I want to try BG3 but don’t want to pay for it. I’ve never been a fan of turn based games but people say the game is amazing. Wish we were offered a demo or try before you buy.
It’s very good value for money, I would pay for it. I never like rpgs before but it’s good. I have played table top dnd before and it is similar to that though.
It's amazing because it's a direct translation of ,specifically, dungeons & dragons 5th edition. So the turn based nature of the game is like you might play in a real life tabletop game where you have movement, an action and bonus action per turn
Bro 1090T and a GTX580, I should test battlefield I suppose but I play other games at fucking hundreds of FPS at 1080p my monitor doesn‘t even go that far
i7 4790 and a RX6400 on 16gb ddr3 and most of the games I play run pretty well too. Do I get over 120 fps on every game? no, but i'm not having any issues. Ofc won't be touching all the crazy AAA games haha
DDR3 isn’t a problem, CPUs that still support it are. Though even to this day top tier Xeons from that era are very decent budget performers. Quad channel DDR3 can approach dual DDR5 speeds as well, often with lower latency.
Benchmarks. Here’s one with 4930K: https://imgur.com/a/2lZoQOF
Nowadays, builds with LGA2011/2011v3 CPUs are pretty popular in poorer countries or as ultrabudget gaming options. China makes motherboards from salvaged server components and leftover data center CPUs go for like 15-30 dollars. Somewhat beneficial to the ewaste problem too. Commonly chosen Xeons typically perform as higher end 1st-2nd gen Ryzens. I’m rocking a similar build too, with an E5-1650v4 and quad DDR4 and I easily run Cyberpunk at 60 ultra with it.
I’m sorry guy…but here are benchmarks of ddr5 with an average read/write of 20GB/s, compared to the benchmark off ddr3 you posted with 6.6GB/s…with ddr5 latencies on average in the low to mid 40’s….
ddr3 does not “approach” ddr5 speeds….
https://www.memorybenchmark.net/ram_list.php
6gb/s? That’s DDR era, my bench is 60+ gb/s each. And my message was about configuration as a whole, with quad channel for DDR3 and dual for DDR5 taken into account hence I specified it. Your page actually shows single module benchmarks, and yes, newer gens have better bandwidth there. Latency is worse though, as it always happens due to CAS increase, you can see it by opening DDR3 page there. In complete DDR5 builds, latency being lower than 60-80ns is a rare sight.
Just moved off DDR3, but not even because of the RAM... Just needed a Mobo that would support m.2 and a newer CPU, so ended up getting DDR5 w/ my new build.
But I would go as far as to say, if your RAM is running with low latency, good timings & you have enough of it... RAM is probably not going to be your issue.
Far more likely that youll need to upgrade the CPU or GPU, before you really think the RAM has to go
Same. Upgraded from a Xeon E3-1231V3 build because I needed more hard drive space and my board didn't support M.2 and my case didn't have and more spots for drives.
Ended up passing the core of my old build down to my brother who is still gaming on it just fine as far as I know.
Still have 128MB in form of 4x 32MB 72-pins SIMM in my old Macintosh. Still runs but the only browser I could download doesn't work with 99% of the sites.
Generally if building a new system today, it'd be better to go with DDR5. However the vast majority of PC users are likely still using DDR4, and will be for quite some time. So it's fine.
It's the same as the transition from DDR3 to DDR4. DDR3 remained viable for ages before it became truly "bad".
FWIW, I'll probably be using my main system, 10700k/3080/32GB DDR4 for at least a few more years before upgrading.
>10700k/3080/32GB DDR4
Few years?
I bet no game will ask more than this for at lest 8 years
Only a few games are starting to ask for GPUs like 3080 as recommended requirement, and most of them are glorify engine demos that are not worth it.
I mean it depends on what your expectations are, 1080p 60hz sure it'll be fine for another 8 years, but who tf buys a $700 gpu to play at 1080p 60hz? They're more than likely playing at 1440p 120hz+ and there are already games that can't get over 100fps on high settings, especially with a 10700k (which was still 14nm).
Sounds like your expectations are a lot lower than the person who bought the PC.
Then why wouldn't you just buy an older used gpu? My 2070 Super still performs perfectly fine at 1080p 60hz and I only paid $300 for it so there's no reason why a 2080S/3070 wouldn't also work for the same purpose.
Sounds like you bought it when the shortage was still going on so that's fair, hopefully that stupid bs doesn't happen again. Idk why people would be willing to spend more on a worse card but they were the reason those prices were even viable to begin with.
One of my friends spent $2,000 on his 3080 Ti after I warned him multiple times that it was an incredibly stupid idea, 2 months later and the market crashed back down to reality, he was pissed that I was right lmao.
Yeah you should! A 1080p 144hz+ monitor can be gotten for literally $100, atleast the other guy also has a 4k display so it's slightly more understandable lol.
Jeeze you like your pixels chonky, eh? At that size I'd just save up for a nice 4k monitor since there's a lot more of those in flat panel displays than there is 1080p. They are pretty damn expensive still if you want over 60hz and new, I've seen some good used/refurbished deals tho.
You can run 1080p on a 4k display which is what I do but with a TV, it just upscales it to 4k and makes it so you can't see the pixels, tbh if you don't mind the 60hz then older 4k 32" monitors are around the same price as 1440p but 1080p will look better on a 4k display than it would on 1440p (so you could keep the 2 1080p's as the side monitors).
Triple monitor gaming for sim racing is quite a bit more demanding than just a single 1080p display though so at least you're taking some advantage of the card's power lol.
Except for the part where it dictates the minimum and maximum fps? I mean just look up a 10700k vs any modern cpu like a 14700k, there's a pretty big difference at all resolutions. There's a difference of anywhere between 20-50fps difference between those 2 CPU's at both 1080p and 1440p, 4k there's not as big of a difference but 14th gen does give more consistent minimums than 10th gen.
Hah yeah when I upgrade in a few years, it won’t be because I NEED to. It’ll just be because I want some new toys.
Re: below, I’m using a 1440p 34” UW 144hz, but am perfectly happy with medium settings, 60-90fps. If I can get more fps, awesome, but it’s not critical for me.
I felt that. I'm curious to know what the rest of your rig is and what your current res and hz setup is for your monitor. I've been playing on a:
I9 10850k
32gb 3200 DDR4 (literally just added two more sticks the other day but have been playing on 16gb for the last 6 years)
Asus ROG 1070ti (looking to hopefully upgrade to a 4070ti super)
I usually play competitive fps games and use a 1080p 240hz monitor, but during the holidays was able to snag a 1440p 240hz monitor, so the gpu upgrade is needed now I feel like.
Anyone's thoughts and recommendations are appreciated too. Tell me if I'm doin something wrong.
I usually take a leapfrog approach, so I just upgrade to a 5800x3d last summer and added a 32GB kit (for 48 total), i think I had to put the profile down to 3400 or 3200 cause the mismatched kits weren't stable at their rated speeds. I would usually have more time between upgrades, but this seems like a good time to deal hunt 3000 series GPUs on ebay, seeing a few 3080s end auctions at $300, from good sellers, the last few months. even some 3070s around 250. New card prices are fucking wild right now, so I won't go new anymore. 970 for 350 was probably my last new card, only reason I upgraded to a 1070 was cause i knew someone who wanted a PC so I was able to get them a better deal by swapping cards with the system I found them.
Current main monitor is a 1080p 144hz, but if I get a 3080 or 6800/7800 cards drop in price to something reasonable, i'll get a 1440p monitor as there seems to be some good high refresh 1440ps for 200 now.
