Memory configuration?

jmwcctx

Distinguished
Sep 13, 2010
12
0
18,510
OK--I've read through about half of the very informative FAQ's and definitions of memory. I hope I don't have to go into too much detail because, frankly, I've kind of already ordered what I'm going to order--but for future reference...

IN GENERAL...is a 4x1024, dual channel configuration faster than a 2x2048 dual channel configuration? It seems to me it would be, but I could be dead wrong. Thanks in advance.
 
Dual-Channel is Faster than Quad-Channel; without too much detail as you say it becomes a bottleneck; CPU/Controller/RAM are switching between channels A->B->A->B. The question is will you notice, no; an obscure benchmark yes.
2 | E | 2 | E | = 4GB {most efficient}
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = 4GB
 
^ Ditto.

Dual vs Quad Channel
2 | E | 2 | E | = 4GB {most efficient}
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = 4GB

Tri vs Hexa Channel
E | 2 | E | 2 | E | 2 | = 6GB {most efficient}
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = 6GB

However, if you mean to compare Dual vs Tri Channel {apples & oranges}:

2 | E | 2 | E | = 4GB
E | 2 | E | 2 | E | 2 | = 6GB {most efficient}

I am not comparing DDR2 vs DDR3 memory. The question is "Dual vs Quad Channel" and Dual indeed is more efficient.
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
I noticed my error, efficient might be the wrong word. It is faster/provides more bandwidth. And if its faster, its probably more efficient as well.

Your posting memory configs showing sticks. That has little to do with the controller. If you put two sticks like your top example in a system that has a single channel memory controller, you don't get "dual channel". Putting four sticks in a dual channel system doesn't get you quad channel. It means you are using 4 sticks in a dual channel system.