RAM Discussion

[Jasontvnd]

Thanks for all the input and advice

The 750w RMx is only £4 more than the TxM so worth going for that, especially given it is more efficient.

Personally, I wouldn't put an Intel chip on a PCS cooler in the 175R...it's too closed off for a gaming machine

@ThatBarney I would second holding off till later in the year as new hardware coming means better performance...however, it would also mean a drop in price for this gen components so you could potentially get more for the same money. If you need to buy now, I'd go with the spec that @Aza posted before...it's the best balance of now performance with future upgradeability. Personally, I'd swap the stock cooler for the Coolermaster Hyper 212....whilst I don't have experience of the cooler on current gen Ryzens, the stock cooler on the previous gen (3600 in my case) is a tad loud

You could add bits and bobs all you like but it's just going to increase the price a bit at a time.

Also the AM4 socket is end of life , If he really wanted to get a bit more future proof a ddr5 Z690 Mobo would be the way to go , that way he could reuse the ram and have an upgrade option to raptor lake.

Not to mention a 12600kf is alot better than a Ryzen 5600 for everything but especially for gaming.

A PSU is a very very small part of a computer and since I ran a 9900k and a RTX2080ti off of a TX750v2 which I bought in 2011 I know they are perfectly fine for many upgrades.

 

[Aza]

You could add bits and bobs all you like but it's just going to increase the price a bit at a time.

Also the AM4 socket is end of life , If he really wanted to get a bit more future proof a ddr5 Z690 Mobo would be the way to go , that way he could reuse the ram and have an upgrade option to raptor lake.

Not to mention a 12600kf is alot better than a Ryzen 5600 for everything but especially for gaming.

The current DDR5 motherboards arent futureproof.
Check out the supported RAM speeds, as DDR5 matures the likelyhood of any of them to be able to take DDR5 RAM at decent speeds is incredibly slim. Yes, Intel is currently on a brand new socket, so that would give options for upgrades to the CPU later on, but it still means buying a decent motherboard to support future CPU's anyway and CPU upgrades tend to be one of the last things you'd do with a build,, cheaper boards dont have the VRM capabilities of higher spec boards or the same thermal management features.

Whatever you do with a £1300 budget you are going to be makling sacrifices somewhere, it makes more sense to focus what budget there is into components that are going to be permanent/semi permanant like PSU's and motherboard, but its never going to be a great set of choices.

It doesnt matter what way you slice it, the best option is to wait and try to increase the budget.

 

[Jasontvnd]

The current DDR5 motherboards arent futureproof.
Check out the supported RAM speeds, as DDR5 matures the likelyhood of any of them to be able to take DDR5 RAM at decent speeds is incredibly slim. Yes, Intel is currently on a brand new socket, so that would give options for upgrades to the CPU later on, but it still means buying a decent motherboard to support future CPU's anyway and CPU upgrades tend to be one of the last things you'd do with a build,, cheaper boards dont have the VRM capabilities of higher spec boards or the same thermal management features.

Whatever you do with a £1300 budget you are going to be makling sacrifices somewhere, it makes more sense to focus what budget there is into components that are going to be permanent/semi permanant like PSU's and motherboard, but its never going to be a great set of choices.

It doesnt matter what way you slice it, the best option is to wait and try to increase the budget.

It's not the motherboard he could carry over it's the ram.

We're going round in circles at this point so I guess we just have a different opinion which is fair enough.

 

[SpyderTracks]

It's not the motherboard he could carry over it's the ram.

We're going round in circles at this point so I guess we just have a different opinion which is fair enough.

Current DDR5 isn't worth investing in, it gives very little if any improvement over DDR4 but at twice the price. You wouldn't want to carry RAM over as by the time you wanted to DDR5 speeds would have increased enormously.

 

[Jasontvnd]

Current DDR5 isn't worth investing in, it gives very little if any improvement over DDR4 but at twice the price. You wouldn't want to carry RAM over as by the time you wanted to DDR5 speeds would have increased enormously.

