Build Advice Please check my gaming build before I buy the parts.

[angry.pidgeon]

EDIT: Detected an error in judgement from erroneous premise; I thought the latency is miliseconds (10^-3) but it's nanoseconds (10^-9). I'll leave my comments so others enlighten themselves There's a lot of vague claims that latency matter, and some gamers are even convinced, but I only heard that it matters in database computing... Looks like pretty much I'll fetch the cheapest RAM regardless of latency, if nobody objects

I've decided to buy 2x32GB DDR5 5600 instead. The price and quantity is proportional. If I will succeed installing a ram drive in it, I will buy 2x32GB again for a total of 128, mounting the windows virtual file(-s) as well, for a longer SSD life meaning return of money invested

Now I have to decide whether a difference in price of 30 is worth it for lower latency
The candidates are:

Corsair Vengeance 64 GB

DDR5-5600

2 x 32GB

£2.656

Black / Gray

14.286 ns

40

G.Skill Ripjaws S5 64 GB

DDR5-5600

2 x 32GB

£3.178

Black

10 ns

28

from https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#S=5600,7200&Z=65536002,131072004&sort=price&page=1

Price difference is 169 vs 203 respectively, difference which will double if I buy again.

I base my doubts whether latency is worth the investment on this google quote:
Modern processors and memory are more than sufficient for gaming, and the graphics card is the bottleneck in most cases. The DDR5 results clearly showed that. The performance difference in gaming between the two extremes (DDR4-2133 C15 and DDR5-6400 C36) was only around 8%

(error here, RAM latency is ns not ms) What I'm really afraid of, is compounding latency, meaning I have on say 30-50ms latency to the server. If that compounds with 40ms within my system and adds up to 70-90ms, it will be quite noticeable as 100 ms feels like lag to everybody. Still, choosing 40ms vs 28ms is then 58-78ms, a 15% difference which contradicts the above quote, meaning it's worse, and significant. The above quote is in error because it mentions "gaming", which can include online gaming... The price difference is 17%, therefore the investment feel justified...

Thoughts?

Amazon sais Ripjaws is "gaming memory" ...without ECC which is fine because glitches are fun as long as the game doesn't crash I bet it gets its speed from taking such shortcuts, not actual optimization...

I've also seen a difference in 5-10% fps between DDR 5 5600 and say 7200, while some DDR4 even outperforms DDR5 at the same rate because of lower latency, so the above "8%" quote is almost right but not quite. As you can see in the video link below, the tests are between hundreds of FPS, while the human eye can't tell the difference beyond 60 FPS, therefore RAM latency doesn't matter at all in gaming. This is the same discussion of high end performance between nvidia and radeon - if you play in 1080 you won't notice any difference. The differences occur at 1440, multi-monitors etc. Again, it's best to play at a reasonable resolution to be able to concentrate...

View: https://youtu.be/RTmbYak_8gE

 

[helper800]

EDIT: Detected an error in judgement from erroneous premise; I thought the latency is miliseconds (10^-3) but it's nanoseconds (10^-9). I'll leave my comments so others enlighten themselves There's a lot of vague claims that latency matter, and some gamers are even convinced, but I only heard that it matters in database computing... Looks like pretty much I'll fetch the cheapest RAM regardless of latency, if nobody objects

I've decided to buy 2x32GB DDR5 5600 instead. The price and quantity is proportional. If I will succeed installing a ram drive in it, I will buy 2x32GB again for a total of 128, mounting the windows virtual file(-s) as well, for a longer SSD life meaning return of money invested

Now I have to decide whether a difference in price of 30 is worth it for lower latency
The candidates are:

Corsair Vengeance 64 GB

DDR5-5600

2 x 32GB

£2.656

Black / Gray

14.286 ns

40

G.Skill Ripjaws S5 64 GB

DDR5-5600

2 x 32GB

£3.178

Black

10 ns

28

from https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#S=5600,7200&Z=65536002,131072004&sort=price&page=1

Price difference is 169 vs 203 respectively, difference which will double if I buy again.

