Am I the only one...

[EliteRetard]

Were right in the middle of the transition from 32bit to 64bit, but most households still use 32bit and therfore cant use a full 4GB, you either waste or get a meager 2GB. Tripple channel solves this and doesnt kill your performance. For enthusiasts, whether on 32bit or 64bit are becoming limited with only 3-4GB of memory. With dual channel there is no good upgrade option. 4GB dimms are insanely expensive and adding 4 dims hurts performance and overclocking. Tripple channel solves this.

On lower cost boards you could use three dimm slots instead of 4 to reduce space and cost. And the 3-6GB is perfect for most users.

I see tripple channel as far superior in every case and scenario, and even if it doesnt provide a performance boost now its available for the future.

Even if we move to quad channel, I stilll see tripple channel being more usefull for quite some time. I really dont like that intel is chopping it off the lower end "i" series...thats where its a perfect match. 3GB is the perfect amout for most people and for low cost machines. Itd be perfect for AMD right now, their chips fit the low end segment very well.

 

[taltamir]

1. why would you use 32bit os today
2. Nothing is stopping you from running 3GB of ram without tri channel... you could go 3x1GB and settle for single channel speed. OR you could mix it up with 2x1GB and 2x512MB and still have dual channel!
3. Again, why would anyone use 32bit?
Heck 4GB is not enough anymore, I am running 8GB and I routinely go above 4GB USED ram.

The only real benefit of tri channel is not 3GB of ram from a 3x1GB... it is a higher bandwidth for specific applications that need it. I don't, but some servers do need that much ram bandwidth.

Removed unneeded language.
Please keep things cleaner.

n7
Memory/Storage Mod

 

[EliteRetard]

Originally posted by: taltamir
1. why would you use 32bit os today
2. Nothing is stopping you from running 3GB of ram without tri channel... you could go 3x1GB and settle for single channel speed. OR you could mix it up with 2x1GB and 2x512MB and still have dual channel!
3. Again, why would anyone use 32bit?
Heck 4GB is not enough anymore, I am running 8GB and I routinely go above 4GB USED ram.

The only real benefit of tri channel is not 3GB of ram from a 3x1GB... it is a higher bandwidth for specific applications that need it. I don't, but some servers do need that much ram bandwidth.

1: You didnt read what I said. The vast majority of users still have a 32 bit OS. Because of this many are running with 2GB and as demands increase an extra 1GB would be welcomed especially if it had the potential to increase performance instead of degrade it. Irregardless, triple channel is perfect for either 32bit or 64bit...and there are reasons to stick with 32bit, but you certainly dont come off as caring about others needs.
2: Again, not reading. 3GB in a dual channel board is complicated kills performance hampers overclocking and is simply an inferior method.
3: Wow...did you not even look at my post?
"For enthusiasts, whether on 32bit or 64bit are becoming limited with only 3-4GB of memory."

Again, 4GB DIMMs are very expensive, the only other way to get 8GB is if you have 4 DIMM slots and its still a more costly option. Running 4 DIMMs is harder on the MOBO and again reduces maximum performance and overclocking. Important things to someone who prefers value. 6GB on dual channel is a fail just like 3GB.

Im a gamer, and I prefer value. If I find that 4GB is a limit...my only real options are high end and expensive. Whats the cure for this, simply add a channel and add another 2GB. Efficient, effective, and possibly higher performing. And it could be done for a lower cost than the 8GB options. Mainstream boards could come with three instead of four DIMM slots saving space and money. On the low end (sub 75$ CPUs, small devices like netbooks etc) dual channel and boards with 2 slots are acceptable. Even for higher end rigs the 3 slots would still be fine, 6GB is a nice sweet spot at this time and will remain so for some time. The extreme users that need more than 6GB can get the 200$ MOBOs with 6 slots.

Dual channel is simply becoming a limiting factor. DIMMs in sets of three would be the perfect replacement at almost all levels now and for a good time in the future. Intel should not be taking triple channel off their midrange chips. Its a very large advantage, especially since the CPUs are still running 200$+.

More cleaning done

n7
Memory/Storage Mod

 

[Yuriman]

Dual channel is not becoming a limiting factor, very few programs see any increase in performance with 3 channels over 2. Adding additional channels makes motherboards more expensive as well.


There's a bit of a logical flaw in your argument for triple channel on consumer boards. "Most old PCs have 32bit operating systems" "New PCs should include triple channel just in case users are inclined to run a 32bit operating system". Why would anyone put a 32bit operating system on a new PC? Old PCs are already built, and will never have triple channel.

