G.SKILL Launches Up to DDR5-8200 DDR5 Memory Kits with 24GBx2 and 48GBx2 Capacities

Yeah AM5 can only dream about using those.

 

I guess this is a way to get around the MHZ drop in speed when you use 4 sticks of DDR 5 ram?

 

Who invented these uneven sizes? For decades you could buy 2^x MB or GB of RAM, therefore it was easy to spot the cheapo machines with say two sticks of RAM and 6GB total (=no dual channel, 1x 4GB, 1x 2GB).
Now you can have 96GB RAM and it isn't clear at what config ... 2x 48GB or just a cheapo with 1x 64GB and 1x 32GB?

Wht complicate what was easy for years? Is there any good reason to go for these DIMM sizes?

 

Cost. If you don't need 64GB but 32 is kinda cutting it close, you get 48GB instead. Ditto for 96GB vs 128GB. This becomes more and more useful as RAM sizes go up.

 

I'd buy a 2x12g kit. 32G is a waste when I haven't personally encountered anything that needs more than 16GB. I remember 8G was struggling in 2015 but 16GB seems to be a sweet spot for ram configurations. Haven't really seen any more of my 16GB utilized since 2015 when I upgraded. It was ~10-15G for games then, it is now, at least for normal people, who don't count unpatched ram leaks as "new industry standard".

 

Thats the thing you always need to count in the memory leaks. Didnt you see how much recent games can use ram if it spills from vram? If you dont have enough it will crash.

2x16 is the way to go but i'd even get 2x24gb at this point.

 

The 2X 24GB kit at 6400 with low timing is a nice kit for AM5, maybe it will run 6000MHz at 30 36 36.
A 8000 or 9000 series could maybe run at 6200-6400 1:1 on AM5, so not the worst buy if the price is right.

 

Lol, no you don't. How about buying patched games for half the price instead, after the developers cash in on people who pay the full price for an unfinished product and then actually have to make it good to sell it to others. I haven't bought a game that's less than at least a few of months old since 2016. There's always performance/gameplay patches, for nearly all of them.
TLoU launched two days ago, and recieved two patches for PC already, I'm not spending my money on a game that has one critical update per day. Hogwarts was almost the same.
The out of memory patch went live 14hrs ago, wonder what version HUB tested before they announced 8G cards are dead.
With your logic, 1080p gamers can't run it on 6650xt and 16GB - bull****.

 

You can run 6650xt or any other 8gb card but with a 32gb. Not many do that so i wonder is that why people complain about all those crashes.

 

Is not that hard really :/ . You don't have to solve equations or something. I really don't get the complain.

 

go see computerbase for patched results, 3060Ti gets 41.5fps min at 1440p, just a tiny 35 fps difference from HUB results. Vram leak was officially listed as a known game issue on day 1, but HUB tested anyway cause conclusions come first there, while computerbase, being a competent site, only had 4080 and higher yesterday, and waited a day to give us an objective review.
btw, dlss and fsr both look amazing, including their performance presets. but mentioning that would ruin the narrative too.
https://www.computerbase.de/2023-03/the-last-of-us-part-i-benchmark-test/2/#bilder

 

It still gets wrecked by 6700xt that also got better after the patch and can even use higher settings. There is still alot of work to do.

 

Conversation to be had in the 6700xt vs 3060Ti thread. Will reply there cause we're waaay OT.

 

I also never encountered any games that needs more than 16GB, and like you, I also don't buy games when they're still fresh with bugs. It really makes no sense nowadays to spend at least $60 for a practically unplayable game when I could just wait a year or two for it to be half the price with an actually enjoyable experience. I'm not really into online multiplayer (I prefer local multiplayer) so I don't really care about games I could otherwise be missing out on.
It does feel a little weird how my next upgrade will most likely be 16GB, but I just don't see the point in spending more for no noteworthy benefit. I might consider getting a 24GB kit if there's a good deal on one.

Whenever I encounter a memory leak, which is very rare, it's usually because of something that will soon be patched. In the meantime, I usually just look out for whatever is causing it and try to be proactive, as tedious as that might be.
When it comes to VRAM spilling over, 16GB of DRAM is only likely to get fully filled if you've got a bunch of other random crap running in the background. Frankly, if your GPU has to offload enough VRAM to starve out 16GB of DRAM, you've got your texture details set too high. Even if you have 32GB, your gaming performance is going to suffer greatly.

 

It's a convenience thing to spot cheap and (often) lousy preconfigured OEM rigs where I live. I don't really mind sticks with whatever size.

 

I could get Call of duty warzone to crash reliably with out of memory error at high settings with 16GB system memory.
Game runs fine for 1-5 minutes and then crashes, only fix is to turn down settings to prevent ram getting filled up.
This was more then 1 year after release.
Have multiple other games that fill 16GB memory, but atleast they are better coded to not crash, but only loose performance.
16GB system mem and 6900XT with 16GB mem. I do not want to use more money on AM4 platform anymore, but I would go for at least 32-48GB next.

 

Its NEW high capacity chips.
16Gb > 24GB
32gb > 48Gb

So on my z96 i can upgrade my 64 to 96GB
and someone that things 64Gb is too much, can get 48GB, which is tad more than 32Gb, not bad for games and for work

Its great news for RAM

 

No, its not how it works
These are high capacity sticks
There are no 12gb sticks
with same amount of chips used for 16Gb, now they doing 24gb
with same amount they used for 32, now they use for 48Gb
And right now i seen the price for Corsair that just came out with it, it indeed is not that more expensive
for them its same cost, they use the same amount of chips per stick, give it some time and eventually there wont be any more 16gb and 32gbv ddr5, it will be just 24 and 48, because why pay same money for x2 16gb if you can get x2 24gb

32gb is far from waste.I been using 64Gb since DDr4 era and on DDR3 i had 32Gb, and i can fill 64Gb just with my open browsers and all the tabs i keep i open, sometimes even crash with out of memory until i enabled 64Gb swap as help
32GB in 2023 is bare minimum, its not some comic money we talking about, ram is DIRT cheap now, its INSANELY cheap to the point i can even recover 40% of what i paid for 32GB DDR5 6000 cl 30 back when it came out
So saying that you dont need it and go and save 10-20$ is idiotic, its not worth saving, its like buying anything smaller then 2Tb SSD now, when the difference models going down is minuscule.

 

No it isn't a bare minimum, unless you don't understand what a minimum is.
The difference for a 6000 c36 kit is 55eur, its not 10.