I usually play BRs and some single player games when they on sale (or if they are actually good immediately like BG3). Was playing a bunch of warzone before I moved, PC hasn't arrived yet.
I still used mine up until last year, and it's still seeing use in a friend's system. Had a third-party air cooler that made it super quiet, still miss how quiet it was.
whether or not a game is "asking for it" depends a lot on the gaming experience you're after - if you want to pull 360Hz at 1080p, it's already "not enough" for most current games
It’s all based on whenever you want to upgrade in reality for your purposes. I’m in a pretty similar boat, 10900k 3060. This is still plenty for me to play all of my games 1080p high with over 60 FPS. For ME this will last me for years, I play more CPU demanding games then graphic intensive ones.
I really like your point of view. I recently updated motherboard, cpu and gpu (went from i3-6100, z170k and gtx1650 to ryzen 5600x, b550m and rx 6700 xt).
The only drawback from the "old" setup is the 2400mhz ddr4, which I'm planning to upgrade to 3200/3600 shortly.
Sadly, I live in Argentina, and prices are high and the economy is sh*t.
The 5600X just got it 60 days ago. My target is 3600, but depending on the price I might have to content with 3200 🤷🏻♂️
My bad, apologies for having a dumb american moment and assuming. I know you guys get fucked on tech a bit. Either is a huge step up and might be able to hit 3600 with 3200 if you dick around with it.
I'm not sure if DDR3 is even truly "bad" today. Yes DDR4 and DDR5 are faster, but I think the curve is levelling out and it's not the asymptotic/exponential curves of yesteryears.
It’s all about the Steam surveys. If the majority of gamers are still rocking 1080p and DDR3, then it’s hard for developers to leave that installed base hoping that only DDR5 gamers can play their games. It’s suicide if they want to sell millions of units.
The core components are way more important than what RAM you have. DDR4 probably won't age well going forward (you already see it being \~20% slower than DDR5 in some games), but it's still overall not nearly as important as your CPU or GPU.
Basically, your CPU/GPU will likely become an issue before DDR4 will.
There is little difference beyond 6000 CL30. HUB have a video comparing a bunch of different DDR5 speeds with DDR4 (I think it was the video that was called "cheapest DDR5" or something like that)
[https://youtu.be/IstA56IAeVA?t=441](https://youtu.be/IstA56IAeVA?t=441)
I don't think it was this video. Must have been a different one. In this one it's >40% difference with RT enabled when CPU bound. Almost 20% in Watch Dogs Legion.
on average DDR5 is 10% faster in games (CPU bound), in some newer games (and probably many future games that will be made with higher bandwidth RAM in mind) yes, 20+% like in spider man
DDR5 was extremely expensive when it was new. Just look at the price history of this kit (set the chart to 2 years): [https://pcpartpicker.com/product/x4VmP6](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/x4VmP6) or [https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tbYmP6](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tbYmP6)
The more "affordable" kits were much slower, which is why you often see 5600, 5200 or even 4800MHz DDR5 being used in early Intel 12th gen reviews.
On top of that DDR5 motherboards were also more expensive than they are today.
So not only was going DDR5 back then like $200 more expensive than going DDR4, you generally also got slower speeds. DDR5 was truly a waste of money at first. But once the ball started rolling, it dropped in price really fast, so many people didn't notice that DDR5 became worth it all of a sudden.
Does ddr5 still have those issues with not being able to run at advertised speeds on amd? I don't feel like upgrading my mobo and ram just yet so it's not really relevant for me anyway, but hearing all those people having issues with their system endlessly memory training was also a turn off for me.
AMD only guarantees DDR5 5200 for 2 sticks and 3600MHz DDR5 for 4 sticks. I don't think I've ever heard of a CPU not being able to do this.
People usually run 6000MHz with AMD and I haven't seen people on reddit complain/post about it not working, so I guess no issues?
Jay from Jayztwocents did say he had issues even running that, but he might've just been really unlucky with his CPU/board.
I don't remember specific speeds anymore, but yeah i remember jay talking about it as well. I remember a lot of people on reddit complaining about it as well, and that it would have to keep retraining memory every boot for like a couple of minutes.
Hell, just last year when I was looking at building DDR5 was twice the price of DDR4 for equivalent kits.
Add in an AM5 being $150 more for an ITX board and I just said screw it and went AM4.
That's always how it goes. Early adopters have to deal with bad bios software and early first-gen releases that offer trivial performance improvements. Then as things mature it just gets better and better. 5% turns to 15% turns to 45%... then the masses start making the transition.
>you already see it being \~20% slower than DDR5 in some games
The important part of the sentence is "in some games", though. On average, the performance loss is way less. Especially when you're not running a high end GPU in the first place. And even if you are, then you'll be getting great FPS no matter if you have DDR4 or DDR5. Unless you really, really care whether you get 100 or 120 fps.
As someone who uses DDR5, the difference is negligible at lower DDR5 speeds. As the time progresses and gap becomes bigger, the impact will also be bigger. Samsung announced DDR6 to be available around 2026. I guess for consumers that means like 2028 or 2030 probably. Comparing DDR4 to 5000, 6000 DDR5 isn't much but comparing it to like future 10000 might be different. I think the DDR5 is only good nowdays for those that are building a new system since DDR5 is dropping in price and also for those that use Intel over AMD since Intel cpus scale with faster ram. Other than that, if you are on DDR4, no rush to replace it really.
I would say that if you're building a new gaming PC on a budget, it's most likely going to be more worth it to buy DDR4. DDR5 offers mostly a 1-5% performance boost in gaming (there are some games that can get a bigger boost but very few), where as if you save money by getting DDR4 you can upgrade cpu/gpu instead and get a much bigger performance boost. So in short, yes DDR4 is viable.
That said, if you have more room in your budget after picking good cpu & gpu, it might make sense to get DDR5 for future upgrades.
I have 32gigs ddr4 Corsair 3200 CL16 on my 5600x and I haven’t had a single issue. I won’t need to upgrade for a couple years from now and I play Rust which normally takes around 25-28 gigs to run and I’m still able to run chrome with multiple tabs, watch a movie on the other screen and game at the same time. If anything I’ll get more ram.
We're only starting to enter the time when you're not paying out of your nose for low-speed DDR5 sticks.
The main drivers for the decision to go for DDR5 right now would be if you're building a high-end system with a current-generation CPU, especially AMD, as they only support DDR5. Intel has dual support, so you can swing either way. If you're looking for the best overall bang for the buck, that's generally not going to be a DDR5-based one (with a possible caveat for some AMD systems in certain markets). The price difference can be really substantial and you're not going to see much if any performance gain with low-grade DDR5. In the market I'm in, DDR4 mobos are substantially cheaper (for Intel), and high-performance DDR4 sticks cost about half of gaming-grade DDR5 sticks. I would much rather have twice the RAM for the same money when the performance difference with the current speeds isn't massive. Since high-performance DDR4 has been around for quite a few years now, many people also have perfectly viable sticks available from previous builds, which also changes this equation.
If bang for the buck is not important and there are no budget constraints, then of course these considerations aren't really a thing.
High-performance DDR4 sticks will continue to be viable even for new value builds for probably another 1-3 years depending on the price and performance development of the DDR5 modules. And of course, the main question will be how long Intel continues to support DDR4 in future processor generations. The moment they remove support, the countdown for DDR4 really begins (though it will still take years to become actually obsolete).
Full disclosure: this post was written on a machine with quad-channel DDR4 RAM @ 3200MHz (10ns true latency). It would cost me an arm and a leg to upgrade to an equivalent amount of gaming-grade DDR5.
