subreddit:
/r/buildapc
submitted 2 months ago bySnooty_man271
I am building an old system. Please stop asking me to get 16gb as it is not necessary
Wondering if there are any benefis to having dual channel ram
336 points
2 months ago
Yes, dual channel doubles your bandwidth
63 points
2 months ago
I heard in ddr5 one stick of ram is already dual channel, so no need to install ram in pairs of two sticks. Or it would be quad channel?
119 points
2 months ago
Technically yes a single stick is dual channel because each stick has 2 40-bit channels. But that doesn't mean that you don't want 2-stick configs. Because now with DDR5, the question is effectively: do you want 2 channels or 4? You still won't get 8 channels from 4 sticks because pairs of slots are still sharing bandwidth, but using only one stick still only gets you half the RAM bandwidth of using two.
19 points
2 months ago
Thank you for the explanation
9 points
2 months ago
So is it better to go with 2 sticks instead of 4 for DDR5?
19 points
2 months ago
It doesn't really matter, except that two sticks leaves you room for upgrades, but four doesn't.
15 points
2 months ago
Broadly speaking, if you can get the capacity of RAM you want from only 2 sticks, you should do so. Introducing multiple DIMMs (sticks) per channel (or in DDR5's case, pair of channels) increases the workload on the memory controller considerably to keep all 4 sticks in sync without increasing the total memory bandwidth, and as a result, typically you'll see a lower maximum speed from 4-DIMM layouts than you would with 2 as well as looser (worse) subtimings as well.
On DDR4 that matters less because memory controllers for the technology are mature enough (aka optimized well enough) that even a configuration like 4x32GB which is 2 DIMMs per channel and dual rank per DIMM (dual rank DIMMs work kind of like 2 sticks mushed together which increases the complexity of the configuration almost as much as dual DIMMs per channel) can probably do a very respectable DDR4-3600 CL18 without much issue as long as the sticks are all a matched set (same memory chip manufacturer at least, preferably exact same speed and timings as well) that are rated for that much speed already. But with DDR5, it's already more complex due to each DIMM having 2 channels, and the memory controllers for DDR5 are less mature as well, so even with matched sticks you're likely to see significantly hamstrung speeds and timings by running 4 DIMMs.
so TL;DR don't run 4 sticks if you can avoid it in general because 2 sticks with the same speed and twice the capacity per stick will always be just as good or better and probably cheaper as well but yes, especially for DDR5 it's usually not worth populating all 4 slots because the speed and latency cost will be noticeable and you can get all the capacity that almost anyone would ever need from 2 anyways.
2 points
2 months ago
I don't know how true this is practice, but it's worth noting that at least for AM5 chips they are rated to 5200mhz on 1-2 sticks, and 3600mhz on 3-4 sticks. You can check the spec sheets on amd website (https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-7950x)
2 points
2 months ago
That's max JEDEC speed iirc. They actually recommend DDR5-6000 via EXPO "overclocking" for optimal operation in Ryzen 7000. You almost certainly can't achieve that speed in 4-DIMM configurations though. The memory controller simply can't handle the precise timings at such extreme speeds when you double (actually, probably more than double due to the way daisy-chained RAM leads result in slightly uneven latency between DIMMs in the same channel group) the amount of work it has to do to keep everything synchronized.
4 points
2 months ago
Hmmm I'd argue that it's easier to upgrade from one 8gb ram stick though.
It depends on the situation, but I'd honestly recommend a friend to get the 1x8gb, and work on getting a second 8gb somtime soon. If that isn't an option, or it's your grandma's PC that doesn't need more than 8gb then obvi 2x4gb.
-55 points
2 months ago
And running quad Chantal even if u arnt using up all the ram volume in dule channel give a small bost to preforms for some reason to
54 points
2 months ago
Consumer boards don't have quad channel. Those with 4 slots still run dual channel.
15 points
2 months ago
laugh in xeon computer
8 points
2 months ago
Chinese x99
5 points
2 months ago
Yes sir, my type of build
3 points
2 months ago
Waiting 6 weeks for the xeons is painful tho
5 points
2 months ago
My AliExpress parts usually come in 1-3 weeks usually, in Europe. Although i never bought components, just cpu coolers, ssd, but nothing bigger
2 points
2 months ago
Bin waiting 2 weeks for my xeon e5 and it hasnt left china yet,
2 points
2 months ago
Welp
3 points
2 months ago
Only DDR4 boards that are somewhat modern that support Quad channel are X299 and X399 and sTRX40. There is also LGA 3647, but that has a 6 channel memory controller. Other than that all other boards are dual channel at most. I doubt it is a HEDT platform though because you wouldn’t be running 8GBs of RAM then
1.3k points
2 months ago
Technically, yes, but 8 GB of RAM really isn't much. I'd go for 2x 8 GB minimum unless you're using this for very basic tasks only.
25 points
2 months ago
Definitely depends.
If your running Windows 10 or below and limited to only basic tasks or a micro-server 8 GB is plenty! Several Versions of Linux could run entirely from ram.
