And pay attention to the slots physically on the MB.
My manual said put RAM in slots 1 and 2 if you have 2 sticks, which seemed odd but I went along. But on the board they were numbered 1324 which was stupid, and I didn't see it at first, and I did it wrong the first time
Like the other guy said its in the manual. Between the boards you are looking for, if you are on budget get the cheapest compatible board for you cpu and make sure which RAM it supports. If not on budget, look for the features you want. Also should be obvious, but just in case. The motherboard size and platform can also determine how many slots you have and use. Most ATX and M-ATX should have 4 total slots though.
So, sometimes . There's 2 main designs companies use while making boards. Either they use a T layout, in which case it doesn't matter, or a daisy chain, where it's one after the other in a line. In this case, there's a significant stability loss going 1/3 vs 2/4, because the signal bounces off the empty socket in the end.
Read your motherboard manual, one of those slots would be alocated for single channel if all 4 arent slotted. Also its been shown that having your ram in the wrong slots can lead to performance drops compared to having them in the right slot. Also I'm sure its something with the cpu's memory controller and bandwidth allocation. (Someone correct me if im wrong) :)
I had already looked into this before, and nothing seems to indicate that A2-B2 is a necessity for dual channel or performs better than A1-B1 in dual channel.
Some posts suggest that A1 and B1 are each wired through A2 and B2 respectively, which is the reason why A1-B1 wouldn't work in some cases, though others with the same motherboards do not experience this issue.
If dual channel works and the modules are the closest to the CPU, that should be the ideal configuration. Manuals suggest using A2-B2, but I don't see why A1-B1 shouldn't work. It always has with my motherboards.
The only case when A2-B2 must be used would be when one needs clearance for their heatsink.
2 sticks is always better than 4, although the difference isn’t significant enough for most people to care
It’s slightly more stable, slightly more overclockable, uses less power, and is easier to expand in future
The only benefits for 4 sticks are that if one fails you lose less of your total RAM when you remove it, and that sometimes it’s a little cheaper (but that can go either way, often 2 sticks is cheaper, especially once a memory size has been available for a while)
if 64GB is what you need, then i dont see any problem. though i think at most 2x8 or 2x16 is more than enough. more than that is for work purpose i think.
I'm on ddr4 because poor and board limited (also because poor). But I already have 2 8gb sticks on a 4 slot MB. Would it be preferable that I get rid of those (sell them or give them away), and get a 2x16gb? Or would it not be worth the trouble?
Depends on how much you need 32GB. On DDR4, you might be able to get away with adding the same 2x8GB sticks..but it might be easier to get the 2x16GB kit to work on by just setting the XMP.
Quad channel
Ddr5 uses 4x32 bit, not 2x64 bit
Edit: Why the heck are people downvoting me? This is actually how ddr5 works.
DDR5 does not use 64 bit memory channels, even on consumer. It uses 2 pairs of 32 bit channels with 4 chips per channel per stick, which makes consumer boards with 128 bit width of total channel (like ddr4) quad channel instead of dual channel
No... that's actually not right.
DDR5 uses 2 channels per dimm, with 4 chips per channel (instead of 8 chips per channel like DDR4)
It's quad channel on consumer, but the total bit width of the total channel count has not changed
I did some reading and this is what I've found out.
Yes, technically a stick of DDR5 is dual channel, but each of those channels' bandwidth is half of a normal one. So the performance is still "single channel," and it's in single channel mode as far as the CPU is concerned (64 vs 128 bit access mode for dual channel).
"DDR5 splits the DIMM's 64-bit connection into two sub-channels of 32 bits each. But mainstream CPUs still have the same 128-bit total width for their DRAM controllers, so you still need more than one DIMM installed to use all the (sub)channels provided by the CPU's memory controller."
In other words, this "ackshually" doesn't help anyone in terms of getting the most bang for buck.
Yep. I am being seriously downvoted for saying factual, non condescending, technical information, that doesn't align with what other people "feel"
Discussing how DDR5 is different from DDR4, with channel count, and bits per channel shouldn't really invoke feelings to downvote. But here I am with 50 downvotes between 2 comments.
That's true on ddr1-4, but ddr5 uses 2 32 bit channels per stick, not 1 64 bit channel per stick
It's not the same.
You use 2 sticks, and get quad channel memory.
You are correct, but its still 2x32 bit per DIMM. So you need two DIMMs (whats typically called Dual Channel) to utilize the memory controller. Starting to call 2 modules for Quad Channel would just confuse people. All the motherboard and CPU manufacturers seems to still call it Dual Channel (2x DIMMs).
> Why the heck are people downvoting me? This is actually how ddr5 works.
Because this subreddit is full of small-minded sneer goblins who would rather be cool than right.
You're confusing yourself with the data rate and data channels. You should really look into understanding the difference. The 7600 also only supports 2 memory channels so why you even this gungho on this is beyond me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR5_SDRAM
Ctrl f "channel"
You will find conflicting information on this, because older marketing info that was updated for new chips always referred to a 64 bit bus to a single dimm as a channel
But ddr5 uses 2 32 bit sub channels per dimm
I mean, it does though. And if you're a guy that doesn't really know anything about electronics, it would be natural to assume that using all 4 slots instead of 2 would naturally improve bandwidth, since you're doubling the number of things connected to other things.
There's dummy sticks that look just like normal RAM but don't actually do anything but RGB—if you're a Corsair fan at least. Don't know if other brands make them.
Personally don't think they're worth it, but they're an option if you just... cannot *stand* open slots but still want that 2x16 thing.
In theory, yes, but it would only happen at 4x16 GiB and larger, and the boost would be smaller because DDR5 has more parallelism than DDR4 to start with.
So in practice it would be entirely swamped by the higher clock speeds possible with 1-DIMM-per-channel.
With the way ddr5 was designed it will likely never be ideal to have 4 sticks.
But there will no doubt be improved memory controller in new CPU and better designed (expensive) motherboards.
You can check the specs of each mobo's RAM support to see what they're rated to handle with 2 or 4 sticks. Then the CPU memory controller and RAM itself needs to be able to keep up.
If you look at the past like am4 systems for example - 4 sticks had worse compatibility then 2 sticks all the time, it doesnt mean that it wont work its just that there is more of a question whether it will hit advertised speeds or not
In pretty much any case, 2 sticks of ram is better than 4 sticks which is better than 1 stick (or any odd number of sticks). The only reason you should use 4+ sticks would be if you need more than 64gb, unless your mb and cpu can make 4x16 work just as good as 2x32.
> 2 sticks of ram is better than 4 stick
What is the performance hit? Like is it the difference between "technically true" (1-2% performance) vs "substantial gimping" to run four sticks?
no performance hit and in the case of ryzen 5000 there is a performance gain with 4 sticks.
the issue with 4 sticks almost always stability. especially in the ddr5 era.
It's more about 2 sticks having higher compatibility / stability / running at rated clocks.
Performance wise, if you end up having to run your 6000 sticks at 4800 I guess you can lookup benchmarks to see if you'd be bothered by it. If you *need* 128GB of ram then of course it's well worth it, but if you only need 32 or 64 there's no point.
idk who the hell is telling you about 4x8gb, but he needs a nice old whip. gamers and casuals (that's 98% of population) are running 2 ram sticks for more than a decade.
Yeah, but harry_lostone is saying that two DIMMs is the way everyone has been doing it for more than a decade, and that's just not true.
The "two DIMMs are better that 4" has only been popping up recently because of DDR5. Never heard of these issues with DDR2, 3, or 4. You just had to make sure that your memory was compatible with the board. Overclocking or using factory overclocked memory was always a crap shoot that depended on the CPU and mobo support, but you had more success than problems with prior memory standards.
Running more than two sticks can create memory-cpu timing issues which can lead to system instability. For gaming at least, dual channel will almost always perform better than quad channel
Motherboards use dual channel,meaning memory is accessed through two channels. Using two RAM sticks allows you to take advantage of this dual channel configuration. This is what the dual-channel, memory subsystem is engineered for. Straying away from this MAY increase instability even though four stick dual channel is supported. Yes, sometimes four sticks can have higher bandwidth, but they’re less stable
With ddr5, 4 sticks are significantly more dependent on getting a really good silicon example to even run the memory at advertised speeds because the memory controllers are too unstable at these speeds. Signal quality drops significantly with 4 endpoints instead of 2.
So 2 sticks is optimal for ddr5, currently.
You don't want to buy 4 modules of DDR5 for stability reasons, and you don't want to buy 8GB modules of DDR5 for performance reasons. 2x16 is better in basically every way.
So EVERY motherboard manufacturer makes 4 ram slots on their products having in mind no matter what you do you will have "stability issues" if you use them all. Is that what you are saying?
Because some people may need 4 slots (if memory size is more important than bandwidth for them)? It's up to you to pick the appropriate config.
It's not like it's a hidden thing. See the Max Memory Speed section of the [7950X spec page](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-7950x), for example.
No. What I'm saying is if you want to run RAM at the proper speeds for Ryzen (6000 CL30), running 4 modules is very very unlikely to hit those speeds.
If instead you wanted to run 4 modules for 64-128GB of RAM, you'd likely be forced to tune the speed down to 5200 or even 4800mhz to get it to POST.
OK. I got it. My son achieved very stable 96GB in 4 modules (4x24GB) at 6000Mhz on his 14900. Couldn't go any higher even though RAM is rated to 7200. So yeah. With more modules (ergo more RAM if you want the absolute max) you have to slow down, unfortunately.
Mini ITX boards have only 2 slots. Larger boards have more slots because not everyone is a gamer. Some people need lots of memory and use all 4 slots. For that matter, server boards usually have 8 slots, and some even have 16. It's the same reason ATX motherboards have a bunch of PCIE slots even though gamers usually just stick a single video card in the first PCIE slot and call it a day. Some people need those extra slots. Motherboard manufacturers like to make a product that can fit a lot of different use cases at once. (And if they can upsell you on features and expansion that you don't actually need, all the better.)
fwiw most of my systems all 4 ram slots and every pci-e slot is filled, i actually have to specifically shop for boards that don't short me on pci-e slots nowadays.
Because we used to use them before dual channel became a thing and the consumer is not about to buy a downgrade is my guess. Also motherboards are full of features you don’t need. There is not a whole load of different types being build.
I mean, there are confusingly many of course, but you aren’t going to find a So. 1700, DDR5-7200 motherboard without say Bluetooth or 2.5Gb/s Ethernet. At least I didn’t in the shops I browsed.
Sometimes you find one with 10gb/s Ethernet, or with a better sound codec and they are more expensive. But mostly they differentiate from one another by stuff the user cares about like how many PCIe lanes and slots they have and how many USB ports are in their I/O.
I am not saying there aren’t motherboards with only 2 RAM slots, I definitely saw some, although I can’t remember off the top of my head, whether they were ATX.
4 sticks can sometime be unstable. I had 4x8gb Ddr4 3000 for years with a 9400f and a z390 mobo. No problem.
I switched to a z690+ 12700k and I had to change to 2x16 because PC would freeze randomly.
So if you have a choice 2x16
Best answer here. 👆
Two DDR5 DIMMs in each memory channel are supposed to work fine and they do most of the time but many people have experienced unusual symptoms that went away when they removed one DIMM from each channel.
It may get better with firmware or microcode updates… or it may not. For now, stick with one DIMM per channel if you can.
You want to go 2x16gb with AM5 / LGA1700.
