Thanks for info but, to summarize: stuff happens in silicon, smaller process, more problems. Nevertheless, it will be happening, no matter what. And, those articles from wiki state as much, nothing more.
So far it’s literally like saying “Don’t put bigger GPU card into your rig, or you will wear PSU more quickly”.
However, I would assume that if company is making DRAM sticks with controller chip on it, then stands to reason that they would plan for required load for it. And they are probably very well aware of those problems you are speaking of. No matter how many chips they put in them.
Also I found some papers that are more relevant to the topic:
But I failed to find study that shows direct impact of stick size on controller lifespan.
I suppose there might be something to it, if controller would be separate from memory chips, and we would add them manually. But last time I did that was in 286 era AFAIR. I’m not sure if FP modules later had ICU or not.
Sorry, but for now I have to put this between urban legends and handwaving, because I still don’t see any concrete proof of reason why you would always prioritize smaller sticks if you have the option.
Let me get this straight. Running ram and the memory controllers outside its design is hand waving and snake oil in regards to their lifetime and stability and has no negative repercussions what so ever. How many quad channel dims or even servers do you see running at 4000 plus ?
Second link is certainly more readable. We are talking about overclocking ram beyond is design intent not just population and capacity.
I believe you have a point. Is it one of those misconceptions that has risen because it works/and or easy. I will have to dig more. Is it one of those things that everyone has been doing for so long that it became excepted fact/method.
Seems like it was reply to my post? I never said or even suggested that. Of course it will have impact.
What I’m trying to say is, that engineers making specific ram stick will make sure its memory controller is within advertised speeds (at least hope so).
I never claimed anything about overclocking beyond spec. Silicon degrading bit more while doing that is pretty obvious.
But I never came across name for it, so thanks for pointing out technical term for that.
Yeah that more akin to what I suggested.
Still my original point was just this:
“When in doubt, use max supported stick size for platform. Usually you will be better off that way”
So you could come up with edge cases, when having smaller sticks will be beneficial. However I believe you will be very hard pressed to prove its common fact. Hence my jabs at “stressing memory controller with more chips” statement, since I couldn’t even find any reasonable definition for it.
And again, to be clear, I don’t claim anything when it comes to overclocking. Still I would like to see tested what others already suggested:
4 SR sticks vs 2 DR sticks (if equal, my point stands)
2 DR sticks vs 4 DR sticks (irrelevant for my point, but I’m curious)
So I pulled the trigger and have been testing for the last week or so.
Gigabyte x570 master board rev 1.2
2x Gskill Trident Z 16GB 3600mhz CL16
5950x CPU
My observations so far are mixed. There is a lot to learn about getting the best out of the 5950x. I get the impression is that you are managing power budgets more than anything else. PBO can sure suck down power like crazy. I can get locked at 90C within 10 seconds
I managed to get my Ram to run at 3800 CL16, which resulted in the same cinebench R20 scores as 3600 CL16.
My cinebench scores are a little behind the reviewers that used 4x 8GB Gskill 3200 Cl14. But I am getting better scores than those with Single rank or 3200 CL16.
I suspect that the stock thermal paste on my Corsair 280mm AIO might be having trouble dealing with the heat density. It’s not pushing up the radiator temperature up like I would expect it to. Waiting for my new thermal paste to get delivered.