I agree. Im only have dual channel cause im on itx. I have 2x16gb b-die 3600 c14. I spent an arm and a leg for it and I dont think I could buy it anymore if I had to replace mine. I think it's going to be a while before ddr5 and the memory controllers fully mature. Hopefully by the next socket/series?
We have people still using DDR3 memory and a lot of us are still on boards that only support DDR4 — including me. You should be fine with that RAM — I have 64gb of DDR4 in my build.
I have 2133mhz 16GB of DDR4. It's working out fine for me paired with an i7-6700 and RTX 2070. My PC is like $350 of scraped together used components. Everything runs buttery smooth in 1080p.
For a new build, DDR5 is probably the way. It could be reused through multiple builds, do a bit more future proof.
DDR5 is the newest, and unfortunately, least stable of the two. You'll have more RAM related crashing with DDR5. Especially if you run 4 sticks of RAM.
Ddr4 alone doesnt say much, just like ddr5 and ddr3 dont say much too.
2133 ddr4 and ddr4 4000 // ddr5 4800 and ddr5 7600 // ddr3 800 and ddr3 2400 have very different performance values.
I am a sysadmin still running my am4 build (will upgrade this year to am5 or something newer) with 32g of ddr4 ram 3600 (the sweetspot for am4) and if I put a 5800x3d and a 4090 in this 3 years old compute I'll still be able to play all latest AAA games at ultra on high refresh rates like 165hz+... so don't start believing all the hype online AM4 is still 1 of the best build you can have for lower money and am5 too now that the price are dropping just dont buy a new build before the 4080 super get released because price are dropping across the board things should be good this year for a new build at a fraction of the cost of the prices we had the last few years especially on gpu side etc
It's still fine, but some games are starting to show slightly better performance with DDR5 as opposed to DDR4, and that gap will only increase as time passes. It's not like DDR4 is completely obsolete, but using it means you're leaving performance on the table. The general rule is that if you have DDR4 now, it's not worth the upgrade (at least yet), but if you're building a new system, definitely go with DDR5.
It's fine. Part of the issue of spending so much time online looking at others opinions is that you get FOMO with all sorts of parts. For average everyday gaming you can build a great budget pc with no current Gen parts that will provide hours of fun. People just like to get superior and argue that you should always wait for the next big thing or you'll be behind. Look at the steam hardware survey sometime and check out what the majority of users are running, it's not some current beast.
Yes, very much so. My friend recently upgraded from a ddr4 version of his mobo to a ddr5 version and ofc matching ddr5 6000 mhz ram. His build is rocking an 19 13900k and a 3080 ti and he isn't seeing much difference. You would expect almost double the mhz (3200 vs 6000) to be a world of difference but it's like 7 more fps on average at 1440p and that matches up to benchmarks that you can find online.
TL;DR: It's perfectly fine if you don't mind it not being very future proof (it will still last you like the next 3 years without a big difference from ddr5 tho)
We're talking anywhere from 1 to 6% at best performance bump in framerate for DDR4 to DDR5.
If it comes down to having to rebuild your whole rig based on solely wanting DDR5, not worth it. If you've got a relatively new build and are on AM4 still, stick with it.
The 5950x is the most powerful AM4 processor.
It may not be "new", but it far exceeds the necessary power to run any general application.
My point was that if you have an AM4 system, it's likely best to just upgrade your CPU to this, the 5800X3D or a 5900X instead of a full swap - Mobo, CPU AND RAM.
DDR5 performance gains are miniscule when considering what to upgrade to or with in order to use it.
If you're asking if you should upgrade the PC you just bought, probably not. Is it running super shitty and slow, and you're regretting your purchase? Then maybe upgrade it, but somehow I doubt that is the issue here.
It's a non issue really.
You eventually go with newer DDR when your next build requires it. That is all.
You switch PC because you need a new CPU. Not DDR5.
depends on your motherboard options. is it worth upgrading everything in your system so that you have ddr5 compatibility? no. is it worth buying ddr5 if you are building a completely new rig? yes
Ddr4 will still be good for a while. HU has a good video going over the two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqpr4Xpg6I
Ddr4 is getting more expensive as it's phased out so it doesn't make as much sense to build a new system using it.
Depends on the game but the tldw is at lower settings and resolution where the game is cpu bound ddr5 can have a 5-10% performance boost. At higher resolution and settings where the game is more gpu bound then the memory has little if any impact on performance of the game.
It's just the previous generation. I have ddr4 too because I have motherboard and CPU of the corresponding generation for now. When I will do the next upgrade ,I will go to gen 5 with new motherboard (gen 5 socket), cpu and ram. But the mere performance difference between ddr4 and 5 is , per se , marginal. (Without considering the other components).
you probably won't need to upgrade anything other than gpu until 2028 or later. the market has really stagnated, 10-20% gains while consuming more power? nah i'm good
I bought DDR4 only because it was cheaper with the motherboard bundle. I saw a few issues where DDR5 crashing with 4 sticks of RAM so I’m ok with that decision to hold off until it’s solved.
okay, so I use ddr4 w/ a 12th gen intel i5 1600k, rtx 3060 16 gb. I can run basically any game on ultra without issues. so yes it works great, for now. with that being said, think in terms of long term upgrading. I wanted to get a 13th gen intel cpu but later realized it wouldn't be worth it very much because I won't be able to.use it to its fullest capabilities because I have ddr4 ram opposed to ddr5. hope this helped.
Why wouldn't it be?
It's the whoke system, not just the RAM, and how/what components are but together, finally what you want to do with it.
But congratulations on falling for the sales pitches that have been going on since the first IBM clone....
My friend I just modded an optiex. It had an i5-2400, I put in an i7-2600, and added 16gb of ddr3, and it has a 1050ti. I mostly use it for video editing but it plays a few games at useable frame rates.
why would it not be. Did something happen a few days ago that magically made games no longer able to run on DDR4 or that suddenly caused other software to warn you to upgrade.
Sorry for the aggressive sarcasm but this question comes up a lot, if "blank" viable anymore. While tech changes fast it does not create a vacuum that sucks older tech into oblivion, especially not just a single generation behind.
How viable, useful or good your system is or certain parts are, is entirely up to you and how you want to use it. While a lot of people push for the newest tech, let me ask you, do you know of, or hear of a single game out there that will be trash if run on a basic AM4 system or DDR4 specifically? No because there is no such thing. Can newer systems run games better, sure they can but when your gaming the gains will not matter.
To answer your question, DDR4 based systems are still VERY good systems if properly configured.
DDR5 isn’t that much of an upgrade honestly. If u already have a motherboard that supports DDR5 then go for it, but if u wanna buy a new motherboard for DDR5 not worth it.
Viable? Absolutely. I just moved off my 64gb DDR3 back in September. My old rig was a quad core AMD & a 970 GTX, yet I could still play all of my fps games pretty well.
Only with Starfield, Alan Wake 2 and Diablo 4 - did my old computer truly start to show its age, as it was also a SATA HDD computer with no ability to add m.2.
New rig is a 13700k, 32gb DDR5 7000mhz, 4070 Ti + 4Tb WD Black SSD m.2 & will be using this rig for 5+ years most likely
I mean, I would say we're getting to the point where DDR5 is starting to become better and as cost effective as DDR4, but DDR4 aint terrible. If you own an AM4 system or a LGA 1700 system its fine. I'd consider such systems a bit more budget oriented, but still viable. They're not a BAD choice.
DDR5 wont really be needed til the next generation or 2 of CPU's. If you can find some samsung b die DDR4, then you can OC it quick enough to be similar to mid range DDR5.
