Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Triple Channel vs Dual Channel

Last response: in Memory
Share
June 22, 2011 3:26:43 PM

Hello All,

I recently built a few new systems for friends and family and went to the recent builds for Toms Hardware and all of the comparison builds are Dual Channel. Needless to say, I was a little shocked at this since the price for triple channel kits is relatively low and the option of triple bandwidth is well worth visiting. Has there been a recent comparison done (after the recent Intel changes for stability) where triple and dual channel configurations were compared?
a b } Memory
June 22, 2011 3:40:07 PM

For most users, dual-channel is enough.

Evidence? Sandy Bridge, a mainstream-category CPU, is able to out-pace all other desktop CPUs -- including Intel's extreme-category six-core triple-channel CPUs -- in a wide variety of standard applications and games.

If you have enough money to throw at it, you can buy a triple-channel system that beats Sandy Bridge ... but why waste it? For the money, Sandy Bridge is unbeatable.
Score
0
a b } Memory
June 22, 2011 6:12:59 PM

This is slightly OT:

The price of triple channel kits is low because the price of DDR3 in general is low. I think three things are keeping the price of triple channel kits down.

1) The memory itself isn't special (tri channel and dual channel are features of the motherboard and memory controller). So, all else being equal, a triple channel kit is just a kit of 3 sticks of memory instead of 2 and the price per GB is about the same.

2) If they raise the price on tri channel kits, the more they raise the price, the more people will have an incentive to start mixing RAM from different kits. This will lead to some system problems which will lead to RMAs and negative reviews which would affect revenue and probably cancel out any gains from the price increase. Also, most (all?) current tri channel motherboards also have dual channel capability. Raise the price too much and we'll just run dual channel.

3) AMD isn't going for triple channel memory (from what I've read) which should help maintain the demand for dual channel kits.
Score
0
Related resources
July 17, 2011 5:41:27 AM

Leaps-from-Shadows said:
For most users, dual-channel is enough.

Evidence? Sandy Bridge, a mainstream-category CPU, is able to out-pace all other desktop CPUs -- including Intel's extreme-category six-core triple-channel CPUs -- in a wide variety of standard applications and games.

If you have enough money to throw at it, you can buy a triple-channel system that beats Sandy Bridge ... but why waste it? For the money, Sandy Bridge is unbeatable.


Well I guess it gets a little tiring hearing so many claim that the Intel's new sandy bridge beats Intel's 980x/990x cpu's when that's simply not true. But I guess when you're the baddest kid on the block you're the one everyone wants to claim they beat.
Just because many programs aren't optimized for a 6 core processor yet, doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile investment. When the first dual cores came out most of the programs were still being written for single cores and the same has been true for every core increase since.

The truth is the 980x/990x cpu's hold their own very well against their sandy bridge counterparts both winning some and losing some "in a wide variety of standard applications and games." But the really amazing thing here is that a few applications and games are just starting to be optimized for more than 4 cores so the future looks great for the 980x/990x cpu's and maybe not so much for your 4 core sandy bridge.

When you need to upgrade your CPU & MB to make use of the advancements in applications and games, my 980X will still be relevant.
And how much will your CPU/MB upgrade cost you? It kind of makes the price difference between a 980x/990x and a 2600K a little less meaningful doesn't it!

Let's not forget the reason for this thread DDR3, Intel's 980x/990x cpu's use it! Sandy bridge cant! (At least not in a triple channel configuration) The 980x/990x 1366 platform can also utilize multiple X16 PCIe lanes. Sandy bridge cant! These are small performance increases I know but these alone (and there are more) are enough to keep the 980x/990x/1366 platform on top, way on top!

You stated "If you have enough money to throw at it, you can buy a triple-channel system that beats Sandy Bridge ... but why waste it?" Well at least you admit that it can be beaten. I have to give you that. Many of us use our PC's for work with programs that utilize the full potential of a 6 core extreme CPU and where time is money it's certainly not a waste, it's a savings.

Then there is the other group that simply wants the biggest baddest PC on the block and I have to admit I kind of fit into both groups but, since when is life supposed to be only about what you need. Sometimes its nice when it's about what you want also.

The 980x/990x cpu's are firmly on top for the moment but, technology advances far to fast for that to last long. It just wont be the current line of sandy bridge CPU's to knock it off its pedestal.

If you want a very good cpu at a very good price Sandy Bridge is a great choice, but if you want the best Intel's 6 core extreme is the way to go and like always top performance always demands top Dollar!

My system:
Asus Rampage III Formula / Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Six-Core Processor / CORSAIR Hydro H70 CPU Cooler / 24GB CORSAIR DOMINATOR DDR3 1600 / Asus OC station / 2 X Radeon HD 6870 in CrossFire / 2 X Corsair Force 120GB Solid State Drives in raid 0 / 4 X SAMSUNG Spinpoint F4 2TB 5400 RPM in raid 5 / ASUS Blu-ray Burner / ASUS 24X DVD Burner / CORSAIR 1000W Modular PSU / Corsair Obsidian 800D ATX Case / 3 X Asus VE248H Black 24" LCD Monitors for Eyefinity / HT | OMEGA eClaro Sound Card / Klipsch ProMedia DD-5.1 DTS, Dolby Digital & Dolby Pro Logic digital decoder-preamplifier W/Remote / Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Multimedia Speaker System / Logitech MX 5500 Revolution Bluetooth Desktop keyboard & Mouse / Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Score
0
a b } Memory
July 17, 2011 9:16:09 AM

In most applications that everyday users will be loading up on their systems, Sandy Bridge beats Extreme Edition (EE). Period. Full stop. End of line. There is no arguing with the evidence out there, so don't even bother.

You seem to think DDR3 equals triple-channel, which isn't the case. Sandy Bridge uses DDR3 in dual-channel, while EE uses DDR3 in triple-channel.

Only the comparatively few professional-level programs that actually take full advantage of more than four cores give EE the upper hand. Even on those, EE isn't "way on top" like you claim.

When you can buy a full Sandy Bridge system for the price of just the EE CPU, and yet EE still gets beat in most applications ... there is no contest.