 

[TemjinGold]

4 gigs of DDR2 these days isn't really more expensive than 3 gigs of DDR3... People buying DDR3 should be buying 2gig sticks anyways.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: EliteRetard
I dont appreciate the personal attacks, just because you have a different opinion doesnt give you the right to jump in my face screaming and swearing. You seem extremely arrogant, not cool.

Personal attacks? Screaming and swearing? Wow, not hardly.

A 32-bit OS limits you to 4GB total system memory. So if you have a 512MB video card and install 4GB - you lose about half a gig. Big freaking deal. If you're that tight you could always follow taltamir's advice and add 2x512MB to your 2x1GB sticks for a total of 3GB while still running dual channel.

But even adding a third 1GB stick won't hurt you very badly. Intel boards will run in a hybrid dual/single channel mode - the two 1GB sticks will run dual channel and the third 1GB stick will run in single channel mode. The only place triple channel memory makes any real difference is for server applications where the IOPS load is incredibly high. (Double versus triple channel: no difference for desktop applications.)

And you should brush up on your spelling. Triple is spelled with one "p" not two. But I suppose I shouldn't even point that out - will probably be taken as a character attack or something.

 

[harobikes333]

EliteRetard ( wow people are gettin "different" usernames )

Don't take replies so freakin harshly. Most people on these forums like to be sarcastic, crack jokes, point out things, etc etc etc. it makes this forum the way it is and I like it to be honest...

Anyway to answer your Question..

Yes three channel could be a middle ground but why add another step inbetween ?

It's like someone saying ohhhhh I just found this amazing car that is all electric and can go 1000 miles a charge. Then instead.... someone says ohhh but for just a litttle less we could get one that runs only 650 miles..... should we do that...???

 

[Yuriman]

Were right in the middle of the transition from 32bit to 64bit, but most households still use 32bit and therfore cant use a full 4GB, you either waste or get a meager 2GB. Tripple channel solves this and doesnt kill your performance.

1: You didnt read what I said. The vast majority of users still have a 32 bit OS. Because of this many are running with 2GB and as demands increase an extra 1GB would be welcomed especially if it had the potential to increase performance instead of degrade it. Irregardless, triple channel is perfect for either 32bit or 64bit...and there are reasons to stick with 32bit, but you certainly dont come off as caring about others needs.

How does triple channel solve this? Do you propose adding triple channel to already existing machines?

Be aware that a Vista or Windows 7 serial that works for the 32bit version, also works for the 64bit, and you can download the image from directly Microsoft at no cost.

For enthusiasts, whether on 32bit or 64bit are becoming limited with only 3-4GB of memory. With dual channel there is no good upgrade option. 4GB dimms are insanely expensive and adding 4 dims hurts performance and overclocking. Tripple channel solves this.

2: Again, not reading. 3GB in a dual channel board is complicated kills performance hampers overclocking and is simply an inferior method.

I can't give facts that go against what you say, but I would imagine 3 channels from 3 slots would be harder on a memory controller than 2 channels over 4 slots. Regardless, having to loosen your memory timings slightly will have no noticeable impact on system performance. In most cases, you wont even be able to tell the difference between running single and triple channel, without referring to synthetic benchmarks.

Also, what "enthusiast" buys a board with 2 memory slots to begin with?

On lower cost boards you could use three dimm slots instead of 4 to reduce space and cost. And the 3-6GB is perfect for most users.

Again, 4GB DIMMs are very expensive, the only other way to get 8GB is if you have 4 DIMM slots and its still a more costly option. Running 4 DIMMs is harder on the MOBO and again reduces maximum performance and overclocking. Important things to someone who prefers value. 6GB on dual channel is a fail just like 3GB.

Except that adding additional layers and traces to the motherboard, and more complexity to the memory controller, costs more than adding slots.

I see tripple channel as far superior in every case and scenario, and even if it doesnt provide a performance boost now its available for the future.

I agree with you here, except in relation to cost. Triple channel is more expensive to make than dual channel.

Even if we move to quad channel, I stilll see tripple channel being more usefull for quite some time. I really dont like that intel is chopping it off the lower end "i" series...thats where its a perfect match. 3GB is the perfect amout for most people and for low cost machines. Itd be perfect for AMD right now, their chips fit the low end segment very well.

3GB might be perfect for low cost machines, but I'm not going to make that judgement. With memory prices as low as they are, you might as well buy 4GB.

Intel is making the lower end "i" series specifically so they don't have to use the larger memory controller, and additional motherboard traces, that drive prices up in the i7's for a minimal performance improvement.

Im a gamer, and I prefer value. If I find that 4GB is a limit...my only real options are high end and expensive. Whats the cure for this, simply add a channel and add another 2GB. Efficient, effective, and possibly higher performing. And it could be done for a lower cost than the 8GB options.

So you're telling me you didn't have the foresight to get the $70 motherboard with 4 ramslots instead of the $65 motherboard with 2 ramslots, and you don't want to buy

a. Expensive 4GB DIMMs

or

b. A new motherboard

Yet you recommend people pay more for a motherboard with 3 memory channels. And it still doesn't solve your problem - you have to buy a new motherboard.

The extreme users that need more than 6GB can get the 200$ MOBOs with 6 slots.

Or cheaper still, how about a 4 slot board with 4x 2GB sticks?

Dual channel is simply becoming a limiting factor. DIMMs in sets of three would be the perfect replacement at almost all levels now and for a good time in the future. Intel should not be taking triple channel off their midrange chips. Its a very large advantage, especially since the CPUs are still running 200$+.

 

[alcoholbob]

The only time I've actually seen proactive moderating is if you actually say something to a mod (in which other mods will jump in and offer you a vacation). This is just the nature of the forum. If you aren't selling something, and not using curse words, everything else goes. Standard etiquette does not apply and largely revolve around self-moderation (read: mob rule).

As they say, when in Rome, do what the Romans do. Some adaptation is needed as every forum differs. That said, the majority of the subforums are very civil, but for some reason or other Memory and Storage can get quite nasty. But, I've been to worse forums before. (Sports forums are on another level--mods are cursing and threatening bans on anyone who disagree with them).

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Can i thread steal for a moment and then you can get back to the topic. My question sorta relates to tri channel. I was recently was reading a Hackintosh, Mac article here on the front page of Anand and there was a statement stating running 4 sticks, in a 4 stick tri-channel X58 mobo config, changes the data bit to 32bit from 64; thus running the full tripple channel kit keeps it at 64. Is tri-channel 64 bit? thanks, sorry im out of the loop on that.

 

[n7]

I just did some major thread cleaning because people couldn't seem to keep on topic.

Stay there, or this will be locked.

Thanx,

n7
Memory/Storage Mod

 

[Absolution75]

Originally posted by: EliteRetard
Were right in the middle of the transition from 32bit to 64bit, but most households still use 32bit and therfore cant use a full 4GB, you either waste or get a meager 2GB. Tripple channel solves this and doesnt kill your performance. For enthusiasts, whether on 32bit or 64bit are becoming limited with only 3-4GB of memory. With dual channel there is no good upgrade option. 4GB dimms are insanely expensive and adding 4 dims hurts performance and overclocking. Tripple channel solves this.

On lower cost boards you could use three dimm slots instead of 4 to reduce space and cost. And the 3-6GB is perfect for most users.

I see tripple channel as far superior in every case and scenario, and even if it doesnt provide a performance boost now its available for the future.

Even if we move to quad channel, I stilll see tripple channel being more usefull for quite some time. I really dont like that intel is chopping it off the lower end "i" series...thats where its a perfect match. 3GB is the perfect amout for most people and for low cost machines. Itd be perfect for AMD right now, their chips fit the low end segment very well.

You miss the part that tripple channel is more expensive and a more enthusiast based technology. In fact, it really is only useful in certain server environments (nehalem may as well be a server chip).

If your an enthusiast, you're not running xp 32bit - you'll be running vista x64 or win 7 x64.

People who buy x58 boards will not be running xp x86.

Running 4 dimms doesn't hurt performance - though it does indeed hurt extreme overclocks (extreme overclockers will probably be buying tripple x58 though, so who cares?).

3GB isn't enough. 4GB is sometimes not even though. I'd recommend at least 6-8GB for most new builds.

Tripple channel doesn't fit low end segments because it is inherantly more expensive.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

So I can get a UD3R X58 board and run 4x2g sticks of 8Gb and it'll stay 64 bit?

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Absolution75

Originally posted by: EliteRetard
Were right in the middle of the transition from 32bit to 64bit, but most households still use 32bit and therfore cant use a full 4GB, you either waste or get a meager 2GB. Tripple channel solves this and doesnt kill your performance. For enthusiasts, whether on 32bit or 64bit are becoming limited with only 3-4GB of memory. With dual channel there is no good upgrade option. 4GB dimms are insanely expensive and adding 4 dims hurts performance and overclocking. Tripple channel solves this.

On lower cost boards you could use three dimm slots instead of 4 to reduce space and cost. And the 3-6GB is perfect for most users.

I see tripple channel as far superior in every case and scenario, and even if it doesnt provide a performance boost now its available for the future.

