really? I thought more sticks = more load on the memory controller. Have things changed?
I've always bought two sticks and added two more some time down the road and all have worked perfectly. Maybe i got lucky or something..
You probably got lucky. You'll probably have a better chance if they are all running at native speeds, which for a lot of DDR4 is 2133. But if you bought some DDR4 3200, for example, and later on added another 2 sticks of the very same part number and manufacturer DDR 3200, you may find that it will not only no longer run at 3200 but you may get crashes, kernel panics, etc. Then you'd have to down grade to a slower speed. Ideally the RAM sticks should all have the same Ranks (single or double sided), the same number of chips, the same type of chips, the same chip timings, the same etch run lengths, the same etch timings. If you don't then you may get timing differences which could cause a crash. It depnds on how important the application is. As a gamer you may not worry about crashing once or twice a month or week. As a stock trader you probably wouldn't want it crashing at all, least of it when you are in the middle of making a buy or a put. How about if you're transcoding some video and three hours into the project you get a crash?
One good reason to buy the max is to dissuade you from always doing upgrades. For instance on my G5 I went from 4GB of DDR3 4200, to 8GB of DDR3 5300 to 16GB of DDR3 6400. (Would I like to have 32GB of DDR3 RAM? Sure. But it's not worth buying anymore because PPC isn't being supported. So I relegate it to using certain apps., just like one does with a 32bit PC - since you can't go any further use it for what it was best at.) If you start with the fastest processor possible to begin with and you have the max RAM and you want higher fps in games then just go with a faster GPU, which, if you're a gamer you're very likely to do every two to three years, anyway. Same thing I did with my PC - always upgrading to a faster RAM speed, to more RAM, to a faster processor, a video card here, a video card there; always upgrading.
A gamer is usually obsessed with speed. In which case 16GB of Single Sided RAM will likely be faster than Double Sided RAM and 2 sticks will be faster than 4. Those obsessed with throughput, with bandwidth, will likely go with max RAM and double sided memory. Yes, it represents more load on the mem controller but since the mem controller is on the CPU die itself the small differences in memory speed won't equate to large gains in bandwidth throughput or fps, but they do exhibit gains nonetheless. It depends on how obsessive you are, whether or not having another 0.5 to 3 fps means anything. For example, my DDR3 2400 is reported as 2285 in OSX. Does it matter? Not to me. Someone else may rationalize that since they paid for 2400 speeds they demand that it give those speeds. In which case you may have problems running Corsair RAM on ASUS boards at the rated speeds... I say either get a faster speed from the "get-go" which should guarantee 2400 speeds or get better RAM instead of looking at the bottom price and rationalizing it as being "best bang for the buck". Most of the time one gets what one pays for.
Memory performance is all about the relationship between speed and latency. For optimal performance, install as much memory as possible, use the latest memory technology, and choose modules with as much speed as is cost-effective and/or relevant for the applications you’re using. In general, as speeds have increased, true latencies have remained approximately the same, meaning faster speeds enable you to achieve a higher level of performance. True latencies haven’t necessarily increased, just CAS latencies. And CL ratings are an inaccurate, and often misleading, indicator of true latency performance.
http://pics.crucial.com/wcsstore/CrucialSAS/pdf/en-us-c3-whitepaper-speed-vs-latency-letter.pdf
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency
Ultimately it may depend on the CPU, whether it is an i5 or an i7, or whether one bought cheap(er) RAM or the more expensive stuff or the most expensive stuff. Certainly the most expensive stuff should work as advertised. The problem is that it may not when more of it is added. In which case it is best to buy four sticks of the expensive stuff now since chances are the chips were all made on the same assembly line, they were all made on the same day from the same formulation, so they are, for all intents and purposes, identical, and therefore will likely have minimal chances of not working. Since they are identical the BIOS will set the minimum speed off the first stick instead of trying to find the slowest through a cursory scan upon power up. Typically the i5 should be used for the gamer and i7 for the video worker. But even an i7 will give faster fps in games, if only because it will probably be working at higher core speeds. So the gamer will buy a cheaper i5 then spend lots of money overclocking it to where it not only matches but beats the faster processor. Why not just buy the faster processor to begin with and not spend the extra money on cooling solutions? Same goes for RAM. Why buy slower RAM and then overclock it, adding fans over the RAM sticks, playing with voltages and RAM timings, running benchmarks and tests for hours on end, necessitating buying a better PSU, etc. Why not just buy the faster RAM to begin with? Why not just buy the better PSU to begin with?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982...e-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html
Those who do audio and video work are more concerned with bandwidth and are more likely to buy the higher grade RAM since they want the least chance of dropping a bit here or dropping a bit there. Every time you make a copy of something there's a chance that it will drop a bit or two. Those that are really obsessed with reliability will probably go with ECC RAM, and that too will slow down the system, but the extra overhead is worth it, just as those who run RAID are willing to live with higher initial costs for the extra drives. It's all a matter of what your real needs are. For now 16GB is more than enough. But just as 8GB was more than enough a few years ago, just as 4GB was more than enough even more years ago, just as 2GB was more than enough more many years ago, so also 16GB will likely be not enough in the future. If it's not then you will go out and buy more RAM, all the time only complaining that you have to pay "so much". You never realise that what you're now getting is less than what you initially paid. For example, I paid more for my 32GB of RAM than I did for my processor, $240. Today I can get 64GB of DDR4 2400 for the same price I paid for 32GB of DDR3 2400. But as consumer the only thing we see is how much something costs...
