QVL doesn't always make sense

[donalgodon]

I recently bought some memory for an Asus Crosshair 7 hero.

F4-3200C14D-16GTZR

 

This memory is listed on the Asus qvl for the Asus Crosshair 7 hero, but it says that it's only supported in two slots.

 

I really don't understand what would happen if you bought an additional set.

 

Any ideas?

 

The memory I'm currently using, which is Corsair LPX, is the same way. It's listed as supported, but only in two slots.

 

This memory runs perfectly in all four slots on a lowly ASRock b350 board.

 

Could it be the case that such a much better quality board has the Asus board doesn't support the same memory in all four slots?

[Enderman]

It can be that they simply didn't test 4 slots so they just said it works for 2.

[Jurrunio]

QVL only says what 'will work', doesnt mean those not listed wont.

[ARikozuM]

35 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

QVL only says what 'will work', doesnt mean those not listed wont.

Even then, it's only a "suggested" parts list. You can have an XMP profile outrightly fail even though the same modules are on the QVL. 

[epsilon84]

An additional set may not run at the XMP speeds / timings because an extra set of DIMMs places additional stress on the IMC.

 

You'll most likely still be able to run with an extra set of modules, but you may need to run au slower memory speeds to be stable.

[donalgodon]

11 hours ago, epsilon84 said:

An additional set may not run at the XMP speeds / timings because an extra set of DIMMs places additional stress on the IMC.

 

You'll most likely still be able to run with an extra set of modules, but you may need to run au slower memory speeds to be stable.

There's something inherently odd about including 4 RAM slots when populating all of them is not recommended. I chatted with an Asus tech support person who basically said that using 4 DIMMs is not recommended and suggested that the modules should be as dense as possible (i.e. if user wants 32 GB then use 2x16 rather than 4x8).

So, wouldn't it make more sense to just make two slots the standard if there's some sort of problem with properly supporting 4 slots with current IMCs?

[Biggerboot]

28 minutes ago, donalgodon said:

There's something inherently odd about including 4 RAM slots when populating all of them is not recommended. I chatted with an Asus tech support person who basically said that using 4 DIMMs is not recommended and suggested that the modules should be as dense as possible (i.e. if user wants 32 GB then use 2x16 rather than 4x8).

So, wouldn't it make more sense to just make two slots the standard if there's some sort of problem with properly supporting 4 slots with current IMCs?

I haven't had to look at a QVL for a motherboard since an old AM2 board I had back in the day.

Go to G.Skill's forums and ask if it's compatible.  Asus Crosshair is a pretty common series and either a tech or board owner will give you confirmation.  Most board makers just want to brush off as much liability as possible with RAM.  As long as youre comfortable returning the RAM I'd go for it.

I don't know all the technical details for how RAM compatibility shakes out, but boards are generally fine with most RAM now - I think a lot of it has to do with the memory controller being on the CPU these days.  

[Ithanul]

If Ryzen or TR, I usually go by this list since those systems love B-die sammy sticks.

Warning, most this stuff is in German:  https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/die-ultimative-hardwareluxx-samsung-8gb-b-die-liste-alle-hersteller-08-05-18-a-1161530.html

 

2 hours ago, donalgodon said:

There's something inherently odd about including 4 RAM slots when populating all of them is not recommended. I chatted with an Asus tech support person who basically said that using 4 DIMMs is not recommended and suggested that the modules should be as dense as possible (i.e. if user wants 32 GB then use 2x16 rather than 4x8).

So, wouldn't it make more sense to just make two slots the standard if there's some sort of problem with properly supporting 4 slots with current IMCs?

Usually it is easier to OC with less sticks.  Kind of been the case for a long time, or at least as far back as I remember dealing with Sandybridge and Phenom II builds.

[Biggerboot]

10 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Usually it is easier to OC with less sticks.  Kind of been the case for a long time, or at least as far back as I remember dealing with Sandybridge and Phenom II builds.

Definitely the case with older motherboards, also RAM ocing was a lot more niche.  Pre-SB the memory controller was on the board and really was luck of the draw.  I do personally think the QVL standards need a revamp to reflect the changes in the market recently.  But also I don't think a lot of people care.

[Ithanul]

1 minute ago, Biggerboot said:

Definitely the case with older motherboards, also RAM ocing was a lot more niche.  Pre-SB the memory controller was on the board and really was luck of the draw.  I do personally think the QVL standards need a revamp to reflect the changes in the market recently. 

Agreed.  Also, it a bit of silicon lottery with AMD chips on how well they handle OCing of RAM.  Some are great and some are not.

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Agreed.  Also, it a bit of silicon lottery with AMD chips on how well they handle OCing of RAM.  Some are great and some are not.

I guess XMP technically falls under the silicon lottery umbrella, so it's hard to pin any blame on the motherboard makers.

[Ithanul]

1 minute ago, Biggerboot said:

I guess XMP technically falls under the silicon lottery umbrella, so it's hard to pin any blame on the motherboard makers.

I try to avoid XMP profiles.  Manual setting is my go to.