The main issue at the moment with DDR5, is not so much the cost of the ram, but the need for a new motherboard and a new CPU. Sadly, DDR5 motherboards aren't backwards compatible, nor are a lot of intel CPUs. So, keep that in mind of you want to change the protocol.
@@paisiosbstrike9262there are a handful of boards that take both types...not sure if those boards work as well with ddr4 vs a ddr4 only board or ddr5 only board......
This. Also wanna see if he did 1 run each or 3 and if he forgot to actually put it to JDEC Speed and Timings or left timings alone and simply lowered the clocks. Seems like he just lowered clocks. I use GSKILL CL30 6000 EXPO and there's a huge jump from JDEC to the timings even at JDEC speeds then a smaller but noticable uptick from 4800 to 5600 then not much difference in 5600-6000. I wanna buy a 8000ish kit now AMD updated AGESA to make fast RAM run just to see what it's like in 2:1 and if it's as good as 5600 or 6000 in 1:1
@@dustineverhart4028 6000MTs with manual timings and 8000MTs with manual timings are really equal, depends on the workload. But most ryzens can go to 6400MTs and this needs 8800MTs so be equal. And dont waste money on such a high ranked kit. Buy a Kit with H16A or H24M ICs. This are the same ICs like on the 8000MTs Kits but with lower XMP/EXPO rating you pay much less.
@@dustineverhart4028 These tests would have been better done on DDR4 Ram sticks because they have lower tighter timings. From what I've read online when I was considering building a AM4 build, that there's no comparable difference between 4000mhz ddr4 Neo Trident ram and 2800mhz ddr4 Neo Trident ram. The performance is practically identical. A guy did a test and found that the 2800mhz ram actually had more performance ingame than the 4000mhz did. People get suckered into buying the fastest ram kits because they have no clue.
Maybe for the next video you could keep one set of fast ram with good timings and just change the Frequency in the BIOS. That way we would know if the differences were down to frequency or timings. You could then compare 3 sticks at the same speed (e.g. 6000MHz) with different timings (CL30, CL 34 and CL 40) and see what difference THAT makes. Thanks for the video
I'm not sure Jay understands Ddr5 yet. This is exactly why we see this video being so lackluster. Hopefully, he will put the time in like we have. I think he is bored tbh. I probably have 3 months of time in bios alone learning ddr5 optimization lol, and I'm just just barely getting a grip on ddr5 and new IMCs in general. I may be slow, but I doubt he will take it that far, sadly. Likely, we will just see more reptile brain activating click bait crowd appeasement style videos instead of real science. At best, maybe a half-baked science video that attempts to rug sweep this video that is still just more of the same reptile brain mass appeal, only with a fresh coat of frosting. He is making money. And that. Akes me happy for him but that whole educating builders motto is slowly vanishing and being replaced by click bait.... I hope he can return to the Jay we all know and love, humble yet thorough in a funny way... Again, I think he is just bored with it all.
@@Hardware_Neutral As one who is finally building a new system after a _decade_ (Feb 2014 build: Win 7, 4770K + GTX 770 --> 980 Ti ---> 2080 Ti), I can understand why a person would be bored. The PC hardware/building situation has.... degenerated significantly, with pricing only one of the problems (though probably the largest), and this is coexistent with the very real degradation of AAA video games in general. I've had this notion that this is a big reason for why many people have veered down the route of "Pimp My -Ride- System", where a big focus is on hardware aesthetics --- even the interior of the case. I almost can't blame someone for thinking that his PC is more exciting than the game it's rendering.
@@Breakfast_of_Champions RAM Latency = CAS Latency × 2000 / Transfer Rate - This way you will find the high transfer rate modules have same or lower latency as some "low" transfer rate modules with smaller CAS.
This is the realest comment on RUclips. Thanks for knowing your stuff, op. I'd like to say under this epic comment: Hey, where's the mention of single versus dual rank memory? What about Hynix A versus Hynix M? And what about primary, secondary, and tertiary timings? Let's not forget about channel configuration and its impact on performance. Oh, and motherboards play a crucial role, too. We can't ignore bus latency and first word latency either. And did I mention that faster RAM can fix texture chokes in 1 percent lows, not just average or maximum FPS? We need to be more clear and thorough in our writing to truly inform builders. Isn't that your motto? Also, I'm guessing your DDR5 OC experience is limited, and I can't blame you as it's quite the dive, but you certainly are not making valid comparisons or observations here. I have noted up to 30 percent increases in 1 percent lows over multiple brands, timings, and configurations. That is huge for dips.
They won't do that lol, it would turn out that a DDR4 3200mhz will perform the same as 4800mhz ddr5 lol. The sponsors who pay this dude wouldnt want to let people know that :)
There is a difference and even X3D's need atleast decent RAM, as the Cache doesnt always grip and even if he does, he cant negate everything, its just 96MB...so having DDR5 6000CL30 on AM5(its the actual sweetspot) even with an 7800X3D is pretty much a must have for certain games and also workloads, as videoediting for example does sometime greatly profit from fast RAM. I on my end am glad that i had the DDR4 3600CL16 from my Ryzen 3700X setup when i upgraded to the 5800X3D. :)
@@wolfwilkopter2231 I wouldn’t say must have for 6000 CL30 tuned memory on X3D but that’s a difference yes. For non X3D yeah it’s must have but I’m not sure why you’d have a setup like that tbh.
Actually AM5 can use slower RAM better than intel. While Intel always runs DDR5 regardless of speed in UCLK = 0.5 MCLK (DIV2 mode), AM5 can run up to 6200 MT/s in UCLK = MCLK (DIV1 mode) then it automatically goes into DIV2 mode, so going with insane high speeds on AM5 is not worth it that much as UCLK clock divider kicks in.
I remember 3 years back when I purchased my PC and doing researches about this. I went with DDR4 on 3200Mhz which was the sweet spot between cost and benefit. All above were too much more investing in small percentage in performance..
even 3600 kits were beneficial too, without too much more cost. 3200-3600 for ddr4 was the best. i got myself a 4x8 3600 c16 g skill trident z royal for like 100 bucks second hand
@@IRNoahBody if your buying in currently that advice is true, but what most people what to know is how much performance they are losing by not upgrading an older DDR 4 rig to DDR5 motherboard etc. Obviously userbenchmarks exist but to each there own.
@@IRNoahBody DDR5 needs to be something like 5600 to 6000 MTs before it's faster than good DDR4 actually, but we're still talking 2% performance differences. CL numbers also play some roles in DDR speed, possibly more than speed itself. I'd love to see some of that broken down.
DDR4 with an AMD chip shows benefits up to 3600, but after that it gets kind of complicated, and sometimes it can even reduce your performance. Can't recall how DDR4 speeds and intel chips scale.
I pretty much always buy higher clocked ram because I typically lower the clock speed and overclock the timings with the extra headroom I get instead, I had very good results with this
I have never thought of RAM as a part of my system that significantly increases FPS. I've always thought of it in terms of gameplay smoothness i.e. 1% lows and 0.1% lows. THAT'S where higher clocked RAM shows it's value.
It seems to me... that RAM really mattered when it came to overall system speed until systems were using more than about 7-9 GB. Ive done tests in the past with windows xp, vista, 7. Windows xp needed like 512MB ram to run great, Vista and newer seemed they needed 3+ at least to be usable at the time, ( Before SSD'S were a thing) Or so i found back in 2009 anyways. And windows 10 now seems to well optimized that ive used 1-2 GB RAM with it and it runs decent for just web browsing bit will bottleneck you shortly after. You only ever got faster load times by adding RAM if you didnt have much RAM to begin with, ( 2-4 GB mainly ) Nowadays computers all have at least 8 some 16 some 32 gb and by the time you hit 7-9GB thats the point of diminishing return when it comes to noticable speed diferences in everyday casual home or office use. Thats what i have noticed anyways
@@bricaaron3978I can confirm it does, and by A LOT. It makes sense too, the faster your CPU can grab data from the cache (RAM) to compose the frame and send it off to the GPU, the less “stutters” you’ll see since the threads aren’t having to wait for the RAM to deliver the required assets, which means your 1% and 0.1% lows will be higher. Jayz sorta dropped the ball with this one, hate to say it
And when testing RAM I don't know why we don't see more Sim and Emulator type tests, where CPU and RAM are way more important than GPU. All of these tests were GPU loads with CPU and RAM just setting up the layups.
