Referring to reducing clock speed for faster response times rather than focusing on megahertz values.
Referring to reducing clock speed for faster response times rather than focusing on megahertz values.
Seems like some 2x64 configurations exist but only Corsair Vengeance offers them. The downside is its CL42 rating compared to CL30 or CL26. I’m questioning whether I should focus more on timing or capacity. For reference, these videos I’ve watched: https://youtu.be/JuUhnQaGG_I?t=344 and https://youtu.be/Fr7Bfr-wPYw?t=315. What I notice is that timing matters more than speed, especially at higher resolutions. That’s why I mentioned trying to upgrade to higher-rated memory, aiming to lower latency instead of just boosting speed. My games will run at 4k or at least 2k, so that makes sense.
Here’s a clearer version of your message:
I understand what everyone is discussing now—just the official AMD specifications. I didn’t realize how clearly defined this was. Alright, I’ll be using two sticks. The Extreme motherboard still feels better because its I/O performance is superior to the Apex. I also have a habit of avoiding GPUs without an HDMI port; it makes troubleshooting much harder if something goes wrong. With all this knowledge, I think memory makers would be better off sticking to the 5600-6400 frequency range and focusing on reducing timings (especially for AM5). This approach seems similar to what G.Skill is doing, which explains why we now have CL26 kits. I might end up getting two 2x32 6000 CL26 units and leave two slots open. I wish there was a 2x64 option, but it would be too slow. Having 64GB is still double what I currently have, so that’s okay. Maybe I’ll buy another 2x32 just to test with 4x32, and if it doesn’t work, I’ll return it.