No, it won't necessarily worsen performance. The impact depends on your system's configuration and usage.
No, it won't necessarily worsen performance. The impact depends on your system's configuration and usage.
You have available storage and RAM slots that could be used to improve your setup. Adding more memory can help if you need it, but the impact depends on how you use it. The combination of 2x8GB and 2x4GB will likely provide better performance than the current 2x8GB configuration, especially since both are DDR3 1300MHz. Since you’re not seeking extra capacity or speed, using these sticks for a task like running an OS or light applications should be straightforward and beneficial.
Yes. Worsen. If it even works at all. I understand there is a saying: 2 race horses or four oxen. Memory is twitchy in general and even moreso with some motherboards or CPUs. Sometimes getting a second kit to work may fail even if you bought both kits at the same time and they’re identical.
It could improve performance or not, based on the existing RAM setup. Considering it's from the DDR3 time, chances are lower. Assumptions: you can install them without affecting speed or timing. If it was Haswell, I'd expect better results since the Sandy Bridge controller wasn't as strong. The benefit might appear when your 8GB sticks are single rank. Four GB sticks would add a second rank per channel, which usually works better than one per channel. Yet 8GB sticks in DDR3 are likely already dual rank. I haven't noticed much gain beyond two ranks per channel. In early DDR4 8GB modules they were also dual rank before switching to single. More RAM might still help overall performance a bit, because Windows can use any extra memory as a cache for file access. This effect was stronger in the HD era and less noticeable now with SSDs. It could matter if you explain why you think this.
One of the reasons is in there: the horses and oxen issue. It’s basically the 8+4 dilemma. You need either two 8s and two 4s on each channel, or one 16-channel and one 8-channel setup. Either way it’s a challenge. A different issue, but still a challenge.
8+4 on each channel works fine and would be my approach. In a common dual channel setup I'd place it in 4, 8, 4, 8 pattern so it distributes evenly. Making channels unbalanced leads to areas acting like single channels due to capacity issues. Edit: Your comment wasn't noticed until after this reply. I'd also mention the RAM speed is lower even for DDR3, which reduces chances of problems. Running at regular speeds can yield some fascinating configurations. This isn't a significant concern.
My take... the change will be almost invisible. You now have 2 x 8 GB, which should handle all programs, games, and the OS just fine. Adding another 8 GB to reach 24 GB won’t noticeably speed things up—your system won’t run faster or more responsive, games won’t feel different. You can use one 8 GB stick and another 4 GB on each channel, or split it between two channels (16 GB on one, 8 GB on the other). Some setups might not work depending on your motherboard. If you try a single high-speed stick and a lower-speed one on the same channel, the board may complain. With lower frequency sticks, performance could drop slightly—maybe a small lag of 0.2 to 0.5 fps on average, which is likely not noticeable.
Because the results seem likely to match or be worse, I won’t proceed. I think selling the 4GB sticks makes sense since I don’t need them anymore. I rarely require more than 16GB, and I’m upgrading my whole rig next year, so keeping them isn’t worthwhile. Thanks everyone!
It usually happens more often than expected, even though it doesn’t seem to. Occasionally it fits what you say, but it’s uncommon enough to be a bit unexpected. Edited December 6, 2022 by Bombastinator