By the time Sandy Bridge isn't enough for apps and games, quad-channel DDR4, PCIe Gen4 and 500GB SSDs will be the norm, and we'll all need new systems.
Score
0
a b } Memory
July 17, 2011 9:59:50 AM

I am wondering if the OP has misunderstood a little. The reason that all the recent builds are dual channel has NOTHING to do with whether dual channel is better or worse than triple channel. It has to do with which CPU/motherboard is the best choice for the system, and what memory configuration that CPU/motherboard supports.

Triple channel memory is only supported by the X58 chipset and Core i7 9xx CPUs. The recent builds all use Sandy Bridge CPUs (lots of processing power and lots of other advantages), and all Sandy Bridge CPUs and chip sets support only dual channel RAM.

Intel chose not to make any triple channel options in Sandy Bridge. You are at liberty to speculate why.
Score
0
a b } Memory
July 17, 2011 10:23:28 AM

There is no real world performance difference between a triple channel memory configuration and a dual channel setup. Except of course that one can install a higher memory count at once (12GB on TC and 8GB on DC being the norm).

Now for the guy who mentioned the 980X/990X being worth their cost, it is not. If you have a workstation setup then you can get better performance by using two processors for the price of one of those processors.
Score
0
a b } Memory
July 17, 2011 12:05:06 PM

Emperus said:
There is no real world performance difference between a triple channel memory configuration and a dual channel setup. Except of course that one can install a higher memory count at once (12GB on TC and 8GB on DC being the norm).

Now for the guy who mentioned the 980X/990X being worth their cost, it is not. If you have a workstation setup then you can get better performance by using two processors for the price of one of those processors.


Not quite right. A triple channel system reads from three DIMMs in parallel, which a dual channel reads from two DIMMs in parallel. So the triple channel has 50% higher memory bandwidth.

There are a lot of applications whose performance is pretty much independent of memory bandwidth, but there are a few to which it is important. For those applications, triple channel matters, and you really can see a "real world performance difference". If one of those applications mattered enough to you, maybe you'd be better off with a triple channel system.

It's similar to the situation where there are a few benchmarks which show the advantage of having 6 hyperthreaded cores over 4 hyperthreaded cores. From memory, I think the 7Zip benchmark ran faster on the 6 core chip. I don't run 7Zip enough for that to make a big difference to my life :) 

The 990 fan(atic) was badly mistaken about DDR3, and about his chip being so much better than any Sandy Bridge chip, but he was a little bit right about triple channel having some advantages. I think most of us agree that Sandy Bridge has other advantages which outweigh them.

I should say: I have an i7 930 system with 12GB of RAM for Photoshop, and an i7 2600 with 8GB of RAM for other things. I think I built almost my entire i7 2600 system (excluding the SSD) for what an i7 990X might have cost me :)  It's hard to justify the cost of the Extreme chips.

Score
0
July 17, 2011 9:59:24 PM

Leaps-from-Shadows said:
You seem to think DDR3 equals triple-channel, which isn't the case. Sandy Bridge uses DDR3 in dual-channel, while EE uses DDR3 in triple-channel.


REALLY, YOU TRULY THINK I DON'T UNDERSTAND DDR3?

And since you brought it up, DDR3 does indeed equal triple-channel. Just because Sandy Bridge is incapable of using DDR3 to it's full potential and can only run it as DDR2 does not mean the ram itself is not triple-channel memory.

If you had a 300lb weight set but, could only lift 200lbs would that mean you only had a 200lb weight set?

NO!

All that would mean is you are not as strong as someone that is capable using it to it's full potential and lift the entire 300lbs!

Sorry (NOT) to be blunt but, you kind of asked for it!
Score
0
July 25, 2011 8:59:58 PM

Thanks everyone for all their input. I was planning to use this system as my multi-function workhorse. I plan to use a dual-boot option with WIn7x64 for my games and everyday use, and Server 2008R2 for all my compression and movie/music backups as well as video/picture editing with Adobe CS5. ...and yes, I plan on using the 990X for the 6 cores and 24Gb (2x 12GB triple channel) of memory for the extra uumph. The lack of triple channel support on the newer processors does concern me since that means that at some point, I will be left high and dry. Though, I guess it will be a while and even then I will have 3 pairs of matched memory (I checked all from same bin), so can easily migrate to dual channel if needed. The big question I had was whether there would be any benefit to the triple channel and why none of the benchmarks I have seen were showing the comparison. ...theoretically, the triple channel should perform better, but I guess that would depend on whether the application would support all 6 cores of the cpu to be able to use all 3 channels.
Score
0
October 6, 2011 8:22:49 AM

Weirdo with the weight analogies and misplaced commas is still confused about ddr3. Maybe too much HGH before working out on the inspiration for his poor analogy. Dual channel, and triple channel are configurations that the RAM can run in. I'm on a piece of crap dinosaur computer running plain old PC3200 DDR, but it is in DUAL CHANNEL mode, with DUAL CHANNEL(paired) Corsair XMS sticks. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT DDR2.

Look at any AMD motherboard out right now, then take a look at the specs. It will say memory supported: DDR3
channel supported: DUAL CHANNEL.
Hell, I'll make it easy, so you don't get lost in the series of tubes.
HERE: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

P.S. Don't judge me for living in the past.
Score
0
October 6, 2011 8:40:13 AM

All triple channel is in the DDR3 format...If that is what you mean......
But that isn't what people are saying, and nobody is debating that.

Not all DDR3 is triple channel, nor does that "3" mean triple channel.
You have to buy 3 paired sticks, just like the 2 for dual channel, and have a motherboard that supports triple channel.

From what I have gathered, you think DDR2 = Dual Channel, and DDR3 = Triple Channel, when all of those terms have their own meanings.
It is an easy, and understandable mistake to make.
Rather than admit you are wrong, and learn from your folly; you nerd-rage.
Read up a little before you spew angry nonsense claimed as fact, and then rage even harder when people politely correct you.
Score
0
October 8, 2011 4:39:41 AM

To, "thisguyisnuts" I took a few minutes to decide whether to even reply to your posts. Your comments like: "Weirdo with the weight analogies", "misplaced commas", "still confused", "too much HGH", "you nerd-rage", "spew angry nonsense" lead me to believe your most likely just a troll looking for an argument since those adolescent comments served no constructive purpose.


There is no rage (nerd or otherwise) nor am I angry. If I feel anything towards your posts, I would have to describe it as a slight mixture of amusement/pity with the key word here being slight and I wont be feeding you adolescent attempt at instigating anger by throwing more insults around.

While some of what you said is indeed correct, So was my analogy. Yes I know it was over simplistic but that was so it could be easily understood. If it went over your head I'm sorry.
:pt1cable: 
Score
0
October 9, 2011 8:14:06 AM

Quote:
"REALLY, YOU TRULY THINK I DON'T UNDERSTAND DDR3?"
= nerd rage. Hands down, there's no debating this. You probably pressed the keys really hard when you typed it, too.

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your

Your analogy was based on faulty understanding, thus; fundamentally flawed.
You can't build a brick building if the bricks you have are really sand, but you still think they are bricks.
Osnap, analogy war?

Leaps from Shadows was saying the Intel EE chipset that supports triple channel doesn't live up to Sandy Bridge, which supports only dual channel. He isn't arguing the increased memory bandwidth garnered from running triple channel(nowhere, did I see anyone question the added memory bandwidth that comes from running triple channel, which I'm guessing your attempt at creative writing was trying to address), he's saying the cost-to-performance ratio sucks, compared to the Sandy Bridge. It sounds like the fault lies in the EE chipset, and not in triple channel. Given that AMD is refusing to support it, I would agree with Leaps-From-Shadows prediction about triple channel being surpassed rather quickly, in the not-too-distant future.
Score
0
October 9, 2011 9:08:29 AM

thisguyisnuts said:
Quote:
"REALLY, YOU TRULY THINK I DON'T UNDERSTAND DDR3?"
= nerd rage. Hands down, there's no debating this. You probably pressed the keys really hard when you typed it, too.


Yea, OK whatever. My understanding of DDR, DDR2 + DDR3 is complete but, you can believe what ever you want if it makes you feel better. I really don't care.

You said: "he's saying the cost-to-performance ratio sucks, compared to the Sandy Bridge. "Hmm Did you actually read my first post? Because if you actually did, you would know that I wrote: "If you want a very good cpu at a very good price Sandy Bridge is a great choice" did you notice the use of the words "very good" and "great choice" because I really don't know what point your trying to make if you did.

But then I also added "but if you want the best Intel's 6 core extreme is the way to go and like always top performance always demands top Dollar!" Why? Because it's true. I was never trying to argue dollar for dollar value that's just too subjective and based more on the individuals needs, wants, desires and financial situation than anything else.

Then you go on to say: " Given that AMD is refusing to support it," Really, you want to bring AMD into the discussion. Since when have AMD's CPU's been anywhere near cutting edge on anything when compared to Intel. AMD's CPU's have always been more about value than performance hence if you were to replace "refusing" with can't or at least can't support it for their target price range, your statement would be far more accurate. I think even you know better, maybe not.

The second part of your statement: "I would agree with Leaps-From-Shadows prediction about triple channel being surpassed rather quickly, in the not-too-distant future."
I have to admit I'm kind of at a loss for words, other-than DUH! Have you been around computer technology for long?

Intel does in fact have plans in the works for 8-core CPU's and DDR4 capability. Just so there is no misunderstanding I mean full capability in the sense that Intel plans to make CPU's that can use it in quad (that means 4) channel mode (I really shouldn't have to be so specific for you, anyone with an ounce of knowledge should know what I'm talking about but in your case obviously I do). Why? Because more cores and higher memory bandwidth are important and will become more so as more apps are written to take advantage of this. First come the cores and bandwidth, then the applications, but if you had been paying any attention to computer technology AT ALL you should have already known this.

You say that I don't understand DDR3. Yet your own statement shows that you know this isn't true. Your statement: "nowhere, did I see anyone question the added memory bandwidth that comes from running triple channel, which I'm guessing your attempt at creative writing was trying to address" Ya think!

The sad thing is if you had just kept quiet no one would even know what an imbecile (was trying to be nice, real nice) you really are!

So I have to wonder what exactly is your problem?
Score
0
October 10, 2011 10:23:21 PM

Solid benchmark comparison ----> http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=1381...
Read.....and try to understand?

Quote:
because I really don't know what point your* trying to make if you did.

*Here it is again: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your

Right after the statement where you "don't know the point", at the beginning of the following sentence, I said:
Quote:
He isn't arguing the increased memory bandwidth garnered from running triple channel
That is the point. Usually, when someone says something that is difficult to grasp the point of, and and you are left confused, try paying attention to what they say RIGHT AFTER it(or sometimes right before). Often, you will find your answers there.
I was staying on the subject of this thread, which is triple channel vs. dual channel.
Not DDR3 vs. DDR2.

Bulldozer ring a bell?
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/95633-amd-bulldoze...

...and yes, I am familiar with quad-channel. AMD has servers that run in it.

I find your simplicity of imagination amusing; when I completely called out your ignorance/confusion(fueled with n3rd rage) on a subject and you are lashing back with little quips about my understanding of basically the same subject, which are based on nothing but your distorted perception of reality.

Quote:
The second part of your statement: "I would agree with Leaps-From-Shadows prediction about triple channel being surpassed rather quickly, in the not-too-distant future."
I have to admit I'm kind of at a loss for words, other-than DUH! Have you been around computer technology for long?


I was referring to the examples that were listed in his post, not the Law of Accelerating returns(Google it, I know you need to).


Quote:
You say that I don't understand DDR3. Yet your own statement shows that you know this isn't true. Your statement: "nowhere, did I see anyone question the added memory bandwidth that comes from running triple channel, which I'm guessing your attempt at creative writing was trying to address" Ya think!


...I don't know how to answer this.
I don't see how the above quote validates any type of confusion on my part, nor how it negates any on yours, or why it was even included. The explanation is "ya think!!" It is all kinds of crazy. I'd be better off arguing politics with Ted Kaczynski.