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/ever...triple-and-quad-channel-memory-architectures/
One good reason to go with max RAM is so that our SSDs won't be disk trashing (Swapping). The other is that you can have many browser(s) tabs open at the same time. I will typically have two or three browsers open at the same time, the primary browser with a dozen or two tabs open, the second with a hand full of tabs and the third with one or two tabs open. Why? Because of Flash and Java and Cookies. Some browsers want lower security settings to be able to display their pages. Why downgrade the security settings in your most secure browser when you can just run another browser with less limitations? So if a page won't render correctly in one browser I will copy/paste the URL into another browser. If you have ever fought with FireFox or Chrome you will know exactly what I mean. Having FF crash in the middle of a long post isn't fun. Trust me. It's a royal pain. The only way around that is to copy the post into a text editor on a regular basis or posting/editing regularly. Like I just did right now.
With max RAM you can also run VMs, RAM Cache and RAM apps. That will minimize how many times you access the SSD, whether reading or writing. The initial startup will be longer, just as the shutdown will be longer, but since you're already running blazingly fast what difference does it make? No matter how fast something is one always wants it even faster. In which case you may as well just buy the fastest processor with the fastest RAM with the fastest GPU.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/ever...iple-and-quad-channel-memory-architectures/8/
Realistically that can't always be done since few of us have the wherewithal to be able to afford only the best. We all have our own set prices we are willing to spend. The problem is that our society puts so many desires in front of us, always wanting us to have the biggest, the fastest, the newest, the shiniest, the bestest. It just gives us a sense of our own worth. I've already been through the overclocking phase. BTDT, it no longer appeals to me. If you really look at it you're not really saving money by buying less now and buying more later. No matter what you buy now will be obsolete two to five years down the road. But you can have more than enough today and enough tomorrow.
Another big reason to buy max RAM now is that later on down the road it will no longer be made. Everything has a cycle, high prices lead to low prices lead to high prices during the cycle life. One has to know when to get in. DDR4 4200 is now extremely expensive. Sometime in the future it will reach a price point that everyone will be upgrading. When DDR4 gets to 10800 speeds not only will no one want 4200 but it may also be impossible to find. Right now we have the choice of 2133, 2400, 2666, 2800, 3000, 3200 and 3400. Our motherboards may not be able to use the fastest stuff, though. Right now 2133 isn't being made for certain mobos, we have to settle for 2400, and if the mobo can't run at the higher speed then it will run at the lower speed. Do we ever think that it really doesn't make a difference since the price of the higher speed is the same or lower than the slower speed? Not really.
http://www.techspot.com/news/62129-ddr3-vs-ddr4-raw-bandwidth-numbers.html#commentsOffset
9 months ago I had the choice of going with a Z97 or a Z170. Skylake was having problems. I decided to go with Z97. Today the landsscape has changed, Skylake is more reliable, RAM costs half as much as the last gen. Get a 2 slot mobo and you'll end up paying twice as much for RAM, or about the same amount as last gen. I bought 2400 speed RAM and since it is faster than 2133 and the same as 2400 in DDR the logival conclusion would be to buy 3200 DDR4 RAM to see a real performance boost over DDR3 2400. But as of right now DDR3 2400 is faster than DDR4 2133 and DDR4 2400, having as much, if not more, bandwidth. Go to 64GB of DDR4 3200 though and the picture changes - then it's mo contest, the DDR4 should wipe the floor with the DDR3 2400. So if I wanted optimum performance I'd probably go with 4 sticks of 2400 than two sticks of 2133. And if I was doing video work I wouldn't go with anything less than max RAM.
You might consider Noctua fans, or other Silent fans. 
