Question More memory at lower speed or less memory at higher speed

DDR 4 3600 32GB (2X16GB) 14-15-15-35 vs 3200 64GB (2x32GB) 14-18-18-38


  • Total voters
    8

jnewegger23

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2013
1,166
1
19,965
253
Hello everyone,

So, I'm shopping memory right now. I'm debating between these two:

Choice A:
32GB (2 x 16GB)
  • DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800)
  • Timing 14-15-15-35
  • CAS Latency 14
  • Voltage 1.45V
vs
Choice B:
64GB (2 x 32GB)
  • DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600)
  • Timing 14-18-18-38
  • CAS Latency 14
  • Voltage 1.45V
I'm leaning toward Choice A, the 32GB (2x16GB) higher speed and tighter timings but is there any disadvantage to that performance wise? I am upgrading from a 16GB kit of similar numbers mainly because in RDR2 and AC Valhalla I've noticed that games are finally pushing that threshold of around ~13GB (12937MBs ish) and I don't need 64 let alone 32 GB but I was future proofed back in the day always going for 16 but I think 32 will be way more than ample for gaming purposes for quite some time. Thoughts, feedback? I'd like to hear arguments as to what I may be missing out by passing on Choice B 64GB (2x32GB) slightly slower. I've listed my build parts below. For now I have 2x16GB Corsair Dominator Platinums but they are CL18 and I will be giving those to a friend after I replace them with one of the ones listed above. In advance, thank you for your time!

Your detailed feedback and reasoning why is much appreciated! Whatever one decides, I wish them well and to have fun gaming on!

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/hWn7YJ


https://pcpartpicker.com/b/hWn7YJ i9-12900K 5.1GHz 16-Core ARCTIC Liq Freezer II 420 MSI Z90 EDGE WIFI DDR4 Samsung 980 Pro 2TB EVGA 3080 Ti Fractal Torrent Corsair AX1200 Windows 11 Pro Dell S3222DGM Corsair K70RGB Alienware AW610M
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone,

So, I'm shopping memory right now. I'm debating between these two:

Choice A:
32GB (2 x 16GB)
  • DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800)
  • Timing 14-15-15-35
  • CAS Latency 14
  • Voltage 1.45V
vs
Choice B:
64GB (2 x 32GB)
  • DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600)
  • Timing 14-18-18-38
  • CAS Latency 14
  • Voltage 1.45V
I'm leaning toward Choice A, the 32GB (2x16GB) higher speed and tighter timings but is there any disadvantage to that performance wise? I am upgrading from a 16GB kit of similar numbers mainly because in RDR2 and AC Valhalla I've noticed that games are finally pushing that threshold of around ~13GB (12937MBs ish) and I don't need 64 let alone 32 GB but I was future proofed back in the day always going for 16 but I think 32 will be way more than ample for gaming purposes for quite some time. Thoughts, feedback? I'd like to hear arguments as to what I may be missing out by passing on Choice B 64GB (2x32GB) slightly slower. I've listed my build parts below. For now I have 2x16GB Corsair Dominator Platinums but they are CL18 and I will be giving those to a friend after I replace them with one of the ones listed above. In advance, thank you for your time!

Your detailed feedback and reasoning why is much appreciated! Whatever one decides, I wish them well and to have fun gaming on!

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/hWn7YJ


Unless you are running a mass server running 3d rendering, you'll never use 64gbs of ram it will actually cause latency beyond needed causing more cache data loss then transfers
 
Reactions: jnewegger23

EdBakersfield

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2008
43
1
18,535
0
Hello everyone,

So, I'm shopping memory right now. I'm debating between these two:

Choice A:
32GB (2 x 16GB)
  • DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800)
  • Timing 14-15-15-35
  • CAS Latency 14
  • Voltage 1.45V
vs
Choice B:
64GB (2 x 32GB)
  • DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600)
  • Timing 14-18-18-38
  • CAS Latency 14
  • Voltage 1.45V
I'm leaning toward Choice A, the 32GB (2x16GB) higher speed and tighter timings but is there any disadvantage to that performance wise? I am upgrading from a 16GB kit of similar numbers mainly because in RDR2 and AC Valhalla I've noticed that games are finally pushing that threshold of around ~13GB (12937MBs ish) and I don't need 64 let alone 32 GB but I was future proofed back in the day always going for 16 but I think 32 will be way more than ample for gaming purposes for quite some time. Thoughts, feedback? I'd like to hear arguments as to what I may be missing out by passing on Choice B 64GB (2x32GB) slightly slower. I've listed my build parts below. For now I have 2x16GB Corsair Dominator Platinums but they are CL18 and I will be giving those to a friend after I replace them with one of the ones listed above. In advance, thank you for your time!

Your detailed feedback and reasoning why is much appreciated! Whatever one decides, I wish them well and to have fun gaming on!

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/hWn7YJ


https://pcpartpicker.com/b/hWn7YJ i9-12900K 5.1GHz 16-Core ARCTIC Liq Freezer II 420 MSI Z90 EDGE WIFI DDR4 Samsung 980 Pro 2TB EVGA 3080 Ti Fractal Torrent Corsair AX1200 Windows 11 Pro Dell S3222DGM Corsair K70RGB Alienware AW610M
I like it. Go for more RAM rather than faster RAM. RAM speed is a variable, RAM amount isn't.
 
Reactions: jnewegger23

Although it's a sample size of 1, looking through that tells me it doesn't matter if you use DDR4-3200 or DDR4-3600. Considering the absolute latency between the two kits you're looking at are practically the same, performance wise it doesn't matter what you go with. However, if the 64GB kit is appreciably more expensive, I see no need for it, since you're likely never going to come close to filling it up.
 
Reactions: jnewegger23

jnewegger23

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2013
1,166
1
19,965
253

Although it's a sample size of 1, looking through that tells me it doesn't matter if you use DDR4-3200 or DDR4-3600. Considering the absolute latency between the two kits you're looking at are practically the same, performance wise it doesn't matter what you go with. However, if the 64GB kit is appreciably more expensive, I see no need for it, since you're likely never going to come close to filling it up.
There's about a $70 increase to go for 64 instead of 32 ($349 vs $279). I'm leaning to save the $ and get the slightly better performance but like you say it's negligible.
 

jnewegger23

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2013
1,166
1
19,965
253
The old adage, 'unused memory is wasted memory,' comes to mind here. Although it becomes a bit more complex with backpressure functionality, if you're barely scraping 14GBs of usage at the most, then 64GBs is a complete waste.
Go with 32GBs and be happy with your slightly faster RAM.
You're right. Honestly, other than some higher benchmarking scores neither choice really makes too much of a big difference overall. Just thought I'd hear out what others decision making thoughts come into play when facing this first world decision. It's just you know how it goes, piece by piece, part by part you scrutinize and try to get the "best". Thanks for your feedback nonetheless!
 
There's about a $70 increase to go for 64 instead of 32 ($349 vs $279). I'm leaning to save the $ and get the slightly better performance but like you say it's negligible.
The thing no one else here seems to be bringing up, is again the more used memory is a waste like one other said... BUT "again memory wasted is more room for ram cache loss" which means Lossing random cache data in the ram in a abiss of open storage.
 
The thing no one else here seems to be bringing up, is again the more used memory is a waste like one other said... BUT "again memory wasted is more room for ram cache loss" which means Lossing random cache data in the ram in a abiss of open storage.
If you're suggesting that standby memory is a justification to get more RAM, it's not., unless you're doing something like testing Skyrim mods and the game keeps crashing.

hi, i would go with 48gb rather than 216gb because it's better for gaming as i know
It's slightly better, but I don't think it's enough to justify actively going after a 4x RAM kit over a 2x one.
 
The thing no one else here seems to be bringing up, is again the more used memory is a waste like one other said... BUT "again memory wasted is more room for ram cache loss" which means Lossing random cache data in the ram in a abiss of open storage.
I don't get the reference here(?) Are you talking about a RAM drive or are you talking about texture cache for games once VRAM gets filled up?
The OP already stated that they're hitting 14GBs at the most. I can't see any game being constrained by 32GB in the reasonable future.
 
If you're suggesting that standby memory is a justification to get more RAM, it's not., unless you're doing something like testing Skyrim mods and the game keeps crashing.


It's slightly better, but I don't think it's enough to justify actively going after a 4x RAM kit over a 2x one.
No I'm saying more ram not being used is a waste and causes more issue with data lose in the cache
 
Reactions: alceryes

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS