Best RAM for Intel 12th-Gen Core: DDR4 vs. DDR5

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,508   +2,740
A quality 3600 CL16 kit still looks like where it's at for price performance. The 4000 perhaps for tuning or flexibility but there's nothing in it there trading blows.

If you're buying kits now for a new build it should really be the last time you need to do so. I'm likely to just recycle any DDR4 I have about for any builds I might do until DDR5 is more viable.
 

Pastuch

Posts: 139   +147
No clue why DDR4000 CL16, which is easily achieved on all Samsung bdie, wasn't used here. It crushes DDR5 for way less money. It's wild how long bdie has held the performance crown. Hopefully Samsung can Make a low latency DDR5 8000 kit soon.

Here's a fun idea, take a Bdie cl14 4000 kit, tune the $hit out of it and then compare the performance to a similar price tuned DDR5 kit. Watch the bdie run circles around all the current garbage ddr5 kits. We NEED lower latency DDR5!
 
Last edited:

letsgoiowa

Posts: 62   +121
My takeaway is that DDR5's current state is the average kit is comparable to a decent 2400 MHz kit in performance but is way more expensive, and the absolute best kits are ~DDR4 3000 MHz performance but again, wayyyyyy more expensive. Seems like DDR5 needs to be double the clock speed and double or less the timings to be competitive in gaming as a rule of thumb.

This happened with DDR3 to DDR4 of course, so in a year or two things should be sorted with DDR5 and we can get some nice DDR5 8000 MHz CL36/CL38 kits. Maybe another year til prices come down past that. Pain.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,115   +2,532
TechSpot Elite
No clue why DDR4000 CL16, which is easily achieved on all Samsung bdie, wasn't used here. It crushes DDR5 for way less money. It's wild how long bdie has held the performance crown. Hopefully Samsung can Make a low latency DDR5 8000 kit soon.

Here's a fun idea, take a Bdie cl14 4000 kit, tune the $hit out of it and then compare the performance to a similar price tuned DDR5 kit. Watch the bdie run circles around all the current garbage ddr5 kits. We NEED lower latency DDR5!

Wait.

You posted on-topic. But that's off-topic for the discussion here. Was that the wrong or right thing to do??

I'm so confused.
 

BSim500

Posts: 895   +2,114
FFS, would you raging fanboys please stop derailing every single thread completely unrelated to GPU's with your tribal fetishes? Some of us are actually quite interested in keeping this thread readable as a future reference for the next DDR5-based upgrade.
 
Thanks for including DDR4 2400 - it's a good reference point for people that are upgrading on the cheap and may want to transfer RAM from an existing board.
 

Strawman

Posts: 544   +280
Here's a fun idea, take a Bdie cl14 4000 kit, tune the $hit out of it and then compare the performance to a similar price tuned DDR5 kit. Watch the bdie run circles around all the current garbage ddr5 kits. We NEED lower latency DDR5!
Done that, doesn't crush a tuned ddr5 kit. Especially a hynix one.

Maybe if ADL had a better IMC, able to run 4400c16 like cometlake could, yeah, but most ADL hit a wall at 3800-4000 so, nope. Lot's of games actually run better, and I mean WAY better on tuned ddr5 than tuned ddr4. Cyberpunk for example, hardest part of the map, a tuned ddr4 drops to around 100fps on a 12900k, tuned ddr5 holds steady at around 115.
 

Pastuch

Posts: 139   +147
Done that, doesn't crush a tuned ddr5 kit. Especially a hynix one.

Maybe if ADL had a better IMC, able to run 4400c16 like cometlake could, yeah, but most ADL hit a wall at 3800-4000 so, nope. Lot's of games actually run better, and I mean WAY better on tuned ddr5 than tuned ddr4. Cyberpunk for example, hardest part of the map, a tuned ddr4 drops to around 100fps on a 12900k, tuned ddr5 holds steady at around 115.
DDR4 is faster in Warzone.
 

ddferrari

Posts: 554   +275
TechSpot Elite
Should I bother trying to OC my Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR4 3200 RGB to 3600, or even 4000? Worth it?

