> 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
Even 6000 MHz isn't necessarily "cheap low speed" RAM though, it's still a 400 MHz OC on Zen 5/14th Gen. ~$44 gets you 2x8 GB 4800 but it's ~$63 to start with 2x8 GB 6000.
Simplifying it to one vendor for the sake of conversations: for boards that explicitly target 9800X OCing users it's a bit silly to see 4 slots all the time but for the majority of boards that target the whole lineup it's not nearly as silly. Same for the 9900/9950X class where a lot of the users might be intentionally looking for larger amounts of slow RAM for heavier applications, not necessarily the absolute best bandwidth or latency the processor can manage.
> Even 6000 MHz isn't necessarily "cheap low speed" RAM though, it's still a 400 MHz OC on Zen 5/14th Gen. ~$44 gets you 2x8 GB 4800 but it's ~$63 to start with 2x8 GB 6000.
I'd argue that whatever JEDEC specs intel/AMD puts up are mostly irrelevant to the reality of things, and the upgrade minded people won't be limiting speeds because of their speculative future scenario. This only leaves people who are on a very constrained budget and can't buy all the RAM at once. And they could buy a single 16GB stick and then buy another one later on when necessary. The losses from only using one channel aren't going to be as pronounced as on DDR4 either because of the 8GB's halved bangrkups and DDR5's internal channel split.
> Same for the 9900/9950X class where a lot of the users might be intentionally looking for larger amounts of slow RAM for heavier applications, not necessarily the absolute best bandwidth or latency the processor can manage.
I think DDR5 changes things up a bit here as 64GB is currently easily used and is enough for most, even heavier, workloads. Like for example for HN's audience some programming without worrying about memory being eaten up outside some more extreme cases. I agree that there's still a lot of people who'd need the ram even accounting for that, but they don't exactly need 80% of boards to have 4 slots
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).