dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
22020

wutsinterweb3
End Citizen's United
Premium Member
join:2014-08-26
USA

wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

Populating 4 RAM slots versus 2?

I seem to recall that overclocks became more limited when populating the second pair of slots as well as the first pair, and that it made the CPU run hotter. Is that still the case?

C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium Member
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

C0deZer0

Premium Member

It's more to do with the stress on the memory controller.

Believe it or not, many memory technologies out there are capable of going much, much faster. The limiting factor has and continues to be the memory controllers are usually not built to tolerate managing it effectively.

Annoyingly, this still somewhat holds true. especially if you have to mis-match memory.

aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA

aurgathor to wutsinterweb3

Member

to wutsinterweb3
In a nutshell, it's because the extra modules present a capacitive load and that require more current to drive them and the additional capacity lowers the maximum attainable frequency.

With the exception of some older AMD based mobos, this shouldn't be an issue unless you're planning to overclock.

wutsinterweb3
End Citizen's United
Premium Member
join:2014-08-26
USA

wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

I can't afford it now, but was thinking of maybe getting a second pair of the RAM I'm using (GSKill DDR3 2400 2 x 8 GB) so that I'd max out the RAM on this, this system is gonna have to serve me for quite a while and I don't know if 16 GB of RAM will end up, say 3 or 5 years from now, is being minimal. I graduated from a system of 2 x 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM, and it was bad.

Msradell
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY

Msradell

Premium Member

said by wutsinterweb3:

I can't afford it now, but was thinking of maybe getting a second pair of the RAM I'm using (GSKill DDR3 2400 2 x 8 GB) so that I'd max out the RAM on this, this system is gonna have to serve me for quite a while and I don't know if 16 GB of RAM will end up, say 3 or 5 years from now, is being minimal. I graduated from a system of 2 x 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM, and it was bad.

Unless you're running some graphics programs that are very memory intensive 16 GB of RAM should be all you need for the life of your computer! Today very few applications even require 4 GB of RAM in reality.

aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA

aurgathor

Member

While the number of apps requiring 4GB may be small, when you look at the system level, 4GB can be easily insufficient nowadays. For one, I don't run anything particularly memory intensive, but I still can get into situations where 4GB isn't enough, and my PC is grinding to a halt with constant HD access. (trashing) I have a habit of keeping Firefox tabs open, and once I'm over a certain number, that can cause issues.

IMHO, nowadays is 4GB is the absolute minimum for most new systems, but one should really try to go for 8 or 16 GB.
Sentinel
Premium Member
join:2001-02-07
Florida

Sentinel to wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

to wutsinterweb3
Probably a dumb question but kinda related... in general, assuming the same overall amount, is it better to have fewer large sticks of ram or more smaller sticks? For example 1 x 16 GB stick of ram or 4 x 4 GB sticks?

Does having 4 sticks allow all 4 slots to communicate at once thus speeding things up, or does having only 1 stick cause lower load on the bus thus speeding things up?

aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA

aurgathor

Member

said by Sentinel:

is it better to have fewer large sticks of ram or more smaller sticks? For example 1 x 16 GB stick of ram or 4 x 4 GB sticks?

In what respect? 4x4GB could be a little faster on *benchmarks*, but assuming 4 slots, you need to replace some or all if you want to upgrade.

Lower electrical load may only count in some special cases. (certain CPUs/chipsets, extreme overclocking, etc.) but for the possibility of simpler future upgrade, IMHO, in general it is better to get a higher capacity RAM, so upgrade can be done without selling the low capacity RAM.
Sentinel
Premium Member
join:2001-02-07
Florida

Sentinel

Premium Member

I'm talking simply about speed. What is faster. And I don't mean factoring in cost or upgrade-ability. So for example starting with a new build or something.

Is the ram more efficient or faster if you have 4x4 populating all 4 slots on a board because it uses all 4 pathways simultaneously thus allowing communication simultaneously to all 4 sticks so more ram can be addressed at once,
OR
Is it faster or more efficient to have just 1 large stick in just one slot?

