2x2GB -v- 4x1GB modules :

Admiral Huddy · 28 Apr 2008 at 16:49

I conducted a small test this weekend: 2 x 2GB modules compared with 4 x 1GB modules.

Both tests use PC2-6400C4 set at 4-4-4-12 @2.1v.

System: Q6600 @ 9*356MHz, Asus P5kC, 8800GTX @ stock, Windows Vista-64 Ultimate

The results are as follows

4 x 1GB GeIL PC2-6400C4 800MHz Ultra Low Latency DDR2 Dual Channel Kit (GX22GB6400UDC) modules :

3DMark 06 benchmarks : Overall score = 12,641 (
CPC benchmarks : Overall = 1,201

2 x 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer RED DDR2 PC2-6400C4 800MHz Dual Channel Kit (BL2KIT25664AR804)
Modules:

3DMark 06 benchmarks : Overall score = 12,321
CPC benchmarks : Overall = 1,123

Not much in it but I wonder if having 4 x modules is making better use of the memory bus?

Discuss

Minstadave · 28 Apr 2008 at 17:47

Its something to do with a higher level of interleaving with 4 modules iirc.

Helios1234 · 28 Apr 2008 at 17:59

Hmmm two friends of mine had made a bet as to which was better and I sided with the one who said 2x2gb was better.
The only benchmark I had seen was on EVEREST cache & memory benchmark conducted by anandtech on an asrock mobo. Here they are:

2x2gb

4x1gb

The read, copy and latency benchmarks are better on the 2x2gb memory. All the settings seem to be the same on both setups.

errata · 2 May 2008 at 13:58

On intel chipsets the memory controller can make use of channels, interleave and other controls to get better memory performance with 4 dimms. On the other hand not so many BIOS's are tested for stable operation or overclocking with 4 filled slots.

1gb dimms used to be much faster and cheaper that seems to be changing

Greebo · 2 May 2008 at 15:17

As errata says, 4 chips may be quicker than 2 chips and that stands if your not overclocking.

However, you get better overclocks with only 2 chips which will wipe out the small speed difference plus it is then easier to upgrade later on by just adding 2 new chips rather than selling and replacing your chips

setter · 3 May 2008 at 05:23

i was using 4x1gb modules, which ill scrap, the memory i have is pretty good but i think a 2x2gb kit will be a bit easier run. im waiting on a nvidia 780i. and overclocking 4x1gb kits is a bit sore on the memory controller on nvidia boards.

Wiggins · 28 May 2008 at 09:21

Thread revival time I think.

I'm due another 2x1Gb sticks of XMS2 6400C4 today or tomorrow to go alongside my other 2x1Gb sticks.

I'm going to bench the 2Gb with Everest and then bench the 4Gb and will post results on stock and overclocks.

Edit: Its just landed so will post bench screenies and stuff in a bit

Amonlym · 28 May 2008 at 12:49

i went from 2 to 4 sticks of 1gig ram (on am2 board) and had no change in clocking performance, near as makes no difference change in benchmarks and realworld useage, and about 75-80% higher bandwidth reading in dos memtest....

PhoenixUK · 28 May 2008 at 15:29

Amonlym said:
i went from 2 to 4 sticks of 1gig ram (on am2 board) and had no change in clocking performance, near as makes no difference change in benchmarks and realworld useage, and about 75-80% higher bandwidth reading in dos memtest....

Just wondering mate if you could made do a little test with some games, FPS wise on high settings ? I would like to see how much impact does ram have on FPS in games between 2gb and 4gb.

Since i'm looking at adding another 2x1 kit on my rig, not sure how much worth it is gaming wise.

Amonlym · 28 May 2008 at 21:04

what sort of game you thinking of?

Wiggins · 29 May 2008 at 09:33

Well the performance from my 2Gb of XMS2 to 4Gb of XMS2 are as follows:

1 - Boot times were improved by a small amount.

2 - When I benched the 4Gb on Everest, there was a very small drop in writing but a significant improvement in reading. In fact, a further 1000 was added to the score for read.

