I recently came across an article that made me curious about how slower RAM speeds, particularly DDR5-3600, might affect the performance of the AMD 9800X3D processor. There's a lot of debate in the community about whether using four sticks of this slower RAM configuration leads to significant performance drops. While many people joke about this issue, it's often agreed that X3D chips are less sensitive to RAM performance than other models. I haven't found many benchmarks that give a clear picture of how DDR5-3600 performs across different use cases. The article I read suggested that even DDR5-4800 at CL40 had minimal impact on the 9800X3D. With current RAM shortages, I'm interested in hearing any insights or data that could clarify the performance trade-offs of using four slower sticks versus fewer, faster ones. Also, I'm particularly curious about the effect on Photoshop performance, as I've seen some benchmarks suggesting it won't be that significant.
6 Answers
Yes, DDR5-3600 RAM does exist, and it's standard because that's what AMD guarantees with their AM5 platform when using four DIMMs. It's worth noting, though, that a lot of people overclock their RAM right away to avoid any potential slowdowns. The real question is how much of a performance reduction can we actually expect from stock settings? Has anyone gathered numbers?
I personally run 4 sticks of 48GB RAM at 5800 MHz CL30 and it’s super stable. If you’re going to stick with 3600, I guess it’s fine, but I’d wonder if the real-world difference is actually noticeable on X3D chips. I’ve seen that some benchmarks show minimal impact, especially in Photoshop.
Yeah, the benchmarks I've seen for Photoshop performance at lower RAM speeds also reflect that. It seems like a reasonable setup even if you’re not pushing the absolute limits.
It’s my opinion that you should consider ditching the four sticks altogether if possible, since they can introduce complications. Slower RAM doesn't always hurt performance depending on what you're doing, and for X3D chips, the workload usually plays a bigger role.
Honestly, you might as well set the timings yourself and run some tests. But I get it, pulling everything apart to adjust settings is a hassle. If you do decide to keep it at 3600MT/s, you might find that the performance hit isn't as bad as people say. PugetBench has a lot of user-uploaded data showing that many users have stable setups at different speeds. Might want to check that out if you haven't already.
I found the same! Their benchmarks suggest Photoshop performance isn't greatly affected, so it seems you wouldn’t miss much by sticking with 3600 MT/s.
Just remember that while 3600 MT/s DDR5 is slower, it won't necessarily wreck your system, especially if your workload isn't overly demanding. But for tasks that require high memory bandwidth, like some games or heavy applications, the performance drop can be noticeable. But in most everyday scenarios, you might be just fine sticking with it.
The impact of running DDR5 at 3600 MT/s can really vary based on your use case. Many people get fixated on RAM speed, but in practice, if you're just gaming or doing light content creation, you might not notice a significant difference. It’s important to consider the overall performance instead of just focusing on the RAM speed alone.
You’re right that stock settings tend to get a bad rap, but I've seen some users actually find decent performance even at lower speeds. Just varies by workload, I guess.