I would also like to see this, would also like you to put into the mix, a 4 dim, vs 2 dim test, as in this situation you usually have to run the system at bas clocks on the ram to keep it completely stable.
@@me-df9re sales and experience say otherwise... obv not a major factor like most or half, but a big enough number to not be "niche". At one point it was only thing I saw, but that's perspective, mine and your communities must be different. Just like triple A titles, emulators (less than) and Sims have whole communities in the10's to 100's of thousands to millions [per game]...not niche. But my point still stands, it is where it maters more than the games you're talking about, so carries more weight.
As you said, this is about gaming performance. I recently switched from running DDR5-5600 to DDR5-8000 and for productivity/general tasks, it does make a noticeable and measurable difference. This is especially down to latency. Also interesting is that the gain I got from frequency (running XMP profile) was doubled when I tuned the timings. So RAM tuning (watch Buildzoid’s videos for this) is actually worth-wile.
the 4800 was stable JDEC. Gotta stress test those XMP sticks cause they're probably erroring on stock voltages. Also, the faster RAM is most beneficial for 1% lows.
What would be interesting is DDR4 3200 CL16 vs DDR5 6000 CL36 (what seems common right now) since a lot of people think that 6000 being basically twice 3200 means DDR5 is "twice as fast" as DDR4 forgetting that CAS latency means that the DDR4 has 3 nanoseconds lower latency.
@@Sgt_SealCluberI mean, it is always better. HUB even showed that you can literally see 5% increases from base DDR5 clocks to 6000MHz with a tight timing kit.
It is infact faster and mhz number bigger is indeed better than cl number lower. Any application that can make use of the doubled memory bandwidth will perform much better even if the latency is a few ns slower, pararellization>serialization
Man, this was already tested by Hardware Unboxed like a year ago. And their result was that Intel processors are actually more sensitive to the RAM frequency but not much sensitive to the timings BUT Ryzen 7000 processors are not that sensitive to the frequency, as they cannot benefit much from DDR5 faster than 6000MHz but they benefit from low timings and not only from the low Primary timings but especially from the Secondary timings when tuned as low as possible that makes a huge difference in performance!!
I don't really understand what's going on here. If the idea is to show what's the average use case of people turning on XMP and ignore everything, then sure. Otherwise... weird results. Motherboard is not specified, we don't know if all the configurations have been tested for stability (XMP is not granted to work)
Jay, you shouldn’t be using AI OC in this scenario. You absolutely cannot guarantee that the OC would be the same as you swap from one ram kit to another. That’s a variable in your benchmarks that needs to be avoided by principle, big or small.
Did not compare load times, modding and mod loading, performance when multitasking, ram load and unloading speed. Amazing benchmark about ram, congrats!
Yes, do a DDR4 vss DDR5 test, possibly fast vs slow. This same test run on an RTX 3070 also could show something (8GB GDDR) A test on Star Citizen could also be very interesting as that game is a HOG for ram and CPUs
@user-zz9sv9fp3c Sarcasm...I hope... It sounds like you misunderstand where the extra latency happens and how many times that "doesn't matter" happens per second.
@@Hardware_Neutral Once again - the memory latency has no meaning. you will never see or feel it. The only case when in real conditions of use you can feel the memory - its physical lack, when the operating system begins to use not the overflowing memory, but the disk.
Thanks for this! I used to build a new rig every couple years back in the DOS 6.2 through XP days and was a little overwhelmed with all of the options nowadays. I'm building a new system to upgrade my perfectly functional 10+ year old I5-4670 system for video editing my new youtube channel and a couple new games of course. Your channel has been a big help getting up to speed with the new gear. I pulled the trigger on an I9-13900K and an asus TUF Z790-Plus but needed RAM. Thanks again keep it up!
I have a doubt, I've just built a R5 8600g pc with 16gb 5200Mhz Ram. Can I over clock this same ram any further? Or should I go with 6000Mhz Ram for that speed?
Bad testing, you are basically testing CPU with a GPU bottleneck. CPU and RAM work together, so if you are not CPU limited u wont see any major difference from faster RAM. You need to use 4090 and real game for testing.
I got 15% increase in lows going from 6400 with tight timings to 7200 tight. And many people using stock 5600-6000mhz xmp profiles lol. It is 10-15% average fps and 30-40% in lows difference between 6000 stock and 7200 tight
This was real helpful generally people looking for FPS gains are playing competitive shooters, COD, Apex, overwatch.... thanks for all single player benchmarks in competitive games. You know for the gamers looking for extra FPS. Ram speeds and timings make a big difference in COD.
That's the speed I'm on for my corsair titanium 2x24gb 7200mhz and crashes at 6200mhz because the model came out last year, same with my asus mobo, and 14900kf, so far every 1-2 months a new bios update comes out which adds more support for specific memory models and timings. The quirks with buying new tech.
agree, when i bought my kit i got told to use the 6000 cl 30 or cl 32 kits since latency is way better than raw MT/s at that point - above 6000 mhz gives barely any performance improvements (at least for AMD - maybe it changed again & unless u want specific benchmark worktask numbers) but for the 100 bucks i paid the corsair kit is doing great
most GPU tasks are data stream heavy so mhz should get you more than latency. but what really matters is the 0.1% lows frame times anyway, so mhz might not matter that much. But for that you need a proper GPU bench that is data stream heavy first and this aint it.
Nice video. But you should've tested some of the CPU-bound titles for comparison..like Escape from Tarkov, Star Citizen, Arma Reforger, New World, Anno, Cities: Skylines or Helldivers 2. I see a lot more difference there for sure. 👍
Just a few points here: Would be good to include the CAS Latency in the charts and ,preferably to even that, the first word latency. I'm not surprised it's made very little difference in performance changing to faster RAM. I ran a few benchmarks last time I went from 3600CL18 to 3600CL16 (running at 3770CL15 or something similar). It makes zero difference in gaming. Actually few FPS lower in some titles. But the change it made to video and photo editing in Photoshop and Davinci Resolve was easily noticeable and confirmed with a huge difference in benchmark scores. So I made sure I went to 6000CL30 when I went to AM5. Latency over speed but save your money if you're just gaming.
It makes a difference in gaming, it just depends on the type of game you play and how much or how hard the RAM usage and the communication back to the CPU/GPU is, especially in the lows, but also in general, even with X3D CPUs, just not as much as with the normal ones. Your descision to go with 6000CL30 was wise as this is the exact sweetspot for AM5 right now, as was DDR4 3600 CL16 or faster for AM4 and Ryzen 3000for example.
Jay, if you could explain what CAS latency and timings and such are and what that all means that would be greatly appreciated. Great vid! Do the DDR4 one now, yes please! :)
It gets pointlessly technical... the tl;dr is that the lower they are, usually the better, BUT ... this video shows how "massive" differences in speed/bandwidth (up to +50%) AND timings/latency (~ up to -25%) show none to random effects on gaming performance... so there is even less point in minor tweaks to timings. The flip side is that tracing memory errors is the most random, intermittent, and difficult to trace error in overclocked PC components, I don't chase hwbot points anymore so I just don't bother.
Tired of his garbage tests. Why not test the difference on games that are ram intensive? Seems like that would make sense. Stop doing one sided tests that are biased to your "theories"
Jay please re do tho video showing 1% lows and ,0.1% lows, this video is not accurate, what about the timings? Jay please do better next time maybe more actual gaming benchmarks show more evidence in your findings
I get my PC pack tomorrow from my friend and I'm moving to DDR5 64GB. I mostly use my PC for iracing, but I would really like to see the difference of DDR4 to DDR5 on "paper" . Thanks for all the videos they helped me decide what motherboard and processor to get. Didn't make me brave enough to rebuild it myself..LOL
Hey, where's the mention of single versus dual rank memory? What about Hynix A versus Hynix M? And what about primary, secondary, and tertiary timings? Let's not forget about channel configuration and its impact on performance. Oh, and motherboards play a crucial role too. We can't ignore bus latency and first word latency either. And did I mention that faster RAM can fix texture chokes in 1 percent lows, not just average or maximum FPS? We need to be more clear and thorough in our writing to truly inform builders. Isn't that your motto? Also, I'm guessing your DDR5 OC experience is limited, and I can't blame you as it's quite the dive, but you certainly are not making valid comparisons or observations here. I have noted up to 30 percent increases in 1 percent lows over multiple brands, timings, and configurations. That is huge for dips.
@JayzTwoCents you really need to test 1% lows and .01% lows in games in all resolutions from 1080p to 4k. i think you will be amazed at the difference in smoothness of gameplay..
This video is pure misinformation, especially if you’re a gamer. You get a huge benefit from faster ram in most games, especially in 1% lows. You gotta know how to tune it as well, and not just click one button in BIOS and go about your day.
@@nixer8605 Starting with good ram and then manually tuning them can result in the ability to have higher overclock stability, which can result in the computer being able to perform a higher workload. This means that you can see some FPS increases, some decrease of input latency, but also the ability to run a lot more in the background, quicker. It can have a profound effect on your overall system.
His testing methodology sucks and I agree with you on fact. If his argument related to the trade-offs to achieve the better performance, I'd understand and agree. The time needed to fine tune, stability test ram to get better performance past one clicking an XMP profile is just not really attractive to me and a lot of other gamers - especially when some game engines just dont like overclocks fullstop. One update to a game, bios or operating system can chuck you out. Id prefer the near guaranteed stability provided by JDEC standards or the tested XMP profile with the respective ram, if available. Id imagine most people would.
Prove it. Because my own tests show that as long as you have sufficient ram it doesn't matter. Have you seen actual measurements of consumed memory bandwidth in games? It rarely is over 16GB/s. Even ddr4-2133 will do that. On the other hand running inference I can peg the ram to 98% of theoretical maximum bandwidth. Which with 4 DR sticks and proper interleave settings can get 2x to the default Jedec.
Dude used a GPU benchmark to prove his statement about ram... no a single real life scenario, showed 4 games from which all 4 are absolutely irrelevant..
I just pulled the trigger on 64gb of corsair vengeance ddr5 at 6k MHz, I was all paranoid before this wondering if I should have spent more on the newer faster ram, now I feel better and I saved $150. I have a 4080 Super and 7800x3d on a MSI tomahawk, 4th gen m.2. Going to be upgrading to closed loop water cooing around Christmas and then I think I have a really solid rig for the next couple years.
just like that all the credibility Jay ever had as a tech Tuber is now gone. No 1% lows. no 0.1% lows. (1%+0.1% is the REAL frame-rate of your game, Average FPS is literally meaningless, all gamers knows this which is why they ignore this metric). Oh the best part? he standard benchmarks in SINGLE PLAYER GAMES. He did no runs in any online Multi-player games or E-sports games which are the only games THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. He also uses basic XMP profiles instead of putting in the hours/days of work to due custom voltages and timings for a real overclock and then 24-hour stress test the machine for errors to show us the REAL performance gain from tuning/overclocking which is anywhere from 20-40% or even above 50% in performance boosts depending on the game and server/map your playing on in the 1%/01% lows where it actually matters for competitive E-sports and general premium high refresh rate gaming experience.
this is such bad information. Ram matters in many games. At 1440p with a 4090/14900k you'll see 20%+ 0.1% lows improvements in many games. No way is jdec faster in any test, unless you're unstable on your faster kits. Did you validate your 7200mhz using kahru/y-cruncher? If the ram is unstable then the conclusion for your video is completely false. It should be something closer to "avoid fast ram if you want plug and play".
8:00 - The difference between 269 and 274 fps is 1.8%. I'm pretty sure 1.8% isn't a significant difference. That's less than 2 fps at 100 fps and the difference between 60 and 61 fps. It's ever so slightly higher than the difference between 194 and 196 fps. The difference between 257 and 274 is 6.6%, which I do think is significant.
Sorry Jay, but you are wrong, or incomplete at best. You are clearly making some assumptions here. You are aware that not everyone plays FPS games, right? It is anecdotal, but I remember a thread in the ONI (Oxygen not Included) reddit where it was clear that ONI processes its cycles (in-game days) much faster with faster RAM. This is because that is a super memory-heavy process. Early game, no one notices. By the time you are at cycle 1000 and the game needs to process the results of multiple planetoids, the faster RAM will make a difference. As this happens every few minutes, shaving 3-4 seconds off a 20 seconds process makes a huge difference. Having nearly 4000 hours in this game, faster RAM has surely saved me a few hours. :) There are other things factoring in, but here fast RAM makes a difference. Good that you checked this, but you need to consider the use case.
Thank you for really answering this question. Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed only do those bullshit 4090 in 1080p low settings tests that do not answer this question.
There's just no way that 7200 was stable. Potentially not even the 6400 - although maybe that one was just running with terrible auto timings or switching to gear 4 without you noticing. This isn't consistent AT ALL with any previously done DDR4 OR DDR5 testing by other people and you should've really been aware of that before posting false information. At least talk to some other creators if your findings are so far off everyone else's
There's also the timings that matter much more when it comes to ddr5, you can get a 7200mhz kit but at cl40 and it will perform worse then a 4800mhz kit at cl30/28
There's also the timings that matter much more when it comes to ddr5, you can get a 7200mhz kit but at cl40 and it will perform worse then a 4800mhz kit at cl30/28
What a load of crap. Stopped at Borderlands 3 on 4080 to test modern ram speeds. This guy lost the plot. Yes there is difference between 4800 and high speed tuned memory, especially on am5, sometimes to extend of 10-15%. Just look at actual hardware reviews not some casual pc celebrity. Not to mention how sluggish pc feels at stock ddr 5 at 70-80ns vs 50-65 ns of latency on tuned system. to not see that, You gotta be some dirty casual not any enthusiast.
14:52 you know what's really the same story over and over again? How every time a tech reviewer does a video like this, they don't bother testing games that actually do need more memory bandwidth. Next time why not fire up Fallout 4 and see what it does with high or low memory bandwidth?
I find that my 48GB DDR5 at 8200mhz makes a huge difference over my 64GB at 6000 or 32mb at 7200 kits in Gaming especially in the 1% lows. Yes it makes a larger difference in games. Using at 4k with 4090 Strix and 14900K.
@@jameyt1 I think a lot of it is also the Papyrus scripting. From what I understand there are certain inefficiencies with the way the game handles scripts that benefits from lots of memory bandwidth, especially with a lot of mods installed. Replacing the game's memory allocator with Intel's TBB memory allocator also makes a big difference.
disappointing video. I'll probably refrain from watching you in the future for any benchmarks because there are so many things wrong with this video that lose you your credibility
13:02 - would definitely be more helpful to know for CPU-heavy, simulation gamers. Cities: Skylines I & II, Satisfactory, DSP, Stellaris - to name a few -- stuff that actually hits the CPU.
The guy has no idea what he's doing and is full of crap! With DDR5, the second and third timings are much more important, which has been given zero consideration here.
2:08 - "The capacity of RAM should have no impact on your gaming whatsoever, unless your graphics card's RAM is so low, in terms of GDDR RAM available to the graphics chip, that it's doing swap, all the time, with the system RAM." Pardon me. I'm not a computer expert at all. However, I HAVE been a computer gamer for over 35 years. That statement is TOTAL BS. As a current example, the game "Star Citizen" (SC) is currently in "open alpha" (open to players, while being developed). They recommend a minimum of 16 gigs of RAM to run the game, however we players know that 32 gigs is a lot better, as it makes the game run much more smoothly. HOWEVER, I specifically put in 64 gigs into my latest machine, because the difference is NOTICEABLE, even though the game never uses all the RAM on 32 gig systems. It can get VERY VERY close, sometimes, however. Now, SC is not optimized, at this point. However, optimization will only LESSEN the difference. It will never eliminate it. There will ALWAYS be a difference. 7:24 - A "my raid" of things??? WTaF? The word is "myriad" (MEER-ee-ad). Please don't try to use words you don't know. +facepalm+
You clearly watched further than 2 minutes, and yet completely ignored him specifying that, if your RAM is low enough to affect your games, then your whole system will likely feel sluggish on modern OS' as a result, and you'd notice it well before getting into a game. You've been a gamer for 35+ years and never grew out of the "rage at every little thing" 12 year old on the internet phase? Dude, trolls must love you lol.
Why didn't you include the 1% & 0.1% lows? Huge L take Jay. that's not how you test the influence of RAM Speeds on Gaming Performance. you're literally missing the most impactful test results.
This is why I love Jaytwocents he actually talks about the marketing vs what’s actually reality. Love you Jaytwocents and keep up the awesome work! I hope everything is going good and you’re getting better. I wish you the best man
Did this guy delete comments that were calling him out for not knowing what he was talking about? I just scrolled and can't find them anymore and they had a good amount of likes/comments too when the video came out. Starting to think they were true about him being a shill if he's deleting critisizing comments with a lot of likes and leaving only positive ones.
In my own testing with DDR4 on multiple desktop as well as server platforms, I've found that rank/density had the most impact vs speed/latency. For optimal performance, the best configuration was using the same number of memory dimms as memory channels on the processor (dual channel cpu = 2 dimms, quad channel cpu = 4 dimms,..etc). When it came to single vs dual rank, dual rank always outperformed single rank and with density, x8 was the top performer...specifically 2Rx8 modules seemed to be the sweet spot (1rx4,2rx4,1rx8,2rx8,1rx16 modules ranging from 4gb to 32gb, 2133 to 3600Mhz speeds were tested). So for most desktop Intel or AMD sytems, 2 dimms of 2Rx8, with lower latency (CL) offering marginal improvements from there.
I got a great deal on my x590 board bc it was returned. It had the DDR4 manual and I bet they figured it was wrong, but it wasn't it was indeed the DDR5 version. I have 2x16 of 4800. I went from a 10400f to a 12400f but stayed with the 3060 12GB and I get pretty noticable gains in many games, and am glad I made the jump.
it's true the cheaper ram is good enough and you would never notice the difference, you could take the money you saved and go get maybe more cooling fans for your case or a new mouse or something.. i have 256 GB of ram and that is only because i edit video In Premier pro, i edit 8-K video's and having 256 GB of ram makes a huge difference rather than 32GB.> 8K video takes a ton of ram to edit with only 32GB of ram i don't think you could even edit 8K video unless you converting them to proxy's to do the edit but that takes up your time. So i invested in getting 26GB of ram i could actually fit 512GB ram but 256 works great for me and it's amazing..
Good video dude, I`ve been thinking about upgrading to Am5 and I will start buying ddr5 first, after your video I decided to buy 5600mhz because I can save 75.00 between the prices (5600mhz and 6000mhz) in my country (brazil). No make sense in my opinion to spend more money if we just get 5 to 10 fps more in games. Thank you for sharing this videos for us.
Make sure the timings aren't crap. Cpu intensive games like baldurs gate 3 can see very significant gains when comparing slow ram with bad timings to fast ram with tight timings
In the past RAM speed differences only made a difference with high end hardware. Today if you pair the wrong RAM with an AMD system you're essentially crippling it. Jay has really fallen off.
It's game dependent too. Try this with star citizen and you'll see a huge difference between the speeds if you maintain the same CAS latency between them
Admiral Jay. I think you could be looking at the glass as being half empty. Perhaps I can sway you to the music of the lower voltage requirement and greater through put with latency as low as CL14 3600 DDR4 16G modules. The Admiral Jay I know would never turn his back on that.
it is very interesting the tests, but it is also worth noting that the motherboards, OS, applications and games are not really ready for these speeds, because with 8600 I have seen improvements depending on which game is running.
I did a pure ram speed upgrade once and was very frustrated, because the difference was so small that it was nearly not measurable. But it's great to see that confirmed by your video
definitely do the comparison with ddr4 and ddr5. most people are still on ddr4
The main issue at the moment with DDR5, is not so much the cost of the ram, but the need for a new motherboard and a new CPU. Sadly, DDR5 motherboards aren't backwards compatible, nor are a lot of intel CPUs. So, keep that in mind of you want to change the protocol.
@@paisiosbstrike9262there are a handful of boards that take both types...not sure if those boards work as well with ddr4 vs a ddr4 only board or ddr5 only board......
Hardware unboxed did ddr4 vs ddr5
You cant do that because they do use different mobo and CPU.
1080p gaming it a boost, but for 4k gaming it's negligible per most tests I've seen.
I wish we could have seen 1% lows between the three as well.
This. Also wanna see if he did 1 run each or 3 and if he forgot to actually put it to JDEC Speed and Timings or left timings alone and simply lowered the clocks. Seems like he just lowered clocks. I use GSKILL CL30 6000 EXPO and there's a huge jump from JDEC to the timings even at JDEC speeds then a smaller but noticable uptick from 4800 to 5600 then not much difference in 5600-6000. I wanna buy a 8000ish kit now AMD updated AGESA to make fast RAM run just to see what it's like in 2:1 and if it's as good as 5600 or 6000 in 1:1
@@dustineverhart4028 6000MTs with manual timings and 8000MTs with manual timings are really equal, depends on the workload.
But most ryzens can go to 6400MTs and this needs 8800MTs so be equal.
And dont waste money on such a high ranked kit. Buy a Kit with H16A or H24M ICs. This are the same ICs like on the 8000MTs Kits but with lower XMP/EXPO rating you pay much less.
^ Just made the same comment. Faster ram isn't for higher max/avg frames, it's for higher 1% lows so you don't see frame drops.
Yup. Can't point to average fps to show benefits of faster RAM. I spent this entire video wondering why he was ignoring 1% lows.
@@dustineverhart4028 These tests would have been better done on DDR4 Ram sticks because they have lower tighter timings. From what I've read online when I was considering building a AM4 build, that there's no comparable difference between 4000mhz ddr4 Neo Trident ram and 2800mhz ddr4 Neo Trident ram. The performance is practically identical. A guy did a test and found that the 2800mhz ram actually had more performance ingame than the 4000mhz did. People get suckered into buying the fastest ram kits because they have no clue.
Maybe for the next video you could keep one set of fast ram with good timings and just change the Frequency in the BIOS. That way we would know if the differences were down to frequency or timings. You could then compare 3 sticks at the same speed (e.g. 6000MHz) with different timings (CL30, CL 34 and CL 40) and see what difference THAT makes. Thanks for the video
Latency was always more important than throughput. Real latenvcy expressed in nano seconds NOT cycles.
I'm not sure Jay understands Ddr5 yet. This is exactly why we see this video being so lackluster. Hopefully, he will put the time in like we have.
I think he is bored tbh.
I probably have 3 months of time in bios alone learning ddr5 optimization lol, and I'm just just barely getting a grip on ddr5 and new IMCs in general. I may be slow, but I doubt he will take it that far, sadly.
Likely, we will just see more reptile brain activating click bait crowd appeasement style videos instead of real science.
At best, maybe a half-baked science video that attempts to rug sweep this video that is still just more of the same reptile brain mass appeal, only with a fresh coat of frosting.
He is making money. And that. Akes me happy for him but that whole educating builders motto is slowly vanishing and being replaced by click bait.... I hope he can return to the Jay we all know and love, humble yet thorough in a funny way... Again, I think he is just bored with it all.
@@Hardware_Neutral As one who is finally building a new system after a _decade_ (Feb 2014 build: Win 7, 4770K + GTX 770 --> 980 Ti ---> 2080 Ti), I can understand why a person would be bored. The PC hardware/building situation has.... degenerated significantly, with pricing only one of the problems (though probably the largest), and this is coexistent with the very real degradation of AAA video games in general.
I've had this notion that this is a big reason for why many people have veered down the route of "Pimp My -Ride- System", where a big focus is on hardware aesthetics --- even the interior of the case. I almost can't blame someone for thinking that his PC is more exciting than the game it's rendering.
It is not 6000 MHz. It is 6000 MT/s. It is dual data rate memory. The real clock is 3000 MHz.
@@Breakfast_of_Champions RAM Latency = CAS Latency × 2000 / Transfer Rate - This way you will find the high transfer rate modules have same or lower latency as some "low" transfer rate modules with smaller CAS.
1% and 0.1% lows are absent in ram tests. Thanks Jay :)
Does ryzen still like fast ram??
@@jonfish490 Their apus greatly benefits faster rams.
@@jonfish490yes all except x3d
No even x3D needs decent ram, it just has less impact.@@Frozoken
This is the realest comment on
RUclips. Thanks for knowing your stuff, op.
I'd like to say under this epic comment:
Hey, where's the mention of single versus dual rank memory? What about Hynix A versus Hynix M? And what about primary, secondary, and tertiary timings? Let's not forget about channel configuration and its impact on performance. Oh, and motherboards play a crucial role, too. We can't ignore bus latency and first word latency either. And did I mention that faster RAM can fix texture chokes in 1 percent lows, not just average or maximum FPS? We need to be more clear and thorough in our writing to truly inform builders. Isn't that your motto? Also, I'm guessing your DDR5 OC experience is limited, and I can't blame you as it's quite the dive, but you certainly are not making valid comparisons or observations here. I have noted up to 30 percent increases in 1 percent lows over multiple brands, timings, and configurations. That is huge for dips.
DDR4 comparison greatly needed for me
They won't do that lol, it would turn out that a DDR4 3200mhz will perform the same as 4800mhz ddr5 lol. The sponsors who pay this dude wouldnt want to let people know that :)
@@sisqobmx You're clearly new to the channel, right?
No complaints on my 3200's best memory i can afford
Especially 3600MHz CL16 (I have that one - TridentZ Neo) vs CL18 vs 7200MHz CL34
Yeah, my ddr4 4100cl15 manual tuned is still just as fast as ddr5. Ddr5 is not worth the move till the hits 10000mhz
Would have loved to see this for AMD systems as well, X3D and non-X3D to see how much the cache can negate the impact of ram speeds (if any).
Yep, super curious to see if it's any different with AMD's CPUs
There is a difference and even X3D's need atleast decent RAM, as the Cache doesnt always grip and even if he does, he cant negate everything, its just 96MB...so having DDR5 6000CL30 on AM5(its the actual sweetspot) even with an 7800X3D is pretty much a must have for certain games and also workloads, as videoediting for example does sometime greatly profit from fast RAM.
I on my end am glad that i had the DDR4 3600CL16 from my Ryzen 3700X setup when i upgraded to the 5800X3D. :)
@@wolfwilkopter2231 I wouldn’t say must have for 6000 CL30 tuned memory on X3D but that’s a difference yes. For non X3D yeah it’s must have but I’m not sure why you’d have a setup like that tbh.
Make that another for AMD. I feel anecdotally that my overall performance noticably increased when I upgraded my ram speed on my 7900x
Actually AM5 can use slower RAM better than intel. While Intel always runs DDR5 regardless of speed in UCLK = 0.5 MCLK (DIV2 mode), AM5 can run up to 6200 MT/s in UCLK = MCLK (DIV1 mode) then it automatically goes into DIV2 mode, so going with insane high speeds on AM5 is not worth it that much as UCLK clock divider kicks in.
I remember 3 years back when I purchased my PC and doing researches about this. I went with DDR4 on 3200Mhz which was the sweet spot between cost and benefit. All above were too much more investing in small percentage in performance..
even 3600 kits were beneficial too, without too much more cost. 3200-3600 for ddr4 was the best. i got myself a 4x8 3600 c16 g skill trident z royal for like 100 bucks second hand
@@LcFan96 3-4 yrs ago there was 25-30% price difference.
Im still on 3200mhz too
Kinda wish i had gone with 3600mhz with my 5600X. But 3200 was just a better deal and only losing a hair of performance
So 2-3 y ago I got my 16x2 3600 ddr4 for my 570 chip set and 5900x.
Cas 14 very tight dominator sticks $260 shipped 😅
Please do it for DDR4 comparing to DDR5!
I second this
but the ENTIRE pc community did when DDR5 first came out...
@@IRNoahBody if your buying in currently that advice is true, but what most people what to know is how much performance they are losing by not upgrading an older DDR 4 rig to DDR5 motherboard etc. Obviously userbenchmarks exist but to each there own.
@@IRNoahBody DDR5 needs to be something like 5600 to 6000 MTs before it's faster than good DDR4 actually, but we're still talking 2% performance differences. CL numbers also play some roles in DDR speed, possibly more than speed itself. I'd love to see some of that broken down.
DDR4 with an AMD chip shows benefits up to 3600, but after that it gets kind of complicated, and sometimes it can even reduce your performance. Can't recall how DDR4 speeds and intel chips scale.
I pretty much always buy higher clocked ram because I typically lower the clock speed and overclock the timings with the extra headroom I get instead, I had very good results with this
I have never thought of RAM as a part of my system that significantly increases FPS. I've always thought of it in terms of gameplay smoothness i.e. 1% lows and 0.1% lows. THAT'S where higher clocked RAM shows it's value.
This has always been my understanding as well. Please Jay do another one with % lows!
Jay isn't keeping up with times. People cared about average fps 10 years ago. In 2024 its about lows and latency.
And what about timings and latency?
It seems to me... that RAM really mattered when it came to overall system speed until systems were using more than about 7-9 GB. Ive done tests in the past with windows xp, vista, 7. Windows xp needed like 512MB ram to run great, Vista and newer seemed they needed 3+ at least to be usable at the time, ( Before SSD'S were a thing) Or so i found back in 2009 anyways. And windows 10 now seems to well optimized that ive used 1-2 GB RAM with it and it runs decent for just web browsing bit will bottleneck you shortly after. You only ever got faster load times by adding RAM if you didnt have much RAM to begin with, ( 2-4 GB mainly ) Nowadays computers all have at least 8 some 16 some 32 gb and by the time you hit 7-9GB thats the point of diminishing return when it comes to noticable speed diferences in everyday casual home or office use. Thats what i have noticed anyways
Jay doing what he does best. Being clueless about stuff he knows feck all about.
really? no 1% lows? im baffled you left out THE most imporatnt reason to go with faster memory.
Faster, or lower latency?
Also, would it improve 0.1% lows even more?
@@bricaaron3978 it should make the frame times more consistent.
@@bricaaron3978I can confirm it does, and by A LOT. It makes sense too, the faster your CPU can grab data from the cache (RAM) to compose the frame and send it off to the GPU, the less “stutters” you’ll see since the threads aren’t having to wait for the RAM to deliver the required assets, which means your 1% and 0.1% lows will be higher. Jayz sorta dropped the ball with this one, hate to say it
Jaydouche needs to prove his point, no matter what is left out :D When do people stop watching this dumdum.
Does it really matter that less than 1% of your entire gameplay is effected? It's literally less than 1% so it's completely irrelevant.
Definitely DDR4 tests are very welcome and this time please include 0,1% and 1% lows, I suspect them to show us what the deal withe the RAM really is.
And when testing RAM I don't know why we don't see more Sim and Emulator type tests, where CPU and RAM are way more important than GPU. All of these tests were GPU loads with CPU and RAM just setting up the layups.
I would also like to see this, would also like you to put into the mix, a 4 dim, vs 2 dim test, as in this situation you usually have to run the system at bas clocks on the ram to keep it completely stable.
@@MrTwisted003 Because those are niche, most gamers are not playing like that.
@@Niighting as a warning to avoid putting 4 sticks instead of 2 ?
@@me-df9re sales and experience say otherwise... obv not a major factor like most or half, but a big enough number to not be "niche". At one point it was only thing I saw, but that's perspective, mine and your communities must be different. Just like triple A titles, emulators (less than) and Sims have whole communities in the10's to 100's of thousands to millions [per game]...not niche.
But my point still stands, it is where it maters more than the games you're talking about, so carries more weight.
Yes Jay... do a DDR4 speed test too and tell me what mouse are you using in the video? I like those headlights...
I think it's one of the EVGAs mouse.
corsair ironclaw has such ones
also maybe add system total latency between click and response higher latency can feel like you have more input lag
99% Corsair Sabre Pro RGB
As you said, this is about gaming performance. I recently switched from running DDR5-5600 to DDR5-8000 and for productivity/general tasks, it does make a noticeable and measurable difference. This is especially down to latency. Also interesting is that the gain I got from frequency (running XMP profile) was doubled when I tuned the timings. So RAM tuning (watch Buildzoid’s videos for this) is actually worth-wile.
Dont kid yourself the difference will not be noticeable to the human eye
OH, I get it. @@michaellandon8901 is one of those 'the eye can not see more than 60 FPS anyway' guys :D
@@michaellandon8901 it is. But you're probably talking about gaming, and I'm not.
Kidding yourself
Doubled?
You mean, you doubled the numbers in some application by enabling XMP & tuning timings?
(Usually, the differences are marginal).
the 4800 was stable JDEC. Gotta stress test those XMP sticks cause they're probably erroring on stock voltages. Also, the faster RAM is most beneficial for 1% lows.
What would be interesting is DDR4 3200 CL16 vs DDR5 6000 CL36 (what seems common right now) since a lot of people think that 6000 being basically twice 3200 means DDR5 is "twice as fast" as DDR4 forgetting that CAS latency means that the DDR4 has 3 nanoseconds lower latency.
And yes, I have actually seen people saying DDR5 is ALWAYS better than DDR4 because "mhz number bigger".
6000mhz CL-30 is the sweet spot for ddr5 ram atm
@@Sgt_SealCluberI mean, it is always better. HUB even showed that you can literally see 5% increases from base DDR5 clocks to 6000MHz with a tight timing kit.
It is infact faster and mhz number bigger is indeed better than cl number lower.
Any application that can make use of the doubled memory bandwidth will perform much better even if the latency is a few ns slower, pararellization>serialization
@@Daniel-ul8krcl & band width matter because they effect the overall latency output
Man, this was already tested by Hardware Unboxed like a year ago. And their result was that Intel processors are actually more sensitive to the RAM frequency but not much sensitive to the timings BUT Ryzen 7000 processors are not that sensitive to the frequency, as they cannot benefit much from DDR5 faster than 6000MHz but they benefit from low timings and not only from the low Primary timings but especially from the Secondary timings when tuned as low as possible that makes a huge difference in performance!!
Do you have a source I can learn these timing tweaks? :)
Test@@UKNamaste
The more and more I learn about PC hardware and gaming, the less and less I trust Jay...
Why
@@visitante-pc5zc This stuff is all wrong. He tested a GPU bound benchmark
His channel is aimed at people new to building with more money than sense.
That's why he has 4M subs and only 100-200K views per video.
@@stevewoodyt really hope he sees this… sad to see
I don't really understand what's going on here. If the idea is to show what's the average use case of people turning on XMP and ignore everything, then sure. Otherwise... weird results. Motherboard is not specified, we don't know if all the configurations have been tested for stability (XMP is not granted to work)
Jay, you shouldn’t be using AI OC in this scenario. You absolutely cannot guarantee that the OC would be the same as you swap from one ram kit to another. That’s a variable in your benchmarks that needs to be avoided by principle, big or small.
So much went wrong here lol. Idk why he hasn't taken this video down yet😅😂
He says this...but I bet his PC has 7200mhz of ram speed lol
100%
You mean 7200 MT/S. There is no ddr5 7200 mhz ram yet that would be ddr 5 14400 ram
@@Speedster189but there is lol
@@fluffehgamer4712there isn't.
@@FireCestina1200 then why is there kits at best buy and micro center and other placews with 7200 mhz kits
Did not compare load times, modding and mod loading, performance when multitasking, ram load and unloading speed. Amazing benchmark about ram, congrats!
he has lot of subscribers so everything he says must be 100% fact!
Yes, do a DDR4 vss DDR5 test, possibly fast vs slow.
This same test run on an RTX 3070 also could show something (8GB GDDR)
A test on Star Citizen could also be very interesting as that game is a HOG for ram and CPUs
I am convinced Jay doesn't play video games at home or he has his monitor set to 60hz and didn't realize you can change it in control panel
As an Amiga user I appreciate vast amounts of FastRAM. :-)
That's a really valid guru meditation right there...
so literally no latency tests at all
Why do you need a latency test? You will never feel the difference between 77.5ns and 55.2ns
@user-zz9sv9fp3c Sarcasm...I hope... It sounds like you misunderstand where the extra latency happens and how many times that "doesn't matter" happens per second.
@@Hardware_Neutral Once again - the memory latency has no meaning. you will never see or feel it. The only case when in real conditions of use you can feel the memory - its physical lack, when the operating system begins to use not the overflowing memory, but the disk.
@@Михайло-д2п lover timing can help get more fps then higher MHz with high timing
@@robinenbernhard and?
Comparing a GPU Ray Tracing benchmark to test Ram Speed differences... LOL
Seems like somebody wasn't paying attention
Thanks for this! I used to build a new rig every couple years back in the DOS 6.2 through XP days and was a little overwhelmed with all of the options nowadays. I'm building a new system to upgrade my perfectly functional 10+ year old I5-4670 system for video editing my new youtube channel and a couple new games of course. Your channel has been a big help getting up to speed with the new gear. I pulled the trigger on an I9-13900K and an asus TUF Z790-Plus but needed RAM. Thanks again keep it up!
Upgrade from 4800Mhz to 6400Mhz was a massive upgrade for my performance in actual fps in games.
I have a doubt, I've just built a R5 8600g pc with 16gb 5200Mhz Ram. Can I over clock this same ram any further? Or should I go with 6000Mhz Ram for that speed?
checkout mobod ram that support that ram frequency@@MuhammadYasir-2526
@@MuhammadYasir-2526 should try it yourself, if they cant then upgrade to faster ones
back then in am4 era, well still is, going ddr4 2400 to 3600 is massive upgrade
If you ever had any soft of incling that Jay has no idea what he's just done to himself, just watch this video.
Absolutely!
I had to stop at 50% because too many facepalms and eyerollings here...
Love your videos as always, thank you buddy ;) All the best from Denmark
Bad testing, you are basically testing CPU with a GPU bottleneck. CPU and RAM work together, so if you are not CPU limited u wont see any major difference from faster RAM. You need to use 4090 and real game for testing.
Fot testin 1080 a 4080S is more than enough.
I got 15% increase in lows going from 6400 with tight timings to 7200 tight. And many people using stock 5600-6000mhz xmp profiles lol. It is 10-15% average fps and 30-40% in lows difference between 6000 stock and 7200 tight
This was real helpful generally people looking for FPS gains are playing competitive shooters, COD, Apex, overwatch.... thanks for all single player benchmarks in competitive games. You know for the gamers looking for extra FPS. Ram speeds and timings make a big difference in COD.
Should have also done a 6000Mhz @30CL for mid Mhz but fast timings.
Agreed that’s what I was hoping to see
That's the speed I'm on for my corsair titanium 2x24gb 7200mhz and crashes at 6200mhz because the model came out last year, same with my asus mobo, and 14900kf, so far every 1-2 months a new bios update comes out which adds more support for specific memory models and timings.
The quirks with buying new tech.
agree, when i bought my kit i got told to use the 6000 cl 30 or cl 32 kits since latency is way better than raw MT/s at that point - above 6000 mhz gives barely any performance improvements (at least for AMD - maybe it changed again & unless u want specific benchmark worktask numbers) but for the 100 bucks i paid the corsair kit is doing great
most GPU tasks are data stream heavy so mhz should get you more than latency. but what really matters is the 0.1% lows frame times anyway, so mhz might not matter that much. But for that you need a proper GPU bench that is data stream heavy first and this aint it.
Nice video. But you should've tested some of the CPU-bound titles for comparison..like Escape from Tarkov, Star Citizen, Arma Reforger, New World, Anno, Cities: Skylines or Helldivers 2. I see a lot more difference there for sure. 👍
Add The Finals to the list. First time I’ve dealt with a game that utilizes 100% of my cpu
"4080 super is pretty unattainable for most people"... As I look at my 4080s... Good to know I waste money better than most 🤷
Just a few points here:
Would be good to include the CAS Latency in the charts and ,preferably to even that, the first word latency.
I'm not surprised it's made very little difference in performance changing to faster RAM. I ran a few benchmarks last time I went from 3600CL18 to 3600CL16 (running at 3770CL15 or something similar).
It makes zero difference in gaming. Actually few FPS lower in some titles. But the change it made to video and photo editing in Photoshop and Davinci Resolve was easily noticeable and confirmed with a huge difference in benchmark scores.
So I made sure I went to 6000CL30 when I went to AM5. Latency over speed but save your money if you're just gaming.
It makes a difference in gaming, it just depends on the type of game you play and how much or how hard the RAM usage and the communication back to the CPU/GPU is, especially in the lows, but also in general, even with X3D CPUs, just not as much as with the normal ones.
Your descision to go with 6000CL30 was wise as this is the exact sweetspot for AM5 right now, as was DDR4 3600 CL16 or faster for AM4 and Ryzen 3000for example.