Intel and gaming in particular don't care much about ram speeds , Having ram you can move to a newer platform is better than having no ram atall.

 

[SpyderTracks]

Intel and gaming in particular don't care much about ram speeds , Having ram you can move to a newer platform is better than having no ram atall.

But that's not accurate, the only reason we're currently seeing little performance gain is because DDR4 3600 is pretty much on par with DDR5 6000 MHz, that's the whole point, it just currently offers no benefit.

Until DDR5 is more mature, it's not worth adopting unless it's the only option on that chipset.

It's the same with any new DDR standard, you avoid the early gen speeds if possible or certainly only look at it as a temporary solution.

 

[AgentCooper]

Hi all, I’ve moved these posts from this thread into it’s own as we’ve gone a bit off-topic and hijacked the thread 🙂👍

 

[Jasontvnd]

Ok that's fair!

We can debate here without ruining the poor op's post.

I'll give you that Ryzens infinity fabric is extremely ram dependant to a point.

3600mhz seems to hit a wall with Ryzen but Intel in particular and the way the ring clock works ram is much less of a concern.

You can see that in various reviews online that concluded the difference in gaming as an average was around 5-10% difference going from 3200mhz to 4200mhz with eurogamers testing , I might downclock the ram in my Mrs 9900k hand me down I gave her and do some independent testing though I've never seen ram speed as particularly important on the Intel side.

Now I'm not saying you are wrong Spyder but going forward there will be no upgrade path that doesn't involve DDR5 , If you want a kickass system in a couple of years running slightly bottlenecked memory is better than having to buy new memory.

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[AgentCooper]

Intel in particular and the way the ring clock works ram is much less of a concern.

I will freely admit I’m not the most technical presence on the forum but as I understand it, particularly at 1080p Intel’s processors will net reasonable gains from higher frequency RAM when it comes to gaming. Which is why 3200MHz-3600MHz with decent timings is generally suggested as the sweet spot across the board.

Feel free to educate me if needs be, the above just popped into my head as the possible exception to the rule 👍

 

[SpyderTracks]

Ok that's fair!

We can debate here without ruining the poor op's post.

I'll give you that Ryzens infinity fabric is extremely ram dependant to a point.

3600mhz seems to hit a wall with Ryzen but Intel in particular and the way the ring clock works ram is much less of a concern.

You can see that in various reviews online that concluded the difference in gaming as an average was around 5-10% difference going from 3200mhz to 4200mhz with eurogamers testing , I might downclock the ram in my Mrs 9900k hand me down I gave her and do some independent testing though I've never seen ram speed as particularly important on the Intel side.

Now I'm not saying you are wrong Spyder but going forward there will be no upgrade path that doesn't involve DDR5 , If you want a kickass system in a couple of years running slightly bottlenecked memory is better than having to buy new memory.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Weather Intel or AMD, the optimal RAM speed for gaming is the same on DDR4

3200MHz is generally considered the lowest, with sweetspot being 3600MHz, anything over that returns limiting improvements

That's for gaming.

But it's no different on Intel or AMD

 

[Jasontvnd]

Weather Intel or AMD, the optimal RAM speed for gaming is the same on DDR4

3200MHz is generally considered the lowest, with sweetspot being 3600MHz, anything over that returns limiting improvements

That's for gaming.

But it's no different on Intel or AMD

It is very different , Ryzens infinity fabric has a direct relation to ram speed where as Intel's ring bus does not.

That's the reason most people try to get 3600mhz ram.

That's double data rate 1800mhz which happens to be what the infinity fabric caps out at , Infinity fabric due to a engineering limitation runs a direct 1:1 ratio with the ram.

Ring bus doesn't it's separate and not ram dependant.

On the Intel side of things there's videos and sites out there showing going from 2133mhz ddr4 to 3200mhz ddr4 producing less than 10% of an improvement to gaming in worst case scenarios , Sometimes it has no effect.

