I want to upgrade to Quad channel DDR 4 memory in my motherboard. I currently run 4 dual channel sticks in the board, but I want to sell them off to fund the new memory- while prices are still high. Can I safely run 1 or 2 sticks of this old memory in the board, or is 4 the minimum? I doesn't show anything less then 4 in the manual. I'd probably run 2 since memory is typically sold in pairs anyway. Then I could sell the other 2 in the board for now. My motherboard is a Gigabyte Aorus x299 Gaming 7 and I'm using a 7800x cpu chip.
Running 1 or 2 Sticks DDR 4 Memory in x299 Motherboard
- Thread starter braxus
- Start date
k1114
Titan
- May 2, 2010
- 14,240
- 93
- 75,540
With 4 sticks, you are already running quad channel. The difference of dual channel vs quad channel is that they were tested together to make sure they work together. And it would be a 2 stick kit vs 4 stick kit. But if they were the same specs, they are off the same assembly line. It's perfectly possible to have any number of sticks and run in 1-4 channels depending on how many sticks are used. You can see what channel mode you are in by using cpuz. Your bios should also say.
I used CPUZ and it says Channel #: Quad. Yet in the other section it says in Ranks: Dual. So would it still be better to get quad channel memory? Or should I just get 4 more sticks of the same G Skill memory I'm using now? Keep in mind the manufacture date of the old sticks vs new would be a few years apart.
What would be the result if I used more sticks of the same memory I have now, being they are untested in the amounts I'll be using? Or would it still be better to get a higher frequency set that has been tested in 8 sticks? I currently use G Skill Ripjawz V 2400 DDR4 with a latency of 15. The higher G Skill Ripjawz V 3000 is tested in 8 sticks and has a latency of 14. I don't overclock at all, but CPUZ showed it goes above the 2133 spec on occasion.
What would be the result if I used more sticks of the same memory I have now, being they are untested in the amounts I'll be using? Or would it still be better to get a higher frequency set that has been tested in 8 sticks? I currently use G Skill Ripjawz V 2400 DDR4 with a latency of 15. The higher G Skill Ripjawz V 3000 is tested in 8 sticks and has a latency of 14. I don't overclock at all, but CPUZ showed it goes above the 2133 spec on occasion.
k1114
Titan
- May 2, 2010
- 14,240
- 93
- 75,540
Ranks are not channels. Ranks are a memory specification of a single stick and has nothing to do with channels. I'll explain a bit but it's unnecessary to know and doesn't make a difference to you. It has to do with the number of memory chips on the ram and the bit width of the chips. Only 1 rank gets accessed at a time and the majority of desktop ram are dual rank. An example: G Skill Ripjawz V 2x16GB use 1GB 8 bit wide chips. A 16GB stick would have 16 chips and each rank is 64 bits for non ecc. That would mean it's dual rank because 8 bit x 16 chips = 128 bits and each rank is 64 bits. It gets more technical of what it effects but I don't think I need to go into it and google probably explains better.
The cheapest option is to buy more ram and keep old ram if you need more ram. They most likely will work together, there is just no guarantee because they weren't tested together. I never had an issue upgrading but I will get the same ram just so I know it's more likely to work. If they work, there is no difference at all to run a different pack labeled single/dual/etc. I've even had pcs with 2x1gb sticks with 2x2gb sticks work fine. More sticks is more work on the memory controller but it's usually not an issue. If you want to replace all sticks, that's up to you. I suggest buying ram on a new pc and keeping slots open to upgrade cheaper later. You're at that point of upgrading and have empty slots so might as well use them.
All ram will run at the same speed and latency so if those 2400 can't oc up to 3000, you'll have to run them at 2400. If you are running at 2133 then it makes no difference because you are running them all slower anyways. You are also spending more on something you aren't even using. Ram speed doesn't change so I don't see what you mean when they go above spec on occasion. Speed is also like channels as that's what they tested at. The same series is off the same assembly line so a 2133 could still oc to 3000. Just no guarantees.
The cheapest option is to buy more ram and keep old ram if you need more ram. They most likely will work together, there is just no guarantee because they weren't tested together. I never had an issue upgrading but I will get the same ram just so I know it's more likely to work. If they work, there is no difference at all to run a different pack labeled single/dual/etc. I've even had pcs with 2x1gb sticks with 2x2gb sticks work fine. More sticks is more work on the memory controller but it's usually not an issue. If you want to replace all sticks, that's up to you. I suggest buying ram on a new pc and keeping slots open to upgrade cheaper later. You're at that point of upgrading and have empty slots so might as well use them.
