minimal, at best. I have also said many time, more RAM almost always trumps faster RAM. That is still true.

Yes, you are correct that overclocking RAM can increase performance (on some tasks) too. But that, by no means is the only way to achieve noticeable performance gains.

Now I see no reason to debate these OT sidetracks further. The OP has all the information needed to make informed decisions. So I am stepping out now.

I'm afraid that you are just plain incorrect, for the most part.

If windows indicates you are running out of system memory and the OS uses the HDD as system ram, called page file, then performance would tank really hard.

To increase performance, most users Enable XMP, which is what is called an overclock profile. This increases performance no matter how many sticks are installed.

Adding sticks at the XMP profile does not increase performance with, of course, select applications.

So adding extra memory would help an application such as 7zip with high thread count processors. And nice enough, the program even has a benchmark!! Wow, now we have something to measure with.

And yes, 64gb isn't hitting 8000mt/s DDR5 on most mainstream boards with a max of 7200mt/s. I know. I've had several ddr5 boards now.

Only select boards with select memory configurations (2 slot boards) and specific memory timing settings are considered performance systems.

So, maybe you are also considering Dell and HP where the memory frequency, (bandwidth = performance) is generally very limited.

But since XMP is usually turn on with gaming and high performance systems, it is just common knowledge this is an overclock profile.

----

Cause if we didn't need bandwidth, and just needed capacity, we could just stick with 64gb of DDR 1 at only 200mhz and we wouldn't be having such conversations.

It has become crystal clear you've never built a high end modern gaming system, have zero experience with it and stuck on the train of thought that you are just correct and nothing else really matters. The bummer is, I just don't agree with most of your points because it became obvious your version of performance vastly differs from everyone else's.

 

[Princess Garnet]

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

I said more DIMMs are "heavier" than less DIMMs (since the thread starter was asking about differences between more DIMMs and less, so I was directly answering their question). That is universally true. The fact that it doesn't always prevent one from reaching whatever their desired threshold is does not change that. You're seemingly unable to make that distinction, and as a result, you're seeing contradictory claims where there is none; in other words, you're arguing a point with me that I never made. I'm not going to continue defending myself against that beyond this post.

 

[Toothless]

I feel like people are missing the simple fact that running four dimms is harder on the IMC and continue to be purposely ignorant to it. Even on AMD's own site the official support speed drops hard when using four compared to two and my own testing of multiple platforms over multiple generations over multiple years supports this. Like my 5950x does 4000 on two dimms perfectly fine but caps off at 3400 with four. Funny how some of y'all are like "it makes no difference" as if you ever tried and was in my shoes with all my testing.

Thread has long ran it's course.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I said more DIMMs are "heavier" than less DIMMs

No you didn't. Please. Anyone reading can easily go back to Post #2 and see where you clearly said, "harder". Not "heavier". They can also search the rest of this thread and see that no where, did you say "heavier". I fail to see why you would state such a blatant falsehood.

Same with SB who clearly said in post #68 that adding RAM "doesn't ever" increase performance. Everybody knows that "doesn't ever" means NEVER! It doesn't mean some times.

But now, once again, he is trying to deceive us and obfuscate the issue by spewing unrelated BS about page files, and "what if's" and different RAM platforms - as if that matters, when it doesn't. Now claims I am incorrect when again, it is right there in post #68, EVERYONE can see for themselves, exactly what he said.

There's no shame in admitting one's mistakes. In fact that shows honor and integrity. Both of you admitted using bad choice of words and I appreciate and respect that. But now you go back and try to say you said something different? Huh? When we all can see that is not the truth? ???

SB now tries go back and say I'm incorrect when, again, everyone can go back and see the truth about what he really said?

Where's the integrity? What's wrong with telling the truth? You said it. It is right there in black and white.

To increase performance, most users Enable XMP

Total nonsense. First, not all motherboards support XMP (or EXPO). And while likely all RAM in recent years supports it, some legacy RAM may not. Older CPUs may or may not support the full potential of the installed RAM.

Second, to increase performance "MOST USERS" add RAM, upgrade their CPU, upgrade their graphics, migrate to a SSD or clean out the clutter or all of the above. "MOST USERS" don't know what XMP is. Most "enthusiasts" may be familiar with XMP, but enthusiasts make up only a small percentage of computer users - contrary to what some here seem to think.

Now PLEASE. Let's just drop this now. It is not helping the OP, or anyone else.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

No you didn't. Please. Anyone reading can easily go back to Post #2 and see where you clearly said, "harder". Not "heavier". They can also search the rest of this thread and see that no where, did you say "heavier". I fail to see why you would state such a blatant falsehood.

Same with SB who clearly said in post #68 that adding RAM "doesn't ever" increase performance. Everybody knows that "doesn't ever" means NEVER! It doesn't mean some times.

But now, once again, he is trying to deceive us and obfuscate the issue by spewing unrelated BS about page files, and "what if's" and different RAM platforms - as if that matters, when it doesn't. Now claims I am incorrect when again, it is right there in post #68, EVERYONE can see for themselves, exactly what he said.

There's no shame in admitting one's mistakes. In fact that shows honor and integrity. Both of you admitted using bad choice of words and I appreciate and respect that. But now you go back and try to say you said something different? Huh? When we all can see that is not the truth? ???

SB now tries go back and say I'm incorrect when, again, everyone can go back and see the truth about what he really said?

Where's the integrity? What's wrong with telling the truth? You said it. It is right there in black and white.




Total nonsense. First, not all motherboards support XMP (or EXPO). And while likely all RAM in recent years supports it, some legacy RAM may not. Older CPUs may or may not support the full potential of the installed RAM.

Second, to increase performance "MOST USERS" add RAM, upgrade their CPU, upgrade their graphics, migrate to a SSD or clean out the clutter or all of the above. "MOST USERS" don't know what XMP is. Most "enthusiasts" may be familiar with XMP, but enthusiasts make up only a small percentage of computer users - contrary to what some here seem to think.

Now PLEASE. Let's just drop this now. It is not helping the OP, or anyone else.

No. No. No.

Most users by a 2 stick kit.
And enable XMP.
To increase performance.
And then try.
To add non matched sticks
Later
And wonder why XMP doesn't work
Any longer.

DELL even makes gaming PCs
Which comes with
XMP.

Additional memory installed only increases quantity with a very marginal, like within margin of error +/- 1% performance differences.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Why is this debate continuing? Folks, the discussion is over. The OP has the answer they need. Let's have done with it shall we?

And for the record, there hasn't been any problems with populating RAM slots since AMD and Intel both updated the microcode for their respective CPU's that were having the issues. That was 6 years ago. Let's have done with that too.

@gasolin
Get your kit, install, config in the BIOS, enjoy!

 

[ir_cow]

I finished my popcorn. Should I make more?

 

[Shrek]

This thread has helped me, for I have 2 sticks of single rank RAM (16GB in all) and 2 sticks of dual rank RAM (32GB in all) on the way.

This way if they are not compatible, I will still have upgraded from 16GB to 32GB although I hope to be running all 4 sticks.

im only interested in getting just a little more out of my system without having to oc above rated speed (reliable,heat)

I'm not sure the OP was concerned about rank.