I tried it a while back without getting too in-depth and it failed. GPU-Z shows it as Micron chips. 16-18-18-36

Thanks for any input!
 
Last edited:
6 years ago:
DDR4 sweet spot: 3200Mhz, 40GB/s dual channel, 75GB/s quad channel.

2022 :
DDR4 sweet spot: 3600Mhz, same bandwidth
DDR5: high latency, 75GB/s.
Conclusion, get a quad channel system, and for the sake of all, DON'T bench FPS GAMES ! Bench loading time. It's there where you'll see a 50% increase with quad channel or DDR5.
 

ddferrari

Posts: 554   +275
TechSpot Elite
6 years ago:
DDR4 sweet spot: 3200Mhz, 40GB/s dual channel, 75GB/s quad channel.

2022 :
DDR4 sweet spot: 3600Mhz, same bandwidth
DDR5: high latency, 75GB/s.
Conclusion, get a quad channel system, and for the sake of all, DON'T bench FPS GAMES ! Bench loading time. It's there where you'll see a 50% increase with quad channel or DDR5.
After reading countless reviews, I'm going to stick with my 16GB x 2 setup. For my uses, it's not worth the expense. Gaming-wise, there was literally no difference between dual and quad channel. If there was, I'd jump all over the addition.

Since GPUs are so expensive, I've been itching to upgrade my rig SOMEHOW, so this seemed like an option. But I realized that for what I do, even 32GB of RAM may be overkill.

I think I'll go on vacation ("holiday"?) again.

Thanks anyway, mate!
 
Last edited:

SixTymes

Posts: 185   +123
Speaking of Cas latency. I have been at this since the late 80's. when each iteration of new memory comes to market, such as now DDR5, it takes at least the second OR third iteration before Cas latency gets improved, lower numbers as it were. just pointing that out. Tighter timmings is always better. I am so old I remmber when I owned DDR that has Cas 2 and 2.5
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,209   +2,620
TechSpot Elite
While AIDA64 shows the potential of DDR5, all of the other benchmarks show that with current hardware, the differences are nothing that I would call significant. Remember that for most tasks, even old DDR2 is sufficient (up to Windows 7 anyway, I don't know if W10 supports CPUs that old). I can vouch for the fact that 8GB of DDR3-1333 runs Windows 10 just fine because that's what my mining rig uses without issue on an old 990FX motherboard.

What these benchmark charts are telling me is that DDR5 isn't really needed yet and probably won't be for awhile so stick to DDR4 as long as you can.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,209   +2,620
TechSpot Elite
My takeaway is that DDR5's current state is the average kit is comparable to a decent 2400 MHz kit in performance but is way more expensive, and the absolute best kits are ~DDR4 3000 MHz performance but again, wayyyyyy more expensive. Seems like DDR5 needs to be double the clock speed and double or less the timings to be competitive in gaming as a rule of thumb.
I think that DDR5 is being thrust upon us prematurely. It's a lot of extra cost for little to no performance gain. Kinda reminds me of the HBM on my R9 Furies. :laughing:
This happened with DDR3 to DDR4 of course, so in a year or two things should be sorted with DDR5 and we can get some nice DDR5 8000 MHz CL36/CL38 kits. Maybe another year til prices come down past that. Pain.
In most cases, you can still game just fine with DDR3. I've watched DDR become DDR2, become DDR3, become DDR4, etc. and it has made me realise that the RAM doesn't make a significant difference in most cases. The only time that I've ever seen it truly matter was in a few early cases of Ryzen and that was treated as a strange new anomaly (because it was an anomaly).

Lots of people still game with CPUs that use Broadwell or Vishera (and older) architectures with DDR3 and have no problems at all. The vast majority of gamers just want 60fps at 1080p (because most displays that gamers use are 1080p 60Hz displays) and that's still achievable with CPUs that use DDR3. The limiting factor in those cases isn't the RAM, it's the CPU (assuming that a more modern GPU is being used).
 
Last edited: