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.