My thought would be that, in the example mentioned, one large (16GB) stick would generate less heat (the OP's concern) but I would think that it would be less efficient because the bus could only support addressing a certain amount at a time since it is only on 1 slot. The 4x4 sticks would generate more heat but would be faster because it would allow communication with all 4 sticks or areas of ram simultaneously.

Or am I seeing this all wrong?

norwegian
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Outback

norwegian

Premium Member

I would think of it this way:
(Something always explained here)
If you use 8gb and you have 16gb it won't make any difference.

If you use 8gb and you have 1 x stick of 8gb versus 2 x 4gb then another question needs to be answered.

Do you need paired ram sticks for the dual channel or do you just need ram in bulk?

Answer my question after your own research and then come back.
I'm sure someone will explain or provide links to help you make your decision.
Sentinel
Premium Member
join:2001-02-07
Florida

Sentinel

Premium Member

said by norwegian:

If you use 8gb and you have 16gb it won't make any difference.

I guess that's what I'm asking. If you have 16gb and you use 8gb, how is it used? Does the PC use all the ram on the first stick until it runs out and then goes to the next stick in succession until reaching the end of available ram? Or does it use equal amounts from all sticks totaling 8gb?

If it is the former then, if the first stick is an 8gb stick then it doesn't matter. But if it is the latter then having more sticks will be faster since it will read/write to multiple sticks at the same time.

SO I guess a more accurate question is: If the PC is using (addressing) all 16gb at once, would it address (read/write) it faster if it is on 1 stick (one channel or bus) or would it address it faster if the ram is split up among 4 sticks (2 channels or multiple buses)?

With CPUs it is obvious that to have multiple cores is faster than one big core. Of course assuming that multiple things are being processed at the same time so that one core can do certain things while another processes other thing. As long as there are multiple pathways in and out then this is more efficient. However if there is only one pathway or bus then the increased speed or processing is kinda cancelled out. No?

wutsinterweb3
End Citizen's United
Premium Member
join:2014-08-26
USA

wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

Isn't dual channel something that comes into play here? If it's running in dual channel, a pair of sticks would be used I assume, and that could be faster? But if you don't install your sticks in the right slots, that won't work, right?
Sentinel
Premium Member
join:2001-02-07
Florida

Sentinel

Premium Member

Right. But I am assuming that all 4 slots are full and that they are dual channel ram for the sake of comparison. I aim simply interested in the speed of apples to apples. So assuming that you install the proper ram in all 4 identical matched sticks thus populating all 4 slots or both bays OR 1 huge stick in one slot.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok to wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

to wutsinterweb3
said by wutsinterweb3:

I can't afford it now, but was thinking of maybe getting a second pair of the RAM I'm using (GSKill DDR3 2400 2 x 8 GB) so that I'd max out the RAM on this, this system is gonna have to serve me for quite a while and I don't know if 16 GB of RAM will end up, say 3 or 5 years from now, is being minimal. I graduated from a system of 2 x 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM, and it was bad.

Anything over 1600 mhz is a waste. Why are you buying super ritzy memory? Just get DDR3-1600 @ 1.5v or lower for Intel CPUs.
Krisnatharok

Krisnatharok to Msradell

Premium Member

to Msradell
said by Msradell:

Unless you're running some graphics programs that are very memory intensive 16 GB of RAM should be all you need for the life of your computer! Today very few applications even require 4 GB of RAM in reality.

8 GB is the sweet spot nowadays. Chrome itself will take 800-900 MB up with 8+ tabs.

wutsinterweb3
End Citizen's United
Premium Member
join:2014-08-26
USA

wutsinterweb3 to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

to Krisnatharok
Kris, I'm not as savvy or educated as you, you are asking a good question. The RAM was fairly cheap though, a little more than 1600 RAM. I have XMP enabled. I was of the belief that you needed faster RAM in order to overclock the CPU, and I guess that is not the case. I admit that I don't want an uber overclock, maybe 4.2 or 4.3 at the most, don't want to take it to the edge. I will have to wait until I get the cooler you recommended first. In the future, I'll try to listen to you more carefully!

norwegian
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Outback

norwegian to Sentinel

Premium Member

to Sentinel

I think dual channel is more effective full stop.
But like software using only 1 core of an 8 core cpu, the hardware is over kill.
A 4 core would have sufficed. I've always preferred dual channel ram in kits

If your chores need the ram, then it isn't about dual channel if you have ram laying around that can save money if you just loose the dual channel ability by using all the slots and differing ram and size.
Saving $200 just for loosing dual channel seems a smart thing to do unless you have spare cash.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok to wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

to wutsinterweb3
said by wutsinterweb3:

Kris, I'm not as savvy or educated as you, you are asking a good question. The RAM was fairly cheap though, a little more than 1600 RAM. I have XMP enabled. I was of the belief that you needed faster RAM in order to overclock the CPU, and I guess that is not the case. I admit that I don't want an uber overclock, maybe 4.2 or 4.3 at the most, don't want to take it to the edge. I will have to wait until I get the cooler you recommended first. In the future, I'll try to listen to you more carefully!

Didn't mean to knock you at all! A good rule of thumb is to look at native ram speeds from the Intel page on the CPU before making a purchasing decision. I run 1866 ram in my Ivy Bridge i7 because it was slightly cheaper than the 1600 when I bought it.

You also might intentionally buy OC'd ram if you were building an APU, because the biggest bottleneck is system memory, which doubles as iGPU memory as well (typically get DDR3 2133 or 2400 for APUs). The newest Intel chips use DDR4 which natively is 2133, but I'd imagine you could get 2400/2600/2800 if it were cheaper without too much added strain on the memory controller. Remember that OC'd memory will put more strain on the memory controller, it will run hotter, and you usually don't see much benefit from it.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix to Msradell

Premium Member

to Msradell
said by Msradell:

16 GB of RAM should be all you need for the life of your computer!

That reminds me of that quote about 16k is all you'll ever need.
DarkLogix

2 recommendations

DarkLogix to aurgathor

Premium Member

to aurgathor
said by aurgathor:

IMHO, nowadays is 4GB is the absolute minimum for most new systems, but one should really try to go for 8 or 16 GB.

IMO the absolute minimum for a new system is 8GB, 16GB is nice though.
4GB just isn't a good experience anymore.

For me my next system will have atleast 64GB (my current system has 24GB, i7 930 tri-channel)
DarkLogix

1 edit

DarkLogix to Sentinel

Premium Member

to Sentinel
said by Sentinel:

Is the ram more efficient or faster if you have 4x4 populating all 4 slots on a board because it uses all 4 pathways simultaneously thus allowing communication simultaneously to all 4 sticks so more ram can be addressed at once,
OR
Is it faster or more efficient to have just 1 large stick in just one slot?

Well if you have quad channel ram then ya, but if you only have dual then 2x8 would be better, but if you somehow have a system that's only single channel (not sure if they still make that) then the 1x16

Basically for ram performance it depends on how many channels your CPU's memory controller is able to use.

My i7 930 has a tri-channel controller, so I add memory is sets of 3.
The non-E sandy/ivy bridge chips are dual channel, the E chips are up to quad channel.

And it is ideal to make use of multi-channel so just check what CPU you're using and go from there.

wutsinterweb3
End Citizen's United
Premium Member
join:2014-08-26
USA

wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

So taking advantage of all of the available channels is better than the same amount of RAM on less channels? Ok, I figured that, but it also means added stress on the CPU's memory controller, right? Is it something to be concerned with, the stress?

aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA

aurgathor

Member

Better? Yes, but the difference in most cases is only noticeable when you run specialized tests. In real life, you most likely won't notice anything different.

The added stress on the memory controller should be negligible, and it is nothing to worry about.

I'm not sure about the relevant memory prices, but if a single stick 16GB is not much more than 2x8GB, I'd go with a single stick. And I would definitely not go for 4x4GB, unless it was really-really cheap compared to 2x8GB.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok to DarkLogix

Premium Member

to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:

For me my next system will have atleast 64GB

In what timeframe are you building? I helped Archivis with his 5820K build and 32 GB of DDR4 was $300-400. For his VMs, 32 GB was enough. 64 GB is going to run you $600-800 if you build it in the near future.

My wife's i7-920 has 24 GB DDR3-1333, my i7-3770K has 16 GB of DDR3-1866. My next build in 1-2 years will probably have 32 GB of DDR4. I see 32 GB being "enough" for the next 4-5 years.

It's important people deal with timeframes when making recommendations or throwing out judgements on what's enough and for what uses.

wutsinterweb3
End Citizen's United
Premium Member
join:2014-08-26
USA

wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

You guys are the Shiznit! Wonder what the minimum RAM requirement will be for Windows 10, 8 GB? What is it for Windows 8 Pro?

The reason I am considering getting a second set of the same RAM if I can scare up the money in the coming months is that getting matching RAM years later is pretty hard to do and I've never been able to get different RAMs to live together in a system.

I still have to get a case, SSD, large hard drive, bluray OD, and a Haswell approved SMPS, and at some point, a video card. Probably gonna have to wait until next tax return in a year to get SOME of that.

aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA

aurgathor to DarkLogix

Member

to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:

said by aurgathor:

IMHO, nowadays is 4GB is the absolute minimum for most new systems, but one should really try to go for 8 or 16 GB.

IMO the absolute minimum for a new system is 8GB, 16GB is nice though.
4GB just isn't a good experience anymore.

I have 4 desktop PCs (4GB, 6GB, 8GB, 16GB) and 4GB is plenty enough for any single, not too demanding task such as surfing the web, watch youtube, watch 1080p movies, edit office documents, etc.

Now, if I have 3 browsers open with 30+ tabs each, then yes, the lack of memory with 4GB will be easily noticeable.

For me my next system will have atleast 64GB (my current system has 24GB, i7 930 tri-channel)

You can have as much as you can pay for; however, there is cost and diminishing return on big amounts of memory. And what exactly that "when" entails?

Personally, with *my* use, I don't see or feel any difference between 8GB and 16GB (both are Win7 x64 machines with comparable CPUs) so while I will make sure that I can add more memory if needed, I'm not likely to splurge on memory without an actual need.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:

In what timeframe are you building?

The timeframe isn't set yet as monetary resources keep end up going to other things.

C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium Member
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

C0deZer0

Premium Member

said by DarkLogix:

said by Krisnatharok:

In what timeframe are you building?

The timeframe isn't set yet as monetary resources keep end up going to other things.

I know that feel.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to wutsinterweb3

Premium Member

to wutsinterweb3
RAM is an interesting computer part. It is possibly one of the most impactful on performance while also one of the cheapest to upgrade.

ID say at current posting of this...

8GB for a day to day use machine and light weight gaming

16GB for gaming and light weight graphics and video work

32GB and up computer modeling, high end gaming, heavy video or image editing.

note of course these are suggestions when balancing your PC budget.

RAM is also the first place you can jump to if you have performance issues and for example you only have 4GB, Another 4GB could give you quite a boost along with some disk cleanup.

Memory and storage seem to be things that you can never have too much of but it comes down real fast if you have too little. It seems far easier to squeak an extra few years out of a video card or CPU than it does too little memory.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:

said by DarkLogix:

For me my next system will have atleast 64GB

In what timeframe are you building? I helped Archivis with his 5820K build and 32 GB of DDR4 was $300-400. For his VMs, 32 GB was enough. 64 GB is going to run you $600-800 if you build it in the near future.

My wife's i7-920 has 24 GB DDR3-1333, my i7-3770K has 16 GB of DDR3-1866. My next build in 1-2 years will probably have 32 GB of DDR4. I see 32 GB being "enough" for the next 4-5 years.

It's important people deal with timeframes when making recommendations or throwing out judgements on what's enough and for what uses.

Well for my VM setup I have a DL580G5 w/ 128GB and 4x x7350 and a TS-469-Pro QNAP

For my desktop I like to build it to last a good while.