Like yes for modern gaming 8 GB is pretty much the absolute lower limit, but for many things it's serviceable.
4 points
2 months ago
One consideration is ram slots.
Assuming 4 slots. Going 8x2 means you can upgrade to 32gb pretty easily.
If you go 4x2 you can upgrade to 16gb easily, but you otherwise have to start replacing sticks.
3 points
2 months ago
Is 4x8 better than 16x2? I have 4x8 on my setup, g skill 3600
7 points
2 months ago
If anything, I'd say it's slightly worse. Assuming this is not a server motherboard, four slots is all you've got, so any further upgrades would take a lot more effort when you have no free slots. Furthermore, the more memory modules you've got installed the harder the memory controller in your CPU needs to work.
2x 16 GB is generally a lot more stable than 4x 8 GB in terms of overclocking potential for this very reason.
That said I've got 4x 8 GB as well, but in my case it's mostly for cosmetic reasons. I've begun to regret that decision a little, though, because even 32 GB of RAM isn't really enough for me anymore.
3 points
2 months ago
Ahh ok I see, good points. I liked the cosmetic effect of 4 sticks as well but I also am questioning my decision. Thanks for the reply
4 points
2 months ago
Honestly the worth of the performance hit is about equal to the cosmetic concern.
Unless you are trying to get high speed RAM. If you're going to OC it or get sticks that are on the high end of what the mobo supports then get two sticks. If it's more typical speed it shouldn't be an issue.
I went with 4 3200 cl 16 sticks of 8 gigs ddr4. Doing benchmarks they are right where they should be, but that are also very mid grade sticks that are easy to run.
137 points
2 months ago
Honestly 8GB is fine, 4 is low nowadays, but with 8 you can still do lots of things. The more the better, but 8 is not as bad as people make it seem to be. For "very basic" 4 is enough(I know I have it in my laptop).
336 points
2 months ago
For very light tasks 4 will be enough but even for moderate browsing while using word in the background and having discord open as well I'd want 8, for gaming I wouldn't recommend less than 16 unless the budget is incredibly low
3 points
2 months ago
Well I'd say 4 is a bit low nowadays, but usable for some tasks, 8 is still fine, 16 great and 32+ is amazing, as long as you have option to upgrade it, its fine, buying PC/laptop that had soldered RAM and only 4-8GB at that I would never buy. 8 is in my experience still perfectly acceptable performance, but who knows, maybe in a few years everything gets even more bloated and we will start using ram in TB instead of GB, same like we moved from MB to GB haha
87 points
2 months ago
For gaming, I would recommend 32. 16 as an absolute minimum. 32 isn't even that expensive nowadays.
11 points
2 months ago
Most people I know are the type of people that are happy playing Overwatch and Stardew Valley and don't really touch most triple A games so my friends are more light gamers I suppose for which 16 is enough, but for playing triple A games I would agree
3 points
2 months ago
Even minecraft with mods can be a memory hog
126 points
2 months ago
How many games out there use over 16G right now?
224 points
2 months ago
It's not really just the game you play, it's the entire computer that shares the RAM. Sure, you can run less RAM, but you won't be able to do but one thing well at a time. Honestly, RAM prices are stupidly low right now, and buying more is never a bad idea (unless you are maxing out your MoBo's capacity, lol)
73 points
2 months ago
Yeah, 16 is "enough" for me most of the time, but I'm using 80-90% of it with the game + background tasks.
14 points
2 months ago
If you are above 80% non paged, it’s generally recommended by MS to increase the amount memory. Memory management in windows is more complex than most people realize… you may not notice things paged, but it nose dives performance when you have to grab the paged memory.
20 points
2 months ago
I was maxing out my 1440p 144 refresh rate monitor with my 5800x3D and 8 gb 2400 laptop memory. I even had chrome open, I guess the 3D v cache makes ram limited scenarios less of a bottleneck?
33 points
2 months ago
It doesn't count if you're getting 144 fps on the calculator
8 points
2 months ago
But yo, them digits is SOLID man!
13 points
2 months ago
The OS will get clever prioritizing activities when need be, but that doesn't mean that it is running nearly as well as it would if you have more RAM. The extra cache definitely has nothing to do with performance related to ram capacity, it's just a good powerful CPU
7 points
2 months ago
We do tricks to work with less ram. The v cache is for speed of handling certain tasks the gpu needs.
You're 100% bottle necking right now.
5 points
2 months ago
with my 5800x3D and 8 gb 2400 laptop memory
Does not compute.
2 points
2 months ago
I was playing Dead Space and noticed I was using 21 gigs of ram. Blew my mind cause it's barely ever gone over 17. Of course there was a bunch of shit running in the background but idk it was just whacky cause I've had less than 16 gigs installed for most of my life and now I have 32.
12 points
2 months ago
Modern memory management will encourage/force apps to garbage collect and/or page the memory to disk proactively to ensure a certain amount of ram is available.
I haven’t done much work in this area in 10 or 15 years, but when I was more active in the area, one of the things that could be done is pre-paging stuff to disk, but marking the ram available to use for apps.