I said you thought DDR3 = triple channel and triple channel = DDR3. Usually when you think one thing is something else, your understanding of it is far from "complete".

The only actions that would put me in the realm of imbecility would be wasting my time replying to these absurd posts.

What is my problem?
My problem, as I stated earlier, was that you were wrong, not listening to people who corrected you politely; and rather than learn from such clarification and expand your knowledge of a subject you needed education on, you claimed confusion as fact and were a big-all-caps-internet-jerk about it.
I found this thread in an attempt to learn more about triple channel vs. dual channel, and your misinformation could be detrimental to others that will be be doing the same.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 6:20:51 PM

thisguyisnuts said:
What is my problem?
My problem, as I stated earlier, was that you were wrong, not listening to people who corrected you politely; and rather than learn from such clarification and expand your knowledge of a subject you needed education on, you claimed confusion as fact and were a big-all-caps-internet-jerk about it.
I found this thread in an attempt to learn more about triple channel vs. dual channel, and your misinformation could be detrimental to others that will be be doing the same.


Oh come on, It's blatantly obvious to anyone reading your posts that you came to and posted on this thread with no other intention than to flame another forum member. You joined Tom's Hardware on Oct. 6th 2011 under the screen name "thisguyisnuts" and your first post was a response to my post the very same day.

Since ALL of you posts (4 in total) have been direct responses to my posts it's obvious that even your screen name "thisguyisnuts" was also created for the sole purpose of flaming. You're (you are) fooling no one.

You say that I was wrong and responded rudely to polite people. What was I wrong about? I said "DDR3 does indeed equal triple-channel" I never said or even suggested that DDR3 always equals triple-channel. In fact I quite clearly pointed out in my first post as well as the one that you were so offended by that DDR3 does NOT always equal triple-channel due to the users hardware/configuration.

I even posted a very basic-simple-easy to under stand analogy as to why I made the statement "DDR3 does indeed equal triple-channel". If you had understood this (very basic-simple-easy to under stand) analogy you would have also understood the part where DDR3 did NOT equal triple-channel due to configuration/hardware.
Since you say you could not understand this (very basic-simple-easy to under stand) analogy, I'll explain it to you.

300lb weight set = triple-channel, could only lift 200lbs = platform (CPU, Motherboard) only capable of dual-channel memory operation, someone that is capable using it to it's full potential and lift the entire 300lbs = platform capable of triple-channel memory operation. I realize that explaining this may have seemed a little retarded but, unfortunately it was necessary for "thisguyisnuts".

If I was unclear about anything I posted in either of my 1st 2 posts, it was my use of the designation DDR2 when I stated "can only run it as DDR2" instead of saying dual-channel but with the exception of "thisguyisnuts" and 2 other Sandy Bridge Fan(atics), I think most people (that wanted to understand) knew that I meant DDR2's maximum 2 channel capability, if not it should be clear now. While some might say that that DDR2 is indeed capable of triple-channel because number of channels is due to other hardware (CPU, Motherboard), they would be almost correct except that (to my knowledge) there has never been any hardware and most likely will never be any hardware that allows this.
And just so there's no more confusion on what someone might think I "SEEM TO THINK" nowhere in this entire thread have I even suggested that the 3 in DDR3 or the 2 in DDR2 has any direct correlation to the number of channels memory is capable of. To the best of my knowledge it is a generation designation.

As far as the whole rudeness/politeness thing goes, First "Leaps-from-Shadows's" says: "You seem to think DDR3 equals triple-channel, which isn't the case. Sandy Bridge uses DDR3 in dual-channel, while EE uses DDR3 in triple-channel." Then "compulsivebuilder" says: "The 990 fan(atic) was badly mistaken about DDR3, and about his chip being so much better than any Sandy Bridge chip"

I really don't think to many people would find either one of those statements polite. While they're not incredibly rude by any measure (you're the only one that has been incredibly rude on this thread), they were definitely a misrepresentation of what I said and certainly, they were a long way from polite.

By the same token my response "REALLY, YOU TRULY THINK I DON'T UNDERSTAND DDR3?" was not meant to be incredibly rude, or polite for that matter. Maybe you don't realize it but upper case is also used to accentuate the importance of a word(s) or sentence, like when you see a warning label. Almost always the word WARNING is in upper case. This is used to accentuate the level of importance the author has given to a word(s) or sentence not the level of rage or anger directed at the user/reader.

Is this why your so miserable? Did you actually think all those warning labels on just about every man-made product was angrily screaming (Nerd Raging) at you? You poor miserable fool! I feel for ya!

You say you came to this thread to learn, now would be a good time to start!

So did you think you could make a point about my supposed rudeness by lashing out in your first two responses to my posts in this thread and trying to squeeze as many insults into them as possible. Comments like: "Weirdo with the weight analogies", "misplaced commas", "still confused", "too much HGH", "you nerd-rage", "spew angry nonsense". Because let me tell you, between that "misplaced commas" comment and the constant reminder that I sometimes write "your" when I should have instead written "you're" I'm so depressed I don't even know if I will be able to get out of bed tomorrow. :lol:  I mean what are you like 10yrs old?

You post links as if just posting them somehow gives you credibility when they often don't even address the comments made and even when they do, they often don't support your position. A perfect example is this link: [/url] (if link doesn't work just copy/paste) which you posted after stating: "Bulldozer ring a bell?" Since that's all you said on the subject I have to assume it's in response to a this comment I made in my previous post:
Then you go on to say: " Given that AMD is refusing to support it," Really, you want to bring AMD into the discussion. Since when have AMD's CPU's been anywhere near cutting edge on anything when compared to Intel. AMD's CPU's have always been more about value than performance hence if you were to replace "refusing" with can't or at least can't support it for their target price range, your statement would be far more accurate. I think even you know better, maybe not. said:
Then you go on to say: " Given that AMD is refusing to support it," Really, you want to bring AMD into the discussion. Since when have AMD's CPU's been anywhere near cutting edge on anything when compared to Intel. AMD's CPU's have always been more about value than performance hence if you were to replace "refusing" with can't or at least can't support it for their target price range, your statement would be far more accurate. I think even you know better, maybe not.
Your link quite clearly supports my previous statement so I have to wonder did you even read it or did you just assume that no one else would!

