Intel Alder Lake RAM Guide: Picking Between DDR4 and DDR5

Alder Lake RAM Guide
Alder Lake RAM Guide (Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Intel's latest 12th-Gen Alder Lake chips add another factor into your PC build equation: RAM. Naturally, you'll want the best RAM for your shiny new Alder Lake builds, but with Alder Lake's hybrid support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory, you have to contemplate whether to stick with the declining DDR4 standard or jump on the new DDR5 bandwagon. Unfortunately, as with any cutting-edge technology, early DDR5 memory kits are pricey. In addition, the ongoing semiconductor shortage has hobbled DDR5 production. With a lack of DDR5 supply and excessive pricing, picking between DDR4 and DDR5 becomes more troublesome.

Alder Lake officially supports DDR4-3200 and DDR5-4800 memory modules. There are no considerations with the former since DDR4-3200 is the standard across all configurations regardless of whether you're using single-or dual-ranked memory modules or the number of memory slots you plan to fill. With DDR5, however, there are certain caveats to take into consideration.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Zhiye Liu
News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • Nine Layer Nige
    Most gamers already have sticks of decent DDR4 to move to their new Z690 setup, so its a zero cost option.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    In terms of memory, the Crucial DDR5-4800 C40 2x8GB (CT2K8G48C40U5) memory kit sells for $189.99 when in stock. Meanwhile, the G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C14 2x8GB (F4-3600C14D-16GTZNB) memory kit has a $174.99 price tag.
    That pricing comparison seems off. You're comparing one of the most expensive DDR4-3600 kits against one of the least expensive DDR5 kits, so of course the pricing isn't going to be too different. Most DDR4-3600 kits cost around half that much. Maybe the timings will be less tight, but not enough to amount to a major performance difference, especially in things like games, where any difference should be imperceptible. It would have been nice to see DDR4 kits compared with more common timings and reasonable prices. Looking on PCPartpicker, 16GB DDR4-3600 CAS 18 kits are priced as low as $60, with CAS 16 for $88, a half to a third the cost of the kit tested here. And there's even another CAS 14 kit for $127, if you are willing to give up the RGB and take 1ns higher sub-timings. You really run into diminishing returns chasing those lower timings though, and unless you're doing nothing but 7-zip compression all day, it's arguably not worth paying around twice as much as the models with more moderate timings.

    On the DDR5 side, you went the exact opposite route, comparing one of the the absolute lowest-end kits on the market. It doesn't even appear to have heat-spreaders, and the CAS 40 timings are as bad as it gets for DDR5. And most importantly, the kit is not even in stock at that price. Or any 16GB DDR5 kits, for that matter, at least on PCPartpicker. The least expensive DDR5 RAM kit of any sort listed there right now is priced at $282 for another low-end kit with similar timings, though at 32GB.

    Of course, 32GB kits of DDR4-3600 can currently be had for as little as $108 for CAS 18, or $165 for CAS 16. So a more reasonable pricing comparison would be that the lowest-end 32GB DDR5 kits cost around $174 more than the lowest-end 32GB DDR4-3600 kits. Not a $15 difference. Even the faster CAS 16 kits start at around $117 less. It seems like the pricing options were picked to make the price difference between DDR5 and DDR4 seem negligible, when it's really not. The relatively minor performance differences between these various RAM configurations are arguably not worth paying a big premium for. Most use-cases would get more performance out of putting that money toward a higher-end CPU or GPU instead. So DDR5 only really makes sense at this point for those with extremely high-end builds, where there isn't something else that part of the budget could be better used for.
    Reply
  • Co BIY
    cryoburner said:
    The relatively minor performance differences between these various RAM configurations are arguably not worth paying a big premium for. Most use-cases would get more performance out of putting that money toward a higher-end CPU or GPU instead. So DDR5 only really makes sense at this point for those with extremely high-end builds, where there isn't something else that part of the budget could be better used for.

    Agreed. Paying for DDR5 that isn't ready for prime time doesn't interest me.

    I've heard there is also an speed advantage for motherboards with only two slots available. I would love to see that tested.

    I think an article that explains what the "Gearing" system is and how it works , sometimes to advantage and sometimes to disadvantage is needed. Maybe some visuals to help the uninitiated understand the concept.
    Reply
  • mattkiss
    Memory ranks have a minor role with DDR5.
    Four memory ranks outperform two memory ranks by roughly 3%. The caveat with DDR5 is that only the 32GB memory modules come with a dual-rank design. Therefore, four memory ranks entail buying a 2x32GB memory kit or a 4x8GB memory kit - either alternative is costly.

    I think you meant to say "16GB memory modules" and "2x16GB memory kit," respectively.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    mattkiss said:
    I think you meant to say "16GB memory modules" and "2x16GB memory kit," respectively.
    I think for DDR5, only the 32GB sticks tend to be dual-rank. So it would be 2x32GB to get a "four rank" setup from two slots. Some 16GB DDR4 sticks are also apparently moving to a single-rank design now, though there are still a fair number of dual-rank kits available at that capacity.

    For most power-users and gaming systems, 32GB can be considered a reasonable capacity that many will likely see benefit from within the usable life of the system, but 64GB not only costs a lot more (especially for DDR5), but most of that capacity is also likely to end up sitting around unused unless one has some specific need for it. Spending hundreds of dollars extra for 64GB of RAM just to get maybe a few percent more CPU performance in some workloads is probably not worth considering for anything but the most overkill builds.
    Reply