I base my doubts whether latency is worth the investment on this google quote:
Modern processors and memory are more than sufficient for gaming, and the graphics card is the bottleneck in most cases. The DDR5 results clearly showed that. The performance difference in gaming between the two extremes (DDR4-2133 C15 and DDR5-6400 C36) was only around 8%

(error here, RAM latency is ns not ms) What I'm really afraid of, is compounding latency, meaning I have on say 30-50ms latency to the server. If that compounds with 40ms within my system and adds up to 70-90ms, it will be quite noticeable as 100 ms feels like lag to everybody. Still, choosing 40ms vs 28ms is then 58-78ms, a 15% difference which contradicts the above quote, meaning it's worse, and significant. The above quote is in error because it mentions "gaming", which can include online gaming... The price difference is 17%, therefore the investment feel justified...

Thoughts?

Amazon sais Ripjaws is "gaming memory" ...without ECC which is fine because glitches are fun as long as the game doesn't crash I bet it gets its speed from taking such shortcuts, not actual optimization...

I've also seen a difference in 5-10% fps between DDR 5 5600 and say 7200, while some DDR4 even outperforms DDR5 at the same rate because of lower latency, so the above "8%" quote is almost right but not quite. As you can see in the video link below, the tests are between hundreds of FPS, while the human eye can't tell the difference beyond 60 FPS, therefore RAM latency doesn't matter at all in gaming. This is the same discussion of high end performance between nvidia and radeon - if you play in 1080 you won't notice any difference. The differences occur at 1440, multi-monitors etc. Again, it's best to play at a reasonable resolution to be able to concentrate...

View: https://youtu.be/RTmbYak_8gE

Be very careful with 128gb or 192gb RAM configurations. They typically cannot run at as fast of speeds as 2x32gb or 2x 48gb kits. This is because the memory controller on the CPU is essentially stressed a lot with more sticks. Please check the memory kit compatibility list for whatever motherboard you end up getting. Typically, faster memory benefits performance of the entire computer because it allow faster reads and writes from the CPU, and this is doubley so if you are going to mess around with RAM drives. You are going to want the fastest first word latency memory of a high capacity that your motherboard and CPU can handle. Again, check the motherboard compatibility list for compatible memory kits.

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Be very careful with 128gb or 192gb RAM configurations. They typically cannot run at as fast of speeds as 2x32gb or 2x 48gb kits. This is because the memory controller on the CPU is essentially stressed a lot with more sticks. Please check the memory kit compatibility list for whatever motherboard you end up getting. Typically, faster memory benefits performance of the entire computer because it allow faster reads and writes from the CPU, and this is doubley so if you are going to mess around with RAM drives. You are going to want the fastest first word latency memory of a high capacity that your motherboard and CPU can handle. Again, check the motherboard compatibility list for compatible memory kits.

The motherboard I chose will stay, because I picked the highest chipset available to my knowledge

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/mYnypg/gigabyte-z790-gaming-x-ax-atx-lga1700-motherboard-z790-gaming-x-ax

That is, have to be careful I'm sold this one:

Z790 GAMING X AX (rev. 1.x) Key Features | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global

Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...

www.gigabyte.com

Z790 supports my CPU without any fiddling, and the turbo... so they say

My rule of thumb logic sais:
1. RAM multiple times faster than SSD. SSD is already enough at 4.4 GB/s, way faster than a HDD that is
2. RAM latency only accounts for a 10% speed increase
3. If SSD is already enough, DDR5 drive is luxury: DD5 at ~50 GB/s will be potentially 10 times faster when copying large files, and perhaps 25-33 GB/s when accessing small files. Whether it will be 10% slower, or 15%, or 30% slower because of low latency makes little difference. Let's say it will drop to 16 GB/s in total at times, that's still 4x the speed of SSD. I will hardly notice it with large files, and not at all with random access because SSD was already enough.

So I believe I won't even be able to host 4 instances in the RAM Drive, it will have to be 3 in RAM Drive, 4th on SSD, because they won't also fit to run in the remaining RAM. The last 3 will run in minimized windows at alow resolution, so I hope that minimizes resource usage. Usually when I minimize one of the 2 instances I run now, the system performs better on the one in focus. I also use high CPU priority for the one in focus

If by any chance I detect it's too slow, which I doubt, I will only lose 30% of money spent, that is I will sell it 30% cheaper on ebay to upgrade to a better latency RAM

P.S. Someone reported that their Ripjaws DDR5 was registering at 4000 Mhz or so in their system, so I'm wary of it. Either that person lies, or their system doesn't support DDR5, or the Ripjaws is a modified DD4 to create better latency. Since I value quantity in RAM at this time, I would go with Kingston again which mentions to be by default compatible with XMP. Ripjaws mentions nothing, and Corsair mentions AMD, and custom software. I aim for the BIOS overclock and that's it, just as I am running now
In fact switching between turbo and not, made me realize my main problem is my current CPU/RAM/MB, and lack of SSD, but I might as well upgrade entirely at this time since I'm not pleased with the graphics anyway. GTX 690 was half insufficient when I bought it 10 years ago. I hope RTX 4070 has the decency to handle HD at minimum 60 FPS at least in gaming

Since I want the motherboard to handle the OC, I want only parts that are declared compatible with it

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Detected something potentially shady about Gigabyte, and switched to an Asus motherboard in consequence. I've had an Asus motherboard for 10 years and nothing to complain about

Updated the main post build link

Question - amazon mistake or feature?

On the linked list, some RTX 4070 display as 19000Mhz or 21000Mhz memory clock (can't be), while others 2550Mhz and such I would assume the 2500+ ones are the good ones? Some even display both values...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[angry.pidgeon]

I'll definitely need the fastest SSD, because the emulator doesn't have a feature to run its virtual machines from any path, which would've taken the programmer 1 minute to implement... and when I asked about how to do it, they answered "we don't support it" as if it were a big deal. Politics may be involved... but they answered to others that moving the whole emulator directory to another drive will work (or copying it?). In my case it won't work because 4 instances take up 121GB on HDD, and then I don't have the 32 GB required to also run them in a RAM drive. I would require 192 GB but it's getting a bit too rich for my taste even if the price scales up fairly. Plus, the only 192 GB kit I can google up is Corsair not Kingston

Also picked up a potential problem:
"
DDR5 gives you two 32-bit wide (40-bit wide, with ECC) channels per stick, which means that you get a quad-channel configuration when running two DIMM
"

"
Actually not. No matter how you count channels and what DDR version you have, you use up all channels with only two sticks. If you have four sticks, only two of them can transfer data at any given time. This applies to consumer CPUs from Intel and AMD of course, workstation and server processors have more channels.
"

DDR5 Quad Channel with 2 DIMMs?

I completed my build a couple weeks ago. I have an i7-12700K riding on an MSI MPG Z690 Edge Wifi motherboard. I haven't had any issues with the RAM and have been so focused on tuning the CPU that, until today, I hadn't even noticed that my 2 - 16GB sticks of RAM are showing up as quad-channel...

www.techpowerup.com

If this guy is right, seems like a big issue

Meaning, to effectively use 4 sticks I would have to get Intel Extreme Edition, and I'm not prepared to go that way at this time. Doesn't seem cost effective

P.S. Current computer architecture looks like garbage to me at this time. We got 4 slots motherboards and dual channel RAM and CPUs. There's no reason to not build electronics as a cube and have channels coming from all available directions, or even interlace this with liquid cooling channels... that would be an alien sight to see...

 

[helper800]

If this guy is right, seems like a big issue

Meaning, to effectively use 4 sticks I would have to get Intel Extreme Edition, and I'm not prepared to go that way at this time. Doesn't seem cost effective

P.S. Current computer architecture looks like garbage to me at this time. We got 4 slots motherboards and dual channel RAM and CPUs. There's no reason to not build electronics as a cube and have channels coming from all available directions, or even interlace this with liquid cooling channels... that would be an alien sight to see...

This is incorrect. You can have all the benefits of dual channel RAM just with the higher capacity of 4 sticks and it will work just as well as 2 sticks given that the CPU memory controller and the motherboard can support a kit of 192gb of RAM. Corsair is one of the best brands of RAM you can get. Corsair RAM is at least on the same level as Kingston.

Again you need to make sure that any RAM kit is on the QVL list for the motherboard, or check the RAM website for the kit you want if that specific kit is compatible with your particular motherboard!

There are only 3 manufacturers of RAM chips; Crucial, Samsung, and Hynix. Corsair does the engineering just as Kinston does and both buy their RAM chips from previously stated companies for the manufacture of their brands DIMMs. Corsair and G skill are the best DIMMs money can buy, in my opinion.

