Learning about RAM and my PC problems
Learning about RAM and my PC problems
I begin with the issue and then share my background. I recently installed a new rig, completed in about six months. It’s consistently experiencing kernel errors, BSODs, game crashes, Unreal Engine 5 failures, and other software glitches like Gaea and terrain generation tools. My setup includes a 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900K with AMD XFX 7900 XTX, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB SSD, Windows 11 (Build 22631), and 32GB of CORSAIR RMX DDR5 RAM (6200MHz). I also have an ASUS ROG Strix Z690-E motherboard with a modular ATX power supply.
After updating the OS, adding new drives, swapping the motherboard, and stress-testing the GPU, memory tests passed without errors. Still, I encounter irql_not_less_or_equal warnings, triggering a kernel power event ID 41. I’m not overclocking anything.
I’ve read online that my RAM setup is sufficient for my needs, but I’m confused about how to maximize it. I thought using two dual-channel sticks across all four channels would work well, but now I’m unsure if that’s the right approach. There are options for quad channel memory, and I’m considering upgrading to 128 or even 192GB. The price range is $450–$650, which makes me wonder if it’s worth the investment.
I appreciate any guidance you can offer. I’m eager to understand what’s going on and improve my setup without wasting money.
The same model number doesn’t guarantee identical RAM. For example, a stick of DDR5 contains four components: the PCB, memory ICs, the SPD, and the PMIC. The memory IC and PCB are key factors in compatibility, though the PCB also plays a role. RAM makers often update the ICs on a kit based on what’s available at the factory. Kits from Corsair, for instance, usually list version numbers like ver. 5.43.13 or ver. 5.43.01. If all kits share the same version, they’re likely the same product; differences indicate separate kits. To confirm exact match, you can check Corsair’s product details—look for consistent IC versions.
Other verification methods include purchasing premium kits that are guaranteed to use a specific die (e.g., Hynix A dies for 6800MT/s). However, the main challenge is DDR5’s four DIMMs: two slots are usually unusable if you care about performance. While you can run at decent speeds with single-rank DIMMs, dual-rank modules will likely fail you. Stress testing isn’t foolproof—some kits pass despite instability. Tools like Y-Cruncher VT3 and TestMem5 with the 1usmus_v3 preset (30 iterations) often catch real issues.
Regarding overclocking: you didn’t mention enabling XMP, but it’s worth noting that activating XMP is technically an overclock, even if you’re not doing it yourself.
Thanks for the clear summary on the memory lots. I hadn’t considered this being the problem—even though it’s typical at my company. Fortunately, they match the same version, 5.43.13. I didn’t run any XMP profiles before, but booting failed. I’ll test other models just to check if they’re still viable for sharing with friends. I still need more memory to speed up complex workflows with Terrain software. What I’m hearing is that unless I use two 64GB sticks combined, any mix of four won’t be practical or reliable. That doesn’t match what I expected, but I get it. It feels a bit deceptive when the CPU and motherboard claim support only to have it fail later.
It may function, but handling it won't be enjoyable. If you need a 128GB, hold off until the 64GB DIMM release later this year for the upgrade. This isn't new; the highest supported speed is often exaggerated. I've seen DDR4 boards advertise 4400MT/s and 4500MT/s, but on my setup I couldn't reach over 3866MT/s or 4266MT/s despite a kit that supports 4800MT/s. The four DIMM configuration feels unreliable because the daisy chain layout used by DDR5 boards, which excels at high speeds, has trouble with four fast sticks due to timing differences in data signals. Additionally, the memory controller side faces challenges—especially with the 13th gen IMC, which handles many memory ranks and four large DIMMs as a single channel effectively, making it hard to surpass 4800MT/s for configurations like 4x32GB or 4x48GB.
Running RAM at stock clock speeds often isn't a problem, but performance drops when you exceed normal JEDEC rates. You're experiencing BSODs in games or during regular use? That might point to something else. Are you planning to upgrade to 128GB plus more RAM?
All speeds are based on stock clock rates, no overclocking allowed. I’m trying to push performance but it’s not working well under heavy workloads. I’m currently using Unreal Engine 5 landscape tool and Gaea for terrain generation. Someone ran their setup with a similar rig but only 32GB RAM and it handled everything fine. Occasionally I experience soft crashes during Call of Duty and the Finals. I need around 192GB of RAM for both Unreal Engine and Gaea processing, but that seems unrealistic.
I could begin with 2-48gb sticks and check how it performs. Delaying the 64gb modules would mean missing my target milestones, which isn’t feasible for me. My concern is whether focusing on MT/s speeds is enough—even with four channels running, if they’re about 20% slower than dual-channel, it might not be as effective since processing power per GB matters more. I really need more storage, not just speed.
For capacity only, any RAM rate is preferable to SSD performance. More RAM remains somewhat unreliable when working with DDR5, though it can function at very low speeds (like DDR5 4400 or below) without major issues. This would mean a 30% drop in memory speed versus 2x48GB.