So just in case no one did here are a few quotes from that link:
Early benchmarks of Bulldozer showed that Zambezi was never likely to be competitive with Intel’s Core i7 — and these prices, which are all well below any of Intel’s comparable i7 (and even some i5) Sandy Bridge chips, suggest that the FX Series chips are priced to sell rather than compete. said:
Early benchmarks of Bulldozer showed that Zambezi was never likely to be competitive with Intel’s Core i7 — and these prices, which are all well below any of Intel’s comparable i7 (and even some i5) Sandy Bridge chips, suggest that the FX Series chips are priced to sell rather than compete.

And
In all likelihood, though, AMD probably never intended to compete with Intel in terms of raw processing power — and the just-announced Intel i7-2700k, which will arrive around the same time as the FX Series, will certainly make sure of that. Zambezi, if anything, is simply intended to close the widening gap between Phenom II and Sandy Bridge — to prove to consumers and OEMs that AMD still knows know to make a competitive CPU. Here’s hoping. said:
In all likelihood, though, AMD probably never intended to compete with Intel in terms of raw processing power — and the just-announced Intel i7-2700k, which will arrive around the same time as the FX Series, will certainly make sure of that. Zambezi, if anything, is simply intended to close the widening gap between Phenom II and Sandy Bridge — to prove to consumers and OEMs that AMD still knows know to make a competitive CPU. Here’s hoping.

Enough said on that subject.

Your obvious intentional misrepresentation of quotes by not mentioning who actually wrote what or taking them out of context and making comments that suggest that they mean something other than they actually do are pretty lame as well. Anyone can re-read my previous posts to find the truth. Although even I have to admit you have my grudging admiration for your comments surrounding the 2nd quote in your last post. You so artfully wove your comments both before and after it to make any reader that had not read the original think it meant something completely different than what it originally meant. You gained my grudging admiration, but you actually lost a few points in the respect department (not that there was actually any left to lose). But regardless, any third world propaganda department would be happy to have you as an employee.

So what is your problem? I really don't know. Maybe you were originally posting under a different (your usual) screen name and you felt insulted by what I said. A little too thin skinned if that's the case. Or maybe you were just abused as a child. Again, I really don't know or care for that matter. It does make for interesting speculation though.

Something else I know is that the forum member that started this thread "jwill27" understood my point of view and went on to buy the system that was right for his needs. A Intel core i7 990X with 24gb's of DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration. :kaola: 

The one thing I won't be doing in the future is responding to anymore of your posts. Although it may be somewhat amusing, it is also an exercise in futility and unfair to the other readers/posters of this thread but, I guess you could always re-register under a new screen name and try again. Let's hope not! :hello: 
Score
0
November 24, 2011 9:06:50 AM

wow!
Score
0
November 25, 2011 1:50:43 AM

I couldn't be bothered to read most of this but the way I understand it is the memory controller will access both modules in dual channel mode at the same time reducing bottlenecking and likewise it will access all 3 at the sametime in tri channel mode which should give you faster memory operation.
Score
0
November 26, 2011 5:30:40 AM

@alrobichaud something like that ,
and i have to agree with idonno , LGA 1366 is worth the money if -:
1) you have a freaking large budget.
2) if you are going to run multiple applications requiring a large number of threads ( relatively speaking )
3)for pure bragging rights.
Score
0
November 27, 2011 9:25:48 AM

hyperreader said:
@alrobichaud something like that ,
and i have to agree with idonno , LGA 1366 is worth the money if -:
1) you have a freaking large budget.
2) if you are going to run multiple applications requiring a large number of threads ( relatively speaking )
3)for pure bragging rights.


Yea, your right on all accounts and there are also instances where some professional users could say that the extra cost paid for itself in a short period of time.

But with the entrance of the new LGA 2011 it looks like all bragging rights for the 1366 are just a pleasant memory.

That's one reason true enthusiasts love computer tech. Every time Comp Tech reaches a pinnacle there's another one right around the corner!

There are SOOOO many things I like about the new LGA 2011 and the 6 core extreme that goes with it. Not to mention 4 channel ram or the possible ram total of 64GB and a new 8 core extreme Cpu from Intel on the way that many LGA 2011 mother board manufacturers say will be compatible with there motherboards! ALL I CAN SAY IS WOW!!!!!!

Just imagine 64GB's quad channel ram, You could make a 40GB RamDisk and still have 24GB's to play with! Simply Amazing!

INTEL SATA III TOO!!!! ah i better stop before I give myself a stroke. :lol: 
Score
0
December 7, 2011 12:28:49 PM

Idonno said:
My system:
Asus Rampage III Formula / Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Six-Core Processor / CORSAIR Hydro H70 CPU Cooler / 24GB CORSAIR DOMINATOR DDR3 1600 / Asus OC station / 2 X Radeon HD 6870 in CrossFire / 2 X Corsair Force 120GB Solid State Drives in raid 0 / 4 X SAMSUNG Spinpoint F4 2TB 5400 RPM in raid 5 / ASUS Blu-ray Burner / ASUS 24X DVD Burner / CORSAIR 1000W Modular PSU / Corsair Obsidian 800D ATX Case / 3 X Asus VE248H Black 24" LCD Monitors for Eyefinity / HT | OMEGA eClaro Sound Card / Klipsch ProMedia DD-5.1 DTS, Dolby Digital & Dolby Pro Logic digital decoder-preamplifier W/Remote / Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Multimedia Speaker System / Logitech MX 5500 Revolution Bluetooth Desktop keyboard & Mouse / Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit


Hi, when I saw what you've written here I was trying to hold back and write nothing, but I just can't... lol its stronger than me...

With all that investment, at least, you sure are the "baddest kid on your block"... But really, do you do anything useful with all that investment? Or you're just rich and like to spend money in nice looking computer hardware parts? I'm sorry I cant understand, I come from the old 80486s... the effective MIPS changed drastically in so little time, but, what do you need all that stuff? Do you do SETI applied research at home with some occasional gaming? LOL... OMG...