 

[angry.pidgeon]

This is incorrect. You can have all the benefits of dual channel RAM just with the higher capacity of 4 sticks and it will work just as well as 2 sticks given that the CPU memory controller and the motherboard can support a kit of 192gb of RAM

There's no doubt all the RAM quantity will be available, but that's not what I am afraid of, but the fact the sticks will be used in turns by the CPU (what else accesses the DDR5 for what purpose?). Even if I make a RAM Drive, the data will still pass through the CPU as far as I know. Also I never recall a RAM Drive able to set which sticks it uses. If my data is spread across multiple sticks because it can't fit otherwise, the CPU won't be able to access them simultaneously and multithread, making its many cores useless. Instead, it will fetch the data from one stick, then only after finishing it might fetch the data from another... this means effective halved speed at least

It's mind boggling to think how it would work. And each stick being dual channel only makes it more confusing...

To me dual-channel means only dual-channel will be accessible to the 14 CPU cores at a CPU tick. So having 4 sticks of 32GB, each dual channel, means the CPU will only be able to access one of them at a time, or tick, reducing their speed as a whole (they can't be referred as a group as DDR5 5600). Because the sticks are dual channel, it doesn't mean that if I had 2x16GB it would've used them simultaneously for faster speed either though...

I recall a similar issue from the P3 days, when having more memory didn't necessarily make the computer faster, for this exact reason

P.S. There's no way such a stupid architecture exists except on purpose. There's a rabid policy about IT stuff getting "obsolete" and replaced, that is bought by the user over and over again, or bought overpriced why not, given in this particular circumstance it's the more expensive CPUs that feature quad channel, although it's no big thing as it could easily feature octachannel if they wanted to, there isn't a space restriction. This was plenty evident to me, when I went to IRC one day inquiring something about XP which I am still running on my laptop, only to have the moderator there foam at the mouth threatening to ban. Then I asked about Windows 7 instead. Same story. I'm absolutely sure that IRC channel and the moderator are Microsoft sponsored, nobody else has a motive to act insane for the purpose of pushing newer MS products. I am still running Windows 7, because it makes MS mad

 

[Why_Me]

There's no doubt all the RAM quantity will be available, but that's not what I am afraid of, but the fact the sticks will be used in turns by the CPU (what else accesses the DDR5 for what purpose?). Even if I make a RAM Drive, the data will still pass through the CPU as far as I know. Also I never recall a RAM Drive able to set which sticks it uses. If my data is spread across multiple sticks because it can't fit otherwise, the CPU won't be able to access them simultaneously and multithread, making its many cores useless. Instead, it will fetch the data from one stick, then only after finishing it might fetch the data from another... this means effective halved speed at least

It's mind boggling to think how it would work. And each stick being dual channel only makes it more confusing...

To me dual-channel means only dual-channel will be accessible to the 14 CPU cores at a CPU tick. So having 4 sticks of 32GB, each dual channel, means the CPU will only be able to access one of them at a time, or tick, reducing their speed as a whole (they can't be referred as a group as DDR5 5600). Because the sticks are dual channel, it doesn't mean that if I had 2x16GB it would've used them simultaneously for faster speed either though...

I recall a similar issue from the P3 days, when having more memory didn't necessarily make the computer faster, for this exact reason

P.S. There's no way such a stupid architecture exists except on purpose. There's a rabid policy about IT stuff getting "obsolete" and replaced, that is bought by the user over and over again, or bought overpriced why not, given in this particular circumstance it's the more expensive CPUs that feature quad channel, although it's no big thing as it could easily feature octachannel if they wanted to, there isn't a space restriction. This was plenty evident to me, when I went to IRC one day inquiring something about XP which I am still running on my laptop, only to have the moderator there foam at the mouth threatening to ban. Then I asked about Windows 7 instead. Same story. I'm absolutely sure that IRC channel and the moderator are Microsoft sponsored, nobody else has a motive to act insane for the purpose of pushing newer MS products. I am still running Windows 7, because it makes MS mad

Not sure if it was ever posted on here but what is your monitor resolution?

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Not sure if it was ever posted on here but what is your monitor resolution?

It wasn't except in the sense I declared I only play at 1080p anyway. I never seen it report above 1920x1080, so that must be it. I'm satisfied with it therefore I'm not buying another, plus, it's a special gaming monitor called BENQ XL2411T. Did I mention it still works after 10 years? My laptop's monitor (from 2008, true) neon died out meanwhile... and another laptop was about 50 on ebay, while the repairs would've been 70 or more, so I bought another and switched the HDD. The new one even came 64 bit. Happy end...

 

[Why_Me]

It wasn't except in the sense I declared I only play at 1080p anyway. I never seen it report above 1920x1080, so that must be it. I'm satisfied with it therefore I'm not buying another, plus, it's a special gaming monitor called BENQ XL2411T. Did I mention it still works after 10 years? My laptop's monitor (from 2008, true) neon died out meanwhile... and another laptop was about 50 on ebay, while the repairs would've been 70 or more, so I bought another and switched the HDD. The new one even came 64 bit. Happy end...

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: *Intel Core i7-13700F 2.1 GHz 16-Core Processor (£357.04 @ Box Limited)
CPU Cooler: *Deepcool AK620 68.99 CFM CPU Cooler (£59.00 @ Computer Orbit)
Motherboard: *MSI MAG B760 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX LGA1700 Motherboard (£179.99 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: *G.Skill Ripjaws S5 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL32 Memory (£111.50 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: *Western Digital Black SN770 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (£99.00 @ Computer Orbit)
Video Card: *MSI VENTUS 3X OC GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB Video Card (£589.00 @ AWD-IT)
Case: *Fractal Design Focus 2 ATX Mid Tower Case (£68.98 @ NeoComputers)
Power Supply: *NZXT C750 (2022) 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (£99.00 @ AWD-IT)
Case Fan: *ARCTIC P12 56.3 CFM 120 mm Fan (£8.73 @ Box Limited)
Total: £1572.24
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-06-13 01:26 BST+0100

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Someone posted that AWD-IT refused to refund the shipment cost, therefore I will never buy from them even if I lose money. Same for IKEA, who did it to me. I decided to buy the whole thing from Amazon and stop worrying about every little unknown store's dealings

UK is a country without justice (a.k.a. banana empire), nobody check those many little stores. You can easily end up buying a refurbished piece and pay the full price... who's to stop them?

On the other hand Amazon might be protective of its brand therefore not stoop to scams... in theory

 

[Why_Me]

Someone posted that AWD-IT refused to refund the shipment cost, therefore I will never buy from them even if I lose money. Same for IKEA, who did it to me. I decided to buy the whole thing from Amazon and stop worrying about every little unknown store's dealings

UK is a country without justice (a.k.a. banana empire), nobody check those many little stores. You can easily end up buying a refurbished piece and pay the full price... who's to stop them?

On the other hand Amazon might be protective of its brand therefore not stoop to scams... in theory

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/ZCQcCJ/nzxt-c750-2022-750-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-pa-7g1bb-us

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Well, I found an excuse not to buy the only 192GB kit out there (Corsair): its clock is only 5200, and I buy Kingston 5600 because it declares it's XMP compatible as the 2nd reason

 

[helper800]

Well, I found an excuse not to buy the only 192GB kit out there (Corsair): its clock is only 5200, and I buy Kingston 5600 because it declares it's XMP compatible as the 2nd reason

I ask again, is it on your motherboards QVL list?

 

[angry.pidgeon]

I ask again, is it on your motherboards QVL list?

I don't know where to get the motherboard QVL list, I'll google later. I'm almost sure Kingston is compatible because it supports XMP, which the motherboard has

Right now I need a case that comes with fans included, and supports a top 240 mm radiator, not more than 100 in price, in fact it should be around 50-75 as I see the rest as overpriced. It's a hunk of metal...

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Yes, my RAM is on the QVL list, as expected: https://pangoly.com/en/compatibilit...fi/ram?c=13th Gen Intel Core (K/KF series)#cc

Namely: KF556C40BBK2-64

 

[helper800]

Yes, my RAM is on the QVL list, as expected: https://pangoly.com/en/compatibility/asus-tuf-gaming-z790-plus-wifi/ram?c=13th Gen Intel Core (K/KF series)#cc

Namely: KF556C40BBK2-64

That is only a 64gb kit. You want 128gb or 192gb kits of RAM to be on the list. If its does not say a specific 128gb or 192gb kit is on the QVL list, then it is not guaranteed to work. Same with putting 2 2x32gb kits or 2 2x48 kits onto the motherboard. Each kit has to be individually verified to work or it is not guaranteed to work properly, or at all.