Did you validate it was stable? Errors can cause performance degradation.
yeaa, unsubscribe for spreading misinformation
Yes. I should save my $$ for a monitor that has a motor in it. Lol 😂
Some of these new OLED monitors got noisy fans, so we’re not too far off lol
Gotta find a way to mark it as a business expense!
@@alphapapa4446 Can confirm. Not extremely noisy at all, but if there's nothing but silence in the room then I can hear a fan spinning quietly.
13:36 Yes please, do it again DDR4 VS DDR5 same clock speeds and CL timings
Everyone is now dumber after watching this video
Jay, if you could explain what CAS latency and timings and such are and what that all means that would be greatly appreciated. Great vid! Do the DDR4 one now, yes please! :)
It gets pointlessly technical... the tl;dr is that the lower they are, usually the better, BUT ... this video shows how "massive" differences in speed/bandwidth (up to +50%) AND timings/latency (~ up to -25%) show none to random effects on gaming performance... so there is even less point in minor tweaks to timings.
The flip side is that tracing memory errors is the most random, intermittent, and difficult to trace error in overclocked PC components, I don't chase hwbot points anymore so I just don't bother.
Tired of his garbage tests. Why not test the difference on games that are ram intensive? Seems like that would make sense. Stop doing one sided tests that are biased to your "theories"
With this big as screen I would not have been surprised if jay suddenly started talking about the weather.
This type of video should be based on 1%lows 0%lows
Also cas latency timings should of been included
Jay please re do tho video showing 1% lows and ,0.1% lows, this video is not accurate, what about the timings? Jay please do better next time maybe more actual gaming benchmarks show more evidence in your findings
I get my PC pack tomorrow from my friend and I'm moving to DDR5 64GB. I mostly use my PC for iracing, but I would really like to see the difference of DDR4 to DDR5 on "paper" . Thanks for all the videos they helped me decide what motherboard and processor to get. Didn't make me brave enough to rebuild it myself..LOL
Hey, where's the mention of single versus dual rank memory? What about Hynix A versus Hynix M? And what about primary, secondary, and tertiary timings? Let's not forget about channel configuration and its impact on performance. Oh, and motherboards play a crucial role too. We can't ignore bus latency and first word latency either. And did I mention that faster RAM can fix texture chokes in 1 percent lows, not just average or maximum FPS? We need to be more clear and thorough in our writing to truly inform builders. Isn't that your motto? Also, I'm guessing your DDR5 OC experience is limited, and I can't blame you as it's quite the dive, but you certainly are not making valid comparisons or observations here. I have noted up to 30 percent increases in 1 percent lows over multiple brands, timings, and configurations. That is huge for dips.
How much difference to the results with a lesser system, something like a ryzen 7600 and a 3060?
@JayzTwoCents you really need to test 1% lows and .01% lows in games in all resolutions from 1080p to 4k. i think you will be amazed at the difference in smoothness of gameplay..
This video is pure misinformation, especially if you’re a gamer. You get a huge benefit from faster ram in most games, especially in 1% lows.
You gotta know how to tune it as well, and not just click one button in BIOS and go about your day.
what about RAS to CAS Delay , Ras Precharge Time and Row Active Time (tRAS)? do they influence the input latency and fps?
@@nixer8605 Starting with good ram and then manually tuning them can result in the ability to have higher overclock stability, which can result in the computer being able to perform a higher workload. This means that you can see some FPS increases, some decrease of input latency, but also the ability to run a lot more in the background, quicker. It can have a profound effect on your overall system.
@@MiniDevilDF thank you!
His testing methodology sucks and I agree with you on fact.
If his argument related to the trade-offs to achieve the better performance, I'd understand and agree. The time needed to fine tune, stability test ram to get better performance past one clicking an XMP profile is just not really attractive to me and a lot of other gamers - especially when some game engines just dont like overclocks fullstop. One update to a game, bios or operating system can chuck you out. Id prefer the near guaranteed stability provided by JDEC standards or the tested XMP profile with the respective ram, if available. Id imagine most people would.
Prove it. Because my own tests show that as long as you have sufficient ram it doesn't matter. Have you seen actual measurements of consumed memory bandwidth in games? It rarely is over 16GB/s. Even ddr4-2133 will do that. On the other hand running inference I can peg the ram to 98% of theoretical maximum bandwidth. Which with 4 DR sticks and proper interleave settings can get 2x to the default Jedec.
Jay, what have you been smoking
him : you can over spend on ram
Me with 64g 6000mhz Cl 30 : What on earth is he talking about ?
Dude used a GPU benchmark to prove his statement about ram... no a single real life scenario, showed 4 games from which all 4 are absolutely irrelevant..
Brain2Dedz
I just pulled the trigger on 64gb of corsair vengeance ddr5 at 6k MHz, I was all paranoid before this wondering if I should have spent more on the newer faster ram, now I feel better and I saved $150. I have a 4080 Super and 7800x3d on a MSI tomahawk, 4th gen m.2. Going to be upgrading to closed loop water cooing around Christmas and then I think I have a really solid rig for the next couple years.
just like that all the credibility Jay ever had as a tech Tuber is now gone. No 1% lows. no 0.1% lows. (1%+0.1% is the REAL frame-rate of your game, Average FPS is literally meaningless, all gamers knows this which is why they ignore this metric). Oh the best part? he standard benchmarks in SINGLE PLAYER GAMES. He did no runs in any online Multi-player games or E-sports games which are the only games THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. He also uses basic XMP profiles instead of putting in the hours/days of work to due custom voltages and timings for a real overclock and then 24-hour stress test the machine for errors to show us the REAL performance gain from tuning/overclocking which is anywhere from 20-40% or even above 50% in performance boosts depending on the game and server/map your playing on in the 1%/01% lows where it actually matters for competitive E-sports and general premium high refresh rate gaming experience.
this is such bad information. Ram matters in many games. At 1440p with a 4090/14900k you'll see 20%+ 0.1% lows improvements in many games.
No way is jdec faster in any test, unless you're unstable on your faster kits.
Did you validate your 7200mhz using kahru/y-cruncher? If the ram is unstable then the conclusion for your video is completely false. It should be something closer to "avoid fast ram if you want plug and play".
100% this, his faster kit was unstable, probably also the reason that he doesnt show 1%.
8:00 - The difference between 269 and 274 fps is 1.8%. I'm pretty sure 1.8% isn't a significant difference. That's less than 2 fps at 100 fps and the difference between 60 and 61 fps. It's ever so slightly higher than the difference between 194 and 196 fps.
The difference between 257 and 274 is 6.6%, which I do think is significant.
Sorry Jay, but you are wrong, or incomplete at best. You are clearly making some assumptions here. You are aware that not everyone plays FPS games, right? It is anecdotal, but I remember a thread in the ONI (Oxygen not Included) reddit where it was clear that ONI processes its cycles (in-game days) much faster with faster RAM. This is because that is a super memory-heavy process. Early game, no one notices. By the time you are at cycle 1000 and the game needs to process the results of multiple planetoids, the faster RAM will make a difference. As this happens every few minutes, shaving 3-4 seconds off a 20 seconds process makes a huge difference. Having nearly 4000 hours in this game, faster RAM has surely saved me a few hours. :) There are other things factoring in, but here fast RAM makes a difference. Good that you checked this, but you need to consider the use case.
not a single cpu heavy title tested...pointless vid...
Exactly.
Thank you for really answering this question. Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed only do those bullshit 4090 in 1080p low settings tests that do not answer this question.
Unsubscribed. Misinformation.
this is another video why im not subscribed anymore
Why
Stay away plz
Why do we still test fps instead of latency/ onls 1%lows or below since difference in framerate are way less perceivable now a days?
There's just no way that 7200 was stable. Potentially not even the 6400 - although maybe that one was just running with terrible auto timings or switching to gear 4 without you noticing.
This isn't consistent AT ALL with any previously done DDR4 OR DDR5 testing by other people and you should've really been aware of that before posting false information. At least talk to some other creators if your findings are so far off everyone else's
unsubscribe for spreading misinformation
Hey jay, did you get good news or something? You're glowing. Love seeing that.
Please delete this video, it's so full of misinformation. The difference between a stable 7200 MHz and 4800 MHz is like 25% performance.
