32GB slower than 16GB (different machines)

[BLooRT]

Quite likely it's something that needs explaining to me, i'm all ears.

I upgraded RAM in 2 old machines with DDR3 1866 and filled all available slots. 4 x 8 for the AMD 8350 on Biostar TA970 ... and 2 x 8 for the Intel i5 gen 4 on a Dell. The 32gb benches at about 1500, and the 16gb at around 2200. Both are dual. Does the amount of RAM have anything to do with the discrepency? seems to be quite the difference.

On auto, the biostar would settle on 1333, and bench thusly. On manual set to 1866 i get around 1500. When I look at comparisons I'm way in the red.
windows memory diagnostic didn't detect any errors. I don't wanna be in the comparative red. lol

I was going to drop the 32 down to 16 and try again, or swap the memory sticks and play around, but i thought maybe i could avoid that trouble if there was an education for me to be had here.

kindly, i thank you in advance for you time and thoughts.
BLooRT

[David (PassMark)]

There is no reason to think that two different CPUs from different vendors would have identical performance in their memory controllers.

RAM Capacity also isn't the same as RAM speed.
More RAM doesn't mean it is faster RAM. It would be like buying a truck and then wondering why all the extra carrying capacity doesn't make it go faster than a sports car.

Hard to comment more without seeing the actual results for the CPU & RAM for both machines.

Also I am not sure if you are confused or not. But the Memory Mark value in PerformanceTest isn't meant to match up to the RAM's MT/Sec specification value.