Does RAM use heat up/cause wear to a PC?

[ghostwhistler]

By which I mean running RAM at close to max levels consistently

Thanks

[whyterabbyt]

By which I mean running RAM at close to max levels consistently

Thanks

max levels of what?

[jupiter8]

They do heat up, they come with heatspreaders after all (at least some do). But it's pretty minor compared to the CPU so i would'nt worry about it.

Power Consumption: Crucial DDR4-2133
32 GB (Four Modules) 11.85 W
16 GB (Two Modules) 5.94 W
8 GB (One Module) 2.98 W
4 GB (Rated) 1.49 W

[chk071]

In case you planned to overclock your Ram: There's very, very little to gain by doing so. With the disadvantage that you might make your system more unstable.

Frankly, I'm not a friend of overclocking in general. Some people are simply obsessed with the last 2 or 3 % of performance, while they should rather buy hardware which gets them 20 to 30 % more performance.

[2DaT]

They do heat up, they come with heatspreaders after all (at least some do). But it's pretty minor compared to the CPU so i would'nt worry about it.

Power Consumption: Crucial DDR4-2133
32 GB (Four Modules) 11.85 W
16 GB (Two Modules) 5.94 W
8 GB (One Module) 2.98 W
4 GB (Rated) 1.49 W

Makes sense, because one of the principles of RAM is that they it needs refreshing every 50ms or so. That means twice the refreshes for twice the capacity.

[ghostwhistler]

Thank you. I'm not looking to overclock, and I wouldn't know how anyway.

[audiojunkie]

As has already been mentioned above, it's not the usage that kills the equipment, it's the heat. If RAM had moving parts, or a limited amount of writes/re-writes, that would be different, but RAM doesn't. Keep your system cool and away from static electricity and surges, and the RAM should last you a long, long time.

Edit: And I'm not a fan of overclocking either. A solid stable system is way better than the extra 2-3% overclocking will give you.

[BertKoor]

Interesting topic: do you save energy by closing all programs you're not using, and thus free up used ram?

One thing I'm certain of: you're not saving your own time.

[ghettosynth]

Well, when you are close to the limit your memory can fold. This is a complex topic but the basis is due to the nature of how binary works. (2^n) -1 is the largest unsigned number that can be represented in n bits. Here n represents the number of bits on your address bus. When you add one to this, the result is zero in an n-bit number, but, there's hope. When generating the next usable address, we carry the 1 into a carry out in our ALU, and this is used to "fold" your addresses around. This is the basis of virtual memory, where virtual refers, in something of a practical sense, to another dimension. Your RAM can now hold more than one program in the same physical space. However, this comes at a cost. Each program competes to be in the present dimension and, consequently, this causes undue heat and stress on your RAM. While, theoretically, your RAM is capable of a virtually unlimited number of folds, high levels of folds are unstable and usually cause damage to your machine. There is some consensus that, in fact, if we could maintain enough power, that such folding levels may reveal the presence of dark matter. However, we shouldn't worry about this as it requires laboratory levels of cooling and power generation.

[legendCNCD]

Interesting topic: do you save energy by closing all programs you're not using, and thus free up used ram?

One thing I'm certain of: you're not saving your own time.

Modern OS's use memory as a cache, so a lot of stuff is left there just to be faster at relaunch, that is if you have enough memory.

[AdvancedFollower]

Closing an application doesn't actually physically change the bits stored in RAM, the OS just marks that RAM as available for other applications to overwrite (or to use as cache by the OS itself). The RAM itself still stores the same 1's and 0's until it's told to write something else to that particular space, because zeroing out the space would add an unnecessary delay every time RAM is released.

Closing apps would be counter productive since opening them again would probably use more power (CPU cycles, SSD reads, logging to the event log etc.) than simply leaving it running, unless the app in question is using a lot of CPU cycles in the background of course.

[BertKoor]

Closing apps would be counter productive since opening them again would probably use more power (CPU cycles, SSD reads, logging to the event log etc.) than simply leaving it running, unless the app in question is using a lot of CPU cycles in the background of course.

my thoughts exactly...

[legendCNCD]

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-superfetch/

[Bombadil]

First boot of Logic takes about 10 secs, tops. If I quit and restart, it boots almost instantaneously. So that explains that.

[ebkp]

You shouldn't need to worry about ram temps at all.