Should I get 1GB Dual-Channel or 1.5GB Single-Channel

Hi, I've done a lot of searching trying to decide on this question. But I thought I'd post to see what you all think. Based on my searching a lot of folks say dual-channel doesn't make that much difference. But after looking at some benchmarks (some I found linked to this site) it looks like dual-channel does give some modest performance gains.

I dont do anything on my computer that needs tons of RAM or anything. So I'm assuming 1GB will be enough. But I'd like to be able to run Vista in the future. But Microsoft says 1GB will be enough for Vista too.

I was hoping if I'm not knowledgable about something, you guys could point it out. Like any edge 1.5 would give me over 1.0 dual channel.

 

Always go for more memory over dual channel. Dual channel has become something that is slightly over-rated. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have 2 x 1 gb module than 1 x 2gb module, but when it comes down to it you get better performance out of having more memory than having less memory with dual channel.

 

you get better perfromance out of having more memory if you run memory intensive applications that use it all. Otherwise, having excess memory does nothing. Simply having an excess of memory doesn't make your computer faster.

 

Ram quantity is almost always more important than speed, I would go with the 1.5 GB in single channel. Linux will use all of your system RAM at one time, so that extra 512 MB will help even more if you install it.

 

Thx Matt.

I read your post about that dual-channel review and the differences between AMD and Intel. You kinda made it sound like with an Intel system, the extra bandwidth from a dual-channel will help (especially on newer systems). But despite this you still think 1.5 is a more performance oriented choice even if I I see no signs that I'll need more than 1GB based on my current RAM usage with XP?

 

1 GB vs. 2 GB

These are benchmarks run on a system where ram usage was not maxxed. The conclusion is that if you aren't maxxing out your ram usage you will see no benefit from having an excess of ram in Windows XP.

Does anybody from the "the more ram the better" philosophy have any proof that a computer running Windows XP benefits from having an excess of ram when the ram usage is not maxxed?

 

It would help if the latency of faster DDR RAM didn't make it slower, but it does. That is why higher end Intel chips are having larger and larger caches, like the 4 MB sharing on the higher end Core 2 Duos, while AMD has never made a single cache larger than 1 MB. They are realizing that it is just too difficult to use RAM to make up for cache space, CPU cache is just so much faster. But remember how fast RAM already is, DDR533 gets about 4 GB/s, so you would have to be moving a lot of data, and the hard disk is usually your bottleneck. You would benefit a lot more from dual channel in Linux.

If you think you will do medium gaming, upgrade to Vista, put Linux on, or run Virtual Machine software on the laptop, the extra 1.5 GB will be worth it, but otherwise, dual channel will provide you with more benefit.

 

Yeah, I always wondered about that, I had been considering pulling one of the 512 chips and replacing it with a gig to make 1.5 gigs in my lappy, but I'm having a hard time justifying the price, and I'm not sure if I should go all out and just get 2 gigs. Will there be a noticeable difference while gaming from 1 gig to 1.5 gigs?

 

Sionyboy is right, Dual Channel is far over-rated. More ram is always better than dual channel!