...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? ...?
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.
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.
Dual-channel only adds a hint of performance and you shouldn't notice it too much if you're a casual user anyway.
the bandwidth is just around 10% difference, no performance issues unless doing some memory intensive task
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.
if you do a search, you will notice that this forum has always advised everyone to go for bigger memory size instead of ultra high bandwidth. the usefulness of memory bandwidth has been way overhyped by memory vendors and certain media who don't investigate thoroughly - jsut a couple of sandra and everest, and call it a review (with editor's choice of course!). dual channel controller, yes it sounds exciting. after all, two is better than one, right? now, nahalem supports triple channels!!! but the truth is, even a single channel is good enough for this supposedly bandwidth hungry CPU. let me show you some figures. i chose power director 7 to convert 3 mins of a 1080 HD video that i took in house (because PD7 is heavily threaded) and the usual suspect, cinebench. 3.2GHz, turbo mode off. TRIPLE CHANNEL, 1066, 7-7-7-20, L3 cache at 2.6GHz. Power director 7: 13 min 03 second Cinebench (8 threads): 57 sec 3.2GHz, turbo mode off. Dual CHANNEL, 1066, 7-7-7-20, L3 cache at 2.6GHz. Power director 7: 13 min 12 second Cinebench (8 threads): 58 sec 3.2GHz, turbo mode off. Single CHANNEL, 1066, 7-7-7-20, L3 cache at 2.6GHz. Power director 7: 14min 36 sec Cinebench (8 threads): 58 sec 3.2GHz, turbo mode off. triple CHANNEL, 1333, 7-7-7-20, L3 cache at 2.6GHz. Power director 7: 13min 3 sec Cinebench (8 threads): 58 sec 3.2GHz, turbo mode off. triple CHANNEL, 1600, 8-8-8-20, L3 cache at 3.2GHz. Power director 7: 13min 05sec Cinebench (8 threads): 56 sec this is a new gen chip that connects directly to the memory, and it doesn't make any significant differences. Centrino platform still uses the older FSB interconnect, so really, just forget about the number of memory channel you should utilize, and throw in all the sticks you have. you want to have more memory available. not more memory channel. unless, of course, you are running virtual machines.
