2Gb dual channel vs. 3Gb single channel

Motoman · 11th Nov 2008, 11:25 AM

...interesting question. With XP, which is better for gaming (on a laptop, not that it probably matters)...

Have 2 1Gb RAM sticks, which should enable dual-channel processing. Or have 1 1Gb and 1 2Gb sticks, for a total of 3Gb...which should disable dual-channel processing?

...?

Chai · 11th Nov 2008, 11:58 AM

What system are you using now?

DarKSeeD · 12th Nov 2008, 02:40 AM

The best way to find out is to do some benchmarking, if you have time...

Motoman · 12th Nov 2008, 03:50 AM

It's not my box...it's one I built up for a friend. She has 3 boys...2 of which have Asus laptops with 2.0Ghz dual-core AMD CPUs and 3Gb of RAM...the last one I built for them is an MSI barebone that I put a 2.3Ghz AMD CPU in, with 2Gb of RAM. The complaint is that the other 2 laptops have 3Gb of RAM vs. 2Gb of RAM. My response is about the CPU being considerably faster, and dual-channel being a bonus over single-channel, and 3Gb probably not being the bottleneck anyway.

But, was wondering if anyone had any general thoughts.

g0tanks · 12th Nov 2008, 04:40 AM

It depends on whether you're using a lot of RAM or not.

Chai · 12th Nov 2008, 07:52 AM

If they are using a lot of RAM, then 3GB will be noticably faster than 2GB.

The speed gain in dual channel is probably only noticable in benchmark programs.

Zenphic · 12th Nov 2008, 09:07 AM

Dual-channel only adds a hint of performance and you shouldn't notice it too much if you're a casual user anyway.

Max_87 · 12th Nov 2008, 12:10 PM

Yeah, I don't think you can notice anything unless you run benchmarks.

lee_what2004 · 12th Nov 2008, 01:32 PM

the bandwidth is just around 10% difference, no performance issues unless doing some memory intensive task

Adrian Wong · 12th Nov 2008, 04:10 PM

If you are running Windows XP and light office applications, then the extra RAM probably won't matter much. Then again, doubling the memory bandwidth would also have absolutely no effect on real world performance because you just do not need that kind of bandwidth.

If you are running Windows Vista and/or memory-guzzling apps like Photoshop, the size of the system memory will greatly affect performance. It is far more important to have MORE memory than faster memory. Benchmarks will tell you otherwise but in real world usage, you will feel the difference.

So while running dual-channel is always nice (when it's possible), I would opt for more memory.

11th Nov 2008, 11:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
Motoman Warming up Join Date: 13 Jan 2008 Posts: 106 Reputation: 62 Rep Power: 3	2Gb dual channel vs. 3Gb single channel ...interesting question. With XP, which is better for gaming (on a laptop, not that it probably matters)... Have 2 1Gb RAM sticks, which should enable dual-channel processing. Or have 1 1Gb and 1 2Gb sticks, for a total of 3Gb...which should disable dual-channel processing? ...?

11th Nov 2008, 11:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Chai Administrator Join Date: 6 Oct 2002 Location: Maranello Posts: 28,121 Reputation: 4649 Rep Power: 82	What system are you using now? __________________ Chai (Contributor & Forum Admin) http://www.techarp.com/

12th Nov 2008, 02:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
DarKSeeD BOG Translator Join Date: 30 Oct 2004 Location: Sighisoara, Romania Posts: 357 Reputation: 101 Rep Power: 7	The best way to find out is to do some benchmarking, if you have time... __________________ Gizas! what a mess

12th Nov 2008, 04:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
g0tanks Active Join Date: 6 May 2008 Posts: 608 Reputation: 175 Rep Power: 3	It depends on whether you're using a lot of RAM or not. __________________

12th Nov 2008, 07:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
Chai Administrator Join Date: 6 Oct 2002 Location: Maranello Posts: 28,121 Reputation: 4649 Rep Power: 82	If they are using a lot of RAM, then 3GB will be noticably faster than 2GB. The speed gain in dual channel is probably only noticable in benchmark programs. __________________ Chai (Contributor & Forum Admin) http://www.techarp.com/