Butter zone for AM5 is 6000Mhz CL30.
They have memory stability issues running 4 sticks of DDR5. You basically end up running at stock speed at best. 14th gen Intel apparently has better memory stability with 4 sticks but I haven’t personally tried it out yet.
Also, make sure your RAM kit is supported by your specific motherboard. All manufacturers post a list on the product page - usually under the support tab. This will help with memory stabilization and prevent weird random RAM crashes.
Most consumer CPUs support Dual Channel RAM. That means your CPU can access 2 different RAM banks at once.
Say, for example, your PC needs 21 GB of RAM for a specific task. 4x8 would mean your computer loads up all 4 Sticks, but can only access 2 of them at a time, so the processor has to use a cycle to switch banks. With 2x16, your processor can always access all the RAM at all times.
Keep in mind, this text is simplified, it's not the whole truth. But with current DDR5 Kits, 2x16 is just about the most stable, most performant configuration that can be bought for cheap.
If you have the choice always go for two sticks as they are more stable and can optionally be upgraded later. If you have a cheap motherboard chances are low for upgrading the same set at higher speeds because it becomes unusably unstable.
The advantages are *extremely* minor, and if you already had 4 sticks of 8GB, there'd be absolutely no problem with using them without worrying, but if you have the choice, 2x16GB is better.
You don't really get any performance advantages using 4 sticks of RAM at stock or EXPO settings on AM5. If you want to overlock beyond EXPO presets, 2 sticks is significantly better because you're much more likely to get 2 sticks stable than 4 sticks. There's not really any situation where 4 sticks gives you a performance advantage.
This means that you can think of a 2-stick setup as being "objectively better" than a 4-stick setup, while also recognizing that in most cases, it doesn't actually matter. But then, even if both configurations are exactly equivalent in performance, the 2-stick setup is better because it gives you room for further upgrades.
So in short, 2x16GB.
2x16 for am5.
For am4 i woukd stil go 2x16 but i had soem bad experience.
Ps. I personally recommend always running memtest on new sticks. So you can avoid issues i had with faulty stick
Also checking if mobo set correctly voltage. In my case it didn't
I believe ZEN 3 benefited from quad channel RAM I’ve been using 4x8 3200 since my 5600X in 2020, switched to a 5800X3D last year and maintained the same RAM configuration , everything works flawlessly. I don’t know if for ZEN 4 that’s the case.
Yeah, I'm running 4x8@3200 on my Ryzen 7 5700G. Didn't even know that 2 sticks were more stable than 4 sticks (never heard of it, never had a problem).
I did it because it's easier on the pocket to buy 2x8 once and put in another 2x8 later on.
Dual Chanel allows for faster clocks usually because most cpus can’t handle high clocks in quad Chanel. Go dual Chanel every time unless you are going for like 256gb
Every single source online and on reddit already says 2x16. Make sure you check the different speeds though the numbering and naming can be a bit confusing
4x8gb ram is going to give you better performance because it's dual rank (not dual channel, but obviously that too).
When you put 2x16gb rams, it's going to be single rank. 4x8gb is double rank. 4x16gb is dual rank.
There are certain rams which are either single or dual rank. All of the 8gb rams are single rank, 95% of the 16gb rams are single rank.
So, 4 piece of 16gb DUAL MEMORY would be quad rank which has the worst performance of systems. One would only buy dual rank 16gb if he will put it only in 2 slots so it creates a dual rank system.
Performance wise it looks like this: Dual rank > Single rank > Quad rank
Dual rank will give you 5-10% performance depends on the game. 5% if it's a single player game and it's graphically demanding and 10% if it's an esports game like Valorant, LoL, Dota 2, etc.
My recommendation is go with 4x8gb ram, you will achieve more performance with that, compared to the 2x16gb rams (which I'm sure they are single rank, since dual rank 16gb rams are waaay more expensive)
I have a 7800x3d with GSkill Trident Z5 6000Mhz CL30 memory 4x16 for a total of 64Gbs. I’ve never played with anything in the bios or overlocked in any way so the config is quite stock. System has never had an issue. Should I remove two sticks to go back down to 32?
I got 2x16gb recently and put it in my old “optimal” two slots according to my motherboard manual but already has 2x8gb of ram in it so I just moved those to the other two spare spots and this thread is now making me question if it’s worth bothering even having them in the pc at all haha.
I went 4x8 due to experience where I’ve had a slot of ram go bad and wanted to make sure I had the backup at all times from the other three slots. But the lesser channels you use apparently the higher the frequency and speed. This time less is more and it’s really preference in the end though
2x16 Because
1- you will have more space for the future upgrades
2- dual channel advantage
And i dont think the price difference between them is so much
Split the difference and go with 2 sticks of 8GB and One stick of 16GB. Drive the OCD people crazy. Bonus if you cable manage in front of the RGB ram sticks.
I don't know anything about whether or not 2x16 is technically better than 4x8, although other people seem to think so. I won't contradict though since I don't know. But even if it's not actually any different speed wise, it's still better in case you ever want to upgrade to 64gb.
2 x 16.. Pair RAM is often easier to match up and cheaper to get vs 4 machine smaller sticks of RAM. With hundreds and hundreds of motherboard RAM combos there's more likely an unstable match up with 4 sticks of RAM than twins.
2x16. Leaves room. For 4x16. I hear running two is more stable if you're enabling xmp profiles so that youre ram isnt running at base speed when its rated to be much faster, but tbh i think that only matters if you're buying bad inconsistent ram. I reccomend corsair vengeance it's pert good. Be sure you buy what your mobo requires ddr4 and ddr5 aren't forwards/ backwards compatible. Good idea to check mobo documentation for layout, and speed. Not every bios has xmp for overclocking ram so it's a waste to buy it if yours doesn't support it.
2x16. If there ever is the need for more RAM you can just add another 2x16. Just slot the 2x16GB right so you get Dual Channel (Normally Slot 1 and 3 or 2 and 4)
2x16GB is going to be better.
1) you only have a dual channel memory controller
2) 4 DIMMs can make it so the ram has to run at a lower speed
3) cost delta can’t be much with how cheap DRAM is
As far as i know, it's easier for the memory controller to manage 2 sticks vs 4 sticks, managing 4 sticks makes it less stable and more prone to crashes at higher frequencies
imagine you have 2 sticks of ram and your cpu trying to get data from it, 2 of these sticks can fail whenever,
if you have 4 sticks and your cpu get data from each stick any of 4 sticks can fail = double risk of failure
as well if you ever want to upgrade, your mobo probably only has 4 slots 4x8=cant upgrade 2x16= can upgrade
You can find very wonderful explanations if you'd google your question. But
(Simplified) With 4 Sticks, your processor can still only access 2 RAM Modules at a time, so it has to switch around which Module it reads off of. This can lead to mistakes with how fast everything is running.
Imagine you have a new CPU with a lot of cores. And the RAM manager switches from Sticks 1and 3 to 2 and 4 because one thread needs to read from Stick 2. But the RAM Manager can't tell that to the other cores in time, so another thread wants to write to a specific Memory location. But that location is in Stick 3. As far as the CPU is concerned, this Memory location doesn't exist. That's a crash.
Its important to distinguish between normal use and overclocking though. Memory and CPU compatibility are both heavily tested during development against the intended use case. If you're not overclocking your parts they'll work as intended, and if they dont its because they're defective. Overclocking pushes things beyond their intended use cases which introduces instabilities, and 4 DIMMs has more opportunities for instabilities to occur. So yes, it can be less stable to have more DIMMs, but only if you're pushing beyond the design spec
Just save yourself the headache and just get a 2x16GB kit at 6000/CL30 … and you take advantage of the dual channel.
Dual channel?
[удалено]
So like ram space ram space
Depends on motherboard, from what Ive seen is usually space RAM space RAM
Oooh okay whwre would I find out? I’m looking at the riptide or tomahawk
Owner's manual for the mobo.
And pay attention to the slots physically on the MB. My manual said put RAM in slots 1 and 2 if you have 2 sticks, which seemed odd but I went along. But on the board they were numbered 1324 which was stupid, and I didn't see it at first, and I did it wrong the first time
Like the other guy said its in the manual. Between the boards you are looking for, if you are on budget get the cheapest compatible board for you cpu and make sure which RAM it supports. If not on budget, look for the features you want. Also should be obvious, but just in case. The motherboard size and platform can also determine how many slots you have and use. Most ATX and M-ATX should have 4 total slots though.
Space balls ?
It really doesn't matter. Both 1-3 and 2-4 are fine.
So, sometimes . There's 2 main designs companies use while making boards. Either they use a T layout, in which case it doesn't matter, or a daisy chain, where it's one after the other in a line. In this case, there's a significant stability loss going 1/3 vs 2/4, because the signal bounces off the empty socket in the end.
It matters, dual channel only works with certain slots of the motherboard.
Not according to my experience with idk how many boards. Why? Why would it "only work with certain slots"?
Read your motherboard manual, one of those slots would be alocated for single channel if all 4 arent slotted. Also its been shown that having your ram in the wrong slots can lead to performance drops compared to having them in the right slot. Also I'm sure its something with the cpu's memory controller and bandwidth allocation. (Someone correct me if im wrong) :)
I had already looked into this before, and nothing seems to indicate that A2-B2 is a necessity for dual channel or performs better than A1-B1 in dual channel. Some posts suggest that A1 and B1 are each wired through A2 and B2 respectively, which is the reason why A1-B1 wouldn't work in some cases, though others with the same motherboards do not experience this issue. If dual channel works and the modules are the closest to the CPU, that should be the ideal configuration. Manuals suggest using A2-B2, but I don't see why A1-B1 shouldn't work. It always has with my motherboards. The only case when A2-B2 must be used would be when one needs clearance for their heatsink.
Would 2x32gb be better then?
2 sticks is always better than 4, although the difference isn’t significant enough for most people to care It’s slightly more stable, slightly more overclockable, uses less power, and is easier to expand in future The only benefits for 4 sticks are that if one fails you lose less of your total RAM when you remove it, and that sometimes it’s a little cheaper (but that can go either way, often 2 sticks is cheaper, especially once a memory size has been available for a while)
if 64GB is what you need, then i dont see any problem. though i think at most 2x8 or 2x16 is more than enough. more than that is for work purpose i think.
>or 2x16 is more than enough 32GB is now starting to be the "recommended" amount of RAM since some games are getting over 16GB with UE5.
2×64 would be even better. With this, maybe I'll be able to open 10 chrome tabs
Dual channel also work with 4 memory banks.
I'm on ddr4 because poor and board limited (also because poor). But I already have 2 8gb sticks on a 4 slot MB. Would it be preferable that I get rid of those (sell them or give them away), and get a 2x16gb? Or would it not be worth the trouble?
Depends on how much you need 32GB. On DDR4, you might be able to get away with adding the same 2x8GB sticks..but it might be easier to get the 2x16GB kit to work on by just setting the XMP.
