Comment by zamadatix

Comment by zamadatix 2 days ago

More than the specific list of which RAM is compatible check the table of how many slots/GB is supported at which speed. 1x 8 GB DIMM is a lot easier to drive than 4x 48 for example. Also keep in mind a lot of it depends more on the CPU than the motherboard itself, though both play a part, and the QVL should be a "safe bet". Particularly if you're willing to throw a bit of extra voltage at the RAM.

CUDIMs should help a bit with those scaling tables due to having the clock redrivers, but we'll have to see to be certain how much.

wtallis 2 days ago

> 1x 8 GB DIMM is a lot easier to drive than 4x 48 for example.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. What matters are DIMMs per channel, and ranks per DIMM. Consumer systems have at most two memory slots per channel, so 2x 8GB modules installed correctly is just two separate instances of one DIMM per channel, and 4x48GB is two separate instances of two DIMMs per channel, with each module being dual-rank.

The best configurations for overclocking are supposed to be motherboards with only one memory slot per channel, so that when operating with one DIMM per channel there are no empty slots providing stubs of wiring that degrade signal integrity. But very few motherboards restrict themselves like this for the sake of memory overclocking.

Reply View 9 replies

zamadatix 2 days ago

4x 8 GB is still a lot easier to drive at high speed than 4x 48 GB, but yes, one factor in the above comparison is indeed the number of DIMMs per channel. Ranks per DIMM is definitely a factor as well, though on large capacity DIMMs that tends to be a one sided story. Another factor in the rabbit hole is banks, tying it all back.
The other part of 2 DIMM boards is the trace lengths can be that much shorter (they need to be the same length so fewer slots means less max length to match to).

Reply View | 0 replies
Numerlor 2 days ago

> But very few motherboards restrict themselves like this for the sake of memory overclocking.
Though I'd hope they'd finally start doing it considering the per DIMM capacities DDR5 brings (32 GB, with 64 GB planned), and most consumers really not going for capacities that'd require 2 DPC (DIMM per channel).
1 DPC should've been the default by now with the amount of 1 DPC and 2 DPC boards swapped, as it's just making things worse in the most common use case

Reply View | 7 replies
- zamadatix a day ago
  
  A lot of consumers care more about either of total capacity or the concept of "I can just double my cheap RAM later" than care about ~10% differences in RAM clock speed. The latter is for those that really know what they're doing to eek out a couple more percentage points in benchmarks or non-consumer use cases, the former appeal to both budget users and prosumers alike (just not OC enthusiasts).
  From that angle I don't necessarily disagree with 4 channel boards being more common than 2 channel boards, even though I personally lean more towards a 2 channel board myself (well, depending how well CUDIMMS scale I may change my opinion).
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
  
  Numerlor a day ago
  
  > I can just double my cheap RAM later
  The thing is that this is quickly becoming impossible, even with fairly low speeds like 6000 2 DPC is not achieveable in some cases, and consumers that are buying the 4 DIMM boards aren't particularly aware of it
  
  Reply View | 5 replies

J_Shelby_J 2 days ago

And they’re often not stable even with the given XMP profiles. All of my XMP profiles throw errors and require backing off speed by a few hundred hertz to be stable.

Worth though. Much cheaper way to get a few extra percentage points than custom liquid cooling. And since every game where you would care about max FPS is bound by single threaded performance fast RAM is it.

Reply View 0 replies