Core i7 needs Tri-Channel, Laptops have Dual channel

So...does anybody know why laptops don't offer tri channel ram memory? I thought corei7 is way better when using tri channel instead of dual channel.

Extra question: I'm interested in a dell desktop, and I cant chose between 6 gigs of tri channel or 8 gigs of dual channel. As I stated above, tri channel is better for core i7..but 8 gigs is more than 6...So i'm in a bit of a pickle here.

 

No one??????

 

Its not "better", it just improves the memory bandwidth, which is important when doing a lot of heavy multi-tasking. This is the reason I only have 3gb of ram at the moment, for the tri-channel, but for basic usage, gaming etc, the more RAM the better, although I do feel 8GB would be overkill, go with the 6gb.

 

Even if your planning to use that dekstop for the next 5 years to play al the newest games?

 

6GB in 5 years, IMO will still be more then enough for games, looking over the past 3 years I dont believe RAM requirements have changed too much, 2GB was usually required to have an above average gaming experience.

I wouldnt worry about the RAM too much, DDR3 prices will drop and if need be in 3 years or so you need to upgrade it wont be expensive. DDR2 was very cheap when it was mainstream about a year ago.

 

Don't you get a different motherboard when you chose between tri or dual channel ram? Because if you do, i'l definitly take the tri channel one so I can upgrade my ram to 12 or 24 gigs later.

 

That's because triple-channel DDR3 for Nehalem is dependent on the memory controller on the CPU NOT the motherboard. Only Bloomfield and Lynnfield LGA1366-based desktop (and Xeon server) processors leverage triple channel.

It's totally useless for a notebook, Not only do you need to soldier in a third memory socket on a laptop motherboard that inherently has space limitations; triple channel is more complicated, consuming more energy while producing more heat.

I've read reports that for a comparable desktop CPU with equivalent amounts of RAM, the triple-channel still provides no performance advantage over LGA1156 based processors. The only real advantage with a non-portable system really is if you want 12GB RAM over 8GB, and you don't want to shellout like $300 per 4GB stick.

The dual-channel DDR3 memory speed is way more than adequate. In fact, I would go so far as to even single channel DDR3 at 1333Mhz is still adequate, as your bottleneck in a notebook is somewhere else.

 

Good to know, my next choice in a laptop will mostly depend on how much heat it produces. Who needs a big overpowerfull asus g series if it constantly overheats...

 

I would be inclined to agree, it really honestly makes no difference, that I can see anyways.

 

Ye when I upgraded my ram from 2 to 3 gigs my cod4 game ran just the same...

 

No, it wouldn't overheat because they whould put in adequate cooling while you providing sufficient ventilation, but it would consume more power, which means lower battery run time.

 

I was more so reffering to dual channel vs triple channel showing little to no difference, but yes 2 to 3gb of RAM is not the big one, 1 to 2gb makes a huge difference though.

 

You're not going to notice an performance improvement unless you are exhausting your RAM. In this case, it would be resolving a performance hit otherwise.

If you rarely exceed 60% usage of your RAM, based on physical amount and therefore don't encounter much swapping, then you won't really see an improvement by adding more.

On my machines, with the background services and apps, they often idle at around 800MB in W7, so 2GB over 1GB would definitely help.

You might notice some other small improvement by matching speed and size of RAM sticks (as you'd be leveraging dual channel speeds by mating them), but you'd probably only see this in synthetic benchmarks for the most part.