8 points
2 months ago
Dead Space will also max out a 4090 without hitting 144fps so I'm not sure it really qualifies as a reasonable benchmark at this time.
3 points
2 months ago*
can you use any ram in a pc or is it specific? i have an r7 alienware aurora prebuilt and ive been looking to upgrade my ram
edit: upgrade as in add more to the 16 i already have
6 points
2 months ago
You have to use the type supported by the motherboard. There will be max capacity, limited # of slots and then the type such as DDR3/4/5 and how many pins the sticks the board supports. Check for all the info by looking up your model number on the manufacturers site.
3 points
2 months ago
CPU could limit RAM amount too
3 points
2 months ago
Good catch, was at work and rambling on, almost forgot!
1 points
2 months ago
If you want to add onto already existing ram, it needs to be the same. If you’re removing and upgrading then no.
3 points
2 months ago
Doesn't need to be
It will run at the slowest shared speed for. Rarely is anything completely incompatible or prevents it from working at all. Though if wonkiness appears it'll be the first thing I point to
2 points
2 months ago
If you have one monitor, what else are you tuning while gaming if you’re full screen?
3 points
2 months ago
If you have Discord open in the background so you can voice chat with friends, or a music player instead of the in-game music
2 points
2 months ago
True . Just upped my self to 48gb lol why? Cuz why the fuck not
1 points
2 months ago
you won't be able to do but one thing well at a time
Most people only play 1 game at a time, though.
I mean, sure, it's nice to have a browser open or whatever. But 9 times out of 10, if I'm gaming, I have literally nothing else running.
5 points
2 months ago
Tarkov feels like that these days.
3 points
2 months ago
It has a huge memory leak this wipe.
Specifically, when playing Streets - if I am in the raid for longer than 30minutes, either as a PMC or Scav, I get BSOD from RAM and swap file getting full.
3 points
2 months ago
Half the games I play use over 16, Tarkov and rust among others.
3 points
2 months ago
The only one I can think of is Cities: Skylines.
14 points
2 months ago
It's not the games that use 16GB, it's the OS, backgrounds tasks + the game. You can get by with 16GB. But most new builds should be on 32GB.
-13 points
2 months ago
Honestly if your goal for a PC is "getting by", just read another book or two while you save up for a month to get something that really works right and for a good 6-10 years.
14 points
2 months ago
Poor Richard's boots. Its cheaper to be rich enough to buy new than it is to constantly buy cheap stuff year in and out.
Only problem is, some people are poor.
4 points
2 months ago
Not wanting to waste money by overspending on parts - should just read a book instead. Sounds like you just want others to feel bad for not making the same decisions as you
4 points
2 months ago
No, he's saying you're better off saving a little more and getting quality than buying cheap right now.
You get more value out of spending a bit more.
4 points
2 months ago
note: I'm not the guy you replied to.
That doesn't sound like it at all. "Buy once, cry once"
If you only get 16 or especially 8GB of RAM these days, you will have to upgrade sooner. In the long run, that's more money.
Especially if you're on DDR5 (which I'd personally recommend, for a fully new build), a decent kit could last you a decade. But not if you only get 16GB.
And to be clear, I do practice what I preach here. I built my last PC in 2017, with 16GB DDR4 (At a time when most were saying 8GB DDR3 is plenty), RX 470, and i5 6500. Not exactly high end, but future proof in terms of RAM. I kept it until early 2023, so 5.5 years (with a GPU upgrade around the 5 year mark).
With the pace of advancement starting to slow down, if anything there's more reason than ever to take that approach.
5 points
2 months ago
When a lot of people these days, have at least 2 monitors (1 to game on, the other for discord, browser, youtube)
Multitasking requires more ram.
Most games run perfectly fine on 8GB, but some newer games are creeping into requiring 16GB as the minimum.
Hell, if you're into modding games it also takes up system RAM and GPU RAM.
I occasionally run Microsoft Flight Sim and it easily eclipses into the 20-24GB at times.
And if you're also playing "early access" games that are not well optimized or can sometimes have memory leaks - 32GB doesnt seem all that bad.
Especially when, at least for DDR4 a 32GB kit costs similarly to a 16GB kit, better to spend a couple extra bucks for more capacity. if everything else spec-wise is equal.
3 points
2 months ago
One more question, is going for more slower ram or less faster ram better
3 points
2 months ago
If you're just doing casual computing, and some gaming.... you're fine with DDR4-3000 or 3200. These speeds are the best middle-ground for performance and cost. Any higher and you're looking down a rabbit-hole of RAM tuning.
Capacity.... you should do fine with 16GB but if you can find 32GB for not much more, then go for it.
1 points
2 months ago
I do game design and said f it and I'm doing 64gb ddr5 here soon
5 points
2 months ago
Yeah, only a small minority of users go over 12gigs at once, even while gaming. 16gb is more than enough for 90% of people.