All ram will run at the same speed and latency so if those 2400 can't oc up to 3000, you'll have to run them at 2400. If you are running at 2133 then it makes no difference because you are running them all slower anyways. You are also spending more on something you aren't even using. Ram speed doesn't change so I don't see what you mean when they go above spec on occasion. Speed is also like channels as that's what they tested at. The same series is off the same assembly line so a 2133 could still oc to 3000. Just no guarantees.
Got another question. If I enable XMP in the bios, I'm assuming this overclocks the ram to the rated speed of the sticks? And if xmp does in fact over clock the ram, how much of a difference would I notice between 2400 cas latency 15 and 3200 cas latency 14?
Ok. I was looking at some G Skill 3200 memory with a latency of 14. Both the Ripjawz V and the Trident Z have the same price and specs. Which of those two would you choose and why? I like the look of the Ripjawz better, but someone mentioned the Trident is possible a better quality ram? Would it make any difference in this case? Keep in mind I'd have to buy multiple set of either of these, since they only sell them in sticks of two. I'm not sure the quality control is better on one or the other.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,740
- 4,559
- 142,790
There's a big difference in true quad channel ram and dual channel. Different firmware/instructions on the IC. You can run dual channel on any mobo whether 2x 2 channels or even 4x 2 channels on the x99/x299 but you cannot run 1x 4channel kit on a standard mobo. The cpu will have fits as the lga1155/lga1150/lga1151 memory controller isn't setup for quad channel and the mobo isn't rated for it. Most times when buying 4x sticks in a kit, it's really just 4x sticks of dual channel rated ram that are tested compatible, true quad channel kit is different.
You can run dual channel in any motherboard, but would it fare worse then running quad channel ram? The ram I was looking which was the Trident Z also comes in a 4 stick quad channel ram. Should I be choosing that instead or would the dual channel ram I was looking at be just as good?
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,740
- 4,559
- 142,790
If you Google Quad channel vrs Dual channel, the results are funky. Quad channel has double the bandwidth of dual channel, at the same size (like 16Gb quad 4x sticks vrs 16Gb dual 4x sticks) and you'd think that'd be an improvement since quad channel ability is a selling point of the x99/x299 mobo's. But for the most part, it doesn't make a difference. There's comparatively little that'll max out the bandwidth of dual channel ram, making true quad channel almost redundant. There's specialized software that'll work better on quad channel, but that's almost strictly professional usage, not general consumer usage.
For gaming and other homeowner pc usage, there's no real difference between 8x sticks of 2x4 quad channel on a x299 and 8x sticks of 4x2 dual channel, other than the price. True quad channel ram is more expensive in either a 4x kit or a 8x kit than dual channel in the same. Dual channel ram is also far easier to find, however, replacing a 2x stick kit if one stick goes bad is far cheaper and easier than having to replace all the sticks in a quad channel kit.
For gaming and other homeowner pc usage, there's no real difference between 8x sticks of 2x4 quad channel on a x299 and 8x sticks of 4x2 dual channel, other than the price. True quad channel ram is more expensive in either a 4x kit or a 8x kit than dual channel in the same. Dual channel ram is also far easier to find, however, replacing a 2x stick kit if one stick goes bad is far cheaper and easier than having to replace all the sticks in a quad channel kit.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,740
- 4,559
- 142,790
It's a compatability thing. Quad channel ram has to use all 4 separate channels simultaneously. Dual channel ram uses all 4 channels in concurrent. Slightly different to the cpu, memory controller, instead of juggling 4 separate channels with 2x sticks worth of bandwidth, it's juggling 2x channels with 4x sticks of bandwidth. If you think about a juggler with 4x tennis balls, that's relatively easy, switch that out for 2x bowling balls and thats a whole separate issue, different stance, different muscles, different timing and effort.
It's why the tri-channel boards didn't last long, if you used 3x sticks of dual channel ram, you got 3x single channels used, you needed the full tri-channel capable ram and memory controller to make it work right and it wasn't widely adopted like dual channel. Quad channel was designed primarily for workstation usage, paired with dual Xeons etc, but with the popularity of the enthusiast class boards for multiple gpu at x16 etc, it's still around.
It's why the tri-channel boards didn't last long, if you used 3x sticks of dual channel ram, you got 3x single channels used, you needed the full tri-channel capable ram and memory controller to make it work right and it wasn't widely adopted like dual channel. Quad channel was designed primarily for workstation usage, paired with dual Xeons etc, but with the popularity of the enthusiast class boards for multiple gpu at x16 etc, it's still around.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
Question New Build GPU help- ASRock Steel Legend OC Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Keeps turning off
- Started by bp240
- Replies: 5
-
Question How can I make my AMD GPU scale *all* resolutions to 1080p, even resolutions that are "supported" by my TV?
- Started by Sol33t303
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram