single channel vs. dual channel

ZozZoz

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2006
487
0
18,780
that would depend a lot on what kind of apps you actually run, but, considering the difference in size, I'd say they are going to be pretty equal.
Again, if you run some resource-intensive game like BF2, it would appreciate the extra ram. (proven), if its mostly smaller apps, - go with dual channel.
 

halcyon

Splendid
Thanks. It's a home-theatre PC with simple games, web browsing, and MS Office apps. ...sounds like the dual-channel 1GB would be the best. ...on that rig I don't really even seriously multi-task with any resource intensive apps. I just have an extra 1GB stick of of G-skill and was going to add it to the 2x512MB sticks of Corsair XMS...but not at a performance loss...that'd not make sense.
 

zjohnr

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2006
577
1
18,980
I just have an extra 1GB stick of of G-skill and was going to add it to the 2x512MB sticks of Corsair XMS...but not at a performance loss...that'd not make sense.
I was wondering how you managed to come up with "1GB dual vs 2GB single" scenario. I guess you're thinking that if you add the 1GB stick to your 2 512MBs, then you'll completely loose dual channel on the 512MBs, correct?

FWIW, what you many actually get is a hybrid with dual channel for the 512s and single channel for the 1GB. Depends on your motherboard, doesn't it? Have you actually tried this and verified via the BIOS or whatever what actually happens when you add the 1GB single stick?

If haven't tried it and you've already got the hardware laying around, then why not just do that? The actual performance you end up with depends on so many inter-connected dependencies that it makes no sense to do an intellectual analysis when you can just try it and see how it works for you.

Question: Is there really a performance loss if you don't notice it when you use the PC? :wink:

-john
 

halcyon

Splendid
Interesting! I didn't even think that the dual 512MBs might stay in dual-channel while the 1GB would run in single-channel.

I'm using a pretty descent mobo, an Asus A8NSLi Premium and I'll check that out this evening as I do have the hardware laying around.

Subjective performance vs. actual performance...I guess there'd be arguments either way.

Thx.
 

zjohnr

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2006
577
1
18,980
Subjective performance vs. actual performance...I guess there'd be arguments either way.
I have a friend whose "desktop" is a Thinkpad T21 with a 750MHz Pentium III mobile and 256MB of SDRAM. IIRC both CPU and memory are running at 100 MHz. I keep telling her it's too slow and she should/must upgrade.

She counters with (1) it doesn't seem that slow to me and (2) I can always use my computer at work if it's a problem.

I'm coming around to thinking that all performance is subjective. There is no such thing as "actual" performance. :wink:
 

halcyon

Splendid
You're right, of course. I built a PC for my sister this past weekend for X-mas, an Athlon 64 3200+ with 2GB of DDR400 @ 3-3-3-6. ...and it seems slow...and that's worrrying me as I want her to be happy, of course. It seems slow because I've gotten used to my rig, described in my sig which is a little faster than I give it credit for, it seems. When I went to work this morning and used my office rig, a dual Xeon 2Ghz with 1GB Rambus, I realized the rig I'd built for my sister is really much faster than I'd thought.

All that to say, we enthusiasts get spoiled quickly.