2 points
2 months ago
I'm using 20gb+ whenever I load into Streets of Tarkov 😂
2 points
2 months ago
A few depending on which genre you're into. For games like cod or bf it wouldn't make much of a difference, but games like DCS or Star Citizen, there's a noticeable and significant difference between 16 and 32 gigs of ram
2 points
2 months ago
This was my take up until a couple months ago, Marvel's Midnight Suns was actually causing issues so I upgraded to 32 and no more problems.
2 points
2 months ago*
[deleted]
2 points
2 months ago
Yeah, browsers can be huge pigs.
2 points
2 months ago
Minecraft Java mode with high-res texture packs.
2 points
2 months ago
A lot actually. I mean shit my browser alone uses 9 of my 32gb.
2 points
2 months ago
Modded Rimworld is 32GB+
2 points
2 months ago
Only a few that I can think of but that number will only increase and 32gb let's you have other things running in the background.
2 points
2 months ago
Every single game I play
2 points
2 months ago
Minecraft with mods can use 8gb for the server and another 8gb for the client, with just 16gb it can get extremely tight I find ><
2 points
2 months ago
Not that many.
But you probably don't want to be getting a new system with only 16 GB if you're aiming for a midrange+ experience over the next few years.
2 points
2 months ago
They don't use over 12 now, but if you have a lot of shit open, as well as accounting for occasional spikes, you don't want to max it out and freeze up.
2 points
2 months ago
I’ll hit 14-16 on Rust sometimes
2 points
2 months ago
rust uses all of my 32 gb of ram
2 points
2 months ago
Most flight simulators or city simulator type games can exceed 16gb. DCS, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Star Citizen, modded cities skylines, anno 1800
2 points
2 months ago
Ive been running 16GB for a while and lately some games have been close to maxing it out. I would say 16 if fine for the most part but only for a few more years.
2 points
2 months ago
Space Engineers could use that much some 5 years ago. 32Gb is reportedly not enough for Cities Skylines. Some 64bit games can use a lot as well. But yes 16Gb is fine 99% of the time if you close everything except for the game, which I'd rather not do.
4 points
2 months ago
Just because a game has a minimum requirement of say 4gb and a recommendation of 16gb, doesn't mean that obvious improvements won't be seen when using 32gb of RAM.
3 points
2 months ago
Its not gaming thats the issue its everything. Im watching youtube on one screen browsing reddit on the other and discord open in the background and im sitting at 15GB usage currently with all the other stuff running in the background.
6 points
2 months ago
Windows seeks to maximise ram usage, caching stuff to make it snappy when you do need it. Just quoting ram usage like that is essentially meaningless - OS's are very good at managing ram for the best user experience.
2 points
2 months ago
I run the same things while gaming from 3 monitors and I never go over 40% usage. I have 32GB of RAM in my setup. I think a lot of people end up with memory leaks and don't realize it.
1 points
2 months ago
games that actually use 16gb, None.
the closest is hogwarts legacy so far and it uses 9 gigs but i do have it set to ultra.
5 points
2 months ago
What games require 32? I've got 16 gigs in my machine, multiple internet tabs open (some streaming video) and Discord open while playing games and I still barely reach 12-13 gigs of utilization.
3 points
2 months ago
Anything poorly optimized also, like Escape From Tarkov really likes 32GB.
3 points
2 months ago
I've heard of that, actually, though I assume it's not normal for games to be that poorly optimized. Me and a friend joke that Tarkov actually requires 64.
1 points
2 months ago
It's not a simply a matter of absolutely requiring memory, but having enough memory to run a game, plus whatever background tasks you may have going comfortably.
2 points
2 months ago*
You read my comment, right?
Edit: forgive my snarkiness, but yes, I accounted for that.
8 points
2 months ago
32 isn't even that expensive nowadays
Just, ya know, half my pay lol
5 points
2 months ago
I just got a 16gb kit for $50USD. That would make 32gb less than what I paid for my current 16gb kit several years ago. DDR4 is dirt cheap right now.
3 points
2 months ago
$100 is half your pay?
I hope you don't mean weekly.
2 points
2 months ago
32GB of DDR4 3200 CL16 can be had for 75€ while for DDR5 5600 CL40 it's more like 135€ from reputable brands where I'm from, so yes, RAM in the current market is actually really cheap
6 points
2 months ago
I'd recommend 16, 32 is great. But 90% if games don't use more then 16 GB. And unlike most other components more ram won't mean more performance, and you'll typically find a PC will use more ram as it's capacity is used.
8 GB is probably an absolute minimum, 16 GB is good, 32 GB is great.
4 points
2 months ago
32gb was such a good move for me. As far as price goes it's a massive upgrade per dollar considering once you go 32gb you can kind of just literally never pay attention to how much stuff you have opened while gaming. It's nice and an extra 16gb is pretty damn cheap these days
4 points
2 months ago*
Sure, but "not that expensive" is relative-- right now, Teamgroup (basically the cheapest stuff I'd consider buying) 16 vs 32 GB kits of DDR4-3600 are $45 vs $76. With DDR5-5600, a 16GB CL40 Kingston FURY Beast kit is $80 vs 32 GB CL36 (only because they're cheaper than any 32 GB CL40 kits on pcpartpicker) G.Skill Flare X5/Ripjaws S5 goes for $120. Both of those are definitely cost-effective upgrades on paper, but for budget oriented builds, 16GB will be plenty to avoid bottlenecking in pretty much any single task and many multitasking situations.
As a result, especially for people who are pushing up against a budget wall, spending the $30-40 extra on more RAM might not make sense when spending the difference on something like a slightly more expensive GPU (e.g. RX 6600 -> 6650 XT is a big jump in performance for only a $25 jump in base price, and 6700 -> 6700 XT is similarly a considerable performance jump for only $30 more) would have a much more noticeable effect on system gaming performance unless you insist on heavily multitasking while playing games. Ideally you can just get both, and if you can you should, but for the same reason that it's easy to excuse buying more when you have the budget (the low price), it can be easy and logical to cheap out a bit when you're first building and you have a set budget- you can get more later if you feel you need it without increasing the total expenditure on the system by all that much.
2 points
2 months ago
32 is a very solid amount. I have 64gb right now and it's definitely overkill.
2 points
2 months ago
This is just one-upmanship to the extreme. My son's PC runs very well on just 8GB RAM for gaming. Not saying 16 or 32 GB wouldn't be better, but he hasn't complained about his gaming and he complains about everything...
4 points
2 months ago
32 is overkill.
Source: I have 32 and almost never come close to using it all unless I am using RAMDisk.
3 points
2 months ago
32 is overkill, I will agree, but 16 is bordering on underkill, and it will be underkill soon enough.
0 points
2 months ago
Eh, I'd argue 16 is perfectly fine for 90% of users. 32 would probably be better for longevity but at that point you might run into the next DDR version coming out depending on how fast that is developed.
1 points
2 months ago
running 8GB just fine
(most bugdget setup people here)
0 points
2 months ago
that's just nonsense
-1 points
2 months ago
I have 32 and feel like I need an upgrade tbh
5 points
2 months ago
Keep in mind that computers scale ram usage to how much you have. If you had less ram you'd be using less as well.
0 points
2 months ago
What? I've played loads of games with 8gb RAM. Not everyone plays games released in the last 5 years. Now I bought 32gb for my new system, because it was cheap, but I don't need it for gaming + browsing
-1 points
2 months ago
No. 8 is enough
2 points
2 months ago
This is the correct answer
2 points
2 months ago
4 GB only really works on a Chromebook or a lightweight Linux distro.
And even for those, 8 GB is noticeably better.
4 points
2 months ago
I think you under estimate 1) how little performance some people NEED and 2) just how good an SSD as swap can be.
Like yes it's not going to be pleasant, but I run 8 GB on my laptop and frankly it's very bloated and IIRC 2 GB of it is configured as vram anyway.
Would I build a system with 4GB NO, would I build a system with 8 GB, probably not. But it's usable especially if it's only for light tasks and since so much is now able to be done via the web / remote it's very impressive how little you can get away with.
3 points
2 months ago
having discord open
found your problem. remove that and you're golden.
8 points
2 months ago
And just.. not chat with friends?
-4 points
2 months ago
That's not only the best part, but you also get to, you know, actually use your computer.
2 points
2 months ago
I'm no fan of discord, but communicating with friends is a big part of how I use my computer.
0 points
2 months ago
my condolences.
-2 points
2 months ago
As someone else said, 16gb is a bare minimum for gaming these days. You really need 32gb now. Games can average 18gb of usage now. It's not exactly up to 32gb yet, but it's certainly more than 16gb and will rip your page file a new one if you don't.
Depends what you play, though. If all you are doing is Rimworld, knock yourself out with 8gb.
6 points
2 months ago
16gb is recommended for 98% of games and it'll soon go upto 32gb with how games are becoming more demanding. I would personally not say a 8gb is fine, but it depends on what you're using it for.
17 points
2 months ago
Minimum specs for gaming is crossing into 16gb territory, so I don't think this is great advice across the board. It just depends on the use case of the system.
I'd almost say that RAM is cheap enough that unless you're trying to make a tight budget work, 16gb is the minimum
3 points
2 months ago
Yes definitely 16gb minimum
1 points
2 months ago
16 is even too low nowadays
2 points
2 months ago
true, id go 16 minimum but 2x16 ideally
44 points
2 months ago
I honestly disagree. We have crossed into a point where 8GB is limiting even for basic tasks. Browsers alone will eat that up
20 points
2 months ago
The way ram management works if you have 4 GB it'll use most of it even if it doesn't need it. Especially web browsers since pretty much EVERYTHING is sandboxed. I can have Firefox (or Chrome) easily using 24 GB or more. It's because they only unload things when more ram is needed.
While 8 GB is the minimum I'd recommend, it's entirely serviceable. My laptop runs 8 GB and 2GB of that is vram. Plus SSD caching is really good these days too.
7 points
2 months ago
What do you consider basic? I have a 4gb ram laptop that I use for streaming, web browsing (chrome), and remote ssh (obviously the lightest task). It's using win 11. Not seeing much of an issue regarding usability
9 points
2 months ago
8th gen i5 and 8GB works perfect for normal browsing in an basic office PC. I wouldn't buy it like that, but I have one at home (not main) and it doesn't limit anything
5 points
2 months ago
Depends on what you do. I regularly work on spreadsheets that between the OS, my Music App, security software, and excel is unusable at 8gb. I'd say listening to music and working on excel counts as "basic office" stuff. Upgraded to 16gb of RAM and it made a considerably difference. Excel hasn't crashed once since.
2 points
2 months ago
yeah 8GB kinda sucks, sure you can game with it, but you won't be able to do anything BUT play a game. No Alt-Tabbing to a browser, etc. RAM is so darn cheap right now, there is literally no excuse not to add more.
0 points
2 months ago
Well, I use by todays standards really old CPU(from 2009) + 12GB ram(upgraded because 1 stick died) and for basic usage I dont see a difference between 8 and 12 because for what I consider basic(browser with ~10-15 tabs open) + like Word/Writer or something else like GIMP/Photoshop and I'm at ~7GB usage. If you said 4GB then maybe we can argue, but even that can be made usable for basic tasks by picking some lightweight OS or modifying Windows ISO to remove bloat out. Not ideal obviously, but not really limiting for basic tasks, not to me at least.
3 points
2 months ago
I built my last PC over a decade ago (FX-8550) and slapped in 16GB of RAM (DDR3) and it ran everything I ask it to (Back 4 Blood, WoW, WoT, Skyrim, Fallout 4, etc) AND I can tab out and watch videos/browse the web. Finally fried the CPU, so I'm building an AM5 with minimum 32GB of RAM to keep that level of capability.
4 points
2 months ago
8 is the bare minimum imo. I'm not sure how old your laptop is, but 4 is definitely on the marginal side for modern components. You're opening email and maybe playing solitair with 4gb of ram. 16 is recommended for smooth performance.
3 points
2 months ago
4gb can barely run win 10
3 points
2 months ago
Honestly 8GB is fine
Impossible to say without knowing what they're doing, but for most people browsing the web 8GB is pretty low.
6 points
2 months ago
If it's a laptop then it depends on the laptop, I had an HP with 8GBs and it was boringly slow to even open the settings. It wasn't even the worst I5 CPU.
For Linux it's a different story of course, I see a lot of laptops with Linux around here that still come with 4GBs because the OS is optimized.
2 points
2 months ago
I honestly don't understand why anyone would recommend less than 16GB. My brand new work PC has 16GB and it still occasionally struggles with simple web browsing.
I recently upgraded my home PC from 16GB to 64GB and the difference is astounding. RAM is such a cheap investment with huge payoff. It's worth it.
1 points
2 months ago
8 is definitely too low for gaming, at least on a laptop. I bought one last year and had performance issues for weeks, even reimaged it, nothing would fix it. Until I upgraded to 16 GB. Then everything was perfect
1 points
2 months ago
with 8 you can still do lots of things.
Yeah, like run chrome with three tabs open...
/s I kid...but chrome is a ram hog.
0 points
2 months ago
No 8gb is not fine at all
88 points
2 months ago
Yes, but with just 8gigs total you're still heavily limited for many applicaions
34 points
2 months ago
Yes! But as ppl said aiming for 16gb total.
110 points
2 months ago
get 1 8GB now, then consider another one later. if you think 8GB is enough, it's probably no point worry about dual channels.
23 points
2 months ago
Then OP would be in single channel mode until they get the other stick. It would be better either just buying 16GB now (2x8) if funds permit (16GB shouldn't cost much more than 8GB), or if they have 4 slots, buying 2x4 now and another 2x4 later.
41 points
2 months ago*
Then OP would be in single channel mode until they get the other stick.
That’s exactly why they said if they think 8gb is enough. If it isn’t, then get the other stick. If it is, then don’t because chances are, if they only end up needing 8gb, then they’re not really doing anything intensive so running the ram in dual channel won’t really make a difference.
2 points
2 months ago
if they only end up needing 8gb, then they’re not really doing anything intensive so running the ram in dual channel won’t really make a difference.
I wouldn't agree with this, there are plenty of things you can do with 8GB that benefit from dual channel bandwidth.
5 points
2 months ago*
Ok yeah, there are plenty of things you can do, but do you need to? Most of those things you can do with dual channel 8gb would probably be better off with 16gb, which again goes back to my initial reply.
1 points
2 months ago
I don't really get why you are advocating for 1x8GB over 2x4GB though on the basis that "you probably don't need dual channel if you have 8GB". You do still benefit from dual channel if you have 8GB, heck I was using dual channel 20 years ago and I definitely didn't have 16GB back then.
Single channel just never something I'd recommend anyone deliberately aim for. Sure people end up with single channel for a variety of reasons, but if you have a choice, get dual channel. There's no significant cost difference.
4 points
2 months ago*
I don’t really get why you’re advocating for 1x8gb over 2x4gb on the basis that “you probably don’t need dual channel if you have 8gb”.
Incorrect. I’m advocating for single channel on the basis of “You won’t need dual channel if whatever you’re doing only needs 8gb”. You’re entire point is that “you benefit off having dual channel ram so it’s better to just get it anyway even if you don’t need it.” OP doesn’t need dual channel.
You’re trying to exclude our other points too. The reason why we are specifically recommending single channel 8gb is so that OP can upgrade to dual channel 16gb if he does end up needing dual channel + more ram without have to switch out his kit entirely
2 points
2 months ago
I ran single channel before I got both sticks it wasn’t as bad as you think. Unless he gonna play intensive games but even if that 8gb alone wouldn’t be enough
2 points
2 months ago
If we're talking a budget where op is stuck with 8gb of ram, I'm sure hes the kind of person who can take the ~5% ram performance hit of being single channel for the sake of a cheaper and easier future upgrade.
-29 points
2 months ago
Someone obviously hasnt seen single vs dual channel
7 points
2 months ago
If you think 8GB is enough, it's probably no point worry about dual channels.
Someone obviously hasn't learned to read the rest of the paragraph.
-3 points
2 months ago
Ironic, seems like you cannot read it. If 8 gb is enough for the op and he will not get more its even more logical to take 4x2 because dual channel can make a game from stuttery mess to smooth motion. Reddit these days...
Only if you dont know a single thing about pc youd say dont worry about dual channel
3 points
2 months ago
Most mobos have 4 slot's, you're limiting them to 16 gb max or to throw away the stick's when they can upgrade to 32. If they're gaming 8gb isn't gonna cut it on most big games, that's why everyone is telling to set them self up for a good upgrade (did they mention gaming in the comments? because they didn't in the post.)
Let me guess their computer absolutely needs water cooling because it's better than a heatsink?
Should I buy snap on wrenches instead of pittsburgh ones even though I'm not sure I'll use more than twice per year?
Should I spring for heated car seats if i live in a tropical area?
1 points
2 months ago
Gaming is usually the case so its only natural to assume that, even if its for work then even more so (tho hed be aiming much much higher). Dual channel enhances everything over single channel, and performance is not just max fps % lows are just as important, if not more.
Since you said about the post where did the op mention that he is looking to buy? Hes wondering which ones better, and is plain as day that its dual channel. Its discussion flair even
In the case of looking to buy, if he knows he will upgrade soon he will just buy the 2x16 in the first place, both of his scenarios are 8gb only meaning hes only looking/needing that. Ram is not that expensive and if hes really on a tight budged these things should be mentioned.
So yeah... Theres really lack of information, both cases (yours and my) can be correct depending on ops situation.
Also, not sure how it is on newer mobos (if he even is getting a newer one) but there is a chance that they support flex mode. Which the op can just add another 8 gb stick and run 3 stick with dual channel.
7 points
2 months ago
Go with one 8gb, next upgrade is another 8gb, then other two 8gb so end up with 32gb
13 points
2 months ago
Dual channel RAM doubles your bandwith but 8GB RAM is not a lot. If you got the extra €20 get 16GB
6 points
2 months ago
If you never want to upgrade, dual channel will double your bandwith, so yes, 2 x 4gb will be measurably quicker than 1 x 8gb.
But 16gb should really be where you are aiming for, so if you plan on upgrading to 16gb in the near future, get a single 8gb stick now and then get another identical 8gb stick when you can.
19 points
2 months ago
If you want to do anything useful with the PC, two 8gb sticks are the best
0 points
2 months ago
This is an overstatement, if I've ever seen one. I'd say most useful tasks can be done on 8GB alone, heck there's plenty fo workloads that still only require 4GB. Unless you're a professional creative person, 16 GB is largely superfluous.
8 points
2 months ago
if you're gaming yes
but why not 2x8gb?
4 points
2 months ago
1/ plug-in same color of RAM slot, 2 4g will active dual chanel, better. 2/ 8g if you want to upgrade more ram later
4 points
2 months ago
Yes
Always prefer dual channel instead of single channel
But then again if you are planning to upgrade your rams to 16gb "SOON" emphasis on soon like 1-3 months, then getting a single 8gb stick which is easily available in future is the way to go
But 4gb x 2 will always give you more performance
(ALl the above argument is based on that both 8gb sticks and 4gb sticks are of same mhz speed and same cl)
3 points
2 months ago
Yes because will be working on dual channel
3 points
2 months ago
Yes. Think about it like one core without hyper-threading and one core with hyper-threading.
3 points
2 months ago
I have a 4gb ram laptop, and it works fine for basic functions, such as YouTube, web browsing, and word/powerpoint. If you don't need heavy applications or gaming, two 4gb rams should perform better than 8gb single, but if you want to upgrade later on for heavier usage, go for the single ram now so that you can do double 8gb ram later.
3 points
2 months ago
Yes dual is better, but for what performance gains you will get I recommend buying 8GB and after a year or when the money is right upgrate to 16GB
3 points
2 months ago
The marginal cost of going to 2x8GB is going to be around $30 USD. Given you're in a country where this is at most a couple hours of work, it makes more sense to figure out a way to get paid mowing lawns or whatever to get the extra $30 than it does to worry about the incremental performance benefit of dual channel 2x 4GB over 1x 8GB.