There's also the timings that matter much more when it comes to ddr5, you can get a 7200mhz kit but at cl40 and it will perform worse then a 4800mhz kit at cl30/28
There's also the timings that matter much more when it comes to ddr5, you can get a 7200mhz kit but at cl40 and it will perform worse then a 4800mhz kit at cl30/28
What a load of crap. Stopped at Borderlands 3 on 4080 to test modern ram speeds. This guy lost the plot. Yes there is difference between 4800 and high speed tuned memory, especially on am5, sometimes to extend of 10-15%. Just look at actual hardware reviews not some casual pc celebrity. Not to mention how sluggish pc feels at stock ddr 5 at 70-80ns vs 50-65 ns of latency on tuned system. to not see that, You gotta be some dirty casual not any enthusiast.
Totally agree on this. Talking about frequency
14:52 you know what's really the same story over and over again? How every time a tech reviewer does a video like this, they don't bother testing games that actually do need more memory bandwidth. Next time why not fire up Fallout 4 and see what it does with high or low memory bandwidth?
I find that my 48GB DDR5 at 8200mhz makes a huge difference over my 64GB at 6000 or 32mb at 7200 kits in Gaming especially in the 1% lows. Yes it makes a larger difference in games. Using at 4k with 4090 Strix and 14900K.
true FO4 is brutal because of the draw cells, especially when heavily modded
@@jameyt1 I think a lot of it is also the Papyrus scripting. From what I understand there are certain inefficiencies with the way the game handles scripts that benefits from lots of memory bandwidth, especially with a lot of mods installed. Replacing the game's memory allocator with Intel's TBB memory allocator also makes a big difference.
disappointing video. I'll probably refrain from watching you in the future for any benchmarks because there are so many things wrong with this video that lose you your credibility
13:02 - would definitely be more helpful to know for CPU-heavy, simulation gamers. Cities: Skylines I & II, Satisfactory, DSP, Stellaris - to name a few -- stuff that actually hits the CPU.
The guy has no idea what he's doing and is full of crap! With DDR5, the second and third timings are much more important, which has been given zero consideration here.
2:08 - "The capacity of RAM should have no impact on your gaming whatsoever, unless your graphics card's RAM is so low, in terms of GDDR RAM available to the graphics chip, that it's doing swap, all the time, with the system RAM."
Pardon me. I'm not a computer expert at all. However, I HAVE been a computer gamer for over 35 years. That statement is TOTAL BS. As a current example, the game "Star Citizen" (SC) is currently in "open alpha" (open to players, while being developed). They recommend a minimum of 16 gigs of RAM to run the game, however we players know that 32 gigs is a lot better, as it makes the game run much more smoothly. HOWEVER, I specifically put in 64 gigs into my latest machine, because the difference is NOTICEABLE, even though the game never uses all the RAM on 32 gig systems. It can get VERY VERY close, sometimes, however. Now, SC is not optimized, at this point. However, optimization will only LESSEN the difference. It will never eliminate it. There will ALWAYS be a difference.
7:24 - A "my raid" of things??? WTaF? The word is "myriad" (MEER-ee-ad). Please don't try to use words you don't know. +facepalm+
You clearly watched further than 2 minutes, and yet completely ignored him specifying that, if your RAM is low enough to affect your games, then your whole system will likely feel sluggish on modern OS' as a result, and you'd notice it well before getting into a game. You've been a gamer for 35+ years and never grew out of the "rage at every little thing" 12 year old on the internet phase? Dude, trolls must love you lol.
Please do ddr4 and ddr5 ram comparisons... most average consumer are still on ddr4.. Thanks a bunch! will wait for it!
1k dislikes hmmm I think people figuring out what is going on here. Lame Jay really lame
Huh? What happened?
Why didn't you include the 1% & 0.1% lows? Huge L take Jay. that's not how you test the influence of RAM Speeds on Gaming Performance. you're literally missing the most impactful test results.
It’s just a 10 min effort content drop 😂. Testing those takes way more time than just running a few averages and rambling off at a camera.
This is why I love Jaytwocents he actually talks about the marketing vs what’s actually reality. Love you Jaytwocents and keep up the awesome work! I hope everything is going good and you’re getting better. I wish you the best man
Worst RUclipsr up there with Linus... this is just a rich TV channel showing off hardware. Take this dislike. Frame chasers is a better channel
This guy is clueless. Hilarious vid.
Did this guy delete comments that were calling him out for not knowing what he was talking about? I just scrolled and can't find them anymore and they had a good amount of likes/comments too when the video came out. Starting to think they were true about him being a shill if he's deleting critisizing comments with a lot of likes and leaving only positive ones.
In my own testing with DDR4 on multiple desktop as well as server platforms, I've found that rank/density had the most impact vs speed/latency. For optimal performance, the best configuration was using the same number of memory dimms as memory channels on the processor (dual channel cpu = 2 dimms, quad channel cpu = 4 dimms,..etc). When it came to single vs dual rank, dual rank always outperformed single rank and with density, x8 was the top performer...specifically 2Rx8 modules seemed to be the sweet spot (1rx4,2rx4,1rx8,2rx8,1rx16 modules ranging from 4gb to 32gb, 2133 to 3600Mhz speeds were tested). So for most desktop Intel or AMD sytems, 2 dimms of 2Rx8, with lower latency (CL) offering marginal improvements from there.
Should have done this test with AMD also. And yes, ram speed matter for ryzen.
I got a great deal on my x590 board bc it was returned. It had the DDR4 manual and I bet they figured it was wrong, but it wasn't it was indeed the DDR5 version. I have 2x16 of 4800. I went from a 10400f to a 12400f but stayed with the 3060 12GB and I get pretty noticable gains in many games, and am glad I made the jump.
Why wouldn't you include 1% and 0.1% lows on video about ram speed? That's where the biggest differences usually are.
Wait what about frame times, 1% and .1% lows? Still seems like faster 6000mhz ram will make a good improvement.
I think you should have talked more about CAS Latency
it's true the cheaper ram is good enough and you would never notice the difference, you could take the money you saved and go get maybe more cooling fans for your case or a new mouse or something.. i have 256 GB of ram and that is only because i edit video In Premier pro, i edit 8-K video's and having 256 GB of ram makes a huge difference rather than 32GB.>
8K video takes a ton of ram to edit with only 32GB of ram i don't think you could even edit 8K video unless you converting them to proxy's to do the edit but that takes up your time.
So i invested in getting 26GB of ram i could actually fit 512GB ram but 256 works great for me and it's amazing..
Good video dude, I`ve been thinking about upgrading to Am5 and I will start buying ddr5 first, after your video I decided to buy 5600mhz because I can save 75.00 between the prices (5600mhz and 6000mhz) in my country (brazil). No make sense in my opinion to spend more money if we just get 5 to 10 fps more in games. Thank you for sharing this videos for us.
Make sure the timings aren't crap. Cpu intensive games like baldurs gate 3 can see very significant gains when comparing slow ram with bad timings to fast ram with tight timings
@@sengan2475 yeah, CL 36 do you think it`s good? Cl 30 is a bit expensive here
Thank you ❤ not gonna overspend on ram then.. as long as the ram starts the rbg dance when wmca comes on. Thanks 😎
Please do a ddr4 comparison as you mentioned. Thank you for the video!
No 1% low data? Really? You decide to take us back to 2005 too with these archaic findings? This is why I stick to HUB and GN.
In the past RAM speed differences only made a difference with high end hardware. Today if you pair the wrong RAM with an AMD system you're essentially crippling it. Jay has really fallen off.
It's game dependent too. Try this with star citizen and you'll see a huge difference between the speeds if you maintain the same CAS latency between them
Admiral Jay.
I think you could be looking at the glass as being half empty.
Perhaps I can sway you to the music of the lower voltage requirement and greater through put with latency as low as CL14 3600 DDR4 16G modules.
The Admiral Jay I know would never turn his back on that.
literally me jumping from a i7 4gen , gtx 1650 and 16gb ddr3 to an I9 13900k rtx 4070 ti super and 96 gb ddr5 6000mhz
it is very interesting the tests, but it is also worth noting that the motherboards, OS, applications and games are not really ready for these speeds, because with 8600 I have seen improvements depending on which game is running.
I did a pure ram speed upgrade once and was very frustrated, because the difference was so small that it was nearly not measurable.
But it's great to see that confirmed by your video