XPS 8950, installing one 16GB DIMM vs two x 8GB DIMMs

As professor said, there is more of a significant performance boost when looking at dual/quad channel vs single channel. The performance boost, or dollar to performance boost, is more significant than Quad channel vs dual channel. I always tell people, go dual or quad way faster than going single, just dont put to much into going quad over dual unless you just wanna throw money at it.

---

@ProfessorW00d wrote:

Installing 2 x 8GB modules is much better than 1 x 16GB module because it allows the memory to run in dual channel.

 

---

That's what I understood as well. So with 2 x 8GB, if I want to go from 16GB to 32GB, I have to toss the 8GB DIMMs and replace them with 2 x 16GB DIMMs. If that's the way it has to be ... that's the way it will be. Just feels like a waste.

Installing 2 x 8GB modules is much better than 1 x 16GB module because it allows the memory to run in dual channel.

Not only will the "four slots filled" run slower, but 4 x 8GB is not a supported configuration on the XPS 8950. That is not to say it will not work, only that it has not been tested and validated by Dell.

Since you seem to be set on the eventual 32GB configuration, consider ordering with 2 x 16GB modules from the start . . . it will be less expansive in the long run as purchasing individual RAM modules from Dell can be very expensive.

Okay, I understand now that 2 x 16GB is better than 4 x 8GB if 32GB is the goal.

Regarding 4 slots vs. 2 slots:  Dell already caps 4800MHz DDR5 to 4400MHz when 1 or 2 slots are used, and further caps the speed to 3600MHz when 3 or 4 slots are used, because memory can't run (with stability) at speeds faster than what the rest of the hardware can support, mostly the motherboard and the CPU. Is Dell being unnecessarily conservative? Perhaps. But if they're going to be that way, why sell 'K' processors? (Because bragging rights exist.)

Paying extra for 2 x 16GB has a low WAF at the present time.

Processors designated as "K" are sourced from the highest yield wafers at the manufacturing labs and as such, statistically, these CPU's are the most reliable and most efficient . . . statistically.

ummm....maybe....but from all my years at it, K and KF processors are generally considered the processors with unlocked multipliers which allow them to be overclocked, KF meaning it lacks internal graphics ability (the need for discreet gpu). I would assume you knew this, based on a previous post of yours. 

Ive never heard K meaning they are sourced from high yield wafers. Thats a first. Not saying its wrong, but the industry doesn't refer to K processors in that regard, intel included.

Mastiff, Dell choosing K processors for the xps is solely due to the fact that they have the highest frequencies attainable, since xps is a "performance" machine and since not all XPS's have discreet gpus, also have graphics ability built in. They could care less about the OC performance. Now, looking at the 8950, and other recent XPS's with the "overclock" setting in bios, generally, in the past, with Dells all it was is a "preset" voltage and or core limit setting, a factory overclock if you will. You can use Xtu, too, but generally bios OC'ing is prefereable as its loaded before the OS loads (a reliability thing), well, that and BIOS oc'ing generally entails RAM XMP profiles and what not. In all retrospect, the K processors in XPS's are pretty "nerf'd" if youve heard that term before. They nerf them for reliability in similar fashion to how Apple treats its customers, for reliability.

I will hunt down my source when I have a moment. However, wouldn't it seem reasonable that Intel would want the processors with the unlocked clock multipliers to be the chips that, statistically, would be more likely to remain stable at overclocked frequencies?