If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT Dual Channel Memory
For many years I have been hearing all the buzz about Dual Channel
memory how it was so much faster than single channel or single stick, you need to use match sticks and in pairs to get this supercharged memory to work, etc. At long last I have just recieved and article which test this urban myth (at least it seems a myth now). The test were run using Windows Vista 64, a suite of productivety applications and (1) stick of 2G ram or (2) sticks of 1G ram. The results were timed and given in seconds to complete. Here are the results: Dual Channel = 2718 sec = 45.3 min Single Stick = 2774 sec = 46.2 min A difference of 56 sec or less than 1 min for a ~ 45 min test. This to me is not a large percentage increase and is probably why Dell installs 3G ram in some systems (one 2G and one 1G). These are not matched pairs as required for Dual channel operation but I don't think that a user would notice the difference in day to day usage. A gamer might but again I really doubt it. Give this one to the Myth Busters to test. Art |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT Dual Channel Memory
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:48:23 +1000, Star@*.* wrote:
For many years I have been hearing all the buzz about Dual Channel memory how it was so much faster than single channel or single stick, you need to use match sticks and in pairs to get this supercharged memory to work, etc. At long last I have just recieved and article which test this urban myth (at least it seems a myth now). The test were run using Windows Vista 64, a suite of productivety applications and (1) stick of 2G ram or (2) sticks of 1G ram. The results were timed and given in seconds to complete. Here are the results: Dual Channel = 2718 sec = 45.3 min Single Stick = 2774 sec = 46.2 min A difference of 56 sec or less than 1 min for a ~ 45 min test. This to me is not a large percentage increase and is probably why Dell installs 3G ram in some systems (one 2G and one 1G). These are not matched pairs as required for Dual channel operation but I don't think that a user would notice the difference in day to day usage. A gamer might but again I really doubt it. Give this one to the Myth Busters to test. Art Art, as I remember when I was buying memory a year or so ago, I also read similar results (maybe even less??) that in my mind did not make a compelling argument to go with dual channel memory just for the sake of speed. That said, to be fair, I'm not a gamer so likely this is why I can say this. I ended up going that route but only because the brand was better known (for the options I had in mind then) and the pricing was similar so you might say I really did it for reliability (brand name) not speed tho I may have gotten both in the end. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT Dual Channel Memory
dual channel memory is suppose to be more efficient.
I have three machines 2 of which have dual channel and one that does not. The one without it works just fine, it is not a gaming machine but factions as a 24/7 work station for a small business. Bottom line is I see no difference in performing similar tasks on all three machines. Star@*.* wrote in message ... For many years I have been hearing all the buzz about Dual Channel memory how it was so much faster than single channel or single stick, you need to use match sticks and in pairs to get this supercharged memory to work, etc. At long last I have just recieved and article which test this urban myth (at least it seems a myth now). The test were run using Windows Vista 64, a suite of productivety applications and (1) stick of 2G ram or (2) sticks of 1G ram. The results were timed and given in seconds to complete. Here are the results: Dual Channel = 2718 sec = 45.3 min Single Stick = 2774 sec = 46.2 min A difference of 56 sec or less than 1 min for a ~ 45 min test. This to me is not a large percentage increase and is probably why Dell installs 3G ram in some systems (one 2G and one 1G). These are not matched pairs as required for Dual channel operation but I don't think that a user would notice the difference in day to day usage. A gamer might but again I really doubt it. Give this one to the Myth Busters to test. Art |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT Dual Channel Memory
On Dec 5, 10:48 pm, Star@*.* wrote:
For many years I have been hearing all the buzz about Dual Channel memory how it was so much faster than single channel or single stick, you need to use match sticks and in pairs to get this supercharged memory to work, etc. At long last I have just recieved and article which test this urban myth (at least it seems a myth now). The test were run using Windows Vista 64, a suite of productivety applications and (1) stick of 2G ram or (2) sticks of 1G ram. The results were timed and given in seconds to complete. Here are the results: Dual Channel = 2718 sec = 45.3 min Single Stick = 2774 sec = 46.2 min A difference of 56 sec or less than 1 min for a ~ 45 min test. This to me is not a large percentage increase and is probably why Dell installs 3G ram in some systems (one 2G and one 1G). These are not matched pairs as required for Dual channel operation but I don't think that a user would notice the difference in day to day usage. A gamer might but again I really doubt it. Give this one to the Myth Busters to test. Art Both Dell machines I received had 3GB - 4 DIMMS so it was all paired. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT Dual Channel Memory
Star@*.* wrote:
For many years I have been hearing all the buzz about Dual Channel memory how it was so much faster than single channel or single stick, you need to use match sticks and in pairs to get this supercharged memory to work, etc. At long last I have just recieved and article which test this urban myth (at least it seems a myth now). The test were run using Windows Vista 64, a suite of productivety applications and (1) stick of 2G ram or (2) sticks of 1G ram. The results were timed and given in seconds to complete. Here are the results: Dual Channel = 2718 sec = 45.3 min Single Stick = 2774 sec = 46.2 min A difference of 56 sec or less than 1 min for a ~ 45 min test. This to me is not a large percentage increase and is probably why Dell installs 3G ram in some systems (one 2G and one 1G). These are not matched pairs as required for Dual channel operation but I don't think that a user would notice the difference in day to day usage. A gamer might but again I really doubt it. Give this one to the Myth Busters to test. Art This is yet another case of a lot of industry hype about almost nothing. A change of slightly more than 2% in performance is almost nothing and surely cannot be discerned by a normal person doing normal tasks over the course of a day. OMG, this may result in one more frame per second for the typical high end game. For the gamers, too, this is almost nothing, except for bragging rights. An old friend and colleague from way back once said that if the performance of a system does not improve by at least 50%, people will not recognize any difference. Even with quad core versus dual core etc, one system rarely performs 50% faster than another from the previous generation. For most workaday tasks performed by most people, system performance as perceived by folks plateaued about 4 years ago with the 3.0 and 3.2GHz P4 CPUs. Yes, some graphics intense applications and some combination of multi-tasked concurrently running software will actually run quicker, smoother and better with the newer quad core systems. But until there is some sort of major paradigm shift in the way people use computers, all that extra computing horsepower goes unused most of the time. .... Ben Myers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Running single channel memory on a dual channel board: Performancehit | P Settli | General | 7 | December 11th 06 02:06 PM |
Memory Q: 1gb dual channel 320mhz or 2gb single channel 266mhz? | KenV | Asus Motherboards | 3 | January 4th 06 10:10 PM |
single channel versus dual channel memory setup | John Doe | Homebuilt PC's | 5 | October 15th 04 10:31 AM |
MSI Master2-FAR and Dual 244's dual memory channel questions?!!? | Douglas Crane | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | August 27th 04 06:40 AM |
Dual Channel Memory on Single Channel boards? | Rich Lowe | Overclocking AMD Processors | 24 | August 14th 04 03:17 AM |