Do you want 64GB of DDR5? Be prepared to spend two times more than DDR4 to go slower!

S

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,734
DDR5 is full of false advertisement, bad marketing and a lot of missunderstandings.

This is the reality of the current situation.

image.png.b3c4050b22e50c275d1b631cdf841948.png


There is no single rank 32GB DDR5 modules currently.

This means that if you want 64GB of DDR5 memory you have two options.
Get a 2x32GB dual rank modules.
Get a 4x16GB single rank modules.

In every cases you base frequency drops to a crappy 4GHz.

I'm using 4x16GB of Dominator 5600MHz C36 and I'm not able to drive them at 4.8GHz even with 1.35V on the memory and 1.25V on the memory controller/SA.
I need to drive my 1000€ of RAM on my 1200€ of motherboard (Asus Z690 Maximus Extreme) at 4.4GHz.

DDR5 at 4.4GHz is slower than DDR4 at 3.6GHz.

This means that I spent two times more to go slower than cheap DDR4 modules.

Don't make my mistake!!!
 
This is how it goes every new memory standard release since I can remember. Not worth it for the first year or two but things will hit a stride when more fast & lower-latency modules become available and CPUs / mobos evolve.
Look at 1st gen DDR4 vs top-end DDR3 or early DDR2 vs late DDR1 (as a Pentium D early adopter I remember the DDR2 drama vividly)

It's just nice that Intel included DDR4 support on ADL at all so early adopters have options this gen.
 
early adopters ?
I loved this description when I was receiving free product samples for a review at my Blog (not computers related).
Entire Europe this is in a bad financial spiral which is totally unknown any recovery date.

I am not aware of any regular gaming PC that it can make good use of 16GB of RAM.
 
sblantipodi said:
DDR5 is full of false advertisement, bad marketing and a lot of missunderstandings.

This is the reality of the current situation.

View attachment 423575

There is no single rank 32GB DDR5 modules currently.

This means that if you want 64GB of DDR5 memory you have two options.
Get a 2x32GB dual rank modules.
Get a 4x16GB single rank modules.

In every cases you base frequency drops to a crappy 4GHz.

I'm using 4x16GB of Dominator 5600MHz C36 and I'm not able to drive them at 4.8GHz even with 1.35V on the memory and 1.25V on the memory controller/SA.
I need to drive my 1000€ of RAM on my 1200€ of motherboard (Asus Z690 Maximus Extreme) at 4.4GHz.

DDR5 at 4.4GHz is slower than DDR4 at 3.6GHz.

This means that I spent two times more to go slower than cheap DDR4 modules.

Don't make my mistake!!!
Click to expand...
This is a big part of why I skipped this generation. It’s not just transitional for the CPU (hybrid cores/significant socket change), but also the memory, operating system, and PCIE generation. All at once. That’s a bit too bleeding edge for me.

Sucks that you got bit. Next gen will likely improve this.
 
sblantipodi said:
DDR5 is full of false advertisement, bad marketing and a lot of missunderstandings.

This is the reality of the current situation.

View attachment 423575

There is no single rank 32GB DDR5 modules currently.

This means that if you want 64GB of DDR5 memory you have two options.
Get a 2x32GB dual rank modules.
Get a 4x16GB single rank modules.

In every cases you base frequency drops to a crappy 4GHz.

I'm using 4x16GB of Dominator 5600MHz C36 and I'm not able to drive them at 4.8GHz even with 1.35V on the memory and 1.25V on the memory controller/SA.
I need to drive my 1000€ of RAM on my 1200€ of motherboard (Asus Z690 Maximus Extreme) at 4.4GHz.

DDR5 at 4.4GHz is slower than DDR4 at 3.6GHz.

This means that I spent two times more to go slower than cheap DDR4 modules.

Don't make my mistake!!!
Click to expand...
What happens when you run 32GB of RAM? Does it operate at the full speed?
 
Kiriakos-GR said:
I do not waste time with Gamers of 2K and 4K resolution, they see bottlenecks everywhere.
Click to expand...
I game at 1440P. Star Citizen will use 24-28G on its own. GTA5 will easily get up there as well. Sins of a Solar Empire will climb up if given a chance, roller coaster tycoon goes nuts for CPU and RAM. Stellaris and Civ games will chew up more if allowed to, and Ashes of the Singularity will chew up EVERYTHING.