 

[SpyderTracks]

On the Intel side of things there's videos and sites out there showing going from 2133mhz ddr4 to 3200mhz ddr4 producing less than 10% of an improvement to gaming in worst case scenarios , Sometimes it has no effect.

But that's completely normal and not special to Intel, that's just the way RAM works on both platforms.

The RAM performance is only really relevant for CPU heavy gaming loads, it's not going to influence a GPU bound game in the same way. Again, that's nothing to do with Intel vs AMD, that's just how RAM works with CPU bound games. That's why you tend to see better memory performance gains on competitive 1080p titles, or simulator style games, or RPGs. CSGO for instance always gets big gains off good RAM as it's mainly CPU bound.

Don't waste money chasing RAM speed for gaming on AMD or Intel

Revisiting the question that every gamer considers when building a new gaming system: does RAM speed matter?

www.pcgamer.com

Anything from 5% upwards improvement with RAM is a big win, that's more than you'd hope for in general. It's not like you'd expect the same increases like you'd find on a CPU generational update.

But adopting intels 12th gen with DDR5 makes zero sense outside of some special circumstances like compression. The speeds and timings are so poor that there's no benefit to it currently, that's not a limitation of DDR5, it's just too early yet for DIMMS and controllers to be able to get the most out of the potential performance. 12th Gen won't be able to support better speeds in the future due to the limitations of the current controller, that's not Intels fault, it's just the price you pay for early adoption.

I have no doubt Intel 13th Gen will have a superior memory controller baked in that will support far higher speeds.

But as with any DDR format, it tends to become the norm adoption level just over the max speed of native compatibility, which for DDR5 is currently 8400 but will likely end up far higher as it did on DDR4.

So we'll likely see optimal gaming frequencies around perhaps the 8000MHz mark, and on top of that, timings will be far tighter. But it's gonna take a while before those DIMMS are available, and they'll be damn expensive at first.

 

[Jasontvnd]

But that's completely normal and not special to Intel, that's just the way RAM works on both platforms.

The RAM performance is only really relevant for CPU heavy gaming loads, it's not going to influence a GPU bound game in the same way. Again, that's nothing to do with Intel vs AMD, that's just how RAM works with CPU bound games. That's why you tend to see better memory performance gains on competitive 1080p titles, or simulator style games, or RPGs. CSGO for instance always gets big gains off good RAM as it's mainly CPU bound.

Don't waste money chasing RAM speed for gaming on AMD or Intel

Revisiting the question that every gamer considers when building a new gaming system: does RAM speed matter?

www.pcgamer.com

Anything from 5% upwards improvement with RAM is a big win, that's more than you'd hope for in general. It's not like you'd expect the same increases like you'd find on a CPU generational update.

But adopting intels 12th gen with DDR5 makes zero sense outside of some special circumstances like compression. The speeds and timings are so poor that there's no benefit to it currently, that's not a limitation of DDR5, it's just too early yet for DIMMS and controllers to be able to get the most out of the potential performance. 12th Gen won't be able to support better speeds in the future due to the limitations of the current controller, that's not Intels fault, it's just the price you pay for early adoption.

I have no doubt Intel 13th Gen will have a superior memory controller baked in that will support far higher speeds.

But as with any DDR format, it tends to become the norm adoption level just over the max speed of native compatibility, which for DDR5 is currently 8400 but will likely end up far higher as it did on DDR4.

So we'll likely see optimal gaming frequencies around perhaps the 8000MHz mark, and on top of that, timings will be far tighter. But it's gonna take a while before those DIMMS are available, and they'll be damn expensive at first.

But Spyder i never said upgrade to 12th gen because of the ram I said upgrade to 12th gen because the 12600kf is a better processor than the 5600.

I did say having DDR5 ram that can go into another build is better than having DDR4 that is end of life which is fair no?

10% is a significant upgrade yes but if the let's say £100 is put towards a better GPU depending on how far up the diminishing returns list you want to go could be alot more than 10%.