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against you, but I found this funny...
Score
0
December 7, 2011 2:57:37 PM

Too funny! My first computer was a 486dx-33 running dos 6.2 I think....but I could be mistaken. Anyway, that setup may be a bit overkill but if I had money to burn I would spend it on the most kick ass machine I could build and then maybe lease some processing power to NASA maybe.
Score
0
December 7, 2011 10:36:23 PM

TMMS said:
Hi, when I saw what you've written here I was trying to hold back and write nothing, but I just can't... lol its stronger than me...

With all that investment, at least, you sure are the "baddest kid on your block"... But really, do you do anything useful with all that investment? Or you're just rich and like to spend money in nice looking computer hardware parts? I'm sorry I cant understand, I come from the old 80486s... the effective MIPS changed drastically in so little time, but, what do you need all that stuff? Do you do SETI applied research at home with some occasional gaming? LOL... OMG...

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against you, but I found this funny...


Well, Let's see if I can add a some sanity to all the computer madness. I say a some because indeed there is some of of both sanity and madness. :bounce:  So I'll start at the beginning.

I'm 54 years old now and my first computer experience was at middle school on a IBM computer terminal about 30 miles away from the IBM 360 mainframe computer in White Plains NY. about 43yrs ago. I used to sign myself into the computer lab quit often after school but in all fairness the thing I excelled at the most was getting the thing to print "Syntax Error".

With that accomplishment firmly under my belt I decided to leave computers well enough alone for a while until around 1985? when I got an apple compatible PC for the fantastic deal of $1200 (not including the monitor which I had to purchase separately). After hours and hours of manual programing (mostly unsuccessful) my PC sat largely unused, although the occasional "Syntax Error" did give me a warm fuzzy feeling :pt1cable: 

After that the household computer wizardry was left largely up to my children who had a commodore 64 and multiple Amiga's before running through the whole windows PC gambit. I remember how amazed we all were when we boosted the ram from 256K to 512K via an external expansion slot. I also think it was around this time that I first became aware of the term/abbreviation KIPS and later MIPS.

Although I admit that during this time (other than keeping up with the advancements in compute technology, which has always amazed me), I rarely actually used a PC. I spent my time working, which included running/owning a small but successful audio retail business. My 2 oldest boys went on to collage and then to successful careers in computer related fields. They both formed their own separate company's and live aboard their own sailing yachts in NJ, 5min from downtown Manhattan by water taxi, Only showing up to work once or twice a week, if they feel like it.

Anyway about 10yrs ago my 2 oldest boys finally talked me into buying my own home PC and learning how to use it. I bought a Dell dimension 4700 with Windows XP Home, a 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 CPU, 512MB's ram and a lot of other cheap components. Then I proceeded to not sleep hardly at all for the next 6 months. I attacked my OS in a fearless manor, screwing things up constantly and learning a little more every time. In about 30 days (or less) Dell support was completely useless to me. Although since I'm talking about "Dell support" I'm not sure that gives me any bragging rights.

Over the next 9 yrs I've upgraded that Dell as far as possible: 3.8Ghz Pentium 4 CPU and upgraded heatsink, 4GB's ram (the MAX), internal Sata II, eSata, 3 TB internal storage, CORSAIR 650W PSU, AMD HD5750, $350 sound card & breakout box, XP PRO and much more. And even though its not really the same PC It still works pretty well.

Also during this time, with the help of my boys, I got into a little A/V editing and if you have ever done that on a Pentium 4 you will certainly understand my need for a complete upgrade!

About 1yr ago, after receiving a substantial sum of money on top of my regular income, I made the decision to upgrade . Did I spend allot of money? Yes, but It really wasn't that hard to justify since this new PC also makes me money. Could I have spent less? Of course but, I also could have spent more. Allot more, on both PC components and peripherals, for instance: I almost bought a set of Blue Sky 5.1 PC studio monitors for $6,000+ (Genelec also makes a pretty nice set for about $9,000) but, I decided to put that on the back burner (for now). Admittedly my A/V work boarders on a hobby and by professional standards my equipment is pretty lame when compared to a pro A/V monitor for $60,000 or a pro digital A/V deck for $250,000.

I guess my point is how much money one person is willing to spend should not justify disapproval of what someone else spends. It is just way to subjective for that. :whistle: 

I love this PC, it's truly a joy to work on and as far as being the "baddest kid on the block" as I said, I love Technology and yea that was real cool while it lasted.
Back in February I ran PassMark performance test. My system benchmark was 7774.49 placing me 8th of over 350,000 PC's benchmarked worldwide, with a completely stable system I could run 24/7.

All but two of the seven PC's above mine had dual CPU motherboards, so my PC was actually the third highest scoring single CPU PC worldwide ever tested with PassMark at the time. So yea, I thought that was cool, real cool and very few people will ever know about it, but I'll never forget it!

And one final thought: this PC is partially what I needed and partially what I wanted. When you reach my age (54) you really shouldn't wait too much longer to get what you want! You need some time to enjoy it! :lol: 
,

@alrobichaud, Your current system is pretty nice too!
Score
0
December 8, 2011 1:34:07 PM

Thanks. There are certainly better systems out there but I like it. I am already planning to upgrade the GPU's, eventhough I can play bf3 on ultra, simply because I can. For a lot of people, like me, my computer is more of a hobby than anything. My processing power far exceeds anything that I need it for but I still want more!
Score
0
December 8, 2011 6:09:14 PM

Yea, I understand you thoughts on that precisely and any one else that has ever had any hobby that they are enthusiastic about should as well. :sol: 
Score
0
December 12, 2011 5:37:52 PM

Idonno said:
REALLY, YOU TRULY THINK I DON'T UNDERSTAND DDR3?

And since you brought it up, DDR3 does indeed equal triple-channel. Just because Sandy Bridge is incapable of using DDR3 to it's full potential and can only run it as DDR2 does not mean the ram itself is not triple-channel memory.

If you had a 300lb weight set but, could only lift 200lbs would that mean you only had a 200lb weight set?

NO!

