Question Looking to max out RAM

[silverfang77]

My PC is a PowerSpec G418: ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K6 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard, G. Skill 16GB DDR4-3200 RAM.

The board can max out at 64 GB RAM. Would I be best served getting this: https://www.newegg.com/corsair-64gb...gb_ddr4-_-20-236-586-_-Product&quicklink=true
CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 64GB (2 x 32GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK64GX4M2E3200C16,
https://www.newegg.com/corsair-64gb...gb_ddr4-_-20-236-586-_-Product&quicklink=true
or this: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...DDR4-3200MHz-CL16-18-18-38-1.35V64GB-(2x32GB)
Trident Z Neo DDR4-3200MHz CL16-18-18-38 1.35V
64GB (2x32GB).
https://www.newegg.com/corsair-64gb...gb_ddr4-_-20-236-586-_-Product&quicklink=true
Thank you.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Either should be fine. The g.skill would benchmark slightly faster (due to lower latency) but not much of a difference in actual use. I would buy whichever was cheaper or from whatever store had better service / return policies.

Just out of curiosity, what are you doing that needs all that RAM?

 

[mxnerd]

Max 64GB with 4 slots, each slot can only take 16GB

ASRock > Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K6

ASRock Super Alloy; Gaming Armor - CPU Power / Memory / VGA Card / Cooling / Internet / Audio; Supports 7th and 6th Generation Intel Core™ Processors (Socket 1151)<div class=Remark><span style=color:red;>*</span>8th Gen Intel Core™ desktop processors are supported with Intel 300 Series chipset...

www.asrock.com

you should buy 4 modules of 16GB memory
probably
https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Vengeance-64GB-3200MHz-Memory/dp/B016ORTUIA/ , it's not on compatibility list. But it doesn't mean it won't work, just not tested.

The one on compatibility list is
DDR4 G.Skill 3200 16GB F4-3200C14Q-64GVK, but it will cost you $699

G.SKILL 64GB (4 x 16GB) Ripjaws V Series DDR4 PC4-25600 3200MHz Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-64GVK at Amazon.com

Buy G.SKILL 64GB (4 x 16GB) Ripjaws V Series DDR4 PC4-25600 3200MHz Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-64GVK: Memory - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

www.amazon.com

Also sharing the same question as Dave, what's the reason to max out the memory?

 

[silverfang77]

I just wanted to future proof the machine. No other reason.

 

[mxnerd]

You need to fire up task manager and watch how much memory you usually use. You probably never go over 8GB yet.

Usually there is no future proof things in the PC world. Everything gets cheaper. Stuff becomes obsolete.

Unless you see immediately requirement to max out the memory, you can add 16GB or 32GB to your system. 32GB or 48GB is a lot for most people. It's your choice though.

 

[Charlie98]

You need to fire up task manager and watch how much memory you usually use. You probably never go over 8GB yet.

True that. I went ahead and bought 32GB RAM for my new upgrade, because I heard W10 and newer programs (not games) were RAM hungry. I don't think I've gone over 10GB... I could have save almost $100 with a 2x8GB set over the 2x16GB set I bought.

 

[VirtualLarry]

There's a couple of schools of thought on "maxing out RAM".

There's the first one: Obvious need. If you're 3D modeling, or video-editing, or doing GIS or other large DB work, then sure, get as much as you can afford.

If you are just an "ordinary" "Power User", that wants MorRRRRRE RAM, then there's a couple of factors. Is it "cheap" to "max out"? Do you have the budget? Will you end up keeping the rig long enough for it to matter? (*Assuming RAM demands go up, eventually, in the future.)

Do you have free slots? If you already have RAM in some slots, is an identical kit available, or will you have to toss your existing RAM in order to upgrade? (Can always try to sell existing set.)

Generally, what makes a platform "unusable", in a "hard" (unavoidable, not able to be worked around) sense, eventually (talking 10-year or more rig here), is lack of RAM capacity. This can be (partially) ameliorated, by the introduction of "double-capacity" DIMMs, which generally require a BIOS update to support, which may not be available 10 years down the line. (We've seen individual 32GB DDR4 DIMMs for AM4 platform, which should, in theory, allow for a 128GB max DRAM load-out.)

As a metric for when this point may come about, I present you the P35 chipset, popular for Core2-era mobos, some of which (mine, others) with solid caps, are still kicking. Those supported DDR2 RAM, and those maxed out at 4x2GB, or 8GB max. Which, honestly, is around the minimum that you want for a rig, for gaming, or for just being a power-user. (For a DDR4 rig, I suggest 32GB for power users.)