I last had 8G in my Sandy Bridge system - it's 2021, a PS5 even has 16G now.

8G of ram is a bare minimum to get in the door. 16G is the real minimum these days. 32G is planning at least a little bit ahead.
 
lopoetve said:
8G of ram is a bare minimum to get in the door. 16G is the real minimum these days. 32G is planning at least a little bit ahead.
Click to expand...

I bet that NVIDIA did not message any one, of how much additional system RAM their filters will waste with the use of RTX3000.
And in conclusion, choice of amount of RAM this is a decision, that its user can decide after performing his own sanity check.
 
Kiriakos-GR said:
You are in pain that the world does not care of what setup you are using.
Click to expand...
If I gave a shit about what other people thought, I'd have a social media account of some kind. I just tend to disregard the opinions of 1080P gamers who think that 2005's resolution is the best because they can get 360FPS in a game that looks like it can be run on a cell phone. And, I'm not the one who brought up resolution. You did.
 
Dan_D said:
That's because 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 are far more demanding than your 1920x1080 potato mode graphics.
Click to expand...

You'd have an argument over potato mode if we didn't have a gpu shortage/prices soaring into the stratosphere. Then again it was also obvious that prices weren't dropping 3-4 years ago as new tech came out. It would be potato if you could easily get 60 fps on the x50 class cards that historically cost $150-200. When both Nvidia and AMD for the past two gens have been selling the "ultimate 1080p" cards at $300-350 (now $4-500 if you can find one), its not potato graphics. Certainly not if you want to hit 120-144hz refresh rates.
 
Dan_D said:
If I gave a shit about what other people thought, I'd have a social media account of some kind. I just tend to disregard the opinions of 1080P gamers who think that 2005's resolution is the best because they can get 360FPS in a game that looks like it can be run on a cell phone. And, I'm not the one who brought up resolution. You did.
Click to expand...
I might brought up and a plate full of shit, you are not obligated to touch it.
But some people they will do anything for a spark of getting back some sort of reaction. (Some people call them Trolls )
 
motqalden said:
You should take your own advise.
Click to expand...
You should follow it too.
In the past two weeks, I did sensed that I am replying to people which have double accounts Moderator + User.
And I will not aloud to any one to play with my sentiments, I do prefer to crash down all nasty responses from the very beginning.
This community seems dead from fresh members, some one exterminates them, and this is the problematic nastiness of the very few.
 
Kiriakos-GR said:
I am not aware of any regular gaming PC that it can make good use of 16GB of RAM.
Click to expand...
Outside some of the sims that can use a lot obviously (Citi builder have little limit with mods), there is some regular game that seem to do (even gain to go from 16 to 32 at certain stage of release pre-optimisation like early release of Cyberpunk and Flight Sim, on certain system it seem):


zxgFGxptYAyHvAkEpxP5ad-2048-80.png



The 0.1 and 1% mostly can be Completetly different if you are on the limit on some system:

Mid_SotTR_1080p-p.webp


High_SotTR_1440p-p.webp

Very fast hard drive can make it less obvious
 
Last edited:
Kiriakos-GR said:
I bet that NVIDIA did not message any one, of how much additional system RAM their filters will waste with the use of RTX3000.
And in conclusion, choice of amount of RAM this is a decision, that its user can decide after performing his own sanity check.
Click to expand...
Choice is always that - a choice. But this is Hardforum - we're going to give advice that fits, and 8G isn't sane advice anymore. Nor really is 16G. Hell, my gaming system at 32 is the ~smallest~ amount I have in any active machine - and that's because I went for the highest clocks and timing I could on that box, and I knew 32 would be enough for its lifespan.

And system ram? Wasted on filters? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but anyone with an RTX3000 series (possibly excepting the 3050) should have more than 8G of RAM these days.
 
LukeTbk said:
Outside some of the sims that can use a lot obviously (see below), there is some regular game that seem to do (even gain to go from 16 to 32 at certain stage of release pre-optimisation on certain system it seem):


View attachment 424330


The 0.1 and 1% mostly can be Completetly different if you are on the limit on some system:

Mid_SotTR_1080p-p.webp


High_SotTR_1440p-p.webp

Very fast hard drive can make it less obvious
Click to expand...