All that would mean is you are not as strong as someone that is capable using it to it's full potential and lift the entire 300lbs!

Sorry (NOT) to be blunt but, you kind of asked for it!



Wow, you really don't know memory. DDR3 DOES NOT EQUAL TRIPLE CHANNEL! WTF, no wonder you build the machine you have, your brainless...
Score
0
December 12, 2011 8:35:34 PM

OmagaIII said:
Wow, you really don't know memory. DDR3 DOES NOT EQUAL TRIPLE CHANNEL! WTF, no wonder you build the machine you have, your brainless...



Well look I'm not sure if your just trying to start up a dead argument or maybe you didn't read enough of the posts to understand what I meant and said which is that in the right configuration DDR3 DOES INDEED EQUAL TRIPLE CHANNEL. Those words "in the right configuration" are pretty important here since I was very clear in my posts to point out that the number of channels DDR3 operated on was a direct result of the users configuration and not the ram.

As far as My PC goes, I didn't build it for you or with your approval in mind. I could care less what you think about it.

And just like "thisguyisnuts" on the same day that you join the forum, you make your 1st and only post to me in an obvious effort to insult and flame. The similarity's are relieving! You sad little troll! :pt1cable: 
Score
0
December 13, 2011 1:15:36 PM

@idonno
so how much did you have to shell out for your system , .
and lga 2011 supports 128 GB of memory.
16 ram slots each with 8 GB on the mainstream boards.
and dual-CPU configs on slightly higher end mobos.
Score
0
December 13, 2011 10:31:17 PM

hyperreader said:
@idonno
so how much did you have to shell out for your system , .
and lga 2011 supports 128 GB of memory.
16 ram slots each with 8 GB on the mainstream boards.
and dual-CPU configs on slightly higher end mobos.


Yea, your technically correct about lga 2011 supporting 128 GB of memory. However I have yet to see any lga 2011 motherboards that have more than 8 ram slots. The only lga 2011 mainstream motherboards that I have seen, that say they support 128 GB of Ram are two by MSI and they still only have 8 ram slots so even then 128GB's of ram would only be possible with 16GB ram sticks and as far as I know no one is making that yet.

I haven't seen any dual-CPU lga 2011 mainstream or server motherboards yet.

The cost of my system was:

Tower and all internals

Corsair Obsidian Series 800D Black Aluminum/Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case__________________279.99
Asus OC Station______________________________________________________________________161.97
ASUS Black Blu-ray Burner SATA BW-12B1LT LightScribe Support - OEM__________________________119.99
ASUS 24X DVD Burner Black SATA Model DRW-24B3LT LightScribe Support - OEM___________________19.99
Asus Rampage III Formula motherboard____________________________________________________299.99
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Six-Core Desktop Processor_________________________________999.99
CORSAIR Hydro H70 CPU Cooler__________________________________________________________103.99
Corsair 1000w HX Modular PSU___________________________________________________________229.99
CORSAIR DOMINATOR 24GB (6 x 4GB) DDR3 1600 and Airflow II Fan_____________________________359.99
2 x Corsair Force 120GB SATA II SSD's @ $234.99 ea_________________________________________469.98
5 x SAMSUNG F4 HD204UI 2TB SATA II Hard Drives (+ 1 spare) @ 99.99 ea________________________499.95
2 x SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 @ $249.99 ea_______________________________499.98
HT | OMEGA eClaro 7.1 Channels PCI Express x1 Interface Sound Card____________________________184.99
Koutech Dual Channel USB 3.0 PCI Express Card (2x internal) (for 2 additional front ports)_____________34.99
3 x Vantec Thermoflow 120mm Double Ball Bearing Temperature Controlled Case Fans @ $12.99 ea______38.97
Vantec Stealth 120mm Double Ball Bearing Silent Case Fan______________________________________12.99
SAPPHIRE Active DisplayPort Adapter (DisplayPort to DVI Interface)_______________________________26.99
12" Red Dual Cold Cathode Kit_____________________________________________________________8.99
24 inch 3pin Case Fan Extension Cable - Black Sleeved__________________________________________4.98
18 inch 3pin Case Fan Extension Cable - Black Sleeved__________________________________________5.97
12 inch 3pin Case Fan Extension Cable - Black Sleeved__________________________________________5.97
4Pin PWM Extension 12inch Cable - Black Sleeved______________________________________________4.75
Computer Fan 3-pin "Y" Splitter Cable - Black Sleeved___________________________________________2.49
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 1-Pack for System Builders - OEM____________________________179.99

Subtotal for tower and all internals (S&H not included)_______________________________________$4,557.87

Peripherals:

3 X Asus VE248H Black 24" Full HD HDMI, DVI-D, D-Sub LED Backlight LCD Monitors @ $209.99 ea______629.97
Logitech MX 5500 Revolution Black Bluetooth Cordless Desktop Standard keyboard & Mouse Kit_________149.99
Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Computer Speakers W/cooling upgrade_________________________________240.00
Audio-Technica ATH-A700 Circumaural Closed-Back Dynamic Headphone____________________________119.25
CyberPower PP2200SW (Pure Sine Wave) 2200VA 1500W battery back-up__________________________483.52

Subtotal for Peripherals (S&H not included)________________________________________________$1,622.73

Total approximate S&H (S&H on most items was free)__________________________________________$75.00

Total System Cost___________________________________________________________________$6,255.60


And I believe that should completely answer your first question. :sol: 
Score
0
December 14, 2011 11:08:27 AM

hyperreader said:
that is impressive.
but you paid too much for your gfx card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
and i could have sworn i saw several boards on newegg with 16 ramslots.


THANKS.

You have to remember I built this PC 1yr ago. At the time $249.99 was a good price and 2 cards for CF were about $75 cheaper and had better all-a-round performance than a GTX 580.

I make about 95% of my computer related purchases at newegg and I checked before I responded to you last time. From what I saw newegg doesn't have any LGA 2011 server boards at all, just yet and and only a max of 8 ram slots on the other LGA 2011 boards.

LGA 2011 is still really new and I'm sure we'll see a lot more before it's all said and done. I'm kind of curious to see whether EVGA is going to offer something similar to the SR-2 for this new socket. :sol: 
Score
0
a b } Memory
December 14, 2011 12:03:38 PM

Only LGA 2011 and Opteron x200 dual-CPU motherboards could have exactly 16 RAM slots, 8 per CPU. Since I have yet to see a dual-slot LGA 2011 it might now count yet but they are probably coming. Some of the advanced server motherboards support 16GB and some 32GB per module. 32GB is probably the largest module capacity on the market right now.

DDR3 does not equal triple channel although some motherboards can run DDR3 memory in triple channel mode. The 3 in DDR3 has absolutely no relation to channels, it is just that DDR3 is the third RAM technology in the DDR family. There are other RAM technologies that are DDR in the literal meaning of DDR but they aren't called DDR because of other differences, not the least of which lawsuits and compatibility. DDR3 can be run in 1, 2, 3, or 4 channels depending on your motherboard's capabilities. If motherboards were made that supported even more channels then the RAM would not need to be changed in order to run in those additional channels.

If someone really wanted to they could build a DDR2 or even DDR motherboard that supported triple channel or more because the RAM technology isn't what chooses the number of channels it is the memory controller that is located on the CPU in Intel computers based on the LGA 1156 or newer sockets and all AMD computers since 2003 or so or on the northbridge chip on the motherboard of LGA 775 and LGA 771 motherboards and older for Intel and very old AMD motherboards. Moving the controller to the CPU increased performance because it got rid of a middleman between the RAM and CPU and it decreased power consumption of the motherboard because one less chip was required in a chipset.

On desktop systems only x58 motherboards support triple channel and only x79 motherboards support quad channel. On the server side Xeons and Opterons support dual, triple, or quad channel also depending on the motherboard's chipset. Every modern computer with two or more DIMM or SO-DIMM slots support dual channel, without any exception I'm aware of. In this sense of modern system I mean pretty much anything that can run DDR memory or newer.

The problem with increasing channel count is that bandwidth really doesn't increase by much. dual, triple, and quad channel are not double, triple, and quadruple the bandwidth like you would think they are. The difference between single and quad channel may be significant bu the difference between single and dual channel really isn't that big. The difference between dual and triple is even lower. Also, LGA 1155 quad core CPUs are considerably faster in work that doesn't use more than 4 threads compared to LGA 1366 CPUs. LGA 2011 CPUs have the best of both worlds, fast single threaded performance and fast multi threaded performance.

For gaming the 1366 CPUs really aren't any better unless you make use of their extra PCIe lanes. In fact they are slightly slower in many games. Not noticeably slower but still slower. Of course this changes with dual graphics card setups but because the PCIe lanes aren't directly connected to the CPU (In LGA1366 they go to the chipset) like they are in LGA 1155 there is increased latency between the CPU and GPU. This isn't the only reason for the differences between LGA 1366 and 1155 but it is there. Well, I'm done ranting.

I apologize for commenting about the older debate but it was really irking me as I read through this thread. I assume you meant by your side that only DDR3 was capable of triple channel on any motherboard built in which case you are right but this other guy(s) really annoyed me in his misunderstanding of this. In all fairness you weren't very clear about it but that is no reason for him/her to act that way, especially on a site like this.

Moving on to the current argument, Idunno you definitely have a better machine then I could afford and unlike some others here I won't hate you for it (although I wouldn't mind having the cash to throw around on a machine like that).
Score
0
December 14, 2011 12:29:53 PM

^+ 1 bazillion.

my rig:-

CPU - intel E8400@3.0GHz.
mobo - intel DG31PR
GPU - nvidia 9500 gt
ram - 2*2 GB DDR 2 ( one stick@288mhz , other one@400mhz. )
generic case.
boxed heatsink and fan.
and all this cost nearly a 1000$ in 2008.
feel free to make fun of it.
Score
0
December 14, 2011 2:43:12 PM

blazorthon said:
I apologize for commenting about the older debate but it was really irking me as I read through this thread. I assume you meant by your side that only DDR3 was capable of triple channel on any motherboard built in which case you are right but this other guy(s) really annoyed me in his misunderstanding of this. In all fairness you weren't very clear about it but that is no reason for him/her to act that way, especially on a site like this.

Moving on to the current argument, Idunno you definitely have a better machine then I could afford and unlike some others here I won't hate you for it (although I wouldn't mind having the cash to throw around on a machine like that).


Don't apologize, your post was very clear/concise and devoid of malice. Very informative as well. :D 

However Just so no one has to assume what I meant, I NEVER SAID DDR3 ALWAYS = TRIPLE CHANNEL. In fact I have repeatedly pointed out that it does not. I have stated previously in this thread and I QUOTE:
"And just so there's no more confusion on what someone might think I "SEEM TO THINK" nowhere in this entire thread have I even suggested that the 3 in DDR3 or the 2 in DDR2 has any direct correlation to the number of channels memory is capable of. To the best of my knowledge it is a generation designation. " :non: said:
"And just so there's no more confusion on what someone might think I "SEEM TO THINK" nowhere in this entire thread have I even suggested that the 3 in DDR3 or the 2 in DDR2 has any direct correlation to the number of channels memory is capable of. To the best of my knowledge it is a generation designation. " :non: 


And in spite of what I just wrote I really did enjoy your post, I guess its just a little bit of cumulative frustration. :fou: 

As far as the whole expensive PC thing goes I have friends that go on expensive vacations, buy expensive Bass Boats, expensive cars, jet ski's, etc..etc..etc. We are all mostly skilled blue collar type workers none of us are poor and certainly none of us are rich. But I have never felt any jealousy, anger or felt the need for negative judgement because they spent their own money on something that made them happy. Go figure! And thanks for not hatin'. :pt1cable: 
Score
0
December 14, 2011 3:14:44 PM

hyperreader said:

feel free to make fun of it.


Never, you get what you can afford when you can afford it. That's all! :bounce: 

Besides my amazing powers of precognition are trying to tell me something...wait.....its getting clearer.... OK... got it! Someday, your going to have one kick-ass PC and you know my predictions always come true! :whistle: 
Score
0
!