is dual channel still a gimmick?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matt
  • Start date Start date
M

Matt

It seemed that with DDR RAM, dual channel was pretty much a gimmick that
didn't do much for performance. That's what my tests revealed with my
setup anyway. I was hard-pressed to measure any difference between
single channel and dual-channel performance. I had a separate video
card rather than integrated video when I did that test. Maybe there
would be a payoff for dual channel with integrated video.

Thinking of buying a DDR2 system, I saw that Crucial was pushing Dual
Channel, now with DDR2. Has the situation changed in going from DDR to
DDR2?

Please advise.
 
Matt said:
It seemed that with DDR RAM, dual channel was pretty much a gimmick that
didn't do much for performance. That's what my tests revealed with my
setup anyway. I was hard-pressed to measure any difference between single
channel and dual-channel performance. I had a separate video card rather
than integrated video when I did that test. Maybe there would be a payoff
for dual channel with integrated video.

Thinking of buying a DDR2 system, I saw that Crucial was pushing Dual
Channel, now with DDR2. Has the situation changed in going from DDR to
DDR2?

Please advise.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's still a gimmick. I don't doubt Crucial is pushing it. That's one
of the biggest scams in the IT industry, still. It doesn't make much
difference to begin with, and you DON'T need matched pairs of RAM sticks to
enable it. But all the memory makers are selling dual-channel kits for more
than what (2 single sticks) would cost, last I checked. Don't fall for that
crap. Buy your memory sticks as large as possible, and don't worry about
buying matched kits if you buy more than one of them. -Dave
 
Matt said:
It seemed that with DDR RAM, dual channel was pretty much a gimmick that
didn't do much for performance.
Click to expand...

Depends on what one expects and how you measure it. For example, doubling
processor speed won't make a web page load twice as fast because that isn't
the bottleneck. And, similarly, doubling memory bandwidth doesn't make it
go twice as fast either.
That's what my tests revealed with my
setup anyway. I was hard-pressed to measure any difference between
single channel and dual-channel performance.
Click to expand...

On what system? An AMD Athlon XP maybe?

Dual channel doesn't do much if a single channel is able to supply the
bandwidth, or at least the vast majority of it, like in an XP system with a
400Mhz DDR bus. But you'd be hard pressed to find single channel memory
able to keep up with a P4 400MHz QDR bus hitting 1600MB/s.
I had a separate video
card rather than integrated video when I did that test. Maybe there
would be a payoff for dual channel with integrated video.

Thinking of buying a DDR2 system, I saw that Crucial was pushing Dual
Channel, now with DDR2. Has the situation changed in going from DDR to
DDR2?
Click to expand...

See what the processor needs and match it.
 
Dave said:
Yes, it's still a gimmick. I don't doubt Crucial is pushing it. That's one
of the biggest scams in the IT industry, still. It doesn't make much
difference to begin with, and you DON'T need matched pairs of RAM sticks to
enable it. But all the memory makers are selling dual-channel kits for more
than what (2 single sticks) would cost, last I checked. Don't fall for that
crap. Buy your memory sticks as large as possible, and don't worry about
buying matched kits if you buy more than one of them. -Dave
Click to expand...
Then I suppose all the tech sites showing that dual channel increased
performance were full of shit? I also suppose that when dual channel was
released and closing the performance gap between DDR and RDRAM I was
just dreaming? It does increase performance but I agree you don't need
to buy dual channel kits. I don't mix and match either though as many
people have had issues when they try to run it in dual channel mode.
 
Garrot said:
Then I suppose all the tech sites showing that dual channel increased
performance were full of shit?
Click to expand...

It depends on how you look at it. A 1% increase in some synthetic benchmark
is definitely an improvement. Is it worth spending extra on RAM to get it?
Most would say no fricking way. But I'm aware that some people will throw
money at a system even if there's nothing wrong with it, just to get an
extra 2 fps in their favorite game. :) -Dave
 
Yes, it's still a gimmick. I don't doubt Crucial is pushing it. That's
It depends on how you look at it. A 1% increase in some synthetic
benchmark is definitely an improvement. Is it worth spending extra on RAM
to get it? Most would say no fricking way.
Click to expand...

Some memory manufacturers (such as Corsair and Kingston) offer
dual module kits for the same price or less than one module. It's
worth it in that case.
 
Some memory manufacturers (such as Corsair and Kingston) offer
dual module kits for the same price or less than one module. It's
worth it in that case.
Click to expand...

Only if the modules (each) are both the largest that the mainboard will
support. Having more (but smaller) modules limits your upgrade
aths. -Dave
 
Mike said:
It depends on how you look at it. A 1% increase in some synthetic benchmark
is definitely an improvement. Is it worth spending extra on RAM to get it?
Most would say no fricking way. But I'm aware that some people will throw
money at a system even if there's nothing wrong with it, just to get an
extra 2 fps in their favorite game. :) -Dave
Click to expand...

Yea, but the tests showed it is more like 10% and not 1%. :)
 
Back
Top