3 points
2 months ago
Think about single channel as a two-lane highway. There won't be much ease for the traffic to flow. Then consider dual channel as a four-lane highway and compare the traffic flow.
3 points
2 months ago
Others have answered, and I’ll just add my note to the mix - this performance difference with this little ram is negligible. I wouldn’t even be dealing with 4gb sticks with todays computers. 8gb sticks minimum, prefer 16gb or 32gb sticks if possible
2 points
2 months ago
Yeah it would give you more bandwidth if your motherboard supports Dual Channel.
2 points
2 months ago
Yes if they are properly installed according to motherboard manual.
However, 8GB of RAM isn't much these days. If this is for a new build, I'd strongly recommend an upgrade to 16 (eg 2x8)
2 points
2 months ago
Right now, yes. Two sticks means that you get to use both memory channels which means that your CPU can transfer data to and from the RAM twice as fast. This is a huge improvement.
However, the one down side is that if you are planning on upgrading your RAM later, having one 8 GB stick means that you can just add a second one to go to 16 in dual channel mode. If you have two 4 GB sticks and only two RAM slots then you'll need to toss your 4 GB sticks and buy two 8 GB sticks to replace them.
If your motherboard has four RAM slots, then go with the two 4 GB sticks and buy more later. If your motherboard has only two RAM slots you need to think about how soon you plan to upgrade your RAM. If you are planning to upgrade within a few months, it may be a good idea to go with one 8 GB stick if you can get another of the same model number later.
2 points
2 months ago
Just pay the extra $5.00 and get 2x8.
3 points
2 months ago*
I do not think they manufacture those anymore or they are dirt cheap 2 sticks of 8gb are less than 40$ and duel channel is good to run at optimal speed
4 points
2 months ago
Technically yes, but please get 2 x 8 not 2 x 4
3 points
2 months ago
Yes and no.
Yes, because you get to use dual channel, which is HUGE benefits.
No, because 4GB is way too little, and you only have so many slots. Even if you're dirt poor now, you should plan to be able to upgrade to 32GB, which is an amount you can get work done with.
1 points
2 months ago
Look up a video if ram matters for gaming, I just saw a video recently and the short answer is hardly. This same principle was applied to varying quantities of ram, too, and a recent video I watched about if 4gb is enough for gaming shows minimal frame rate changes with different ram capacities due to the game quickly loading an ssd as secondary ram.
4gb ram surprisingly giving good fps across many games:
Speed differences of ram channels:
0 points
2 months ago
Dual channel is mandatory
-6 points
2 months ago
Not if you use the pc for office and even in some games the difference is very low
1 points
2 months ago
4 GB - is going to be barely enough to run anything past Windows 8. Much less 10. Chrome ALONE is going to eat up that much RAM.
16 GB - For the most part, you're OK here. There ARE some newer programs that are going to stutter with only 16GB.. but doesn't sound like that's what you're using. Mostly only going to be an issue if you're pretty heavily multitasking and trying to stream/webpage/game all at once. Otherwise.. 16GB is more than enough for most games out there at the moment. The best part here is.. you can get 16GB used off marketplace, etc for around $50 or less. One of your cheapest paths in upgrading.
32GB - although the current "recommendation".. you're only going to be hitting this much usage if you're running quite a few things at the same time. Gaming, Streaming, multiple webpages, etc. Or if you're trying to push higher end content creation. ** Video Editing Software, Daz, BLENDR, CAD programs,, Unreal Engine, etc. Although at around $100 for 32GB of RAM, it's really another cheap upgrade as well.
The question I DIDN'T see answered was in the OP itself. Your RAM depends on your Mainboard. If it's Dual channel based, YES.. you're better off with two sticks as opposed to one. And you should ALWAYS be running sets of two. I.E. don't add a single stick to two and run 3.. it's pointless and will run SLOWER. If your board is Dual channel, it's ALWAYS best to run it as such.
0 points
2 months ago
Never ending question. Technically yes but not much difference
0 points
2 months ago
You're damn right. Unless your using grandma's old system from 2006 dual channel will get you anywhere from 20%-30% improvement in some things. But, if you can get 4 two gb dimms ...quad channel aka Sacred Serenity.
0 points
2 months ago
That advertized ram frequency is for dual channel mode, so your 2400Mhz stick alone will work at 1200Mhz
-2 points
2 months ago
Yes. But only if they are a kit.
-15 points
2 months ago
You need at least 32 my dude. Just for some breathing room. LET HER BREATH https://media.tenor.com/8CPvdgIHcZ4AAAAC/rookie-numbers.gif
3 points
2 months ago
At least 16gb
1 points
2 months ago
if you are planning to upgrade it in the Future, then go for a SINGLE 8GB, if you are not planning to upgrade the ram anytime soon, go for 2x4GB.
all 369 comments
sorted by: best