3 - Latency values had no change.

I am yet to see what improvements I will see on games such as COD4 and FSX and will be firing them up later today.

PhoenixUK · 29 May 2008 at 09:52

Amonlym said:
what sort of game you thinking of?

Well I am mainly concerned myself about Age of Conan which I'm playing atm.
But pretty much any up-to-date game on 1680x1050 8xAA , 16xAF with max details will do

.

I'm getting pretty low fps at maxed out settings and now I'm wondering if it's due to having 2gb ram or lack of cache on my CPU (e2200).

I still can't believe either 2-4mb cache or 2gb memory will make that huge diff, and it's definitely not clock speed since i've seen others getting better results on lower clocks.

It's either ram or cache

.

Thanks in advance

Amonlym · 29 May 2008 at 11:03

at those settings your looking at gpu limits rather than cpu.

if your getting disk thrashing (lots of hdd access) while playing games then you need ram, elsewise its not ram.

i dont have aoc to test im afraid. - if you want the quick dirty will it help test, use task manager to see how much memory your using while aoc is slowing down.
if you looking at more than say 1.5gb used by the game / 500mb paged and 0 system free then it will help

if you have much over 256mb of system ram free while playing thigns, your not gonna get any benefit.

gurusan · 29 May 2008 at 13:47

Just went from 2x1gb OCZ 8500 @ 1080mhz 5,5,4,14 to 4x1gb. Did not need to change any settings or voltages in the bios for stability. It looks as if all my benchmark scores have gone down slightly, but the extra ram will more than make up for it.

Also, this is under 32bit XP so I wonder if the slight decrease in performance is due to the fact that Everest is not able to access the full 4gb?

2x1GB

4x1GB

PhoenixUK · 29 May 2008 at 16:39

Amonlym said:
at those settings your looking at gpu limits rather than cpu.

if your getting disk thrashing (lots of hdd access) while playing games then you need ram, elsewise its not ram.

i dont have aoc to test im afraid. - if you want the quick dirty will it help test, use task manager to see how much memory your using while aoc is slowing down.
if you looking at more than say 1.5gb used by the game / 500mb paged and 0 system free then it will help

if you have much over 256mb of system ram free while playing thigns, your not gonna get any benefit.

It's not GPU for sure, got 3870 iceq3 ver, my mate got the same and he's gettig over 2x more FPS than me.
He's got e8400 @ 3.8 tho.

Also I've seen ppl getting a lot better results with e8400/q6600 @ stock ( which i've actually beat in benchmarks with mine e200 @3.15-3.3 ).

So it turns out to be either CPU Cache that makes the diff (1mb vs 6mb) or the 2gb ram

.

Admiral Huddy · 29 May 2008 at 16:42

The amount of RAM isn't the discussion here. The subject in question is having the same amount of RAM but in different capacities.

pegasus1 · 29 May 2008 at 17:20

I was looking at binning the 2 x 1 gb and adding 2 x 2gb but as im building a new rig around Nov time (DDR3 based) i decided just to add another 2 x 1 gb ram and Vista 64 bit. wont be able to install it for over a week but im interested to see how 4 x 1 gb runs.

gurusan · 29 May 2008 at 17:34

So far with my P5K and my P5E, both have handled 4x1gb fine and had no problems clocking them.

pegasus1 · 29 May 2008 at 17:43

Not touched my rig for 3 months, will be interesting to see how my mobo takes to the 4 x 1 modules

Althulas · 3 Jun 2008 at 18:55

I've mentioned this somewhere before but I was dissapointed when I added another (especially when the FlexII have come out) 2x1g OCZ 9200 FlexI to my system as I could no longer run the mem at stock 1150mhz(fsb 575@1:1 or 460@5:6) or use my OC at 1200mhz (fsb 600 1:1) and had to settle for stability at a 1000mhz (fsb 500@1:1) on my Asus commando.

BTW my 3dm06 scores recorded little difference at a 1000mhz