|
|
| Author |
Message |
Goraz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3736
Location: Philadelphia
|
 Posted: 10/20/04 - 16:49 Post subject: Dual channel RAM
|
|
|
how do you enable it?
I know my mobo supports it
asus P4P800.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Regan
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 751
Location: Miami
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 18:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You enable it by sticking the memory sticks in the propper slots, the first slot of each double set will give you dual channel, sticking the two pecirs of memory nexto eachother will give you single channel
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
myndwarrp
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 637
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 18:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
First you have to make sure your mobo supports it. Just go to the manufacturers site and check. If it does, next you next 2 sticks of IDENTICAL memory. Same speed, latency, and size. Preferably same manufacturer. Then, per your mobo, put in appropriate slots. Typically if a mobo has 4 memory slots, 1 and 3 will be paired, and 2 and 4 will be paired. your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Goraz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3736
Location: Philadelphia
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 18:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
i heard its 30% faster than single channel yet when i logged on windows, it took a bit longer i noticed to load.
I'm on dual channel linear
linear ???
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
myndwarrp
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 637
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 18:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
go into your BIOS and make sure your mobo is recognizing dual channel...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Goraz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3736
Location: Philadelphia
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 19:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
It is..
but should it be in Linear mode?
Says Dual Channel , linear mode.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
myndwarrp
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 637
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 20:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
linear just means the first slot is occupied. heres a pic to explain it:
blue slot - occupied
blue slot - occupied
NOT DUAL CHANNEL
purple slot - empty
purple slot - empty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blue slot - occupied
blue slot - empty
DUAL CHANNEL LINEAR
purple slot - occupied
purple slot - empty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blue slot - occupied
blue slot - occupied
DUAL CHANNEL DUAL
purple slot - occupied
purple slot - occupied
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
slack82
Luke Warm
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 382
Location: St. Louis, Mo
|
|
Posted: 10/20/04 - 21:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
There is no proof that it really is faster. Honestly I've performed a few benchmarks (others have as well.. go search guru3d or something) on many different systems/configs and never noticed a thing. Another thing particularly if your a AMD user... is that it is useless. Some Athlon XP and A64 s939 support Dual Channel but it really isn't utitlized.
Somebody said that you need two IDENTICAL memory sticks. That is not completely true. You just need two sticks of the same speed/timings. The sticks can be from different manufactorers. Your better off to not worry about dual channel and instead try and get a nice pair of PC3200 or faster low latency/timings sticks (OCZ, Coirsair XMS, Geil or Muskin). They will improve system performance a hell of a lot better then dual channel (not to mention improve overclocking success and stability). Opps you said that sorry. 
Also, your fine Goraz.. back to CS y0
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
myndwarrp
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 637
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | There is no proof that it really is faster. Honestly I've performed a few benchmarks (others have as well.. go search guru3d or something) on many different systems/configs and never noticed a thing. Another thing particularly if your a AMD user... is that it is useless. Some Athlon XP and A64 s939 support Dual Channel but it really isn't utitlized.
Somebody said that you need two IDENTICAL memory sticks. That is not completely true. You just need two sticks of the same speed/timings. The sticks can be from different manufactorers. Your better off to not worry about dual channel and instead try and get a nice pair of PC3200 or faster low latency/timings sticks (OCZ, Coirsair XMS, Geil or Muskin). They will improve system performance a hell of a lot better then dual channel (not to mention improve overclocking success and stability). Opps you said that sorry.
|
Actually, it was me who said you need same speed/latency/size, and its recommended same manufacturer :p
| Quote: | | Some Athlon XP and A64 s939 support Dual Channel but it really isn't utitlized. |
actually, ALL 939 chipsets from AMD support dual channel  and performance IS increased. The cache size is half of 754 chipsets because the chip doesnt need it with dual channel.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
slack82
Luke Warm
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 382
Location: St. Louis, Mo
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 13:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually no, go do some benchmarks. Just because something is supported doesn't mean it is utilized. Dual Channel does next to 0 on a AMD system. Hell it does almost nothing on a Intel system maybe 5% at most It doesn't increase bus speed bandwidth, it doesn't make your system more stable, its over hyped b******t that will eventually be phased out if it isn't drastically improved. I think the whole purpose of dual channel was to emulate 2 sticks as being 1, which was to "magically" give this insane performance increase (more bandwidth.. but where this suppose bandwidth was suppose to come from I don't know..pc3200 is only going to put out 3.2gb/s bandwidth max unless overclocked ) but it didn't.
The socket that AMD uses has nothing to do with the cache size of the CPU they are just different core designs. You know the whole "smaller, faster, cooler" thing... Another note. The 512kb Cache size on the Newcastle and the new 90nm Winchester s939 have nothing to do with weither or not the chipset supports dual channel. It is easier for AMD to manufactor these chips at higher clockspeeds for less $$$ with the smaller cache sizes. Why buy a Clawhammer running at 2.2 ghz(with 1mb l2 Cache) when you can get a Newcastle running at 2.4ghz (512kb l2 Cache) for less and it is actually quite a bit faster and runs a lot cooler? Think the Sledgehammer core chips (fx-51, fx53, a64 4000+, fx55) are sold in mass?
I'm still looking for this wonderful new "lane" that Dual Channel supposibly opened up that doubled my performance over just using 2 normal sticks in a non dual channel setup.. can't seem to find it tho! hepl! Technology backfire! Yay. Eye candy to the consumer, nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
