Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    95
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Dual- and triple-channel RAM

    I am thinking of upgrading my motherboard from a triple channel to a dual channel set up. I have a Haswell CPU and Z97 board only has dual channel.If I move from a triple channel to a dual channel motherboard, am I going to see a degradation in performance. I have read that triple channel and quad channel RAM is not all that they are cracked up to be. Therefore my question is whether or not I'm going to lose anything by moving to a dual channel motherboard. Thanks

  2. Subscribe to our Windows Secrets Newsletter - It's Free!

    Get our unique weekly Newsletter with tips and techniques, how to's and critical updates on Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows XP, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Google, etc. Join our 480,000 subscribers!

    Excel 2013: The Missing Manual

    + Get this BONUS — free!

    Get the most of Excel! Learn about new features, basics of creating a new spreadsheet and using the infamous Ribbon in the first chapter of Excel 2013: The Missing Manual - Subscribe and download Chapter 1 for free!

  3. #2
    Lounger Calimanco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    49
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    The amount of RAM installed is more important than the number of channels as far as every day use is concerned. Never mind the quality-feel the width.

  4. #3
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,380
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 481 Times in 442 Posts
    Dual channel or tripple channel, your not likely to notice much difference, if any.
    Just make sure you have good quality RAM that you can clock a bit (it never hurts).

    Tripple channel DDR3 tends to be a bit more expensive.
    But it will depend on how much you are actually going to use.

    Check the specs of any prospective board for any odities. You can go buy a board without researching it
    out properly, only to discover tripple channel will only clock at 1300MHz, instead of a more prefered 1600MHz or greater.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  5. #4
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    95
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    THANKS... makes sense

  6. #5
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    At home we have a Core i7 with RAM running in triple-channel configuration and also a Core i5 running dual-channel. There are several differences in the two systems which may skew the results of any comparison but, since i use both systems, my primary concern is in [I]perceived[I] differences in performance.
    Older system:
    Intel Core i7-965EE @ 3.2GHz with Hyper-threading
    ASUS P6TD Deluxe X58 motherboard (triple channnel / SATA II / USB 2.0 / PCI-e v.2.0)
    6 x 2GB G-Skill DDR3-1333 (DDR3-1600 but XMP is not enabled)
    Sandisk Extreme 240GB SSD on SATA II port
    2 x 2TB HDD (for data storage)
    ASUS Geforce GTX 760
    ASUS Blu-Ray/DVD drive
    Windows 7 64-bit

    [U]Newer System[U]:
    Intel "Haswell" Core i5-4590 @ 3.3GHz no Hyper-threading
    ASRock Z97 Extreme4 LGA1150 motherboard (dual-channel / SATA III / USB 3.0 PCI-e v.3.0)
    2 x 4GB G-Skill DDR3-1600 (DDR3-2400 but XMP not enabled)
    Samsung EVO 240GB SSD on SATA III
    Gigabyte Geforce GTX 760 graphics card
    ASUS DVD
    Windows 8.1 64-bit

    Various benchmarks have been run on both systems to check that components are operating as normal. Mostly, i'm interested in the perceived performance on things we use the PCs for such as Windows startup & shutdown, launching Chrome browser, loading multiple webpages, opening MS Office, Printmaster, Serif Movie Plus, Photo Plus, Irfanview, and a variety of 3D games (vintage 2008 to 2014).
    There are too many differences in our two systems for benchmark tests to be of much use when comparing. Triple-channel vs. dual-channel, 1333MHz vs. 1600MHz, 12GB vs. 8GB, SATA II vs. SATA III, and so on.

    In general, Windows 8.1 starts several seconds faster than Windows 7. Other than that there is precious little difference in how responsive each system is on most regular tasks. A split second here, one second there .... but so little it just doesn't matter. OK, what about the extremes? Loading new levels in massive 3D games i'd give a slight edge to the newer Core i5 /SATA III but, again, it's only a second or two advantage if that much. For example, loading a big level in Crysis 2 (which used to take 40-45 seconds on a 7200rpm HDD) now takes about 17 seconds on the Core i7/SSD/SATA II and about 15 seconds on the Core i5/SSD/SATA III. As you can see, the big improvement was going from HDD to SSD.

    Now, what about video work? When editing home video from our Kodak digi-cam in 1080p @ 30frames-per-second and 720p @ 60 frames-per-second the clear winner is the ol' Core i7. With Hyper-threading (8 logical cores) it seems the i7 can leverage the bandwidth of triple-channel configuration of RAM (and 12GB of it, too). Encoding/rendering/transcoding is completed about 35% faster than what the Core i5 / SATA III system can manage. If you're doing a lot of intensive work of this kind and the speed is really important then this is a major consideration. And yet, for most of us home users, consider this. If you just spent the past couple of hours viewing and editing 60 minutes of video footage to produce an 18 or 20 minute video with titles, credits, transitions, and some narrative voice-over then you should be ready for a break! So, you hit the Save/Finish button and get up off your butt and go make some coffee or tea and stretch your legs for a while. In this scenario i really don't care if the finished product took X-minutes or X + a few more minutes.

    My priority in choice of components for both systems is based on playing 3D games, not video/photo editing although we do some of that, too. Regarding image quality of our videos we prefer the results we get from cpu rendering rather than enabling hardware acceleration such as nVidia's CUDA. The picture quality is simply better when using the cpu all the way. However, the new Core i5-4590 has Intel's Quck-Sync feature so we need to do a fresh quality comparison vs. cpu rendering. If Quick-Sync can match the sheer picture quality of cpu then we will surely use the Intel option because it's faster than cpu, Cuda, or the AMD one (i forget it's name).
    Last edited by starvinmarvin; 2014-08-15 at 15:36.

  7. #6
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    Almost forgot. Here's an old article that makes for interesting reading:
    http://techreport.com/review/15967/e...-performance/8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •