2 x 8GB vs 4 x 4GB?
- Thread starter RudeCurve
- Start date
Price, perhaps. 4 4GB sticks might be cheaper...but maybe 8GB capacity is common enough now to not have much, if any price difference anymore, I'm just speculating here. 2 sticks also overclock better usually, although that's probably not your intention? 2 sticks also cool more easily, but this is only a concern with really high performance 1.65V RAM.
Other than that I don't think there's any real difference. I personally hate empty sockets on my motherboard, I want to fill everything...but that's just my personal OCD.
Other than that I don't think there's any real difference. I personally hate empty sockets on my motherboard, I want to fill everything...but that's just my personal OCD.
Price, perhaps. 4 4GB sticks might be cheaper...but maybe 8GB capacity is common enough now to not have much, if any price difference anymore, I'm just speculating here. 2 sticks also overclock better usually, although that's probably not your intention? 2 sticks also cool more easily, but this is only a concern with really high performance 1.65V RAM.
Other than that I don't think there's any real difference. I personally hate empty sockets on my motherboard, I want to fill everything...but that's just my personal OCD.
Do you feel that way about pcie, usb and sata ports?
If his cpu supports quad channel then he can increase his peak memory bandwidth, though very few things require that peak memory bandwidth. One is ramdrives. Nothing like having a 16gb ram drive with 8GB/s read on crystal mark for bragging to your friends.
Thanks for the quick replies! :smile: In terms of price the 4 sticks I'll be buying is more expensive than the 2 so I'll get the 2 x 8 since there is no benefit. I'm gonna be going with Crucial low profile Ballistix Tactical. I've already ordered the motherboard..it's a MSI A88XM GAMING FM2+ uATX board. I'll be using a A10-7850K.
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/A88XM_GAMING.html#overview
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A14ZTRO...lid=36YW7ECNLZ4Y6&coliid=I1RV1OORNI3JLO&psc=1
http://us.msi.com/product/mb/A88XM_GAMING.html#overview
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A14ZTRO...lid=36YW7ECNLZ4Y6&coliid=I1RV1OORNI3JLO&psc=1
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I'll probably get these...they're about $50 more but I like the color and specs...the red color will match the red on the motherboard too...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...26511&ef_id=q3RPoNKWr-MAAAqf:20140608085549:s
Should I get 2400 memory instead? It's not any more expensive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...26511&ef_id=q3RPoNKWr-MAAAqf:20140608085549:s
Should I get 2400 memory instead? It's not any more expensive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rurouni
Veteran
I think most 2400 is just a timing change from 2133 but with the 2400 profile built in. I also use Kaveri on a Biostar Mainboard (I want to buy ASRock, but their best one wasn't available. Other options are crappy) and paired it with Kingston Hyper X 2400. I can only run reliably at 2133 if I don't mess with the voltage and manually adjust the timing... and I don't want to manually adjust the timing. Kaveri (at least the 7850K) only officially support up to 2133.
Anyway, the price difference for 2133 and 2400 is so small that I just buy the 2400. Of course there are real 2400 memory (real as in lower timing), but that thing is expensive.
I also need to manually choose the ram profile in bios because it defaulted to 1600.
Edit: I can definitely run the ram at 2400, but there are random crashes. Upping the ram voltage helped, but I'm not really after the ultimate performance, so I settle for 2133. The ram is rated for 2400@1.65v, but I need to bump the voltage to run it at that speed. I think it's possible to not bump the voltage, but probably needs to manually sets the timing.
Anyway, the price difference for 2133 and 2400 is so small that I just buy the 2400. Of course there are real 2400 memory (real as in lower timing), but that thing is expensive.
I also need to manually choose the ram profile in bios because it defaulted to 1600.
Edit: I can definitely run the ram at 2400, but there are random crashes. Upping the ram voltage helped, but I'm not really after the ultimate performance, so I settle for 2133. The ram is rated for 2400@1.65v, but I need to bump the voltage to run it at that speed. I think it's possible to not bump the voltage, but probably needs to manually sets the timing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I'll probably get these...they're about $50 more but I like the color and specs...the red color will match the red on the motherboard too...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...26511&ef_id=q3RPoNKWr-MAAAqf:20140608085549:s
Should I get 2400 memory instead? It's not any more expensive.
$50 premium on RAM is terrible. 1866MHZ with tight timings is fine. Put that money toward a better GPU or bigger SSD or anything.
Thanks for the info...I'll just stick to 2133 then. Originally I wanted a Biostar but the model I wanted isn't available anywhere. It was one of the HiFi uATX FM2+ boards so then I looked at ASUS and MSI and Gigabyte too. It seems the A88XM Gaming board had the best features I was looking for...ie it has 4 USB 3.0 ports on the rear, a Displayport as well as optical out. Price was reasonable at $100 too.
So what kind of timings is considered tight and is a good match for the CPU? If I can save $50 and get the same performance then that would be a bonus.
Rurouni
Veteran
The thing that I'm regretting the most on Biostar is that it doesn't have display port. The ASRock one has it, but wasn't available.
So far everything is good. With the latest Bios I can choose the TDP to be either the default (95w?) or choose between 45-65! Choosing 45 obviously lower the max speed. It hovers between 2.5 to 3GHz when running burn test.. Not sure about whether 3 is the turbo speed. Need to test some more. Since I'm upgrading from an old Athlon X3 (945?) the improvement is massive.
Edit: even @45w it is still a massive jump from my old PC. @45w it ran up to 3GHz and might be 3.5 for turbo (because on occasion it reached 3.5 for a split second).
So far everything is good. With the latest Bios I can choose the TDP to be either the default (95w?) or choose between 45-65! Choosing 45 obviously lower the max speed. It hovers between 2.5 to 3GHz when running burn test.. Not sure about whether 3 is the turbo speed. Need to test some more. Since I'm upgrading from an old Athlon X3 (945?) the improvement is massive.
Edit: even @45w it is still a massive jump from my old PC. @45w it ran up to 3GHz and might be 3.5 for turbo (because on occasion it reached 3.5 for a split second).
Last edited by a moderator:
PCIe, kind of. I like to fill my add-in board slots, but high-performance graphics cards block out slots anyway so that's usually fail from the start. Now that I'm not SLI/CF-ing my graphics anymore theoretically I could stick something else in, but there's really no need for add-in boards anymore beyond graphics. Most everything else is already on the mobo. There's PCIe SSDs, but they're fuckdamn expensive, and would I really notice the performance difference from a 6Gbit SATA SSD? I'm sceptical; I'm a single user running very low intensity tasks. The most disk intensive stuff is booting, and my SSD can boot the PC in a few seconds. UEFI POST takes longer...Do you feel that way about pcie, usb and sata ports?
Right, I forgot about that. But few have quad-channel CPUs. Haswell-E will be interesting when it launches this autumn.
9-9-9-24 is good. However it doesn't make that much difference, not nearly as much as say putting that money toward a bigger SSD, faster GPU or CPU.
This kit looks great for the price.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104421
The cheapest 9-9-9-24 1866MHz kit is an extra $30 - not worth it.
Savings of $65 compared to the kit you were looking at, and unless you're going to use the IGP you won't really notice the difference. Also with a tad bit more voltage that kit can probly do CAS9 anyway.
Somewhere, and I'm sorry that I can't find it at this exact moment, there was a pretty good article about the performance changes between two sticks and four sticks of ram and how it affected performance on an Intel platform. It also dealt with different density per sticks, along with the two and four configurations.
And just to be clear, it wasn't a dual channel versus four channel comparo either, it was a simple dual channel system that was populated with lower-density DIMMs and higher density DIMMs, and also in two sticks versus four sticks config.
I recall that the four stick, lower density config was actually the best performing setup when all other timings and speeds were equal, but damned if I can't find that stupid article now. If I do find it, I'll post it up.
That article ultimately convinced me to buy eight 4GB sticks for my LGA2011 3930k rig, rather than four 8GB sticks.
And just to be clear, it wasn't a dual channel versus four channel comparo either, it was a simple dual channel system that was populated with lower-density DIMMs and higher density DIMMs, and also in two sticks versus four sticks config.
I recall that the four stick, lower density config was actually the best performing setup when all other timings and speeds were equal, but damned if I can't find that stupid article now. If I do find it, I'll post it up.
That article ultimately convinced me to buy eight 4GB sticks for my LGA2011 3930k rig, rather than four 8GB sticks.
I think they were testing the IGP in that article, an still it made very little difference.
Well, on dual channel controller, i will use 2 sticks ( 2x8go or 2x4go )... specially for overclocking you will need to increase some voltages you dont need with 4 sticks ... ( and even if its a bit of old time now as with the speed of actual memory, you dont need oc them, just buy high speed memory.. overclocking was harder with 4 sticks vs 2 sticks to stabilize ).
As i use quadchannel system i use 4x4 or 4x8Go.. 2133mhz is a sweetspot. I use 4x4Go G-skill C9 2133mhz, in quadchannel = over 80'000 MB/s coupled with a 4930K ).... completely overkill. I could easely oc them to 2400+mhz, but i dont even take the time for do it.
As i use quadchannel system i use 4x4 or 4x8Go.. 2133mhz is a sweetspot. I use 4x4Go G-skill C9 2133mhz, in quadchannel = over 80'000 MB/s coupled with a 4930K ).... completely overkill. I could easely oc them to 2400+mhz, but i dont even take the time for do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not the article i am referring to, no.
Sounds interesting, can't find a link?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Is there any benefit in performance in filling 4 DIMM slots with 4GB sticks vs filling 2 DIMM slots with 8GB sticks? I plan on buying a motherboard that has 4 DIMM slots but I don't plan on going past 16GB of total memory.
Short answer: No.
The only chipsets that will take advantage of more than 2 sticks of memory are the ones using sockets LGA1366 (3 channels) and LGA2011 (4 channels).
Those are the chipsets for GPU-less Intel CPUs, server or enthusiast consumer.
As for speeds and latency, unless you're using the iGPU for gaming (which is terrible compared to what you can buy for $100 nowadays), then even 1600MHz CL9 RAM would be adequate for 99,9% of a typical usage.
Meaning: just get whatever the cheapest kit you can get your hands on, as long as it's 1600MHz CL9 or better.