But even "maxed out" at 8GB of DDR2, P35/Core2 platform is still (somewhat, barely) viable, at least for web browsing, and light gaming.

So, even the 8GB RAM limit hasn't been TOO severe to Core2-era boards, assuming that they have 4 DRAM slots.

So, given today's AM4 platform, will you keep it 10 years? 20 years? Will 128GB be enough in 10-20 years to run whatever version of the OS is popular then?

Conversely, if memory standards change, and the newer standards for DRAM have twice the capacity at the same price and lower voltage and lower power usage, why spend all of that money NOW on DRAM for an EXISTING platform, if you DONT ACTUALLY NEED all of it.

IOW, save $50-100, get 32GB, maybe 64GB, of DDR4, and save the rest for a few years down the line when we get DDR5, and then plan accordingly. (Common DDR5 DIMMs are probably going to be a minimum of 8GB or 16GB in size to START with.) Wouldn't be surprised if consumer platforms reached 1TB total RAM capacity with DDR5 rigs. ThreadRipper / EPYC / HEDT rigs for certain. Might even be able to hit 1TB now, I haven't calculated it yet.

 

[kschendel]

Unless you're actually running out of memory, I'd leave it alone. If you have 4x4 now, as opposed to 2x8, I could just maybe - at a stretch - envision swapping out your 4x4 for a 2x8 pair so that you could add another 2x8 later if you had to; but then the question would be why bother doing it now? unless there is some reason like cash in hand at the moment, etc. And even then you're probably better off looking at the rest of the system, such as storage, before you throw money at RAM that you aren't going to use.

 

[silverfang77]

If I didn't max out, just doubled, I could go to 32 GB. Would these (Trident Z Neo, DDR4-3200MHz, CL14-14-14-34 1.35V, 32GB (2x16GB) work with my motherboard?

 

[mxnerd]

No reason it wouldn't work. But your system already 16GB, if you are buying 2x16GB more, your system then become 48GB, unless you are selling existing modules.

 

[mv2devnull]

You need to fire up task manager and watch how much memory you usually use. You probably never go over 8GB yet.

And pay attention that you look at actual use and not the total (used+cached). If OS does its job proper, then it caches data in RAM "just in case it will be needed" to save some disk operations. The cache will automatically be cleared to give room in RAM for active processes.

That said, even the total on desktop is not much. For example:

# free -h
              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:            31G        2.2G         20G        456M        8.8G         28G

Actually used: 2G, total 11G. The second 16G seems a complete waste on this one. 99.99% of time that is true.

Larry did mention "Obvious need" users. A server with 384G can run out of memory in a blink with them.

Do you have free slots? If you already have RAM in some slots, is an identical kit available, or will you have to toss your existing RAM in order to upgrade? (Can always try to sell existing set.)

If you have 4x4 now, as opposed to 2x8

But your system already 16GB, if you are buying 2x16GB more, your system then become 48GB, unless you are selling existing modules.

Do you see the theme in these?
What you have now does affect the answer. You told "G. Skill 16GB", but does that mean 1x16, 2x8, or 4x4? What are your plans for the current RAM?

 

[sdifox]

Realistically, you won't notice the diff going from 16 to 32 if you are on ssd. Even less likely if on nvme.

Memory price will drop so upgrade only when you truly need it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Realistically, you won't notice the diff going from 16 to 32 if you are on ssd. Even less likely if on nvme.

Unless you browse like me. (I have 32GB in here. Thinking 64GB might be useful. )

 

[sdifox]

View attachment 17301

Unless you browse like me. (I have 32GB in here. Thinking 64GB might be useful. )

...
Most of it has already been swapped out to pagefile, which I assume is ssd.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Most of it has already been swapped out to pagefile, which I assume is ssd.

No, and Yes. Commit Charge is less than Physical RAM capacity, so no, it's not swapped out to pagefile (much). OS storage is RAID-0 of Intel 660p 1TB NVMe SSDs.

 

[mxnerd]

View attachment 17301

Unless you browse like me. (I have 32GB in here. Thinking 64GB might be useful. )

Don't know why you need so many tabs. 🙄

==

How many Chrome tabs can you open with 2TB RAM?

 

[sdifox]

View attachment 17302

No, and Yes. Commit Charge is less than Physical RAM capacity, so no, it's not swapped out to pagefile (much). OS storage is RAID-0 of Intel 660p 1TB NVMe SSDs.

lol, it says you are using 30.7GB of the pagefile and will increase pagefile size when you hit 36.7GB

so, yeah, a lot has been swapped out to pagefile.

