Somewhere in a previous post i read that dual channel memory was made so that ram could catch up intel's 800fsb.
But how could it be helpful to amd processors that have 400 or less fsb?
It isn't. The fastest nForce2 400 boards match the fastest nForce2 400 Ultra boards in performance.
nVidia used dual channel to stagger timing for reduced latency. It had a small performance gain, but it was so small as to not be worth noting for most configurations.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
I think you'd see simply results using Cas2.5 single channel to using Cas3 in dual channel on a XP series processor.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Maybe, but problem is i can't find 512mb(or 256) with cl2.5 in greece(yeah thats where i live)unless i pick ddr333, which i dont really want since i'm thinking to overclock the cpu later. So what should i do....?
Sorry for the confusion. You do get a very small performance increase using Dual Channel mode on nVidia's dual-channel chipsets for XP processors. The difference is SO small that it's probably not be worth the added cost of buying 2 smaller modules rather than 1 big one.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>