single channel vs. dual channel

In article <3431csF43s0dmU1 DeleteThis @individual.net>, Matt Anderson says...
 > I have a single stick of 512mb ram, and my motherboard supports dual
 > channel, so I'm wondering how much performance increase I might see by
 > putting another 512 in. I realize that not much that I do actually uses
 > more than 512, so I don't think the extra capacity will do much, but how
 > much difference might the dual channel give me?

Not enough to notice.


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

If you can afford another stick, put it in there and see for yourself. To
the naked eye you might not notice anything significant but photos and stuff
like that will probably edit faster and your games will most likely run
smoother. I have a gb of ram in dual channel on all my machines.

Regards, Bob Troll


"Matt Anderson" <mattya25.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3431csF43s0dmU1@individual.net...
 > I have a single stick of 512mb ram, and my motherboard supports dual
 > channel, so I'm wondering how much performance increase I might see by
 > putting another 512 in. I realize that not much that I do actually uses
 > more than 512, so I don't think the extra capacity will do much, but how
 > much difference might the dual channel give me?
 > I have a AMD 2500+M oc'd to 2.4Ghz, and mostly use the comp for some
 > photoshop, gaming, and burning DVD's.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > matty
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

 > I have a single stick of 512mb ram, and my motherboard supports dual
 > channel, so I'm wondering how much performance increase I might see by
 > putting another 512 in. I realize that not much that I do actually uses
 > more than 512, so I don't think the extra capacity will do much, but how
 > much difference might the dual channel give me?
 > I have a AMD 2500+M oc'd to 2.4Ghz, and mostly use the comp for some
 > photoshop, gaming, and burning DVD's.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > matty

I've got 1 gig of RAM, and every time I check my memory usage,
it's down around 20%. The only time the second stick of 512 MB RAM
seems to make a difference is when I'm playing a PC game that is a
memory hog, and I'm not even sure the performance would be any
different if I took out the second stick.

My own feeling, you can still get along very nicely with 384 megs
of RAM. If you've got 512 megs, you're laughing. Anything more is
just vanity.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Al Smith:

 > If you've got 512 megs, you're laughing. Anything more is just
 > vanity.

Having just increased from 512 to 768, it's more than vanity.
--
Mac Cool<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Al, the average Joe using his computer for email probably wouldn't notice
any difference between 512mb and a gig. However with more ram available
there would be less swap file usage, so the overall computer performance
would increase on that point alone. It has been said many times the first
place to look at for upgrades is ram and cpu. Most of the other stuff is a
crap shoot on bang for buck value.

Do you recall the guy saying "640k ought to be enough for anybody" ? or
somesuch.... Bill Gates 1981 as I recall.

IMO the performance increase would be almost night and day on Matt's
machine. I have 3 machines (nf7sv2) all running barton mobiles with a gig of
dual channel ddr 3200 and his machine description sounds similar to mine.


Regards. Bob "hopelessly insane machine warrior" Troll
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Bob Troll wrote:

 > Al, the average Joe using his computer for email probably wouldn't notice
 > any difference between 512mb and a gig. However with more ram available
 > there would be less swap file usage, so the overall computer performance
 > would increase on that point alone. It has been said many times the first
 > place to look at for upgrades is ram and cpu. Most of the other stuff is a
 > crap shoot on bang for buck value.
 >
 > Do you recall the guy saying "640k ought to be enough for anybody" ? or
 > somesuch.... Bill Gates 1981 as I recall.

Hehe. Off topic but for some just as amusing predictions:


"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular
Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949.

"But what ... is it good for?" --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems
Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken
Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay
for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's associates
in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." --Marechal
Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction
and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react.
He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
--1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket
work.

And the winner is:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duell,
Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.


<snip><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Matt Anderson wrote:
 > I have a single stick of 512mb ram, and my motherboard supports dual
 > channel, so I'm wondering how much performance increase I might see by
 > putting another 512 in. I realize that not much that I do actually
 > uses more than 512, so I don't think the extra capacity will do much,
 > but how much difference might the dual channel give me?
 > I have a AMD 2500+M oc'd to 2.4Ghz, and mostly use the comp for some
 > photoshop, gaming, and burning DVD's.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > matty

Can i OC my xp3000+?

--
A friend in need is a friend indeed, But a friend with weed is better.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

 > Al, the average Joe using his computer for email probably wouldn't notice
 > any difference between 512mb and a gig. However with more ram available
 > there would be less swap file usage, so the overall computer performance
 > would increase on that point alone. It has been said many times the first
 > place to look at for upgrades is ram and cpu. Most of the other stuff is a
 > crap shoot on bang for buck value.

I agree with what you are saying. More RAM makes a huge difference
when you don't have enough RAM and the OS is swapping data on and
off the harddrive all the time. At some point, though, there is
enough RAM for optimal computing, and anything more than that is
just redundant. The reason I got a full gig of RAM on my new
computer wasn't that I thought I needed a gig, but because I
thought I might need a gig in two or three years from now.
Presently, I get the impression that 512 megs is more than enough.
I don't think my computer is even using the second RAM stick,
except maybe for a PC game or two.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

"Matt Anderson" <mattya25.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3431csF43s0dmU1@individual.net...

|I have a single stick of 512mb ram, and my motherboard supports dual
| channel, so I'm wondering how much performance increase I might see by
| putting another 512 in. I realize that not much that I do actually uses
| more than 512, so I don't think the extra capacity will do much, but how
| much difference might the dual channel give me?
| I have a AMD 2500+M oc'd to 2.4Ghz, and mostly use the comp for some
| photoshop, gaming, and burning DVD's.

Photoshop could definitely benefit from more RAM, especially if you do heavy
editing like I do (2gb here), which keeps PS from using the swap file as
much. I don't do games, but they can also benefit. I have actually
exhausted 2gb of RAM using Photoshop and loading dozens of high-res photos
at once.

As for the benefit of dual-channel, I think you'll see little
seat-of-the-pants difference even though your throughput may double--and
this or even more RAM won't benefit much of your computing activities like
surfing. As was mentioned by another, RAM modules must be identical to work
in dual-channel mode, and ideally RAM used in this manner should be
purchased as "matching pairs," which is offered by most RAM suppliers.
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

I would oc that amd 3000 in a heartbeat..
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Bob Troll wrote:
 > I would oc that amd 3000 in a heartbeat..

I've never OC'd anything before, what are the positives and negatives with
doing this?

--
A friend in need is a friend indeed, But a friend with weed is better.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Al Smith wrote:
 > My own feeling, you can still get along very nicely with 384 megs of
 > RAM. If you've got 512 megs, you're laughing. Anything more is just vanity.

Depends what you use your PC for. My machine regularly compiles
applications, runs a database and web server and edits large images.

Also, under a decent OS it tends to use as much spare RAM as it can as a
disk buffer, this helps speed a lot! For example, on my work laptop (my
home machine has a gig, this laptop has half-a-gig) I currently have
100M of free memory out of 512M. However, it's using 150M as a disk buffer!

It's easy to forget that not-everyone uses the same OS or does the same
things with their PCs.....

Cheers,


Andy<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel 

Jimbob:

 > Bob Troll wrote:
  >> I would oc that amd 3000 in a heartbeat..
 >
 > I've never OC'd anything before, what are the positives and negatives
 > with doing this?

Positive is free performance increase, although the value of that
increase depends on what you use the computer for. If you are a gamer,
then OC can be very advantageous; if you primarily surf the web, it's a
waste of time on a 3000+.

Negatives can range from nearly nothing to increased heat in the case
requiring that you spend money on additional fans which will make your
PC noiser, having to buy a new CPU fan and/or heatsink, possilbly
shortening the life of your hardware (although most people upgrade long
before the hardware wears out); and the most likely side effect is
system instability if you overclock too far.

There was a time when overclocking was easy and it was cheaper than
buying a faster processor. Now, even the lower end processors are so
fast that they are more than adequate for the casual user so
overclocking is not as popular. It is true with video cards where you
can often upwards of a hundred dollars by buying a lower spec card and
overclocking it.
--
Mac Cool<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: single channel vs. dual channel