At the very least it will not simply become E-Waste though in my case my Mrs gets a free computer every time I upgrade so I don't see much of any carry over generally.

I finished work at midnight last night and I'm back to work in an hour so I'll leave it at that , I wouldn't say you where wrong just a different opinion on it I think.

 

[SpyderTracks]

I did say having DDR5 ram that can go into another build is better than having DDR4 that is end of life which is fair no?

But that's the point, doesn't make sense as you wouldn't carry it over to a new mobo. If you're moving to a new mobo as required by a new socket, why would you put in DDR4 equivalent RAM that cost double on a new mobo that's capable of far faster DDR5 speeds, no one would do that, just doesn't make any sense. You woudn't handicap the performance for the sake of saving a minor investment when you're upgrading most of the core anyway and if you'd bought the fast DDR4 and then fast DDR5 you'd pay around the same anyway than buying slow DDR5 because of early adoption price and bad timings / frequencies.

10% is a significant upgrade yes but if the let's say £100 is put towards a better GPU depending on how far up the diminishing returns list you want to go could be alot more than 10%.

But again, you haven't got that spare £100 because you've paid double the cost for the poor DDR5 vs the fast DDR4

 

[Aza]

Are these the DDR4/DDR5 tests you are referring to?

Page 3 | DDR5 vs DDR4: Which RAM is best for gaming and content creation?

Is DDR5 RAM worth the extra expense? Digital Foundry tests gaming and content creation performance on Intel's Z690 plat…

www.eurogamer.net

From what I see, the DDR4 RAM theyve used is CL19, and in the majority of tests is gives a handful of extra frames....
I wouldnt call this a worthwhile investment given how much more expensive DDR5 is compared to DDR4, and should also be noted the RAM sold by PCS is CL16/CL18 (3200/3600)

Only one of the games used to test it saw any benefit, and its a game that is very much multithread, but single core practically none, so it is heavily situational i'll agree... but that info taken with the very strong likelihood (if not guaranteed chance) that current motherboards that take DDR5 wont take newer generations of it at higher speeds, puts DDR5 in a very weak position on which to build a platform atm, unless you're willing to do a complete rebuild every few years to counter those drawbacks.

For most people, making such a big investment into a rig I dont think its unreasonable to assume you should get a decent lifespan out of it, not treat it like a throwaway build after a couple of years and start again..... DDR5 seems like a foolish investment, at least in my opinion.
It would make far more sense to save the cash and wait till DDR5 is properly optimised before creating a build with it.

 

[Aza]

Even their own summary leans towards DDR4 as being the better option

Page 4 | DDR5 vs DDR4: Which RAM is best for gaming and content creation?

Is DDR5 RAM worth the extra expense? Digital Foundry tests gaming and content creation performance on Intel's Z690 plat…

www.eurogamer.net

 

[SpyderTracks]

Even their own summary leans towards DDR4 as being the better option

Page 4 | DDR5 vs DDR4: Which RAM is best for gaming and content creation?

Is DDR5 RAM worth the extra expense? Digital Foundry tests gaming and content creation performance on Intel's Z690 plat…

www.eurogamer.net

That's pretty much unanimous amongst reputable 3rd party reviewers at the moment, certainly for gaming. It's only a few niche workloads that benefit currently from slow DDR5

Ryzen 7000 is reported to have a better memory controller makeup, and I'm sure 13th Gen Intel will have a better one than that. This is just how it goes with new DDR standards now that the controllers are on the CPU. Each CPU release further increases the RAM potential just based on being newer with newer optimised tech being available at that time of manufacture.

 

[Jasontvnd]

So much to respond to and so little time , I'll go make sure the staff at my work aren't setting fire to the building then respond to the above posts.

 

[Jasontvnd]

Right well I'm home so there seems to be some confusion regarding what I'm actually trying to get across.