 

[helper800]

According to that linked website only these two corsair kits are on the QVL list for that motherboard. There are no 128gb kits on the QVL list for that motherboard according to that website.

Corsair VENGEANCE RGB 192GB (4x48GB) DDR5 5200MHz RAM

Corsair VENGEANCE RGB 192GB (4x48GB) DDR5 5200MHz. Model: CMH192GX5M4B5200C38, Best Price: €622.76 - 288-pin DIMM DDR5, DDR5-5200 MHz, 192GB (4 x 48GB), 38-38-38-84, 14.61 ns, 1.25 V, Black, RGB

pangoly.com

Corsair VENGEANCE 192GB (4x48GB) DDR5 5200MHz RAM

Corsair VENGEANCE 192GB (4x48GB) DDR5 5200MHz. Model: CMK192GX5M4B5200C38, Best Price: €635.06 - 288-pin DIMM DDR5, DDR5-5200 MHz, 192GB (4 x 48GB), 38-38-38-84, 14.61 ns, 1.25 V, Black

pangoly.com

On the ASUS compatability page for memory for this specific motherboard it shows the same results:

TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI｜Motherboards｜ASUS USA

ASUS TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI is an Intel® Z790 (LGA 1700) ATX Gaming motherboard with 16+1 DrMOS power stages, PCIe® 5.0, DDR5 RAM support, four M.2 slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C®, and Aura Sync RGB lighting.

www.asus.com

 

[angry.pidgeon]

According to that linked website only these two corsair kits are on the QVL list for that motherboard

I don't know how it displays different for you. For me the QVL list is at least 100 items long in pangoly

Also on the site you found from Asus, KF556C40BBK2-64 is displayed again

There are no 128GB kits because it's irrelevant , there's only dual channel available, meaning a single stick will be used per CPU tick because each stick is dual channel, from what I gather. This means even the 2x32GB aren't a set. I could use sticks from all vendors I'm sure and it won't make a difference. It's not up to the RAM to fix the dual channel limitation either, it's up to the CPU producer. I use Kingston because of XMP, meaning MB's OC

Currently the MB OC however underclocked my RAM to 1650 or so, although it's 1833? Oh well, they know best I suppose...

I also remember mismatching sticks of RAM in a P3 without any problem, because the same problem existed back then; the channels are limited and therefore the memory modules independent of each other when running, meaning they don't have to be a set

This is a non-issue

I also noticed Corsair has XMP support supposedly, however 192GB is too expensive, besides being 5200 I remind

P.S. I remember not only I mismatched RAM producers in a P3, but I mounted more than the motherboard or CPU could see, ending up with the system only able to access part of one of the mismatched sticks. It was cheap and it worked however, and back then I mounted the window's virtual file in a ram drive...

 

[angry.pidgeon]

I discovered the final word about the RAM size. I5 13600kf supports 128GB maximum

Intel® Core™ i5-13600KF Processor (24M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i5-13600KF Processor (24M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

www.intel.co.uk

 

[helper800]

I don't know how it displays different for you. For me the QVL list is at least 100 items long in pangoly

Also on the site you found from Asus, KF556C40BBK2-64 is displayed again

There are no 128GB kits because it's irrelevant , there's only dual channel available, meaning a single stick will be used per CPU tick because each stick is dual channel, from what I gather. This means even the 2x32GB aren't a set. I could use sticks from all vendors I'm sure and it won't make a difference. It's not up to the RAM to fix the dual channel limitation either, it's up to the CPU producer. I use Kingston because of XMP, meaning MB's OC

Currently the MB OC however underclocked my RAM to 1650 or so, although it's 1833? Oh well, they know best I suppose...

I also remember mismatching sticks of RAM in a P3 without any problem, because the same problem existed back then; the channels are limited and therefore the memory modules independent of each other when running, meaning they don't have to be a set

This is a non-issue

I also noticed Corsair has XMP support supposedly, however 192GB is too expensive, besides being 5200 I remind

P.S. I remember not only I mismatched RAM producers in a P3, but I mounted more than the motherboard or CPU could see, ending up with the system only able to access part of one of the mismatched sticks. It was cheap and it worked however, and back then I mounted the window's virtual file in a ram drive...

