2gb 4x512 or 2x1024?

[L00ker]

So I plan on using 2gb of memory in my build and am wondering would 4x512mb DDR2 possibly be faster than 2x1024mb? The logic being there are more paths (more bandwidth) to and from the memory with 4 sticks rather than 2, so I would think that throughput and possibly access time would be slightly faster? any ideas?

 

[Geomagick]

2x1024 is the way to go.

You don't specify whether it is for an AMD or Intel platform but my answer wouldn't change. Also by going for only 2 sticks it does offer the possibility of adding more RAM easily later on.

 

[HannibalX]

2x1GB.

Keep the second channel open for future upgrades.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Keep the second channel open for future upgrades.

I've ran it both was on an intel platform with a p4 3.0ghz... saw no noticeable performance difference. But when vista comes out you may want more ram so listen to everyone tha says 2 X 1.

 

[SynthDude2001]

4x512MB is a good cheap upgrade path if you started with 2x512MB (I made that upgrade earlier this year and I'm very happy with it). But if you're doing a new build, I'd definitely just go for the 2x1024 since it probably won't be any more expensive (and will leave an upgrade path open, as others have said).

 

[Crescent13]

2x1GB.

 

[n7]

2x1 GB for sure.

There are numerous reasons why, such as better future upgrade path, less stress on memory controller (for AMD), less likelyhood of having a bad OC, etc.

 

[jimbob200521]

2x1024mb

 

[L00ker]

Got it, it is an intel platform but I was just thinking in theory so 2x1gb it is... any recommendations for 2gb kits? hoping for sub $200 and DDR2 667 (max my motherboard supports as I understand it) Asus P5ND2-SLI nForce4 chipset...

 

[supastar1568]

2 x 1GB

I learned the hard way. I have 4 x 512mb with my 3200+ and its stuck running at 2T.

But i guess 2 is twice as much as 1, so its twice as fast...