Single vs Dual channel on AMD systems

DUAL channel only gives a few % increase in performance. Memory bandwidth is one thing that influence performance.

Have you tested 200x11 in single and dual channel mode to see the difference in performance?

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

There was no difference at the setting and benchmarks were the same.

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)

You have tested 200x11 in SINGLE CHANNEL AND in DUAL CHANNEL? If so, what were the results.

In your first post, you compare 200X11 and 220X10 (it'S not a fair comparison). Because like I said before, DUAL channel CAN'T double de performance, it only enhance the performance by a small factor.

So basically, if you have 2 memory stick, you can get a little bit more from your system, it's not a dramatic increase, but it's a FREE "upgrade".

It's normal that 10% increase in memory speed will negate the DUAL channel advantage that is usually 0% to 5/7% (depends on applications). If you can get dual channel working at 210MHz to 220MHz, you will probably beat your SINGLE channel score at 220MHz.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

Well my scores were about the same with SC and DC with the 200 clock so Id doubt that it would be better at 220.

My point is that it is better to focus on the system clock and ditching Dual Channel is well worth the ditch. Why stay with 200 clock at dual channel and you can get better performacne by ditching DC and up the clock past 200.

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)

You are right! DUAL CHANNEL is a "marketing" buzzword. And if you get better perfromance without it! Go ahead!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

Dual channel gives best results if your using onboard video. If your not using onboard then no you wont see much of a difference.

Fsb is also very important. At 166 fsb the bandwidth gain is 25%, and generally total performance is 10%.

Hmm thats why I posted this now. I wasnt on this board a year ago.

TO HELL WITH DUAL CHANNEL!!!!!

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)

Dual channel doesnt really benefit Athlon systems because the FSB is only provides a maximum of 3200mb/s, so the theoretical 6400mb/s provided by dual channel cant really be taken advantage of. Its my understanding that dual channel RAM gives a much bigger performance increase when using P4C's.

[Insert witty comment here]

Have any of you actually run benches to test this? I did a wack when I first got my A7N8X nonD board and my xp2500. Since I dont have the numbers any more, I ran a few for this post. Since this is mostly gamers here, I ran the usual suspects. 3D-01 and 03 and aquamark. I ran them at 166fsb and at 178 fsb. I ran them at bothe speeds in dual chanel and single chanel modes with 512 of ram.Scores are 166 single ,166 dual, 178 single and 178 dual.
3d mark 2k1- 12549, 12722, 13053, and 13165
3D mark 03- 3883, 3917, 3933, and 3940
Aquamark- 30065, 31548, 31762, and 32095.
The numbers aren't stunning, but the results seem to suggest that dual channel offers about the same gain as a 150mhz oc. That's not bad for zero heat gain. Other stats are bba 9600 pro 3.1 cats 480 core 330 mem. Cpu mult at 12.5X

For me it's about framerates. I'll take every part of one that I can get.