I'm not trying to say DDR5 is better than DDR4 there's a few points I'm trying to make with regards to the suggestion to go for an i5 12600kf over Ryzen 5600.

The first being it's a better CPU in every way apart from power efficiency.

It's IPC is far superior which gaming seems to love , It's multithreaded ability is also closer to a 5900 than a 5600.

We know Intel suck with there platforms but going by historic evidence the socket will support raptor lake at least.

AM4 is end of life so there's nowhere for that Mobo to go unless you want to throw a better Ryzen 3rd gen in there.

the DDR5 although it's new and will suffer from teething problems is at least going to be a stop gap if you want to go for another platform in future , Yes it's more expensive but it's around a £40 expense extra for the same capacity so not £100 like stated before.

if the choices are Ryzen 5600 , 16GB DDR4 and RX6600 with an RMx series PSU for 1250 or so or a i5 12600KF , 16GB DDR5 and RX6600 with a TMx series PSU for 1310 it's a no brainer to me , The later is better in every way when it comes to performance except your electricity bill and a slightly worse but still good PSU.

Although the case is a bit flaky having looked more into it.

If he can wait a bit then it's worth it since we're close to a new GPU generation and still waiting to see what Ryzen 7000 brings to the table but if he wants something right now the Intel platform to me is a better option.

It's just an opinion and you might have a different one but you'll never convince me I'm wrong on it.

Take it easy guys I'm gonna go sleep!

 

[Scott]

I absolutely cannot get behind DDR5 right now for any reason. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. In actual fact, I'm gutted that AM5 is going to be DDR5 only....... as I just don't see it being mature enough for me to have a "one and done" system (my next upgrade I was planning AM5 close to release).

Now I'm thinking I'll hold off until at least 9600 RAM is in the pipeline and then get the board to suit.... whether that be with a reduced rate RAM based on pricing or not.

For the arguments made in this thread, there are some things to concede and to consider.

The 12600Kf is a better processing processor than the 5600... but it comes with a lot of cost considerations on top. Lets explore. PS, I'm choosing the 5600 as the "X" is pointless now and it's the way I would recommend.

The 12600Kf is in the region of £250.
The 5600 is in the region of £175
The 12600Kf requires a very good cooling solution. To get the most it needs an AIO which is £100. Bare minimum a 212 for me £37
The 5600 will be fine with the stock cooler. I would tend to opt for the 212, but as I have used the bare minimum above, same here £0
The AM4 is end of life, there's no point in investing in the motherboard for future use as there isn't going to be a next gen chip to go in. B550 TUF is the best option here. Approx £130
Fingers crossed the Z690 gets next gen compatibility, is it confirmed? I would never middle here and the lower end boards aren't that good. Z690 TUF Wifi is always my go to. I would want to cover some next gen use as well. If opting for DDR5 this would cost £340 for the Strix option (DDR4 £240)
The RAM is the next consideration. It has to be 32GB to even consider comparison. DDR5 would be £300, DDR4 £127

Forgetting everything else:

The skeleton of an AM4 build is £432
The skeleton of Intel with DDR4 £654
The skeleton of Intel with DDR5 £927

Not one of those options, IMO, is actually future proof. If you opt for AM4, AM5 is coming out. If you opt for Intel with DDR4, DDR5 is coming out. If you opt for Intel with DDR5, proper DDR5 is coming out.

With all of that in consideration, literally the only truly sensible option is to pick the cheapest option that meets your needs. If the 5600 does this.... it's the obvious choice. The 12600K was great value when the AM4 chips were holding their price. Now that you can get them at a good price, especially with the surrounding components considered, they're a bargain by comparison.

None of the above is based on me trying to skew information btw. If you check any 12600 builds that I've recommended they all have the TUF board in there. It's the most sensible option to choose.

I don't think I've recommended DDR5 yet though, even when getting really silly with a budget

If the boards supported higher frequencies then I would consider it. A £300+ board that's going to be a decoration in 2 years isn't a good fiscal investment.