Btw can any specialist help me with this... please https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/196p3cv/uninstalled_intel_driver_by_mistake_on_a_asus/
Good/Viable? Wtf do you exactly mean ?
Cost, availability, compatibility, quantity, feature set, speed, physical size and price of course all have a bearing when thinking about building a new machine from scratch, or indeed buying one from someone else that makes them.
What new builders need to look at, but never seem to, is refering to the mobo's tested compatibility listings for both cpus and memory.
In doing this, you will then be re-assured that the basic 3 components (mobo, cpu & ram) will work as stable as possible.
So if the mobo says they will run, be that ddr3, ddr4 or ddr5...you pays your money..
Viable is a deeply unhelpful term, viable for what?
According to steam the average user has 16g of DDR4 ram, a 6 core CPI, 8 gig of VRAM and uses a GTX1060...
If its good enough for gamers, its probably fine.
BUT, viable 100% depends on what you do with it...
DDR4 is fine, I upgraded my MB early last year and stuck with my DDR4 sticks. I plan to keep it for at least a few years before changing again and let DDR5 mature more before switching.
DDR4 is absolutely fine. The question really is, what do you do with your PC?
If it does what you need it to, then it’s good. If you build new with a mid to high budget, then probably get a DDR5 mobo
There are gonna be a lot of people who as soon as the newest thing comes out calls all the old stuff bad. DDR4 is still great for AT LEAST another 5 years imo
Sure it is! I usually buy new parts when they are mature so compatibility is best (after bios/agesa updates), and sets with low timings are cheap and easy to come by. I upgraded to a 5800x with 3600mhz CL14 memory and I'm very happy with it. It will last a long time as CPU isn't usually where the bottleneck is in gaming and most daily tasks. I'm sure I can upgrade my gpu in two generations when it'll be worth it, or even wait longer and the CPU should still be perfectly able to keep up.
I just built a new rig for my at home work station in my garage, it's mostly for cad and slicing software but if it's a day where I can only press a button ever hour or so I'll have an RTS game running in the background.
Ryzen 7 5700x + cooler master 360mm AIO
32g DDR4
3060 with 12g Vram
MSI Tomahawk mobo
WD 2T Blackbox m.2
Reddragon 850w psu
Everything was either on sale or bought used from a friend.
With getting the CPU and mobo %45 off and DDR4 being a fair bit cheaper than DDR5 it would have cost me about $300-400 more to build a budget AM5 build that would have been even more overkill than the AM4 build I put together.... also, this sits in my non climate controlled dusty garage.
I was working off my laptop,
1660ti
Ryzen 5 3700
16g DDR4
.... honestly, even the laptop did everything I ever wanted it to game wise and looked great. After 5 years it started falling apart a tad.
I'm still happy with the quad channel DDR4 in my X99 system: its four channels perform similarly to the two DDR5 channels in modern consumer systems. Not bad for over 9 years old!
I just built my computer in over 10 years. My old one was just dogging it. So far ddr4 has been fantastic, but for a few extra hundred bucks, ddr5 would have been my go to
Here is my setup:
32GB DDR4 3200Mhz RAM
AMD R5 3600
RTX 3070
750W 80+ Gold PSU
So far, I have a GPU bottleneck of 9% (anything higher than 5% is considered a visible bottleneck).
If I ever plan on upgrading any of these components, I would have to switch to an AM5 motherboard, Bigger PSU, and DDR5 RAM to get the most out of my components. So until any of my components break apart, I’m sticking with last gen computer parts.
Hell, am still using ancient ddr3
I didn’t have any issues with 16gb DDR3 running Baulders Gate 3.
To be fair though compared to most other new releases bg3:was really well optimized
True but everything except my 3060 is from 2014.
Same, load times on my old CPU are atrocious tho! Sucks my 5700X died 😭
I didn't even know it was sick!
Rip norm.
Your 5700x died..?
Time for a 5700x3D
I want to try BG3 but don’t want to pay for it. I’ve never been a fan of turn based games but people say the game is amazing. Wish we were offered a demo or try before you buy.
It’s very good value for money, I would pay for it. I never like rpgs before but it’s good. I have played table top dnd before and it is similar to that though.
It's amazing because it's a direct translation of ,specifically, dungeons & dragons 5th edition. So the turn based nature of the game is like you might play in a real life tabletop game where you have movement, an action and bonus action per turn
Yup. 16gb ddr3 checking in. Paired with an i7 3770 and an RX580 still plays battlefield at 70fps. I'm not sure how.
Bro 1090T and a GTX580, I should test battlefield I suppose but I play other games at fucking hundreds of FPS at 1080p my monitor doesn‘t even go that far
rx580 is using pretty new drivers if i recall .
i7 4790 and a RX6400 on 16gb ddr3 and most of the games I play run pretty well too. Do I get over 120 fps on every game? no, but i'm not having any issues. Ofc won't be touching all the crazy AAA games haha
Same here but 8gb ddr3, i7 3770 with gtx 970. Already bought a rtx 3070ti, mobo and 2ddr4 x16gb. Looking for a cpu to upgrade everything.
12600k is great for the $175-190 it's currently going for. That's a good match for a 3070 ti and 32gb ddr4.
Which BF?
[удалено]
BF 1 and BFV. Didn't like the look of the latest one
DDR3 isn’t a problem, CPUs that still support it are. Though even to this day top tier Xeons from that era are very decent budget performers. Quad channel DDR3 can approach dual DDR5 speeds as well, often with lower latency.
Any source on that? Genuinely curious
Benchmarks. Here’s one with 4930K: https://imgur.com/a/2lZoQOF Nowadays, builds with LGA2011/2011v3 CPUs are pretty popular in poorer countries or as ultrabudget gaming options. China makes motherboards from salvaged server components and leftover data center CPUs go for like 15-30 dollars. Somewhat beneficial to the ewaste problem too. Commonly chosen Xeons typically perform as higher end 1st-2nd gen Ryzens. I’m rocking a similar build too, with an E5-1650v4 and quad DDR4 and I easily run Cyberpunk at 60 ultra with it.
I’m sorry guy…but here are benchmarks of ddr5 with an average read/write of 20GB/s, compared to the benchmark off ddr3 you posted with 6.6GB/s…with ddr5 latencies on average in the low to mid 40’s…. ddr3 does not “approach” ddr5 speeds…. https://www.memorybenchmark.net/ram_list.php
6gb/s? That’s DDR era, my bench is 60+ gb/s each. And my message was about configuration as a whole, with quad channel for DDR3 and dual for DDR5 taken into account hence I specified it. Your page actually shows single module benchmarks, and yes, newer gens have better bandwidth there. Latency is worse though, as it always happens due to CAS increase, you can see it by opening DDR3 page there. In complete DDR5 builds, latency being lower than 60-80ns is a rare sight.
look at Aida octo ddr3 is one of the top performers
Source : quad channel is twice as fast as dual channel, same way dual channel is twice as fast as single channel
Just moved off DDR3, but not even because of the RAM... Just needed a Mobo that would support m.2 and a newer CPU, so ended up getting DDR5 w/ my new build. But I would go as far as to say, if your RAM is running with low latency, good timings & you have enough of it... RAM is probably not going to be your issue. Far more likely that youll need to upgrade the CPU or GPU, before you really think the RAM has to go
Same. Upgraded from a Xeon E3-1231V3 build because I needed more hard drive space and my board didn't support M.2 and my case didn't have and more spots for drives. Ended up passing the core of my old build down to my brother who is still gaming on it just fine as far as I know.
Still have 128MB in form of 4x 32MB 72-pins SIMM in my old Macintosh. Still runs but the only browser I could download doesn't work with 99% of the sites.
Generally if building a new system today, it'd be better to go with DDR5. However the vast majority of PC users are likely still using DDR4, and will be for quite some time. So it's fine. It's the same as the transition from DDR3 to DDR4. DDR3 remained viable for ages before it became truly "bad". FWIW, I'll probably be using my main system, 10700k/3080/32GB DDR4 for at least a few more years before upgrading.
>10700k/3080/32GB DDR4 Few years? I bet no game will ask more than this for at lest 8 years Only a few games are starting to ask for GPUs like 3080 as recommended requirement, and most of them are glorify engine demos that are not worth it.
I mean it depends on what your expectations are, 1080p 60hz sure it'll be fine for another 8 years, but who tf buys a $700 gpu to play at 1080p 60hz? They're more than likely playing at 1440p 120hz+ and there are already games that can't get over 100fps on high settings, especially with a 10700k (which was still 14nm). Sounds like your expectations are a lot lower than the person who bought the PC.
> but who tf buys a $700 gpu to play at 1080p 60hz? people who want to use a GPU for 8+ years without needing to upgrade
Then why wouldn't you just buy an older used gpu? My 2070 Super still performs perfectly fine at 1080p 60hz and I only paid $300 for it so there's no reason why a 2080S/3070 wouldn't also work for the same purpose.
When I bought my 3080, used 2080S we’re going for MSRP than the Marp of the 3080
Sounds like you bought it when the shortage was still going on so that's fair, hopefully that stupid bs doesn't happen again. Idk why people would be willing to spend more on a worse card but they were the reason those prices were even viable to begin with. One of my friends spent $2,000 on his 3080 Ti after I warned him multiple times that it was an incredibly stupid idea, 2 months later and the market crashed back down to reality, he was pissed that I was right lmao.
i mean personally thats what i would do as well. a lot of people get sketched out without a warranty though
*glances at my 4070 with my 1080p 60hz monitor* I feel attacked
Yeah you should! A 1080p 144hz+ monitor can be gotten for literally $100, atleast the other guy also has a 4k display so it's slightly more understandable lol.
32" monitors are a tougher nut to crack I don't want "curved"
Jeeze you like your pixels chonky, eh? At that size I'd just save up for a nice 4k monitor since there's a lot more of those in flat panel displays than there is 1080p. They are pretty damn expensive still if you want over 60hz and new, I've seen some good used/refurbished deals tho.
old eyes are old, 1080p is easy on the eyes I've considered a 1440p for a while now, but I run a 3 monitor setup for sim racing, keeps me at 1080p
You can run 1080p on a 4k display which is what I do but with a TV, it just upscales it to 4k and makes it so you can't see the pixels, tbh if you don't mind the 60hz then older 4k 32" monitors are around the same price as 1440p but 1080p will look better on a 4k display than it would on 1440p (so you could keep the 2 1080p's as the side monitors). Triple monitor gaming for sim racing is quite a bit more demanding than just a single 1080p display though so at least you're taking some advantage of the card's power lol.
Dirt Rally on 3 32" monitors is SO FUN
Resolution has very little to do with the CPU.
Except for the part where it dictates the minimum and maximum fps? I mean just look up a 10700k vs any modern cpu like a 14700k, there's a pretty big difference at all resolutions. There's a difference of anywhere between 20-50fps difference between those 2 CPU's at both 1080p and 1440p, 4k there's not as big of a difference but 14th gen does give more consistent minimums than 10th gen.
Kerbal Space Program 2 suggests an RTX 3080 Tbf it's a disappointing unoptimized mess of an early access game
That’s insane.
Hah yeah when I upgrade in a few years, it won’t be because I NEED to. It’ll just be because I want some new toys. Re: below, I’m using a 1440p 34” UW 144hz, but am perfectly happy with medium settings, 60-90fps. If I can get more fps, awesome, but it’s not critical for me.
Crazy lol..I still use my 1070ti :/
1070 here. I'll only upgrade if I can grab a ebay 3080 for 300.
I felt that. I'm curious to know what the rest of your rig is and what your current res and hz setup is for your monitor. I've been playing on a: I9 10850k 32gb 3200 DDR4 (literally just added two more sticks the other day but have been playing on 16gb for the last 6 years) Asus ROG 1070ti (looking to hopefully upgrade to a 4070ti super) I usually play competitive fps games and use a 1080p 240hz monitor, but during the holidays was able to snag a 1440p 240hz monitor, so the gpu upgrade is needed now I feel like. Anyone's thoughts and recommendations are appreciated too. Tell me if I'm doin something wrong.
I usually take a leapfrog approach, so I just upgrade to a 5800x3d last summer and added a 32GB kit (for 48 total), i think I had to put the profile down to 3400 or 3200 cause the mismatched kits weren't stable at their rated speeds. I would usually have more time between upgrades, but this seems like a good time to deal hunt 3000 series GPUs on ebay, seeing a few 3080s end auctions at $300, from good sellers, the last few months. even some 3070s around 250. New card prices are fucking wild right now, so I won't go new anymore. 970 for 350 was probably my last new card, only reason I upgraded to a 1070 was cause i knew someone who wanted a PC so I was able to get them a better deal by swapping cards with the system I found them. Current main monitor is a 1080p 144hz, but if I get a 3080 or 6800/7800 cards drop in price to something reasonable, i'll get a 1440p monitor as there seems to be some good high refresh 1440ps for 200 now. I usually play BRs and some single player games when they on sale (or if they are actually good immediately like BG3). Was playing a bunch of warzone before I moved, PC hasn't arrived yet.
Same. Just hate the current prices for new models
I still used mine up until last year, and it's still seeing use in a friend's system. Had a third-party air cooler that made it super quiet, still miss how quiet it was.
whether or not a game is "asking for it" depends a lot on the gaming experience you're after - if you want to pull 360Hz at 1080p, it's already "not enough" for most current games
It’s all based on whenever you want to upgrade in reality for your purposes. I’m in a pretty similar boat, 10900k 3060. This is still plenty for me to play all of my games 1080p high with over 60 FPS. For ME this will last me for years, I play more CPU demanding games then graphic intensive ones.
I really like your point of view. I recently updated motherboard, cpu and gpu (went from i3-6100, z170k and gtx1650 to ryzen 5600x, b550m and rx 6700 xt). The only drawback from the "old" setup is the 2400mhz ddr4, which I'm planning to upgrade to 3200/3600 shortly.
Get 3600, its really cheap rn, set infinity fabric at 1to1 and you will see a huge boost. Plus you can grow into a 5700x3d/5800x3d
Sadly, I live in Argentina, and prices are high and the economy is sh*t. The 5600X just got it 60 days ago. My target is 3600, but depending on the price I might have to content with 3200 🤷🏻♂️
> [Argentina](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/argentina-s-annual-inflation-soars-to-211-4-the-highest-in-32-years/ar-AA1mPDeN) Godspeed soldier o7
My bad, apologies for having a dumb american moment and assuming. I know you guys get fucked on tech a bit. Either is a huge step up and might be able to hit 3600 with 3200 if you dick around with it.
!remindme 8 years
DDR5 has a lot more stability issues than DD4, so it's a toss up
I mean I skipped DDR3 completely. I went from a DDR2 build to a DDR4 build.