Yes those reviewer they do most of damage, DX12 memory leakage this is never gets well explained.
 
LukeTbk said:
Outside some of the sims that can use a lot obviously (see below), there is some regular game that seem to do (even gain to go from 16 to 32 at certain stage of release pre-optimisation on certain system it seem):


View attachment 424330


The 0.1 and 1% mostly can be Completetly different if you are on the limit on some system:

Mid_SotTR_1080p-p.webp


High_SotTR_1440p-p.webp

Very fast hard drive can make it less obvious
Click to expand...

Indeed. And it's not just that one game does or does not use a lot of ram but it's also all the other programs you may be running. I put 32gb on my computer I built 6 years ago. And i've made use of it. And 32gb on the system I just built. I even have 32gb in my NAS. Depending on what I have going on I can certainly use it. 32gb in my mac mini as well.
My work computer that I primarily use web based company apps on only has 8gb of ram and it's awful.
 
Last edited:
Kiriakos-GR said:
Yes those reviewer they do most of damage, DX12 memory leakage this is never gets well explained.
Click to expand...
Not to offend but arnt you gaming on a core 2 system? I understand the situation is different in many places of the world but in most places 200 USD can get a 6 core lga 1366 system with 36gb of ram.

In many places it is plenty affordable to grab a 16gb+ system with a decent CPU and 1440p monitor. That system is much better fit for modern gaming and many games and programs will have no issue utilizing it. The only bottleneck for everyone is expensive gpus.
 
Archer75 said:
Indeed. And it's not just that one game does or does not use a lot of ram but it's also all the other programs you may be running. I put 32gb on my computer I built 6 years ago. And i've made use of it. And 32gb on the system I just built. I even have 32gb in my NAS. Depending on what I have going on I can certainly use it.
My work computer that I primarily use web based company apps on only has 8gb of ram and it's awful.
Click to expand...
I own Microsoft certification IT Server, it is unfortunate especially for workstations, that MS does not care assisting regular users so them to configure properly their operating system.
Piles of services made for MS Server connectivity with the workstation they do steal 20% of workstation resources.
 
Kiriakos-GR said:
I own Microsoft certification IT Server, it is unfortunate especially for workstations, that MS does not care assisting regular users so them to configure properly their operating system.
Piles of services made for MS Server connectivity with the workstation they do steal 20% of workstation resources.
Click to expand...
If you care about resource overhead you should be on linux. MS is a fat inefficient pig. It just doesn't matter when most people can obtain 32 thread 100+ gb servers for reasonably cheap.
 
Kiriakos-GR said:
I am Kiriakos Triantafillou from Greece and I measure up more.
Click to expand...
What the fuck does that even mean? I'm not sure what you are going on about regarding "filters" either.
Kiriakos-GR said:
ve a You should follow it too.
In the past two weeks, I did sensed that I am replying to people which have double accounts Moderator + User.
And I will not aloud to any one to play with my sentiments, I do prefer to crash down all nasty responses from the very beginning.
This community seems dead from fresh members, some one exterminates them, and this is the problematic nastiness of the very few.
Click to expand...
That's not how moderation works on these forums. Anyone with moderator access has a "Staff" banner that can be seen under their username. I'm not sure why you think you are replaying to people with "double accounts." As far as "crashing down" nasty responses, that's not really how things work. If someone says something you don't like, you can reply however you want within the rules of the site. If someone is well beyond the rules (name calling, etc.) then you should report the post without responding to it. The last sentence doesn't make any sense so I'm not going to address that "comment" such as it is.
 
Kiriakos-GR said:
I own Microsoft certification IT Server, it is unfortunate especially for workstations, that MS does not care assisting regular users so them to configure properly their operating system.
Piles of services made for MS Server connectivity with the workstation they do steal 20% of workstation resources.
Click to expand...
What?

Ok. First off - MS has support, if you want their help - if you want real help, it costs money, but they have support. No one uses it because, well, money. And that's for home users. Enterprise wise, anyone with an EA has support - and I've worked with EA level MSFT support folks. They're excellent - brilliant even - even when working on desktop windows releases.

I've run 500k+ workstation environments - it's not stealing 20% of the workstation resources, even with installed agents like SCCM or WorkspaceOne and the like - it just isn't. Especially not today as workstations get more and more powerful even on the low end. Heck, VDI desktops it doesn't take 20%, and that's even WITH Blast/HCX pixel-blasting the screen over the wire via a single-threaded process.
 
Dan_D said:
If I gave a shit about what other people thought, I'd have a social media account of some kind. I just tend to disregard the opinions of 1080P gamers who think that 2005's resolution is the best because they can get 360FPS in a game that looks like it can be run on a cell phone. And, I'm not the one who brought up resolution. You did.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, in 2005 we were using 1200p resolutions back when we all had 16x10 setups and Dell's 2005fpw and 2405fpw were the way to go for a cheaper gaming monitor. None of this 16x9 crap that we're forced to use now.
 
lopoetve said:
What?

Ok. First off - MS has support, if you want their help - if you want real help, it costs money, but they have support. No one uses it because, well, money. And that's for home users. Enterprise wise, anyone with an EA has support - and I've worked with EA level MSFT support folks. They're excellent - brilliant even - even when working on desktop windows releases.

I've run 500k+ workstation environments - it's not stealing 20% of the workstation resources, even with installed agents like SCCM or WorkspaceOne and the like - it just isn't. Especially not today as workstations get more and more powerful even on the low end. Heck, VDI desktops it doesn't take 20%, and that's even WITH Blast/HCX pixel-blasting the screen over the wire via a single-threaded process.
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure where he was getting his "information" either.
 
ND40oz said:
Wait a second, in 2005 we were using 1200p resolutions back when we all had 16x10 setups and Dell's 2005fpw and 2405fpw were the way to go for a cheaper gaming monitor. None of this 16x9 crap that we're forced to use now.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I think it was around 2007 or so that the 1920x1080 stuff started to really take off. I skipped 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 as I had gone to a Dell 3007WFP back then.
 
Ranulfo said:
You'd have an argument over potato mode if we didn't have a gpu shortage/prices soaring into the stratosphere. Then again it was also obvious that prices weren't dropping 3-4 years ago as new tech came out. It would be potato if you could easily get 60 fps on the x50 class cards that historically cost $150-200. When both Nvidia and AMD for the past two gens have been selling the "ultimate 1080p" cards at $300-350 (now $4-500 if you can find one), its not potato graphics. Certainly not if you want to hit 120-144hz refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Inflation sucks. That being said - I can pull 60FPS for most modern games with some settings dropped on a 1060, so... this is still possible.
Kiriakos-GR said:
You should follow it too.
In the past two weeks, I did sensed that I am replying to people which have double accounts Moderator + User.
And I will not aloud to any one to play with my sentiments, I do prefer to crash down all nasty responses from the very beginning.
This community seems dead from fresh members, some one exterminates them, and this is the problematic nastiness of the very few.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to argue back and forth with folks as much as you want - that's why it's a discussion forum, after all, and lord knows that all of us have been wrong at some point in time or another (even me!). But a lot of us also have exceptional amounts of history and experience that you'll find and tease out if you're around long enough, and many work for the vendors in question as well (although most aren't public about that either). The point of a discussion is to discuss and debate, after all - not crash down on a response that you feel is nasty. I've responded to yours because they don't make sense, and I don't want someone following what I see as bad advice - you're welcome to show me proof or evidence or an argument that, for instance, 8G is an adequate amount of memory for a modern system, and I'm welcome to provide evidence and proof to the contrary.
Dan_D said:
I wasn't sure where he was getting his "information" either.
Click to expand...
Me neither. This is literally something I do for my ~career~ - I'm an expert in it - and that doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
Fair enough. I think it was around 2007 or so that the 1920x1080 stuff started to really take off. I skipped 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 as I had gone to a Dell 3007WFP back then.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I went from 2005fpw in 2004 to 3007wfp-hc in 2008. For those unfamiliar, that's a 2560x1600 resolution display :) back then. I went 4k60 in 2014 and am going 4K120 soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top