2x4 vs 1x16

[bungusboy81]

I already know dual channel RAM is better than single channel, but even if you have more RAM, would 8GB RAM 2x4 be faster than 16 GB RAM 1x16? 

Thanks in advance for any answers!

[porina]

Depends on the use case. For my compute uses, 8GB is plenty and I'll take the performance from dual channel. If you exceed 8GB of usage, you really drop off performance. So for modern gaming, I'd reluctantly take the 1x16GB as the least worst choice. Performance loss from going single channel is probably less than having to use swap.

[bungusboy81]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Depends on the use case. For my compute uses, 8GB is plenty and I'll take the performance from dual channel. If you exceed 8GB of usage, you really drop off performance. So for modern gaming, I'd reluctantly take the 1x16GB as the least worst choice. Performance loss from going single channel is probably less than having to use swap.

I'm assuming this is obvious but would 2x8 be better than both? And would that let me exceed 8GB without a performance hit?

[RAS_3885]

7 minutes ago, bungusboy81 said:

I'm assuming this is obvious but would 2x8 be better than both? And would that let me exceed 8GB without a performance hit?

If you use less than 8 GB total 2x4 and 2x8 will perform the same.

 

If you use more than 8 GB total 2x8 will perform better than 2x4 and 1x16.

 

2x8 is the best option for capacity and performance.

[porina]

6 minutes ago, bungusboy81 said:

I'm assuming this is obvious but would 2x8 be better than both? And would that let me exceed 8GB without a performance hit?

Yes, but where is this line of questioning going? The ram chosen should take consideration of the use case.

 

Personally, when looking for ram I'd go in the following order

1, get enough total capacity

2, fill available channels (2 modules for dual channel, 4 modules for quad channel, etc.)

3a, get a reasonable speed for the system

3b, if possible go dual rank and/or 2DPC (trade off with 3a)

4, timings

 

[bungusboy81]

Just now, RAS_3885 said:

If you use less than 8 GB total 2x4 and 2x8 will perform the same.

 

If you use more than 8 GB total 2x8 will perform better than 2x4 and 1x16.

 

2x8 is the best option for capacity and performance.

I usually use less than 8GB, would having any more improve my performance? Or would it just add the ability to use more without doing anything while I'm under 8GB?

[mariushm]

It depends on the application, the amount of data it reads and writes to memory.

 

It takes a few nanoseconds for the ram to be ready to read or write into the ram chips, and then data is transferred very fast. 

 

In dual channel mode, you're reading or writing in parallel, from both memory channels, so the transfer gets done twice as fast, once it's started. But, for small amounts of data, the transfer can take less time than the amount it takes for the ram sticks to get ready, so basically the performance increase is not very noticeable with small transfers.

 

You can reduce the performance by using higher frequency single stick.

 

Basically throughput is defined by latency of sticks (how long it takes to start transferring data) , frequency (how often each second the sticks give a chunk data on the wires or get data from the cpu) and the number of channels (more channels, more data is sent or received in parallel.

 

With modern processors, you will also gain a small performance if you use 4 sticks of ram, even if you use dual channel.  You'll also get a small performance increase if you use Dual Rank memory sticks instead of Single Rank.

4 GB sticks will most likely be Single Rank sticks, 8 GB and higher should be dual rank (some 8 GB will be single rank, mostly those sold for overclocking and high frequencies - it's easier for cpu and motherboard to work with single rank memory sticks, so those can achieve higher frequencies when overclocking really hard)

 

 

[RAS_3885]

1 minute ago, bungusboy81 said:

I usually use less than 8GB, would having any more improve my performance? Or would it just add the ability to use more without doing anything while I'm under 8GB?

No, all things equal (dual-rate, timings, frequency, etc.) having additional capacity will not improve performance. As long as you have enough capacity, then performance comes down to dual-channel, speed, and timings of the particular kit you choose.

[WereCat]

Dual channel is always faster than single channel.

The amount of RAM depends on your use case. Once you run out of memory then single vs dual channel does not matter that much because you don't have enough memory.

 

Memory amount does not affect the performance as long as you have enough. Say you're using 7GB and you have 8GB RAM vs 64GB RAM, it will perform the same assuming its the same configuration, etc.. and only the amount of it is different.

[bungusboy81]

1 minute ago, RAS_3885 said:

No, all things equal (dual-rate, timings, frequency, etc.) having additional capacity will not improve performance. As long as you have enough capacity, then performance comes down to dual-channel, speed, and timings of the particular kit you choose.

Since a little more RAM isn't that much more expensive, would it be a good idea to get 16GB or could that cause issues if I never use that much?

[bungusboy81]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

Dual channel is always faster than single channel.

The amount of RAM depends on your use case. Once you run out of memory then single vs dual channel does not matter that much because you don't have enough memory.

Alright, thank you.

[RAS_3885]

Just now, bungusboy81 said:

Since a little more RAM isn't that much more expensive, would it be a good idea to get 16GB or could that cause issues if I never use that much?

No, it will not cause any issues.

 

If your budget will allow a 2x8 kit then go for it.

[WereCat]

Just now, bungusboy81 said:

Since a little more RAM isn't that much more expensive, would it be a good idea to get 16GB or could that cause issues if I never use that much?

Why would it cause issues if you have more than you need?

2x8GB is definitely the sweet spot these days (nothing wrong with 2x4GB if you really don't do memory intensive stuff).

[bungusboy81]

Just now, WereCat said:

Why would it cause issues if you have more than you need?

2x8GB is definitely the sweet spot these days (nothing wrong with 2x4GB if you really don't do memory intensive stuff).

I didn't know if it would since I'm new to computer hardware so most things are just moonrunes to me at the moment.

[bungusboy81]

1 minute ago, RAS_3885 said:

No, it will not cause any issues.

 

If your budget will allow a 2x8 kit then go for it.

Alright, then I will. Thank you!

[porina]

9 minutes ago, bungusboy81 said:

I usually use less than 8GB, would having any more improve my performance? Or would it just add the ability to use more without doing anything while I'm under 8GB?

Ram that you are not using isn't always idle. Modern OS will use ram as a disk cache. This might be less important now that most have SSDs, but it can speed up re-reads of data that is already in the cache.

[bungusboy81]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Ram that you are not using isn't always idle. Modern OS will use ram as a disk cache. This might be less important now that most have SSDs, but it can speed up re-reads of data that is already in the cache.

Would that be more important for me since I don't have an SSD, I have an HDD?

[Dedayog]

8 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Why would it cause issues if you have more than you need?

2x8GB is definitely the sweet spot these days (nothing wrong with 2x4GB if you really don't do memory intensive stuff).

You ask this just like I do (and it always boggles me), but it just hit me that maybe people think digital is like physical?

 

Asking if a F350 is causing issues if all I need is an F150, maybe? It's obvious that MORE truck is more gas, space, maintenance costs, etc?

 

Maybe people think that way about PCs?  More stuff I don't use, is more overhead to cause problems or costs?

 

Not sure, but we see that being asked A LOT.

[bungusboy81]

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

You ask this just like I do (and it always boggles me), but it just hit me that maybe people think digital is like physical?

 

Asking if a F350 is causing issues if all I need is an F150, maybe? It's obvious that MORE truck is more gas, space, maintenance costs, etc?

 

Maybe people think that way about PCs?  More stuff I don't use, is more overhead to cause problems or costs?

 

Not sure, but we see that being asked A LOT.

I wouldn't doubt it.