Hi All,
This has been a topic of debate for a long time, namely, it is the discussion about whether there are any significant differences between running DDR3 in dual channel over single channel. Dual channel theoretically doubles the bandwidth, but most benchmarks reveal a tiny (~5% max) difference in real world performance (i.e. gaming, productivity, encoding).
The definitive answer to most queries of this nature is usually a link to the tomshardware benchmark along with the old statement that dual channel is faster.
However, I feel that this does not answer the question when applied to today's hardware (i.e. DDR3 and an increased use of internal graphics chips for HTPC's and so on). Do we need any more bandwidth than one stick can provide?
Since DDR3 is faster than DDR2 and memory controllers have improved over time, is the difference less or more significant? Do the modern integrated graphics chips (e.g. Intel HD-2000/3000) benefit from the extra bandwidth?
Seeing as there doesn't seem to be any benchmark data with DDR3 or modern processors (e.g. intel i-series), I was wondering if someone would do a few tests or knew of any other benchmarks?
If there is no advantage to running in dual channel, it would be non nonsensical to buy kits of 2x2gb when 1x4gb would allow you to upgrade in the future.
This has been a topic of debate for a long time, namely, it is the discussion about whether there are any significant differences between running DDR3 in dual channel over single channel. Dual channel theoretically doubles the bandwidth, but most benchmarks reveal a tiny (~5% max) difference in real world performance (i.e. gaming, productivity, encoding).
The definitive answer to most queries of this nature is usually a link to the tomshardware benchmark along with the old statement that dual channel is faster.
However, I feel that this does not answer the question when applied to today's hardware (i.e. DDR3 and an increased use of internal graphics chips for HTPC's and so on). Do we need any more bandwidth than one stick can provide?
Since DDR3 is faster than DDR2 and memory controllers have improved over time, is the difference less or more significant? Do the modern integrated graphics chips (e.g. Intel HD-2000/3000) benefit from the extra bandwidth?
Seeing as there doesn't seem to be any benchmark data with DDR3 or modern processors (e.g. intel i-series), I was wondering if someone would do a few tests or knew of any other benchmarks?
If there is no advantage to running in dual channel, it would be non nonsensical to buy kits of 2x2gb when 1x4gb would allow you to upgrade in the future.
