[SOLVED] 4x8GB required for 5600X?

[pmz94]

I wanna know about this RAM impact performance over Zen 3.
I saw this video where they talk about Ryzen 5 5600X performance differences between 2x8GB and 4x8GB kits.
They saw 4x8GB 3200MHz CL14 and 4x8GB 3600MHz CL16 had the best results, also they talk about somebody saying 2x16GB gives even better results.
Basically this means having a 32GB system, what if I just want 16GB? would 4x4GB be the best for me?
Which RAM specs does 5600X performance depends on?

 

[Third-Eye]

I wanna know about this RAM impact performance over Zen 3.
I saw this video where they talk about Ryzen 5 5600X performance differences between 2x8GB and 4x8GB kits.
They saw 4x8GB 3200MHz CL14 and 4x8GB 3600MHz CL16 had the best results, also they talk about somebody saying 2x16GB gives even better results.
Basically this means having a 32GB system, what if I just want 16GB? would 4x4GB be the best for me?
Which RAM specs does 5600X performance depends on?

I'll refer you to my answer in another thread with basically the same question. https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/2x16gb-vs-4x8gb-for-3900x.3661468/#post-22057158

 

[cryoburner]

Basically this means having a 32GB system, what if I just want 16GB? would 4x4GB be the best for me?

You would probably have a harder time finding a 4x4GB kit of DDR4 RAM with decent specs, as they are likely to be somewhat older models. The RAM currently being manufactured mostly starts at 8GB per rank, so 32GB may be necessary for the best performance. And while 16GB may generally be enough for gaming and for the vast majority of desktop tasks today, that could easily change over the next few years, so you may end up upgrading eventually anyway.

Of course, the benefits of getting this optimal RAM performance will largely depend on the budget of the system, and how it is being used. If high refresh rate gaming is a major focus, and you will be running a relatively higher-end graphics card at a relatively low resolution and/or reduced graphics settings to optimize for frame rates, then maybe that bit of extra RAM performance could be worthwhile. If, on the other hand, games will be primarily GPU-bound, like at 4K with a high-end card, or even 1080p with a lower-end card, then RAM performance might not matter all that much. If it's a gaming system in the below-$1000 range, then there's a good change that the money might be better put toward something else, like better graphics hardware. Knowing the planned specs of the system could help provide better insight into whether 32GB of RAM might be worth trading something else for.

Edit: To add to this a bit, the video you linked was showing performance on an RTX 3080, while running games at only 1080p with somewhat reduced settings. Realistically, that's not something many people would do, as a 3080 would be overkill at 1080p even with ultra settings, but they wanted to highlight the maximum CPU performance differences while not being limited by the graphics hardware in any significant way. So while they showed differences of up to 8% in a couple of the titles, at more typical resolutions and settings for a given graphics card, you would tend to see much less of a difference.

 

[Karadjgne]

This is historically how Ryzen cpus run with 2x or 4x sticks. This being 3000 series cpus, the 2000 series topped out at @ 2133/2400MHz with dual/single rank ram. Not sure how much 5000 series cpus have elevated that, or if they have changed it at all, but generally speaking Ryzens do not like 4 sticks.

Figure whomever did those tests also didn't just plug and play, setting xmp and calling it a day, they tweaked settings manually so that all settings were verified and regulated, not auto for that motherboard/bios with unknown variables.

So both may be right. Maybe 4x8Gb is best on a 5000 series cpu, if you know how to set it up correctly to not interfere with Infinity Fabric settings, but maybe for just everyday users plug and play then 2x16Gb is the better option.

Also figure that all these results are measured in nanosecond increments, real life differences being so small as to not only be immeasurable, but basically moot.

The 9700k is better than the 9700, if you OC it, otherwise it's the same cpu at stock settings. The 9700 is better than the 9700k at stock settings, has almost half the power consumption and therefore heat output. So which is better may depend on usage, and point of view. Works the same for the ram.