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?
You've created multiple threads. Please submit a single request with your build suggestion.
Sorry, was just trying to break it down so as not to get into the weeds with unrelated stuff... Will do a "general build" post if needed.
Ignore @Valkyrie Lenneth, he seems to be joking around or not fully informed. Four sticks aren't always ideal. Unless we're discussing Threadripper or other premium Intel chips, most available processors feature a dual-channel memory controller. Each channel can handle up to two sticks. To achieve optimal performance, use at least one stick per channel, meaning two sticks total. Installing four sticks won’t boost speed—it still operates within two channels transferring data. In reality, with four sticks, the number of signals between memory slots and the CPU increases, creating more interference. This forces the CPU’s memory controller to handle more data, introducing extra noise. As a result, you might notice that cheaper boards can't support 4 sticks at high speeds like 3200 MHz, while the same sticks work fine at 3000 MHz. At lower frequencies, each bit travels slightly further, giving the controller more time to interpret signals accurately. Therefore, always match the number of sticks to the memory channels available in your CPU’s controller. For AM4 sockets, there are two channels; Threadripper offers four, and older Intel models had three channels. AMD used AM1 or FM1 sockets that supported only one channel.
Are you referring to the 50th post on this topic for a week? Do you actually search for information? Have you heard about bank interleaving and rank interleaving? It goes beyond just channels—there’s a lot of existing research, so there’s no need to invent things.
Yeah, I've heard. I put it in the same bin with overclocking memory by a few hundred mhz ... minute performance increases for too much wasted time. Quoting from an old techpowerup article: However, this has NOTHING to do with the original question, using 2 memory sticks or 4 memory sticks. This doesn't make a different if you have 2 or 4 ... it applies to each individual memory stick. Conclusion is the same: you won't get extra performance by installing 4 sticks instead of 2, all other things being the same
are you studying? if you have extra sticks, each core is linked to a RAM stick, and i’m not sure what i mean. for most people i’m talking about building ram, so don’t judge yet before you finish your assignment. i can check your bandwidth improvement even with dual channels and 2 vs 4 sticks—it’s clear that giving more cores helps, because modern cpus have many cores now. the main issue is memory controller load and ram limits, which affects overclocking. this is why higher MHz usually means better performance, or why 2 sticks are better than 4 in dual-channel setups, and why DDR5 is gaining popularity soon.