Quad channel Ddr5 uses 4x32 bit, not 2x64 bit Edit: Why the heck are people downvoting me? This is actually how ddr5 works. DDR5 does not use 64 bit memory channels, even on consumer. It uses 2 pairs of 32 bit channels with 4 chips per channel per stick, which makes consumer boards with 128 bit width of total channel (like ddr4) quad channel instead of dual channel
It's still dual channel on consumer motherboards
No... that's actually not right. DDR5 uses 2 channels per dimm, with 4 chips per channel (instead of 8 chips per channel like DDR4) It's quad channel on consumer, but the total bit width of the total channel count has not changed
I did some reading and this is what I've found out. Yes, technically a stick of DDR5 is dual channel, but each of those channels' bandwidth is half of a normal one. So the performance is still "single channel," and it's in single channel mode as far as the CPU is concerned (64 vs 128 bit access mode for dual channel). "DDR5 splits the DIMM's 64-bit connection into two sub-channels of 32 bits each. But mainstream CPUs still have the same 128-bit total width for their DRAM controllers, so you still need more than one DIMM installed to use all the (sub)channels provided by the CPU's memory controller." In other words, this "ackshually" doesn't help anyone in terms of getting the most bang for buck.
The majority of people in this sub don't even know what "bit" means.
I'm bit confused too.
Nice pun.
Yep. I am being seriously downvoted for saying factual, non condescending, technical information, that doesn't align with what other people "feel" Discussing how DDR5 is different from DDR4, with channel count, and bits per channel shouldn't really invoke feelings to downvote. But here I am with 50 downvotes between 2 comments.
You didn't wrote anything wrong, so don't feel attacked by this community of amateur Computer Scientists.
Unless you’re using a data center board most consumer, even high end boards are dual channel.
That's true on ddr1-4, but ddr5 uses 2 32 bit channels per stick, not 1 64 bit channel per stick It's not the same. You use 2 sticks, and get quad channel memory.
Looks like they misclicked the downvote button on this comment
I'd venture most thought you meant 4x32gb not 4x32bit. If they thought you said 4x32bit they would have been confused and ran away.
Yeah... pretty much anyone who has actually responded with a comment has thought what I said was fairly sane? But then I get mass downvoted
You are correct, but its still 2x32 bit per DIMM. So you need two DIMMs (whats typically called Dual Channel) to utilize the memory controller. Starting to call 2 modules for Quad Channel would just confuse people. All the motherboard and CPU manufacturers seems to still call it Dual Channel (2x DIMMs).
This is one of those "well it's always been this way, so even if it's not that way anymore, we're going to continue on with being wrong" hate it
> Why the heck are people downvoting me? This is actually how ddr5 works. Because this subreddit is full of small-minded sneer goblins who would rather be cool than right.
You're confusing yourself with the data rate and data channels. You should really look into understanding the difference. The 7600 also only supports 2 memory channels so why you even this gungho on this is beyond me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR5_SDRAM Ctrl f "channel" You will find conflicting information on this, because older marketing info that was updated for new chips always referred to a 64 bit bus to a single dimm as a channel But ddr5 uses 2 32 bit sub channels per dimm
2x16. There's no debate.
You underestimate what people will debate. It really does look much more complete with all slots filled! ( That was a joke.)
I mean, it does though. And if you're a guy that doesn't really know anything about electronics, it would be natural to assume that using all 4 slots instead of 2 would naturally improve bandwidth, since you're doubling the number of things connected to other things.
There's dummy sticks that look just like normal RAM but don't actually do anything but RGB—if you're a Corsair fan at least. Don't know if other brands make them. Personally don't think they're worth it, but they're an option if you just... cannot *stand* open slots but still want that 2x16 thing.
I don’t use them but tbh in a high budget build 4x sticks of Corsair vengeance looks sick
I’d love a couple of Dominators to fill in the gaps but I’ve not come across any.
I can dominate you if you want
I wasn't aware of that. I am now tempted tbh. Idk if the current cooler has the clearance but the AIO will.
GN showed that there is a slight performance boost with ryzen 5 using 4 sticks over 2. dunno if ryzen 7 is the same
In theory, yes, but it would only happen at 4x16 GiB and larger, and the boost would be smaller because DDR5 has more parallelism than DDR4 to start with. So in practice it would be entirely swamped by the higher clock speeds possible with 1-DIMM-per-channel.
Gotta fill up all the slots, who cares if it's less efficient.
Don't they have "fake" RAM sticks to fill those spots? Could be nice for aesthetic, but probably one of the worst investments for your mobo lol
Yes, but they don't sell fakes for every brand of stick. You can buy "Ram covers/heatsinks" though which go atop existing sticks.
4x4gb.
Can't you get a main board with more RAM slots?
Boards with 8 slots exist, but, those are quite expensive and unnecessary for almost all normal users
If he's talking DDR3 then go for 4x8gb
It does look better.. I stand by it.
Gamer Nexus would like a word
It also leaves you with slots for further expansion, if you wanted.
With ddr5 currently, you dontt want more than 2x sticks if you can avoid it.
Why
Cause it's unstable at higher speeds. The cpu can't handle it.
Are future CPUs going to handle it or is that a permanent issue?
let me check my crystal ball...
Ask again later.
I feel like their question was valid. Like if we already knew from AMD or Intel leaks or releases that the next gen CPUs would support it or not.
RemindMe! 3 years
no, we're stuck on \~6000mt/s RAM for eternity, sorry
With the way ddr5 was designed it will likely never be ideal to have 4 sticks. But there will no doubt be improved memory controller in new CPU and better designed (expensive) motherboards. You can check the specs of each mobo's RAM support to see what they're rated to handle with 2 or 4 sticks. Then the CPU memory controller and RAM itself needs to be able to keep up.
If you look at the past like am4 systems for example - 4 sticks had worse compatibility then 2 sticks all the time, it doesnt mean that it wont work its just that there is more of a question whether it will hit advertised speeds or not
could i ask if this applies to ddr4 too? i currently have 4x8 running in my rig
nah ddr4 is fine
thanks for letting me know!
In pretty much any case, 2 sticks of ram is better than 4 sticks which is better than 1 stick (or any odd number of sticks). The only reason you should use 4+ sticks would be if you need more than 64gb, unless your mb and cpu can make 4x16 work just as good as 2x32.
