Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC6400 Memory Bandwidth Very Low

Tags:
Last response: in Memory
Share
June 3, 2010 9:50:07 AM

I purchased a new computer recently specs:

Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.5Ghz Processor
Asus P5Q SE2 Motherboard (BIOS 0801)
ATI Radeon 5770 512MB Graphics
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB Hard drive
Gigabyte Odin 585watt Power Supply
--> Zeppelin 1x2GB PC6400 Memory (single channel) 5-5-5-18 timings

My 3DMark Vantage CPU and GPU scores are both about 9450 which seems a bit low :/ 
I ran SiSoft Sandra Memory bandwidth test, which showed about 4.9GB/s which seems awfully low for a 800Mhz memory module. (It was compared to 533Mhz and 667Mhz memory modules)

So my question is will dual channel make a big improvement over single channel and if the memory i have installed is just a piece of junk ?

More about : pc6400 memory bandwidth low

June 3, 2010 12:41:27 PM

Its just one 2GB DDR2 800Mhz Memory module :/ 
CPU-Z says Channels# Single

This is a whole new PC.
June 3, 2010 1:42:23 PM

Its a dual channel architecture motherboard, 1 DIMM per channel = single channel.

If you can run a dual channel config then do so, Intel implementations work well in this configuration with certain applications. For real world performance gains, it is debateable if it is really any better. For example your web browsing or gaming performance may not change. You could try both and compare benchmarks. I wouldn't expect much.

That being said, more memory certainly WILL improve performace.
Related resources
June 3, 2010 3:14:43 PM

Quote:
Who built this computer with only 1 dimm??


Probably because one 2GB module is cheaper than two 1GB modules.
June 3, 2010 6:48:49 PM

Quote:
Cheaper at the cost of performance. Dumb, just dumb.


In practice yes, if its dual channel then take advantage of that. However, I would be interested in seeing benchmark results in a same capacity 'single vs dual' "duel" if you will pardon the pun.

In this case however the system integrated has probably done this chap a favour. Now all he has to do is add another 2GB stick and wammo, dual channel 4GB.
a b } Memory
June 3, 2010 7:01:43 PM

Quote:
Cheaper at the cost of performance. Dumb, just dumb.


Yep -- using just a single module is severely slowing down the memory access -- which explains the low 4.9GBs bandwidth all to save maybe $5 !! ( Adding a second module will definitely help some)
a b } Memory
June 4, 2010 2:38:37 PM

canadian69 said:
I refer you to this article.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING...


Though that article is from back in 2007 and I'm pretty sure things have changed a bit since then -- it would be interesting to see an updated article on the impact of single vs. dual mode with all other variables remaining the same.
June 4, 2010 2:53:27 PM

The main difference would be using a Quad core processor and more current chipsets. It would be very interesting to see what the delta is between single and dual channel on a more current platform.

The original poster, if they actually do go out and buy another 2GB module could easily test this on thier rig. Put both pieces in the same channel, run some benchmarks and then put each piece in a different channel (single mode) and run same benchmarks.

The caveat in all this is that you run 'real world' benchmarks. Simply running the memory bandwidth test/benchmark is of course going to illustrate the difference more drastically. But what I have been driving at is what does it really mean in terms of practical performance gains?

!