- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Location
- CROYDON. UK
OK people.
I dont think this is too dumb a question.
Does having paired memory make a difference in real world performance?
I rationalise my question thus.
Back in the P4 days it was a sort of mantra that unlike sticks (128mb paired with a 256 mb and a 64 mb for luck) definitely degraded performance.
However I never noticed any difference whatsoever and I used to shove any spare RAM on my leftovers Pc once I had made a perfect as possible Main PC.
I have noticed that unlike the era circa 2004/5 RAM latency and timings dont seem to be any where as crucial/important today.
Back then I forked out £150+ for some 4GB Mushkin Red on my 939 setup because it had fast timing.
It was the last time I ever bothered paying silly money for RAM as I really didnt find any difference noticable to me when I played FEAR OR HL2.
And as time has passed I noticed that the issue of latency sort of fell by the wayside but that might be because I was reading the wrong mags.
So back to my original question.
1.Would one channel of 4GB DDR3 be NOTICABLY inferior to 2 x 2GB DDR3 regarding BANDWIDTH ?
2. Is it possible that using only one channel might allow higher clocks?
3. Is there any proof/figures of FPS performance in a GAME that shows the difference between 1 channel or 2?
I got a little i3 540 and I want to use it only for gaming not rendering, video editing or file conversion.
I have heard consistently over the years that the more RAM slots filled the lower the Max Overclock. I think it might refer to having 6 slots filled though and assumes that two slots is the minimum/benchmark rather than one on its own.
Anyhow I would really like to know for certain on all the three issues.
Cheers.
I dont think this is too dumb a question.
Does having paired memory make a difference in real world performance?
I rationalise my question thus.
Back in the P4 days it was a sort of mantra that unlike sticks (128mb paired with a 256 mb and a 64 mb for luck) definitely degraded performance.
However I never noticed any difference whatsoever and I used to shove any spare RAM on my leftovers Pc once I had made a perfect as possible Main PC.
I have noticed that unlike the era circa 2004/5 RAM latency and timings dont seem to be any where as crucial/important today.
Back then I forked out £150+ for some 4GB Mushkin Red on my 939 setup because it had fast timing.
It was the last time I ever bothered paying silly money for RAM as I really didnt find any difference noticable to me when I played FEAR OR HL2.
And as time has passed I noticed that the issue of latency sort of fell by the wayside but that might be because I was reading the wrong mags.
So back to my original question.
1.Would one channel of 4GB DDR3 be NOTICABLY inferior to 2 x 2GB DDR3 regarding BANDWIDTH ?
2. Is it possible that using only one channel might allow higher clocks?
3. Is there any proof/figures of FPS performance in a GAME that shows the difference between 1 channel or 2?
I got a little i3 540 and I want to use it only for gaming not rendering, video editing or file conversion.
I have heard consistently over the years that the more RAM slots filled the lower the Max Overclock. I think it might refer to having 6 slots filled though and assumes that two slots is the minimum/benchmark rather than one on its own.
Anyhow I would really like to know for certain on all the three issues.
Cheers.