12th Nov 2008, 03:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
Motoman Warming up Join Date: 13 Jan 2008 Posts: 106 Reputation: 62 Rep Power: 3	It's not my box...it's one I built up for a friend. She has 3 boys...2 of which have Asus laptops with 2.0Ghz dual-core AMD CPUs and 3Gb of RAM...the last one I built for them is an MSI barebone that I put a 2.3Ghz AMD CPU in, with 2Gb of RAM. The complaint is that the other 2 laptops have 3Gb of RAM vs. 2Gb of RAM. My response is about the CPU being considerably faster, and dual-channel being a bonus over single-channel, and 3Gb probably not being the bottleneck anyway. But, was wondering if anyone had any general thoughts.

12th Nov 2008, 09:07 AM	#7 (permalink)
Zenphic Super Active Join Date: 23 Apr 2006 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 1,101 Reputation: 540 Rep Power: 10	Dual-channel only adds a hint of performance and you shouldn't notice it too much if you're a casual user anyway. __________________ E2160 @ 1.8Ghz (0.95V) \| XFX 650i Ultra \| 2x1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 \| Gigabyte GeForce 6600 \| Hitachi Desktar T7K250 250GB \| CM Mystique 632 \| 2x Noctua NF-S12 800RPM \| CM RPP 550W

12th Nov 2008, 12:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
Max_87 h@x! Join Date: 11 Aug 2003 Location: the land of bandwidth cap Posts: 11,446 Reputation: 2090 Rep Power: 38	Yeah, I don't think you can notice anything unless you run benchmarks. __________________ Max_87 Tech ARP http://www.techarp.com Dell Studio 15 / P7350 / 3GB DDR2 / Radeon HD 3450 / 250GB 7200RPM / 15" @ 1920x1200 E8600 @ 4.4GHz 1.36v / Asus P5E3 Deluxe / 2x2GB DDR3 / Radeon X1800 / Barracuda 7200.9 120GB / 7200.10 320GB x2 / Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS / WD6400AAKS x2 / Dell 2007FP x2 / Silverstone ST56F

12th Nov 2008, 01:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
lee_what2004 Super Active Join Date: 28 Dec 2007 Location: Melaka Posts: 1,352 Reputation: 1149 Rep Power: 15	the bandwidth is just around 10% difference, no performance issues unless doing some memory intensive task __________________ Once a wise-man said : Chapter 1: Don't ever compare if you want to stay constant..... Chapter 2: Whatever you have done in the internet, you will never get away from it... Chapter 3:To be continued after I thought another one

12th Nov 2008, 04:10 PM	#10 (permalink)
Adrian Wong Da Boss Join Date: 10 Oct 2002 Location: In front of my ASUS F8V notebook! Posts: 33,137 Reputation: 3730 Rep Power: 78	If you are running Windows XP and light office applications, then the extra RAM probably won't matter much. Then again, doubling the memory bandwidth would also have absolutely no effect on real world performance because you just do not need that kind of bandwidth. If you are running Windows Vista and/or memory-guzzling apps like Photoshop, the size of the system memory will greatly affect performance. It is far more important to have MORE memory than faster memory. Benchmarks will tell you otherwise but in real world usage, you will feel the difference. So while running dual-channel is always nice (when it's possible), I would opt for more memory. __________________ Dr. Adrian Wong Tech ARP \| Blog @ Tech ARP \| The Free Trade Zone DYKT : The only offshore account I have is at the sand bank? We need PROGRAMMERS and TECHNICAL WRITERS! Contact us if you are a hot shot programmer or technical writer! My items for sale : 50x SD Card \| Memory Stick PRO \| Cyclone Energy Saver \| Seiko SS watch \| Tiger/Carlsberg beer jugs \| Travel Speakers \| Motorola V600 \| Nokia N90 SOLD! \| New Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Other items for sale @ the FTZ : Zalman CNPS9500 LED @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7700 Cu @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7000 Cu @ $20 \| Swarovski bracelet watches \| Dell 17" LCD \| Hi-Fi speakers \| English DIVX movies \| HP LaserJet toners! \| Office chairs