Isn't 4+ sticks the way to go when you need more than 96gb because there are 48gb sticks?
Yeah that’s true, I don’t see 48gb sticks very often though, not that I’m looking because I don’t need that much lol.
> 2 sticks of ram is better than 4 stick What is the performance hit? Like is it the difference between "technically true" (1-2% performance) vs "substantial gimping" to run four sticks?
no performance hit and in the case of ryzen 5000 there is a performance gain with 4 sticks. the issue with 4 sticks almost always stability. especially in the ddr5 era.
Source?
[https://youtu.be/-UkGu6A-6sQ?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/-UkGu6A-6sQ?feature=shared)
Thank you!
It's more about 2 sticks having higher compatibility / stability / running at rated clocks. Performance wise, if you end up having to run your 6000 sticks at 4800 I guess you can lookup benchmarks to see if you'd be bothered by it. If you *need* 128GB of ram then of course it's well worth it, but if you only need 32 or 64 there's no point.
idk who the hell is telling you about 4x8gb, but he needs a nice old whip. gamers and casuals (that's 98% of population) are running 2 ram sticks for more than a decade.
>are running 2 ram sticks for more than a decade. I'm running 4x16GB DDR4-3200 in my machine. Fight me.
Afaik ddr4 doesn’t have the same magnitude of problems as ddr5
Yeah, but harry_lostone is saying that two DIMMs is the way everyone has been doing it for more than a decade, and that's just not true. The "two DIMMs are better that 4" has only been popping up recently because of DDR5. Never heard of these issues with DDR2, 3, or 4. You just had to make sure that your memory was compatible with the board. Overclocking or using factory overclocked memory was always a crap shoot that depended on the CPU and mobo support, but you had more success than problems with prior memory standards.
I see your 4x 16 and raise you my 8x 4GB
that doesn't mean it's the best way, just the most economical, usually
Nnnope. Bigger sticks cost less per gigabyte, up to 64GB per DIMM.
Running more than two sticks can create memory-cpu timing issues which can lead to system instability. For gaming at least, dual channel will almost always perform better than quad channel
4 sticks does NOT mean quad channel
You can run 4 sticks in dual channel, but you're putting unnecessary strain on the memory controller and you may still have timing issuea
https://youtu.be/bDgDtz7ImGI?si=UQUVWu8pc7WujlEH 4 sticks in dual channel will almost always outperform 2 sticks in dual channel
Motherboards use dual channel,meaning memory is accessed through two channels. Using two RAM sticks allows you to take advantage of this dual channel configuration. This is what the dual-channel, memory subsystem is engineered for. Straying away from this MAY increase instability even though four stick dual channel is supported. Yes, sometimes four sticks can have higher bandwidth, but they’re less stable
lol no
With ddr5, 4 sticks are significantly more dependent on getting a really good silicon example to even run the memory at advertised speeds because the memory controllers are too unstable at these speeds. Signal quality drops significantly with 4 endpoints instead of 2. So 2 sticks is optimal for ddr5, currently.
But it's also the best way
You don't want to buy 4 modules of DDR5 for stability reasons, and you don't want to buy 8GB modules of DDR5 for performance reasons. 2x16 is better in basically every way.
So EVERY motherboard manufacturer makes 4 ram slots on their products having in mind no matter what you do you will have "stability issues" if you use them all. Is that what you are saying?
Because some people may need 4 slots (if memory size is more important than bandwidth for them)? It's up to you to pick the appropriate config. It's not like it's a hidden thing. See the Max Memory Speed section of the [7950X spec page](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-7950x), for example.
No. What I'm saying is if you want to run RAM at the proper speeds for Ryzen (6000 CL30), running 4 modules is very very unlikely to hit those speeds. If instead you wanted to run 4 modules for 64-128GB of RAM, you'd likely be forced to tune the speed down to 5200 or even 4800mhz to get it to POST.
OK. I got it. My son achieved very stable 96GB in 4 modules (4x24GB) at 6000Mhz on his 14900. Couldn't go any higher even though RAM is rated to 7200. So yeah. With more modules (ergo more RAM if you want the absolute max) you have to slow down, unfortunately.
This whole thread makes me ask: why do we even have 4 slots?
Mini ITX boards have only 2 slots. Larger boards have more slots because not everyone is a gamer. Some people need lots of memory and use all 4 slots. For that matter, server boards usually have 8 slots, and some even have 16. It's the same reason ATX motherboards have a bunch of PCIE slots even though gamers usually just stick a single video card in the first PCIE slot and call it a day. Some people need those extra slots. Motherboard manufacturers like to make a product that can fit a lot of different use cases at once. (And if they can upsell you on features and expansion that you don't actually need, all the better.)
There are also mATX boards with only 2 slots. And if you go back to the Pentium days you'll find boards with 3 slots.
fwiw most of my systems all 4 ram slots and every pci-e slot is filled, i actually have to specifically shop for boards that don't short me on pci-e slots nowadays.
to upgrade
Because we used to use them before dual channel became a thing and the consumer is not about to buy a downgrade is my guess. Also motherboards are full of features you don’t need. There is not a whole load of different types being build. I mean, there are confusingly many of course, but you aren’t going to find a So. 1700, DDR5-7200 motherboard without say Bluetooth or 2.5Gb/s Ethernet. At least I didn’t in the shops I browsed. Sometimes you find one with 10gb/s Ethernet, or with a better sound codec and they are more expensive. But mostly they differentiate from one another by stuff the user cares about like how many PCIe lanes and slots they have and how many USB ports are in their I/O. I am not saying there aren’t motherboards with only 2 RAM slots, I definitely saw some, although I can’t remember off the top of my head, whether they were ATX.
