2GB Dual channel or 3GB Single channel?

[darkstar782]

As the topic says basicly, I have gotten an extra DIMM that matches my current two for free (dont ask!).

I'm thinking of adding it to my system, and this will give me 3GB ram.

Bear in mind that I have the DIMM, so if I dont use it it will sit on the desk worthlessly.

Also bear in mind, that my FSB is 800MHz effective, and my RAM is running at DDR2-800 4-4-4-12, so the FSB should be saturated in single channel mode anyway.

Does anyone think I will notice a slowdown from being in single channel mode? I didnt gain a single 3dmark06 point from moving from 1gb in one dimm to 2gb in two dimms so I'm skeptical of the benefits of Dual Channel when my RAM is running at a 1:2 ratio anyway.

 

[fredgiblet]

I'd say keep the dual-channel unless you have aspecific reason to have 3GB (large databases and the like).

 

[tool_462]

If I were you, I would pop it in and run a couple benchmarks depending on what you do with your system. But here are some benches regarding gaming comparing dual vs. single channel. They are only using 1GB of RAM so I am curious to see how 2GB dual vs. 3GB single would compare.

Dual vs. Single Channel

If you have any spare time, run a couple benches and report your findings! I am interested to see which performs better.

 

[Mobius]

Heh!

No, don't worry, that extra 3.2GB/s memory bandwidth was only a marketing ploy. Just like that 300 GB hard drive and the 3 GHz processor. You don;t need all that grunt!

In fact, I have a Pentium 100 with a massive 32 MB of RAM sitting right here for you - it's all you need to compute!

LMAO... no... if you think you'd rather own a PC with 3.2GB/s of memory bandiwtdh, than one with 6.4 GB/s then that is entirely up to you.

 

[tool_462]

Personally I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that you are, but that is the way I look at things. You have to remember that it is 3GB vs. 2GB not simply Dual vs. Single Channel.

This is a part of the summary written at Techconnect Magazine:

The ambiguity in most of the benchmark results we saw today sends a very clear message: on today’s systems, the advantages of Dual Channel memory setups are negligible for average users.

While some memory specific benchmarks, those designed to saturate bus bandwidth, demonstrated the Dual Channel system’s superiority, very few real-life applications took advantage of it, and some games even managed to perform better on the Single Channel setup.

Professionals who work with graphics and large documents could definitely use the boost in bandwidth, as they push wall-sized posters at print resolution around in Photoshop, or model entire cities in Maya, but most users will only notice small performance increases in a small number of applications.

Very much like with multiple processors, the advantages of a Dual Channel setup are restricted to specific commercial areas, and the performance return for average multimedia and gaming use does not justify the extra expense.


I still would be curious to see your personal benches.

 

[darkstar782]

The ambiguity in most of the benchmark results we saw today sends a very clear message: on today’s systems, the advantages of Dual Channel memory setups are negligible for average users

Exactly, the part of my post people seem to have missed is that the FSB will be saturated with Single channel anyway, (as my FSB is 200/800MHz and my RAM 400/800MHz) so with Dual channel, the CPU still cant read from/to RAM any faster.

I suppose the gfx card can make more use of system memory for Textures but... I have a 256mb card anyway.

I'll run a load of benches with 1gb single channel, 2gb single channel, 2gb dual channel, and 3gb single channel when i get home and post results.

 

[darkstar782]

LMAO... no... if you think you'd rather own a PC with 3.2GB/s of memory bandiwtdh, than one with 6.4 GB/s then that is entirely up to you.

Actually, I already have 6.4GB/s in single channel mode, (DDR2-800, PC-6400) and as thats also the max bandwidth of my FSB I'm not sure another 6.4GB/s is preferable to an extra GB of RAM when it wouldnt allow the CPU to access it any faster.

I know alot of benchies dont show much advantage with 2Gb over 1Gb, let alone 3 over 2, but benchmarks on hardware sites normally dont have Bittorrent clients (Azureus can eat 160mb of ram), IM clients, Browsers (Firefox can eat 140mb of RAM), email clients, etc etc running in the background.

Granted these can be swapped to the page file while running games fullscreen, but that then means hard disk thrashing, which wastes time and shortens HDD life imho.

 

[tool_462]

I agree with that, tech sites benches don't make full use of 2GB and with 3GB you should be able to rock out in Azureus, AIM, FireFox and play some Doom 3