If the triple channel memory allows an additional chip to be addressed, it's easy for me to think that it must be 50% faster. From what I've read I'm sure it's not nearly 50%. I'm just wondering what the MAIN reasons for this are.
It does have more bandwidth but that is different than speed. There are very few apps that can use all the bandwidth that dual channel can provide let alone triple. Ram speed and latency will make more of a difference in most apps than bandwidth which is why in most things triple channel is wasted.
On the desktop about the only place you will see a big difference is on the synthetic bench marks. I believe that winrar and a few others do show some speed increase but that is not the norm.
basically if you get tri channel ram if your building a system that you want to stand the test of time and techno proof it for a 5-10 years if your lucky. but you also run the risk of generation skip. for example CD players went to Mini disc players but they didn't catch on because i pods came out. you know what i mean? Like Film went to BETA but VHS is what caught on.
^ pure conjecture. Grab a new dual channel and tri channel board today and in 5-10 years there will be a lot more "out-dated" than the memory - on both boards. And either will still be running fine, depending on your needs, e.g. unless you're the kind who likes to (and can afford to) have the latest and greatest and upgrade every two years. In which case it doesn't really matter what you get today, from a dual vs. tri perspective.