The question isn't clear. Could you specify what you're comparing—such as speed, efficiency, or another factor?
The question isn't clear. Could you specify what you're comparing—such as speed, efficiency, or another factor?
I haven’t located any explanations in video form or clear performance data. There don’t seem to be many sources that clarify this concept. @Valkyrie Lenneth, the phrase “each core gets a stick” likely refers to a specific training or motivational approach, but more context would help interpret it accurately.
No, ram doesn't get assigned to cores. Cores RARELY get data directly from ram anyway, they get it from L1 cache, then L2 cache, then L3 cache (Ryzen has 24..64 MB of L3 cache). You have memory controllers with multiple channels, in the case of Ryzen there's 2 channels. These channels are connect to the Infinity fabric, where the processor cores are also connected. Here's a Ryzen die if you're interested, this one is for 2400g : You can see the Core Complex (CCX0) and you see the four cores with the L3 and L2 cache in the middle, where it's closest to the cpu cores... because the cores always hit the cache first, then as a last resort, go the slower route to the memory controller. You don't have one particular core reserving one particular memory channel for its exclusive use, and you can't reserve a single memory stick from a channel for a single core. It doesn't make sense. You can also see in the picture above how both the cpu area and the graphics area (and the multimedia engine, aka hardware encoders and decoders of video) "hug" the memory controller area, because all three need to hit the ram a lot. No, there's no extra bandwidth. Just get Lavasys Aida64 or SiSoft Sandra or whatever benchmark you want, test memory bandwidth with 2 sticks in dual channel, then test with 4 sticks in your computer. You'll see practically no difference in bandwidth. You'll see more bandwidth when you go from single stick to two sticks, when you basically enable dual channel mode. single channel = 64 bit x 2 bit per Hz x frequency ... dual channel = 2x64 bit x 2 bit per Hz x frequency ... so of course the memory transfer speed almost doubles... almost because it depends on the size of the data you get from ram how fast you will actually transfer. It's practically impossible to have 4 sticks in single channel, as most modern configurations will allow a sort of hybrid dual channel mode, when you have memory sticks of different sizes (ex you have a 4 GB and a 8 GB stick, the first 4 GB of each stick will be in dual channel, the last 4 GB of second stick will be single channel, something like that) The combination of higher frequency and latency (timings) gives more processing speed, which could result in fps increase in some games that are cpu bound, computation heavy. You can have 3600 Mhz and CL20 or you can have 3200 Mhz and CL16 ... the 3200 Mhz stick may function better in SOME applications you may not care about because they're not games, but computers aren't made just for gamers. Also, NO, you won't get DDR5 soon. The standard isn't even finalized, it will be done sometime in 2020, and you'll probably have the first processors supporting DDR5 in 2021 or 2022 and they'll require new sockets. Just like DDR4 was compared with DDR3, the initial DDR5 sticks won't be much faster than DDR4, they'll use less power and they'll have higher frequencies, but they'll run at higher latencies, so the performance won't double. The only place where you could argue some memory sticks get "assigned to cores" is in processors like Threadripper or Rome, where you have these processors made with multiple dies, and each die has its own memory controller with their own memory channels. For example, you can see this Epyc CPU made with 4 cpu dies, each with its own DDR4 controller which has 2 memory slots: So yeah, in such scenario you could argue that the application must be careful to put the data a particular thread on a particular core needs into the ram stick that's used by that die (the core being in one of the tw CCX in the die). If your data isn't in those RAM slots, then it's requested from another die through the infinity fabric that connects all dies, and you get higher latency. This is also why with Epyc and Threadripper you have to install 4 sticks at the minimum, one for each memory channel, so that you won't get a cpu die without memory slots, always being slower as it has to request data from other dies through the infinity fabric.
memtest will display the result accurately, and I understand you're unsure about dual-channel functionality. You mentioned that a 4-slot board can support two dual channels or four single channels, and that DDR5 is now available but not yet widely sold to consumers. The average CAS latency is around 266 MHz, though the exact ratio between CAS cycles and MHz isn't clear. Each core gets assigned to a RAM stick, which is what most people expect. However, avoid confusing those who lack knowledge with technical details. Give it a try yourself on benchmarks—you might see about a 10% improvement using dual channels compared to single channels on supported boards. If it's only single-channel support, gains will be closer to 5%. Also, note that it's practically impossible to have four sticks in single-channel mode; you really need to learn about RAM because every system can run all sticks in single-channel if supported. Research how RAM works instead of focusing solely on the CPU.
The system uses two memory channels managed by a controller. Dual channel allows simultaneous read and write operations on both channels. Each channel supports 64-bit data paths with two bits per pin (rising and falling edges), meaning reading or writing from one channel transfers 128 bits per clock cycle. In dual channel operation, this doubles to 256 bits per cycle. With four memory sticks, the processor can only access data through these two channels, limiting parallel requests. Although requests may be interleaved within a channel for efficiency, overall performance gains are minimal. Delays occur when the controller waits for data from each stick before delivering it, creating pauses. Once data arrives, it flows rapidly to the CPU in continuous bursts. For large data sets—such as video encoding with 1–10 MB of frames—the latency becomes less critical since the time spent waiting is negligible compared to the high transfer rates. However, for small, frequent data exchanges like database operations, latency can significantly impact user experience. The last update I made will not be shared further.
I found the conversation confusing. Each segment seemed to point out that the opposite conclusion was clearly right. While exploring this myself, I came across an article that checks this claim: https://www.techspot.com/article/1971-mo...or-gaming/. The findings suggest that in certain cases, 4 sticks might actually be quicker than 2. I don’t see any evidence showing 4 sticks slower than 2, which might support the idea of adding more sticks just in case. However, the article also mentions a potential downside—using 4 sticks could sometimes reduce clock speed, leading to poorer performance. It would have been better if they had tested this directly rather than relying on theory alone, as it seems theoretical views can differ strongly.
It may slow down if the motherboard is inexpensive and can't support 4 sticks at high frequencies. You might need to reduce the frequency settings or ensure stable RAM. For instance, you might start with 4 3600 MHz sticks but discover only 3200 MHz works when all are installed. Or you could use 2933/3000 MHz configurations. Reviewers usually don't test with a budget motherboard around $60; they use more capable systems to simplify benchmarks and allow flexibility across different processors and graphics cards.
I just wanted to note some details about the FPS improvement you observed, around a 4 to 10 percent increase using four versus two sticks. It's not about boosting bandwidth or core installation—it's more about having an additional rank available. When installed with four single-rank modules, it activates in Duel Channel Duel Rank mode, whereas with two single-rank modules in Duel Channel Single Rank, the timing of RAM operations differs. This affects performance, but in practice it still results in a 4 to 10 percent gain similar to Duel versus Single Channel.
Order a 2x16GB package, since four units would leave you without dual rank eligibility
I upgraded from 2x8 to 4x8 last year mainly for appearance reasons, hoping to enhance the look of those DIMMs. While benchmark gains might have occurred, they weren’t really noticeable.