@Achaios . OP edited his posted price
after my post was written, so keep your clueless, inflammatory remarks to yourself please.
12Gb sets 4Gb+4Gb in dual channel first, if the system needs more ram it then uses the remaining 4Gb in single channel, doesn't matter if it's 2 or 3 sticks. So going purely 4Gb+4Gb without the remaining 4Gb is wasted and does not in the slightest change anything except if the pc needs more than 8Gb it'll now use pagefile on the storage drives instead, which changes everything. That's IF it's 3 sticks. If it's just 2 sticks, an 8Gb and a 4Gb stick, then there is no options available to retain dual channel if removing 1 stick.
There's no performance difference between single channel and dual channel. Dual channel just doubles single channel bandwidth ability which is only of any use if you can saturate single channel bandwidth in the first place, which games don't. You'd need large file transfers to accomplish that.
Cinebench, like Shogun, wasn't really added to show a delta as much as it was added to illustrate a point: That multi-channel memory platforms have very little impact on specific tasks, like gaming and some types of live rendering. The delta between single- and dual-channel configurations was 0.25% in favor of single-channel.
Like I said, easily within normal system fluctuations. I also tested Skyrim's load time with several high-fidelity mods loaded, which should have theoretically hammered RAM and I/O for file retrieval, but saw effectively zero advantage between dual- and single-channel performance.
Basically Achaios, on that older Intel, you are wrong, everwhich way 'til Sunday. AM4 might be different, but this isn't AM4.