If you do not get all 4 sticks of RAM in a kit they are not guaranteed to work. I dont know how many times i can say the same thing. It is relevant whether you have 2 or 4 sticks of RAM for many different reasons. Only one consideration is if the CPU and motherboard support dual or quad channel... There is also the fact that RAM sticks can be single or dual ranked, 1T or 2T, whether ALL of the sticks are purchased together in a kit, et cetera, et cetera... Only the RAM listed on that website and tagged QVL are actually on the motherboards QVL list...

 

[helper800]

I discovered the final word about the RAM size. I5 13600kf supports 128GB maximum

Intel® Core™ i5-13600KF Processor (24M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i5-13600KF Processor (24M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

www.intel.co.uk

Just because it "supports" a certain RAM total does not mean any combination of 1-4 sticks will work. If you look at the QVL of any motherboard it will show you what specific 128gb kits will work on that motherboard without incident...

 

[angry.pidgeon]

Just because it "supports" a certain RAM total does not mean any combination of 1-4 sticks will work. If you look at the QVL of any motherboard it will show you what specific 128gb kits will work on that motherboard without incident...

I'm not sure I will buy another 2x32 GB, but if it doesn't work I'll post here that it didn't. Worse scenario again, I'll have to return the 2x32GB... but I'm pretty sure it will work. There's no possible reason not to, RAM is too generic to be incompatible, and has nothing to do with other sticks, I vouch from personal experience albeit old experience. At worst the motherboard can't handle each stick individually and has to set a lower clock for all 4 slots, if for instance I use two stick of one speed and two sticks of another speed, which isn't even the case here

If the hardware can address all the memory available, it will be seen. Same issue as between 32 and 64 bit OS which couldn't see past a certain amount of RAM

On that subject I'm sure I can mount 192 GB RAM, but will only be able to use 128GB. Then again, what's the point?


I googled for curiosity, and found this: "The only RAM characteristic that will always cause incompatibility between RAM modules is the memory type. Different generation RAM sticks – like DDR4 vs DDR5 – will not work together (They are physically incompatible)."

I also found this: "You can do a lot with RAM: mismatched sticks, different speeds, different sizes, and so on. For the most part, you'll just end up with a slower computer. Still, it is always best to match your RAM sticks."

I repeat the fact I have a set of HyperX DDR3 4x4GB, and supposedly they work at at least 1866, but I've seen in BIOS that they work at 1650 (but it's set to performance), so something is wrong even with sets...

 

[USAFRet]

I googled for curiosity, and found this: "The only RAM characteristic that will always cause incompatibility between RAM modules is the memory type. Different generation RAM sticks – like DDR4 vs DDR5 – will not work together (They are physically incompatible)."

Or, you can read the hundreds/thousands of threads here and elsewhere, where mixing RAM does not work.
Same type/size/brand/model/specs.....

Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails.

 

[helper800]

I'm not sure I will buy another 2x32 GB, but if it doesn't work I'll post here that it didn't. Worse scenario again, I'll have to return the 2x32GB... but I'm pretty sure it will work. There's no possible reason not to, RAM is too generic to be incompatible, and has nothing to do with other sticks, I vouch from personal experience albeit old experience. At worst the motherboard can't handle each stick individually and has to set a lower clock for all 4 slots, if for instance I use two stick of one speed and two sticks of another speed, which isn't even the case here

If the hardware can address all the memory available, it will be seen. Same issue as between 32 and 64 bit OS which couldn't see past a certain amount of RAM

On that subject I'm sure I can mount 192 GB RAM, but will only be able to use 128GB. Then again, what's the point?


I googled for curiosity, and found this: "The only RAM characteristic that will always cause incompatibility between RAM modules is the memory type. Different generation RAM sticks – like DDR4 vs DDR5 – will not work together (They are physically incompatible)."

I also found this: "You can do a lot with RAM: mismatched sticks, different speeds, different sizes, and so on. For the most part, you'll just end up with a slower computer. Still, it is always best to match your RAM sticks."

I repeat the fact I have a set of HyperX DDR3 4x4GB, and supposedly they work at at least 1866, but I've seen in BIOS that they work at 1650 (but it's set to performance), so something is wrong even with sets...

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please read this for BASIC RAM information.