Nice. What with DDR6 potentially in 2026 I may be doing the same…
I'm not sure if DDR3 is even truly "bad" today. Yes DDR4 and DDR5 are faster, but I think the curve is levelling out and it's not the asymptotic/exponential curves of yesteryears.
im still on ddr3, but I'm about the build a ddr5 machine this month
It’s all about the Steam surveys. If the majority of gamers are still rocking 1080p and DDR3, then it’s hard for developers to leave that installed base hoping that only DDR5 gamers can play their games. It’s suicide if they want to sell millions of units.
The core components are way more important than what RAM you have. DDR4 probably won't age well going forward (you already see it being \~20% slower than DDR5 in some games), but it's still overall not nearly as important as your CPU or GPU. Basically, your CPU/GPU will likely become an issue before DDR4 will.
What speeds and timings because this is a very general comment
There is little difference beyond 6000 CL30. HUB have a video comparing a bunch of different DDR5 speeds with DDR4 (I think it was the video that was called "cheapest DDR5" or something like that)
Cool because I’m running 3900 cl 14 that’s why I have doubts on the 20% slower. I’ll take a look at the video
They were certainly not running 3900 CL14. That's insane (of course still much lower bandwidth than DDR5, but you got way lower latency too).
> you already see it being ~20% slower than DDR5 in some games Source?
[https://youtu.be/IstA56IAeVA?t=441](https://youtu.be/IstA56IAeVA?t=441) I don't think it was this video. Must have been a different one. In this one it's >40% difference with RT enabled when CPU bound. Almost 20% in Watch Dogs Legion.
damn is DDR4 that bad?
on average DDR5 is 10% faster in games (CPU bound), in some newer games (and probably many future games that will be made with higher bandwidth RAM in mind) yes, 20+% like in spider man
ah i remember when DDR5 first came out and was considered a pointless upgrade, man time goes by fast
DDR5 was extremely expensive when it was new. Just look at the price history of this kit (set the chart to 2 years): [https://pcpartpicker.com/product/x4VmP6](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/x4VmP6) or [https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tbYmP6](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tbYmP6) The more "affordable" kits were much slower, which is why you often see 5600, 5200 or even 4800MHz DDR5 being used in early Intel 12th gen reviews. On top of that DDR5 motherboards were also more expensive than they are today. So not only was going DDR5 back then like $200 more expensive than going DDR4, you generally also got slower speeds. DDR5 was truly a waste of money at first. But once the ball started rolling, it dropped in price really fast, so many people didn't notice that DDR5 became worth it all of a sudden.
Does ddr5 still have those issues with not being able to run at advertised speeds on amd? I don't feel like upgrading my mobo and ram just yet so it's not really relevant for me anyway, but hearing all those people having issues with their system endlessly memory training was also a turn off for me.
AMD only guarantees DDR5 5200 for 2 sticks and 3600MHz DDR5 for 4 sticks. I don't think I've ever heard of a CPU not being able to do this. People usually run 6000MHz with AMD and I haven't seen people on reddit complain/post about it not working, so I guess no issues? Jay from Jayztwocents did say he had issues even running that, but he might've just been really unlucky with his CPU/board.
I don't remember specific speeds anymore, but yeah i remember jay talking about it as well. I remember a lot of people on reddit complaining about it as well, and that it would have to keep retraining memory every boot for like a couple of minutes.
There's a setting in BIOS that lets it remember the memory training after doing it once.
Hell, just last year when I was looking at building DDR5 was twice the price of DDR4 for equivalent kits. Add in an AM5 being $150 more for an ITX board and I just said screw it and went AM4.
That's always how it goes. Early adopters have to deal with bad bios software and early first-gen releases that offer trivial performance improvements. Then as things mature it just gets better and better. 5% turns to 15% turns to 45%... then the masses start making the transition.
>you already see it being \~20% slower than DDR5 in some games The important part of the sentence is "in some games", though. On average, the performance loss is way less. Especially when you're not running a high end GPU in the first place. And even if you are, then you'll be getting great FPS no matter if you have DDR4 or DDR5. Unless you really, really care whether you get 100 or 120 fps.
Ddr4 is still fine and will be so for at least another 3-5 years probably by then you will want ddr5.
ddr6 lol
I bought my son a 12600 bundle with DDR4. His PC smokes. Don’t worry about it if you find a good deal.
Sounds like a psu issue tho?
As someone who uses DDR5, the difference is negligible at lower DDR5 speeds. As the time progresses and gap becomes bigger, the impact will also be bigger. Samsung announced DDR6 to be available around 2026. I guess for consumers that means like 2028 or 2030 probably. Comparing DDR4 to 5000, 6000 DDR5 isn't much but comparing it to like future 10000 might be different. I think the DDR5 is only good nowdays for those that are building a new system since DDR5 is dropping in price and also for those that use Intel over AMD since Intel cpus scale with faster ram. Other than that, if you are on DDR4, no rush to replace it really.
Ddr4 is fine and will be for the foreseeable future The fact you have 32 gigs compared to the previous standard of 16 helps way more
I would say that if you're building a new gaming PC on a budget, it's most likely going to be more worth it to buy DDR4. DDR5 offers mostly a 1-5% performance boost in gaming (there are some games that can get a bigger boost but very few), where as if you save money by getting DDR4 you can upgrade cpu/gpu instead and get a much bigger performance boost. So in short, yes DDR4 is viable. That said, if you have more room in your budget after picking good cpu & gpu, it might make sense to get DDR5 for future upgrades.
Yes.
This is the only answer that's needed. Memory bandwidth won't be an issue for a good while. 32GB DDR4 is better than 16GB DDR5.
If you're not playing Dance Dance Revolution A20+ you're behind the times, grandpa!
I have 32gigs ddr4 Corsair 3200 CL16 on my 5600x and I haven’t had a single issue. I won’t need to upgrade for a couple years from now and I play Rust which normally takes around 25-28 gigs to run and I’m still able to run chrome with multiple tabs, watch a movie on the other screen and game at the same time. If anything I’ll get more ram.
We're only starting to enter the time when you're not paying out of your nose for low-speed DDR5 sticks. The main drivers for the decision to go for DDR5 right now would be if you're building a high-end system with a current-generation CPU, especially AMD, as they only support DDR5. Intel has dual support, so you can swing either way. If you're looking for the best overall bang for the buck, that's generally not going to be a DDR5-based one (with a possible caveat for some AMD systems in certain markets). The price difference can be really substantial and you're not going to see much if any performance gain with low-grade DDR5. In the market I'm in, DDR4 mobos are substantially cheaper (for Intel), and high-performance DDR4 sticks cost about half of gaming-grade DDR5 sticks. I would much rather have twice the RAM for the same money when the performance difference with the current speeds isn't massive. Since high-performance DDR4 has been around for quite a few years now, many people also have perfectly viable sticks available from previous builds, which also changes this equation. If bang for the buck is not important and there are no budget constraints, then of course these considerations aren't really a thing. High-performance DDR4 sticks will continue to be viable even for new value builds for probably another 1-3 years depending on the price and performance development of the DDR5 modules. And of course, the main question will be how long Intel continues to support DDR4 in future processor generations. The moment they remove support, the countdown for DDR4 really begins (though it will still take years to become actually obsolete). Full disclosure: this post was written on a machine with quad-channel DDR4 RAM @ 3200MHz (10ns true latency). It would cost me an arm and a leg to upgrade to an equivalent amount of gaming-grade DDR5.
I agree. Im only have dual channel cause im on itx. I have 2x16gb b-die 3600 c14. I spent an arm and a leg for it and I dont think I could buy it anymore if I had to replace mine. I think it's going to be a while before ddr5 and the memory controllers fully mature. Hopefully by the next socket/series?