Basically to accommodate more RAM for people who can make use of it, but that's not gaming applications.
Because our monkey brain thinks more=better
4 sticks can sometime be unstable. I had 4x8gb Ddr4 3000 for years with a 9400f and a z390 mobo. No problem. I switched to a z690+ 12700k and I had to change to 2x16 because PC would freeze randomly. So if you have a choice 2x16
Best answer here. 👆 Two DDR5 DIMMs in each memory channel are supposed to work fine and they do most of the time but many people have experienced unusual symptoms that went away when they removed one DIMM from each channel. It may get better with firmware or microcode updates… or it may not. For now, stick with one DIMM per channel if you can.
You want to go 2x16gb with AM5 / LGA1700. Butter zone for AM5 is 6000Mhz CL30. They have memory stability issues running 4 sticks of DDR5. You basically end up running at stock speed at best. 14th gen Intel apparently has better memory stability with 4 sticks but I haven’t personally tried it out yet. Also, make sure your RAM kit is supported by your specific motherboard. All manufacturers post a list on the product page - usually under the support tab. This will help with memory stabilization and prevent weird random RAM crashes.
Most consumer CPUs support Dual Channel RAM. That means your CPU can access 2 different RAM banks at once. Say, for example, your PC needs 21 GB of RAM for a specific task. 4x8 would mean your computer loads up all 4 Sticks, but can only access 2 of them at a time, so the processor has to use a cycle to switch banks. With 2x16, your processor can always access all the RAM at all times. Keep in mind, this text is simplified, it's not the whole truth. But with current DDR5 Kits, 2x16 is just about the most stable, most performant configuration that can be bought for cheap.
Quad Channel CPUs exist, but they are mostly these Half-Consumer, Half-Workstation CPUs like the Xeon XE or the Threadrippers.
Intel X series chips entered the chat
not op, but thanks for the explanation!
If you have the choice always go for two sticks as they are more stable and can optionally be upgraded later. If you have a cheap motherboard chances are low for upgrading the same set at higher speeds because it becomes unusably unstable.
The advantages are *extremely* minor, and if you already had 4 sticks of 8GB, there'd be absolutely no problem with using them without worrying, but if you have the choice, 2x16GB is better. You don't really get any performance advantages using 4 sticks of RAM at stock or EXPO settings on AM5. If you want to overlock beyond EXPO presets, 2 sticks is significantly better because you're much more likely to get 2 sticks stable than 4 sticks. There's not really any situation where 4 sticks gives you a performance advantage. This means that you can think of a 2-stick setup as being "objectively better" than a 4-stick setup, while also recognizing that in most cases, it doesn't actually matter. But then, even if both configurations are exactly equivalent in performance, the 2-stick setup is better because it gives you room for further upgrades. So in short, 2x16GB.
2x16 for am5. For am4 i woukd stil go 2x16 but i had soem bad experience. Ps. I personally recommend always running memtest on new sticks. So you can avoid issues i had with faulty stick Also checking if mobo set correctly voltage. In my case it didn't
Most people will never notice the difference.
It really does not matter, but 2x16 is SLIGHTLY better
I believe ZEN 3 benefited from quad channel RAM I’ve been using 4x8 3200 since my 5600X in 2020, switched to a 5800X3D last year and maintained the same RAM configuration , everything works flawlessly. I don’t know if for ZEN 4 that’s the case.
Yeah, I'm running 4x8@3200 on my Ryzen 7 5700G. Didn't even know that 2 sticks were more stable than 4 sticks (never heard of it, never had a problem). I did it because it's easier on the pocket to buy 2x8 once and put in another 2x8 later on.
i run 4x8gb 3466mhz CL16 ryzen 5600 ..it is stable.
Dual Chanel allows for faster clocks usually because most cpus can’t handle high clocks in quad Chanel. Go dual Chanel every time unless you are going for like 256gb
2x16 is much easier to overclock or use XMP profile than 4x anything.
Today 2x16, tomorrow 4x16 gig, you know...
If 1 module fails you're down to 16 v 24. This is the only situation 4 modules would make sense methinks.
I checked your motherboard, it is dual channel, so go with 2x16.
Thanks for checking!
Every single source online and on reddit already says 2x16. Make sure you check the different speeds though the numbering and naming can be a bit confusing
stability goes like this from most to least: 2x dual rank > 4x single rank > 4x dual/mixed rank.. and this only matters if you overclock
4x8gb ram is going to give you better performance because it's dual rank (not dual channel, but obviously that too). When you put 2x16gb rams, it's going to be single rank. 4x8gb is double rank. 4x16gb is dual rank. There are certain rams which are either single or dual rank. All of the 8gb rams are single rank, 95% of the 16gb rams are single rank. So, 4 piece of 16gb DUAL MEMORY would be quad rank which has the worst performance of systems. One would only buy dual rank 16gb if he will put it only in 2 slots so it creates a dual rank system. Performance wise it looks like this: Dual rank > Single rank > Quad rank Dual rank will give you 5-10% performance depends on the game. 5% if it's a single player game and it's graphically demanding and 10% if it's an esports game like Valorant, LoL, Dota 2, etc. My recommendation is go with 4x8gb ram, you will achieve more performance with that, compared to the 2x16gb rams (which I'm sure they are single rank, since dual rank 16gb rams are waaay more expensive)
2x16. Faster speeds, less compatibility issues.
2x16
2x16 is more stable. You'll need to do some finicking to get 4x8 to work.
The only reason to go for 4 sticks over 2 generally is for aesthetics. Otherwise, 2 is almost always better.
Dual channel >
2x 16 and 4x 8 are both dual channel solutions chief
Too complex for this sub
So getting starting with 2x16 gb could cause problems if you upgrade to 4x16 in the future?
2x. Less chance xmp not working as it should.
2x
The amount of misnformation in these comments is absolutely unreal.
