I bought a second-hand PC for about $2,000 and am wondering whether the single 32GB DDR5 stick is holding back the system. The specifications are an ASUS ROG Strix Z790-F motherboard, an i9-14900KF, one Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5-5600 module, a Colorful iGAME RTX 5080 Ultra W OC with 16GB VRAM, a Thermalright Frozen Warframe Pro 360 AIO, and an Aorus Elite P1000W PSU. I mainly play at 1440p. In Monster Hunter Wilds on ultra settings, I get roughly 90 FPS, but lowering the graphics settings to very low unexpectedly reduced my average to around 70 FPS. GPU usage is about 65% during the game, although I do not notice major stuttering or severe FPS drops. RAM prices are high where I live, so I would only replace or add memory if single-channel operation is causing a significant performance loss.
4 Answers
Check GPU utilization while playing. If the GPU is consistently near 95–100%, the graphics card is doing most of the limiting and dual-channel memory will not transform performance. Around 65% GPU usage suggests you may be CPU- or game-engine-limited, so single-channel RAM could be contributing, but it is not proof by itself. Check per-core CPU usage, frametimes, RAM usage, and temperatures as well.
A single RAM stick runs in single-channel mode, which can reduce CPU-limited gaming performance and sometimes cause worse lows or inconsistent frame rates. Ideally, use a matched dual-channel kit, or add a genuinely matching module if possible. However, the impact depends heavily on the game and settings, and it may not be large enough to justify replacing the memory immediately.
I am not seeing major FPS drops, so I will probably monitor things more closely before spending on another kit.
At 1440p ultra in a demanding game like Monster Hunter Wilds, around 90 FPS may already be reasonable depending on the area and whether upscaling or frame generation is enabled. Dual-channel RAM is still the correct configuration for this system, but first test with a repeatable benchmark or the same save location. If performance is otherwise smooth, you can wait until memory prices improve.
Lowering settings normally reduces GPU load, but it cannot guarantee a higher average FPS if the CPU, memory bandwidth, shader compilation, or game engine is already the bottleneck. Also make sure you are comparing the exact same location and situation. A camp or town area can perform differently from an open hunting area, and the overlay measurement may cover different parts of the scene.
If the lower-setting test was done in a different scene, that is probably a more likely explanation than the graphics settings somehow making the hardware slower.
The GPU sits around 65% in Monster Hunter Wilds, and I do not really experience heavy drops. I will compare frametimes and CPU usage instead of relying only on the average FPS.