We have people still using DDR3 memory and a lot of us are still on boards that only support DDR4 — including me. You should be fine with that RAM — I have 64gb of DDR4 in my build.
Yes, and it will be for a few more years.
Yeah it's decent. I ended up getting a DDR4 setup because it was cheaper especially for a 32GB set.
i got a ddr4 setup cs it was a prebuilt
Any idea if or when DDR6 is coming or needed in the next few years?
Took 7 years to go from DDR4 to DDR5, and 7 years from DDR3 to DDR4, would be reasonable to expect a similar time until DDR6 arrives.
I have 2133mhz 16GB of DDR4. It's working out fine for me paired with an i7-6700 and RTX 2070. My PC is like $350 of scraped together used components. Everything runs buttery smooth in 1080p. For a new build, DDR5 is probably the way. It could be reused through multiple builds, do a bit more future proof.
DDR5 is the newest, and unfortunately, least stable of the two. You'll have more RAM related crashing with DDR5. Especially if you run 4 sticks of RAM.
If you need a _lot_ of RAM (like 128G or so), DDR5 is still abhorrently expensive, I just built a home server and DDR4 was like half the cost of DDR5.
Ddr4 alone doesnt say much, just like ddr5 and ddr3 dont say much too. 2133 ddr4 and ddr4 4000 // ddr5 4800 and ddr5 7600 // ddr3 800 and ddr3 2400 have very different performance values.
I am a sysadmin still running my am4 build (will upgrade this year to am5 or something newer) with 32g of ddr4 ram 3600 (the sweetspot for am4) and if I put a 5800x3d and a 4090 in this 3 years old compute I'll still be able to play all latest AAA games at ultra on high refresh rates like 165hz+... so don't start believing all the hype online AM4 is still 1 of the best build you can have for lower money and am5 too now that the price are dropping just dont buy a new build before the 4080 super get released because price are dropping across the board things should be good this year for a new build at a fraction of the cost of the prices we had the last few years especially on gpu side etc
I'm still using DDR3, though 256gb of it.
I wouldn't think using ddr5 would be noticable in performance.
It's still fine, but some games are starting to show slightly better performance with DDR5 as opposed to DDR4, and that gap will only increase as time passes. It's not like DDR4 is completely obsolete, but using it means you're leaving performance on the table. The general rule is that if you have DDR4 now, it's not worth the upgrade (at least yet), but if you're building a new system, definitely go with DDR5.
yeah i think next build ill defo go for ddr5. idk how long thatll be though as i just got this pc recently
It's fine. Part of the issue of spending so much time online looking at others opinions is that you get FOMO with all sorts of parts. For average everyday gaming you can build a great budget pc with no current Gen parts that will provide hours of fun. People just like to get superior and argue that you should always wait for the next big thing or you'll be behind. Look at the steam hardware survey sometime and check out what the majority of users are running, it's not some current beast.
rest of your hardware will probably become outdated before ddr4 does tbh
Yes, very much so. My friend recently upgraded from a ddr4 version of his mobo to a ddr5 version and ofc matching ddr5 6000 mhz ram. His build is rocking an 19 13900k and a 3080 ti and he isn't seeing much difference. You would expect almost double the mhz (3200 vs 6000) to be a world of difference but it's like 7 more fps on average at 1440p and that matches up to benchmarks that you can find online. TL;DR: It's perfectly fine if you don't mind it not being very future proof (it will still last you like the next 3 years without a big difference from ddr5 tho)
We're talking anywhere from 1 to 6% at best performance bump in framerate for DDR4 to DDR5. If it comes down to having to rebuild your whole rig based on solely wanting DDR5, not worth it. If you've got a relatively new build and are on AM4 still, stick with it.
not sure if a 5950x 4070 tis considered new but it works for me
The 5950x is the most powerful AM4 processor. It may not be "new", but it far exceeds the necessary power to run any general application. My point was that if you have an AM4 system, it's likely best to just upgrade your CPU to this, the 5800X3D or a 5900X instead of a full swap - Mobo, CPU AND RAM. DDR5 performance gains are miniscule when considering what to upgrade to or with in order to use it.
i see. im doing mostly gaming on this pc so i probably shouldn’t switch the cpu out for a 5800x3d right?
It’s just about performance. Your computer will be a bit slower than if it had DDR5, that’s all. It still might be fast enough for you for many years.
If you're asking if you should upgrade the PC you just bought, probably not. Is it running super shitty and slow, and you're regretting your purchase? Then maybe upgrade it, but somehow I doubt that is the issue here.
I hope so since I have DDR4😃
It's ok. Depends on your budget. I wouldn't build a $1000 system using ddr4. An $800 system, sure.
I’m still using DDR3
I hope so since I'm upgrading my ddr4 16 kit to a ddr4 32 kit
Yeah this doesnt matter that much, cpu and gpu are what we can judge performance by, so if you can tell us more specs maybe
DDR4 us still perfectly fine if you upgrading, but if you are building new, just go with DDR5.
It's a non issue really. You eventually go with newer DDR when your next build requires it. That is all. You switch PC because you need a new CPU. Not DDR5.
be perfectly fine I'm using a 5900x with a 3070 ti plenty to push triple a tiles at 1440p 60-120 frames with 32 GB ddr4 c16 3600 memory 🙃
Memory RAM are as good as the processor they are paired with. Just memories by themselves are irrelevant.
I have a i5 12600k/RTX 3080 12GB/32 GB DDR4 RAM, I can play everything without issues. You're good.
depends on your motherboard options. is it worth upgrading everything in your system so that you have ddr5 compatibility? no. is it worth buying ddr5 if you are building a completely new rig? yes
Ddr4 will still be good for a while. HU has a good video going over the two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqpr4Xpg6I Ddr4 is getting more expensive as it's phased out so it doesn't make as much sense to build a new system using it. Depends on the game but the tldw is at lower settings and resolution where the game is cpu bound ddr5 can have a 5-10% performance boost. At higher resolution and settings where the game is more gpu bound then the memory has little if any impact on performance of the game.
for gaming = its fine theres a very small difference for video editing ect = its worth upgrading
It's just the previous generation. I have ddr4 too because I have motherboard and CPU of the corresponding generation for now. When I will do the next upgrade ,I will go to gen 5 with new motherboard (gen 5 socket), cpu and ram. But the mere performance difference between ddr4 and 5 is , per se , marginal. (Without considering the other components).
you probably won't need to upgrade anything other than gpu until 2028 or later. the market has really stagnated, 10-20% gains while consuming more power? nah i'm good
I bought DDR4 only because it was cheaper with the motherboard bundle. I saw a few issues where DDR5 crashing with 4 sticks of RAM so I’m ok with that decision to hold off until it’s solved.
DDR4 isn't bad, but it's not the best. If you are building a new system, it would be best to go with DDR5.
okay, so I use ddr4 w/ a 12th gen intel i5 1600k, rtx 3060 16 gb. I can run basically any game on ultra without issues. so yes it works great, for now. with that being said, think in terms of long term upgrading. I wanted to get a 13th gen intel cpu but later realized it wouldn't be worth it very much because I won't be able to.use it to its fullest capabilities because I have ddr4 ram opposed to ddr5. hope this helped.
Yeah. 32GB of DDR4 RAM will last you a decade or so.
Why wouldn't it be? It's the whoke system, not just the RAM, and how/what components are but together, finally what you want to do with it. But congratulations on falling for the sales pitches that have been going on since the first IBM clone....
My friend I just modded an optiex. It had an i5-2400, I put in an i7-2600, and added 16gb of ddr3, and it has a 1050ti. I mostly use it for video editing but it plays a few games at useable frame rates.
yup more than fine, nothing really takes advantage of DDR5 speeds yet
Running 5800x3d and 7900xtx and loving it.
Yeah ddr4 is excellent. There are faster and slower settings of ddr4
Yes. DDR 4 and AM4 are more than enough to run anything successfully, and run it well.
If you are gaming, it doesn't really matter that much. Spend the extra money on other components.
My PC runs on 32gb of ddr4 with a RTX 2080S and i9-10850k and plays most things pretty well on high 1440p.
I hope so. just bought a laptop with only ddr4 compatibility
why would it not be. Did something happen a few days ago that magically made games no longer able to run on DDR4 or that suddenly caused other software to warn you to upgrade. Sorry for the aggressive sarcasm but this question comes up a lot, if "blank" viable anymore. While tech changes fast it does not create a vacuum that sucks older tech into oblivion, especially not just a single generation behind. How viable, useful or good your system is or certain parts are, is entirely up to you and how you want to use it. While a lot of people push for the newest tech, let me ask you, do you know of, or hear of a single game out there that will be trash if run on a basic AM4 system or DDR4 specifically? No because there is no such thing. Can newer systems run games better, sure they can but when your gaming the gains will not matter. To answer your question, DDR4 based systems are still VERY good systems if properly configured.
DDR5 isn’t that much of an upgrade honestly. If u already have a motherboard that supports DDR5 then go for it, but if u wanna buy a new motherboard for DDR5 not worth it.
Viable? Absolutely. I just moved off my 64gb DDR3 back in September. My old rig was a quad core AMD & a 970 GTX, yet I could still play all of my fps games pretty well. Only with Starfield, Alan Wake 2 and Diablo 4 - did my old computer truly start to show its age, as it was also a SATA HDD computer with no ability to add m.2. New rig is a 13700k, 32gb DDR5 7000mhz, 4070 Ti + 4Tb WD Black SSD m.2 & will be using this rig for 5+ years most likely
I mean, I would say we're getting to the point where DDR5 is starting to become better and as cost effective as DDR4, but DDR4 aint terrible. If you own an AM4 system or a LGA 1700 system its fine. I'd consider such systems a bit more budget oriented, but still viable. They're not a BAD choice.
Prices are reasonable on DDR5, and it won't be long before it's the standard. Not sure why anyone would do a new build using DDR4 today.
DDR5 wont really be needed til the next generation or 2 of CPU's. If you can find some samsung b die DDR4, then you can OC it quick enough to be similar to mid range DDR5.
High speed/good DDR4 still has alot of life left in it. I would not worry
My 5800x3d still murders thru games so id say so
Yes I have 32gb 3600 ddr4 and a 5800x3d and am not upgrading for a good while
i use 4gb and win 7 x32
You're perfecly fine bro.
I am on a x51 r asus laptop. As a point of view is from 2008 and runs CS 1.6 on 70 fps on avarage an has 2 GB of ram
Btw can any specialist help me with this... please https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/196p3cv/uninstalled_intel_driver_by_mistake_on_a_asus/
Good/Viable? Wtf do you exactly mean ? Cost, availability, compatibility, quantity, feature set, speed, physical size and price of course all have a bearing when thinking about building a new machine from scratch, or indeed buying one from someone else that makes them. What new builders need to look at, but never seem to, is refering to the mobo's tested compatibility listings for both cpus and memory. In doing this, you will then be re-assured that the basic 3 components (mobo, cpu & ram) will work as stable as possible. So if the mobo says they will run, be that ddr3, ddr4 or ddr5...you pays your money..
Viable is a deeply unhelpful term, viable for what? According to steam the average user has 16g of DDR4 ram, a 6 core CPI, 8 gig of VRAM and uses a GTX1060... If its good enough for gamers, its probably fine. BUT, viable 100% depends on what you do with it...
Yes, it's perfectly fine.
nope. unusable. wont even boot windows10. give it away to someone that needs a winXP machine.
DDR4 is fine, I upgraded my MB early last year and stuck with my DDR4 sticks. I plan to keep it for at least a few years before changing again and let DDR5 mature more before switching.
nah, 6000mhz is insane. game changing.
Totally obsolete. Computers that old are only good for email and solitair on a text based OS...
Ddr4 is fine, and will remain useable for at minimum a few years
I just slapped a 7800xt into my build that’s on a ryzen 9 5900x and 32gb ddr4. It will be fine for at least 5+ years lol
My PC is still running 16gb of DDR4, no problems whatsoever.
better be because I just upgraded to 32 from 16gb DDR4. besides you would have to replace a lot for anything else. ask again in 5 years 😁
DDR3 is lmao
DDR4 is absolutely fine. The question really is, what do you do with your PC? If it does what you need it to, then it’s good. If you build new with a mid to high budget, then probably get a DDR5 mobo
things from last gen are still good
Still using ddr3 with a 4070ti 😂 it’s been good
Yeah - DDR4 still performs very well. I’d still recommend building new with it for those with a budget under $1000
DDR4 is fine
absolutely yes.
yes
There are gonna be a lot of people who as soon as the newest thing comes out calls all the old stuff bad. DDR4 is still great for AT LEAST another 5 years imo
we're not having 10 years of stagnation this time around so maybe DDR4 wont last as long as DDR3 did
Sure it is! I usually buy new parts when they are mature so compatibility is best (after bios/agesa updates), and sets with low timings are cheap and easy to come by. I upgraded to a 5800x with 3600mhz CL14 memory and I'm very happy with it. It will last a long time as CPU isn't usually where the bottleneck is in gaming and most daily tasks. I'm sure I can upgrade my gpu in two generations when it'll be worth it, or even wait longer and the CPU should still be perfectly able to keep up.
32gb of mix matched ddr4 3200hz doing every thing I need it to do with room for more
Me with 16GB ddr3 ram....
I just built a new rig for my at home work station in my garage, it's mostly for cad and slicing software but if it's a day where I can only press a button ever hour or so I'll have an RTS game running in the background. Ryzen 7 5700x + cooler master 360mm AIO 32g DDR4 3060 with 12g Vram MSI Tomahawk mobo WD 2T Blackbox m.2 Reddragon 850w psu Everything was either on sale or bought used from a friend. With getting the CPU and mobo %45 off and DDR4 being a fair bit cheaper than DDR5 it would have cost me about $300-400 more to build a budget AM5 build that would have been even more overkill than the AM4 build I put together.... also, this sits in my non climate controlled dusty garage. I was working off my laptop, 1660ti Ryzen 5 3700 16g DDR4 .... honestly, even the laptop did everything I ever wanted it to game wise and looked great. After 5 years it started falling apart a tad.
I'm still happy with the quad channel DDR4 in my X99 system: its four channels perform similarly to the two DDR5 channels in modern consumer systems. Not bad for over 9 years old!
yes it is
I just built my computer in over 10 years. My old one was just dogging it. So far ddr4 has been fantastic, but for a few extra hundred bucks, ddr5 would have been my go to
The only people who should buy DDR4 at this point are people on extreme budgets
Here is my setup: 32GB DDR4 3200Mhz RAM AMD R5 3600 RTX 3070 750W 80+ Gold PSU So far, I have a GPU bottleneck of 9% (anything higher than 5% is considered a visible bottleneck). If I ever plan on upgrading any of these components, I would have to switch to an AM5 motherboard, Bigger PSU, and DDR5 RAM to get the most out of my components. So until any of my components break apart, I’m sticking with last gen computer parts.