which is better 512 (dual channel) / 768 single channel?

[Sweeper]

As stated above, which would benefit my system more? Running the 512 (dual channel) or 768 single channel? System specs. below.

Thanks,
Sweeper

[asma123]

you know, i am wondering the same thing, but my guess with about 90% sure would be 768 dual channel.

[Sweeper]

Well on my MB that's not an option. The MB has for slots for up to 4GB of memory. But, to run in dual channel of course you have to have slot 1/3 or 2/4. Now if I have slot 1/3 and fill either slot 2/4 with just a single stick it will run in Single Channel rather than Dual Channel. This is my dilemma. I am doing some trading and was going to trade one stick, but if keeping 768 single channel will be taking a step back wards rather than keeping 512 (DUAL CHANNEL) then I want to stick with the 512.

Anyone else?

[_Switch_]

well, ur 512 would run in dual channel, cuz it'd be in slot 1/3, but ur other 256 which is in 2 or 4 would run in single......so you could always see if u can get a matched pair for the lonely 256 later on

[Sweeper]

Actually they all three would run in single channel because the of the MB design. If I left the 512 in there in slots 1/3 it would post as Dual Channel, but if I add the single stick in 2/4 they all post as Single Channel. Odd I know...........

[SoloCamo]

It really depends in this case. If you are running your 2.4 @ 3.2 you are creating a lot of bandwidth as long as your memory is running 1:1 with it..

So if that is the case, I think the extra bandwidth created by D/C would have already been available anyways by your overclock, if you ran single channel.

I would go with more ram in this case, but then again, it depends on what you do with the comp? Some game's such as BF2 love more ram, and you need atleast 1.5gb to really run it smooth maxed out..

Maybe try running the aquamark3 benchmark, or even 3dmark2001 because the score is reflected largely on timings, ram bandwidth, cpu speed.. not just mainly the gfx card like 3dmark 03, and 05.

[Sweeper]

Well I have 1 Gig in there now but I am doing some trading so one stick of 256MB will be gone. So that will leave me with 768MB of DDR400 @ 427Mhz. So I am wondering if I should just go with the 512 Dual Channel @ 427Mhz ? ? ?

[#43 fan]

I believe you would benefit more from the 768 vs. the 512.

[JLK03F150]

Like Solo suggested, try running 3dMark01SE, PCMark04, and Aquamark3 with 512DC then 768SC. See which gives you better scores. Also try the HL2 benchmark if you have/play the game.

[Sweeper]

Guess this will be a project for me... I'll report the test results.

[NightRise420]

512mb dual channel did better on benchmakrs for me than 768 single....but i benefitted more through 768 single channel =)

[Sweeper]

Benchmark "Sandra"

512MB @ 427Mhz Dual Channel: 5399/5407

768MB @ 427Mhz Single Channel: 3103/3106

[beastgreeley]

Benchmark "Sandra"

512MB @ 427Mhz Dual Channel: 5399/5407

768MB @ 427Mhz Single Channel: 3103/3106

Which means what to framerates in games?

[vass0922]

Which means what to framerates in games?

dual channel is your friend

[SoloCamo]

Well I would have to agree with beast here, that test was just testing memory bandwidth, which is not the deciding factor always.

In fact let me give you a link to a single channel vs dual channel benchmarks on various games. Half life 2 was the one that single channel lost out in, bad.


doom 3: http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles....e=1&pagenum=10

half life 2: http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles....e=1&pagenum=11

verdict: http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles....e=1&pagenum=13

It really depends here though, some games would like more bandwidth, BUT added memory helps a lot aswell. I think the only way to truly find out is to run the games you like to play, because I have a feeling that they are going to perform pretty neck and neck, unless bandwidth is a big issue in the game.

[CharmedLover84]

I can say this right now, Dual Channel (in theory) is supposed to be better than Single Channel. Has nothing to do with the "MHz" the ram runs at, has to do with the RAM interface with the processor and front side bus. When running single channel yer only getting a 64-Bit Memory to FSB & CPU connection. When running Dual Channel yer getting a 128-Bit Memory to FSB & CPU connection.

I have no idea what exactly the difference is... but if it's anything like the difference between a 64-Bit Memory interface on a graphics card and a 128-Bit Memory interface on a graphics card, it's worth the difference.

I've noticed that some ram won't even run in single channel that's made for dual channel, so I think it's always best to either just buy a dual kit or buy two sticks individually of the same ram. And if yer lookin' to gaming and such at all, you really should get more ram like the others have said.

[HeadBand]

those sandra benchmarks represent only memory bandwidth of the memory, real world benchmarks are nowhere near this different

to tell what would benifit more you will need to use real world situations...using older programs like aquamark and 3dm01 won't help much eaither, sure you could see a bit of benifit from dual channel but they use no where near the ammount of RAM that todays applications use and they would probobally show a much greater improvement from the lack of paging

[CharmedLover84]

Yes, I agree. If I were you I'd try running games and applications that're newer and taxing on the system, and see which seems to run better.

[Sweeper]

My score on Aquamark was 1000 points less also. :/

[SoloCamo]

My score on Aquamark was 1000 points less also. :/

without dual channel?

I still honestly think the only way you are going to get truly accurate results for today's games, is well, to play them and run fraps.

I noticed no point increase going from 512mb of ram to 1gb in aqmrk3