 

[UsandThem]

View attachment 17302

No, and Yes. Commit Charge is less than Physical RAM capacity, so no, it's not swapped out to pagefile (much). OS storage is RAID-0 of Intel 660p 1TB NVMe SSDs.

Don't know why you need so many tabs. 🙄

How many Chrome tabs can you open with 2TB RAM?

Not to mention your CPU is pegged at 99%. For the love of all that is holy, close some dang tabs!

 

[mxnerd]

I think I'm pretty sure VL is using most tabs for crypto mining.

 

[silverfang77]

My current RAM chips are two 8 GB ones. I'd replace those with two 16 GB ones.

 

[sdifox]

My current RAM chips are two 8 GB ones. I'd replace those with two 16 GB ones.

Get another nvme and use it for swapspace and storage.

Example

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07K1HMMJC/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8

 

[VirtualLarry]

lol, it says you are using 30.7GB of the pagefile and will increase pagefile size when you hit 36.7GB

so, yeah, a lot has been swapped out to pagefile.

I hate to be pedantic here, but that's not exactly true.

A "Commit Charge" of 30GB, means that 30GB of virtual memory has been allocated. NOT that 30GB has been allocated out of the virtual memory backing store, aka the "PageFile".

Remember, total virtual memory (the 36.7GB or whatever the commit charge was out of), is total physical RAM (minus the non-pagable portion reserved for kernel stuff) plus pagefile.

Since the Commit Charge Max was 37GB, and I have 32GB of RAM, that means that the pagefile is (roughly) 5GB in size. Technically, Commit Charge alone, does not tell you how much of the backing store (pagefile) is used.

Now with HDDs, Windows does pre-paging, in which it writes pages to disk, in case they get flushed out to make room for more RAM for application page allocations, so that there isn't a bottle-neck at the HDD waiting for stuff to get paged out.

So it's entirely possible that a portion of the physical RAM allocated via Commit Charge, is also written to the pagefile.

In Linux, at least, you can control this behavior, with the "swappiness" variable. In Windows, I'm not so sure.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think I'm pretty sure VL is using most tabs for crypto mining.

LOL. That sounds inefficient. I've got a NH client running too, that's what's sucking up all of the CPU time. (In fact, I've had to run Process Lasso in the background, to boost my Firefox Nightly's priority, to allow me to browse without lagging loading pages while mining.)

Edit: I'll let you in on a secret, though, Firefox (Nightly, at least), defers loading a tab's contents until you actually click on it. So, I'll load up tabs (Pocket feature of Firefox suggests all kinds of neat web articles to me. Right-click, open-in new tab.) Also, constantly browsing Newegg, ebay, comparing products and pricing, lots of tabs opened that way too. Then Nightly updates twice a day, it seems like, so when you do the update, I still keep my tabs, but then they all default to the "unloaded" state, which takes basically zero CPU and little RAM. As I click on them, they transition to the "loaded" state, and eventually start to use some CPU and RAM.

 

[sdifox]

I hate to be pedantic here, but that's not exactly true.

A "Commit Charge" of 30GB, means that 30GB of virtual memory has been allocated. NOT that 30GB has been allocated out of the virtual memory backing store, aka the "PageFile".

Remember, total virtual memory (the 36.7GB or whatever the commit charge was out of), is total physical RAM (minus the non-pagable portion reserved for kernel stuff) plus pagefile.

Since the Commit Charge Max was 37GB, and I have 32GB of RAM, that means that the pagefile is (roughly) 5GB in size. Technically, Commit Charge alone, does not tell you how much of the backing store (pagefile) is used.

Now with HDDs, Windows does pre-paging, in which it writes pages to disk, in case they get flushed out to make room for more RAM for application page allocations, so that there isn't a bottle-neck at the HDD waiting for stuff to get paged out.

So it's entirely possible that a portion of the physical RAM allocated via Commit Charge, is also written to the pagefile.

In Linux, at least, you can control this behavior, with the "swappiness" variable. In Windows, I'm not so sure.

If your commit charge reaches the max and your pagefile is not set to auto increase, your machine will tell you to close programs.

 

[mxnerd]

VL is correct regarding the commit charge.

Commit charge is the virtual memory (physical+pagefile) what system guarantees that will be available to programs/processes . It's not physical memory in use.

Sysinternal got a RAMMap utility that shows how much physical memory is in use.

RAMMap - Sysinternals

An advanced physical memory usage analysis utility that presents usage information in different ways on its several different tabs.

docs.microsoft.com