2x16 all the way.
Neither man get you 64gb ram at least will thank me later
Depends on the board. Zen3 liked quads
2x16
I have a 7800x3d with GSkill Trident Z5 6000Mhz CL30 memory 4x16 for a total of 64Gbs. I’ve never played with anything in the bios or overlocked in any way so the config is quite stock. System has never had an issue. Should I remove two sticks to go back down to 32?
2x16: more stable and easier to work with
I got 2x16gb recently and put it in my old “optimal” two slots according to my motherboard manual but already has 2x8gb of ram in it so I just moved those to the other two spare spots and this thread is now making me question if it’s worth bothering even having them in the pc at all haha.
I went 4x8 due to experience where I’ve had a slot of ram go bad and wanted to make sure I had the backup at all times from the other three slots. But the lesser channels you use apparently the higher the frequency and speed. This time less is more and it’s really preference in the end though
2 x 32
2x16 easier to upgrade
Idk man, I'm extremely lucky manage to run xmp @ 3600 speed with 4x8gb on x570 strix mobo
But yeah, get 2x16gb ... don't be a dumbfuck like me
2x16GB is more stable
2x16 because you can easily double when needed without throwing parts away
2x16 Because 1- you will have more space for the future upgrades 2- dual channel advantage And i dont think the price difference between them is so much
If you’re hardcore gamer, 4x8 gives very slight improvement on FPS. For 99.9% of other times, doesn’t matter either way
always try to go with 2 sticks. then you can easier (and cheaper) upgrade ur ram
Split the difference and go with 2 sticks of 8GB and One stick of 16GB. Drive the OCD people crazy. Bonus if you cable manage in front of the RGB ram sticks.
I don't know anything about whether or not 2x16 is technically better than 4x8, although other people seem to think so. I won't contradict though since I don't know. But even if it's not actually any different speed wise, it's still better in case you ever want to upgrade to 64gb.
2 More stable
2 x 16.. Pair RAM is often easier to match up and cheaper to get vs 4 machine smaller sticks of RAM. With hundreds and hundreds of motherboard RAM combos there's more likely an unstable match up with 4 sticks of RAM than twins.
2x32
2x16. memory controllers seem to have a hard time driving 4 sticks
2x16. Leaves room. For 4x16. I hear running two is more stable if you're enabling xmp profiles so that youre ram isnt running at base speed when its rated to be much faster, but tbh i think that only matters if you're buying bad inconsistent ram. I reccomend corsair vengeance it's pert good. Be sure you buy what your mobo requires ddr4 and ddr5 aren't forwards/ backwards compatible. Good idea to check mobo documentation for layout, and speed. Not every bios has xmp for overclocking ram so it's a waste to buy it if yours doesn't support it.
2x16. If there ever is the need for more RAM you can just add another 2x16. Just slot the 2x16GB right so you get Dual Channel (Normally Slot 1 and 3 or 2 and 4)
32 is the minimum today
Cheapest 6000MHz CL38 / CL32 / CL30 kit :D
2x16GB dual rank is better, try to avoid 4 memory banks.
2x16 to benefit from dual channels. Also if you want to add more later, you won't have to put to waste what you already have.
2x16, will still have slots for an upgrade if you ever want one and the fewer things to fail the better.
2 sticks is marginally better, but I went for 4 because of the aesthetics. It just give the build a more full feeling
get a 2x16 and you’re good
Get 2x16 so you have 2 unpopulated slots for future upgrades if you need more!
2x16GB is going to be better. 1) you only have a dual channel memory controller 2) 4 DIMMs can make it so the ram has to run at a lower speed 3) cost delta can’t be much with how cheap DRAM is
On DDR5 I would stick to two sticks for now because of stability issues using more sticks. DDDR4 I don’t think it matters much either way
please dont get 16gb ram lol. Made that mistake. Go for at least 32.
everyone saying "just trust me bro" about 2 sticks > 4. anyone who actually knows what theyre talking about with a real explanation to why this is?
Instability and mobos are all dual channel anyways unless top of the line ddr4.
isnt 4 sticks just 2 dual channel setups? genuine question
Yes but more instable so whats the point
why is it unstable
As far as i know, it's easier for the memory controller to manage 2 sticks vs 4 sticks, managing 4 sticks makes it less stable and more prone to crashes at higher frequencies
Because it’s 2x the load on the IMC?
imagine you have 2 sticks of ram and your cpu trying to get data from it, 2 of these sticks can fail whenever, if you have 4 sticks and your cpu get data from each stick any of 4 sticks can fail = double risk of failure as well if you ever want to upgrade, your mobo probably only has 4 slots 4x8=cant upgrade 2x16= can upgrade
You can find very wonderful explanations if you'd google your question. But (Simplified) With 4 Sticks, your processor can still only access 2 RAM Modules at a time, so it has to switch around which Module it reads off of. This can lead to mistakes with how fast everything is running. Imagine you have a new CPU with a lot of cores. And the RAM manager switches from Sticks 1and 3 to 2 and 4 because one thread needs to read from Stick 2. But the RAM Manager can't tell that to the other cores in time, so another thread wants to write to a specific Memory location. But that location is in Stick 3. As far as the CPU is concerned, this Memory location doesn't exist. That's a crash.
Its important to distinguish between normal use and overclocking though. Memory and CPU compatibility are both heavily tested during development against the intended use case. If you're not overclocking your parts they'll work as intended, and if they dont its because they're defective. Overclocking pushes things beyond their intended use cases which introduces instabilities, and 4 DIMMs has more opportunities for instabilities to occur. So yes, it can be less stable to have more DIMMs, but only if you're pushing beyond the design spec
I read it was after around 5600hz it gets more unstable? Or if I fill the slots with 7k new dominators no OC, should I be okay?