Even if we move to quad channel, I stilll see tripple channel being more usefull for quite some time. I really dont like that intel is chopping it off the lower end "i" series...thats where its a perfect match. 3GB is the perfect amout for most people and for low cost machines. Itd be perfect for AMD right now, their chips fit the low end segment very well.

You miss the part that tripple channel is more expensive and a more enthusiast based technology. In fact, it really is only useful in certain server environments (nehalem may as well be a server chip).

If your an enthusiast, you're not running xp 32bit - you'll be running vista x64 or win 7 x64.

People who buy x58 boards will not be running xp x86.

Running 4 dimms doesn't hurt performance - though it does indeed hurt extreme overclocks (extreme overclockers will probably be buying tripple x58 though, so who cares?).

3GB isn't enough. 4GB is sometimes not even though. I'd recommend at least 6-8GB for most new builds.

Tripple channel doesn't fit low end segments because it is inherantly more expensive.

+1 to this post...

EliteRetard, of course I read your post. I just disagree with all your preconceptions about the subject. That is why I draw different conclusions.

The vast majority of users have a 32bit OS because they have yet to purchase a new OS since windows XP (where they actually get to chose 32bit vs 64bit for identical price) or they are ignorant (willingly choosing 32bit for same price).
Not you particularly, but the average buyer knows little... there are certainly legitimate reasons to run 32bit over 64bit. But those are extremely rare and it is usually due to believing in FUD or not knowing any better

I actually haven't used 32bit OS in nearly 5 years.

the whole ram thing is a strawman argument, with the majority of benefits coming from extra registers in the CPU and resulting in up to 5x performance. Although realistically, I benchmarked 7z compression being 27% faster and I saw some professional benches of hash calcs being 3x to 4x the speed, some types of video encoding was 60% faster, and things like ZFS should not even be bothered with in 32bit mode. And some programs and games are 0% faster though.
Even then, there is no real benefit to 32bit. Compatibility is no longer an issue, and actually can be used as a protection (older malware no longer compatible).

As far as 3GB in dual channel being "complicated"... what's complicated about it? and what performance loss?
you stick the ram in the slots and it works... I just put a 2x2GB pair alongside 2x512MB pair for my brother for 5GB. It works and ramspeed is identical to before. It just worked. 2x1GB +1GB MIGHT be more complicated (I Wouldn't know, I didn't try it), but I am inclined to think it is as simple as what I did do, and even if not, so what? and still not a big performance issue.

A serious overclocker is just gonna use 2x2GB and "waste" 700MB of ram... that is assuming a hardcore overclocker is even using 32bit. Considering that 2x512MB is too cheap to be worth shipping on ebay (and maybe 2x1GB too), while 2x2GB is under 50$.

4GB dimms are indeed expensive @ 170$ per dimm... but you can easily get 8GB by running 4x2GB while still being an "enthusiast". I don't see why having more than one ram kit automatically disqualifies you from being "enthusiast".. I assure you I had no problems overclocking with 4x2GB of DDR2.
The argument that running 3x2GB on tri chanel while leaving the other 3 slots free is the only "proper" way to get more than 4GB of ram makes no sense... and also contradicts your own point about 32bit being king.

Im a gamer, and I prefer value. If I find that 4GB is a limit...my only real options are high end and expensive. Whats the cure for this, simply add a channel and add another 2GB. Efficient, effective, and possibly higher performing. And it could be done for a lower cost than the 8GB options. Mainstream boards could come with three instead of four DIMM slots saving space and money. On the low end (sub 75$ CPUs, small devices like netbooks etc) dual channel and boards with 2 slots are acceptable. Even for higher end rigs the 3 slots would still be fine, 6GB is a nice sweet spot at this time and will remain so for some time. The extreme users that need more than 6GB can get the 200$ MOBOs with 6 slots.

Are you actually suggesting that people should use 2x2GB on a tri chanel system... in dual chanel, so that when they need to they can buy another single 2GB module to upgrade into tri chanel (with mismatched sticks)? or are you suddenly for 2x2 + 2GB dual + single chanel?

 

[freaky123]

hi,

for some memory comparisons, you should take a look here:

Memorybenchs (classic)

and here, more intressting:

Memorybenchs (Overall)

cu

 

[Emulex]

you can really see some ddr3 benefits when you run 6 x 4gb (24gb) on a dual socket motherboard and crank it up. google-fu is your friend

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Emulex
you can really see some ddr3 benefits when you run 6 x 4gb (24gb) on a dual socket motherboard and crank it up. google-fu is your friend

DDR3 benefits are lower power consumption and higher bandwidth. 6x4GB is not a DDR3 vs DDR2 thing.