Shop for All
|
Prestige Portable 500GB 2.5" Hard... |
Compare the top 5 lowest prices by hovering your mouse over the product names on the left |
$105.99 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB Hard Drive | $139.99 | |
|
My Passport Essential Black... | $129.99 | |
|
Elements External 1 TB Hard Drive | $109.00 | |
|
Caviar GP 750GB Hard Drive | $89.99 |
All about Internal Storage
All Internal Storage articles
All performance charts
Need help ?
Related content
- dual channel vs single channel
- single vs dual channel ram
- dual channel memory vs single channel
- difference between dual channel and single channel
- dual channel mode
- difference between single channel and dual channel memory
- test dual channel
- four channel ram
- what is the difference between dual channel and single channel ram
- single channel vs dual channel performance
- test dual channel ram
- difference between dual channel and single channel memory
- dual channel ram worth it
- single channel vs dual channel flash drive
- single vs dual
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Friday the 24th
Exterminate Santa Claus's elves. Use the arrows to move, S to grab the elves, and A or W to attack them with your sword.
|
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
Ads
Sponsored links
9:00 AM - 10/17/2007 by
Patrick Schmid
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (3) |
- Share
Let’s now answer the more important question: is dual channel memory really worth it?
3D Benchmarks
3DMark06 only cares about high graphics and CPU performance. It doesn’t seem to mind us switching the 2 GB total main memory from dual channel to single channel operation.
Call of Duty 2 runs approximately 4.2% slower on the same hardware when dual channel mode is not used.
The performance difference in Prey is very small: 1.6%.
There is even less of a difference under Quake IV.
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- CPU Buyers' Guide (updated 10 May 2008)
- Best CPU for Parallel Cluster?
- Just how is dual core different than non?
- AMD blows $75 million on Rambus
- Compatible?
- Why AMD is better than Intel?
- 256bit 8600 GTS real or just rumours?
- Fluid Flight Sim PC and more. Help please on best equipment
- Best mobo for this processor...
- x1900gt/x1800xt same price. help me choose.
- 3 Motherboards, one choice
- Why is PC RAM only 64-bit?
- The Graphics State of the Union
- Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage
Related news
- Microsoft Officially Names Cloud-base Operating System "Windows Azure"
- Nvidia adds double graphics processing to GeForce 6800
- UPDATE: Google combines spreadsheets and word processing
- Second-gen Tesla Packs More Memory, Bandwidth, Processing Horsepower
- Intel And Nvidia Co-sponsors In Parallel Programming Initiative
This is a great article!
(Firt of all: Excuse my poor English... )
mmm yours memory tests don't convince me. You should run, for example, Winrar AND Lame IN PARALLEL/SIMULTANEOUS (i.e multitasking), otherwise, caches don't are flushed (and it's when dual channel really is important). Note that it's not a superflous situation; under normal use a system commonly have several huge memory applications run concurrently (word, browser whith a lot of tabs open, anti-virus, etc. )
el_bot
I doubt anyone from Tom's will see this comment on such an old article, but it would have been interesting to see Single-vs.-Dual channel memory using an AMD processor. Since Tom's like Intel, the new Core i7's would also be beneficial. The point is, the article acknowledges the Core 2's have a tremendous amount of L2 cache to combat FSB (and consequently Memory) latencies. How is the comparison with an AMD or nwe Core i7 where there is NO FSB and the L2 Cache is significantly reduce? I would imagine this is where dual/tripple-channel shows is mustard. I hope we see a single vs. dual vs. triple channel comparison soon.