Better to run 4 sticks or 2 sticks

[zod96]

What is usually better to run, 4 sticks of 1 gb each or 2 stick of 2gb each?

 

[Cheex]

2 sticks of 2GB each will give you the same 4GB but put less strain on your North Bridge.

It also gives you the upgrade option of adding even more memory later on.

 

[QuixoticOne]

I agree 2x2GB FTW.

The memory controller for most Intel (and AMD for that matter) CPUs has dual channel
optimizations so that it can benefit from running 2 DIMMs vs 1 DIMM.

There is not much "quad channel" optimization, so when you use 4 DIMMs, the best you'll
get is that it'll be two sets of individually dual channel paired memory DIMMs with the
2 sets of dual channels being interleaved with respect to each other.

Thus you'll get some kinds of additional interleaving benefits to throughput / latency
with 4 DIMMs but AFAIK it's not particularly significant even in sequential streaming max. memory speed long data block transfers. I don't think it'd do much but make up the slight clock performance hit you get from adding the extra 2 DIMMs anyway.

So 2x2GB is best, and that way you're free to expand to 6GB or 8GB if you need to later and doing that would give you more overall system performance anyway.

 

[imported_wired247]

2 sticks usually results in better overall system stability, less phantom problems during overclocking, etc.

2 sticks whenever possible IMO

 

[deadken]

I don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but I feel stupid starting another one with such a similar topic when this is so blatantly on the first page.

My buddy has a S939 System (3500+ (IIRC), 2x512 3200CVR, 7600GT PCI-e, XP Pro) and doesn't plan to upgrade anytime soon. He does play BF2 and COD4 with me and I was wondering if I should offer him 2 more sticks of 512Mb Memory. I know that my BF2 load times and playability was improved when I went to 2x1GB, do you think he'd benefit from 4x512MB?

I am not really asking what is better to run, just asking if he will benifit or will the performance hit make it neglible.

Thanks.

(please PM me if this is considered 'thread-jacking').

 

[Nathelion]

More RAM is (almost) always better, even if it means running it at slower speeds. Assuming that his board (google it) can handle 4 sticks in the first place (and by handle I mean don't go unstable), it would definitely improve system performance, even if he ends up marginally underclocking it.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: deadken
I don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but I feel stupid starting another one with such a similar topic when this is so blatantly on the first page.

My buddy has a S939 System (3500+ (IIRC), 2x512 3200CVR, 7600GT PCI-e, XP Pro) and doesn't plan to upgrade anytime soon. He does play BF2 and COD4 with me and I was wondering if I should offer him 2 more sticks of 512Mb Memory. I know that my BF2 load times and playability was improved when I went to 2x1GB, do you think he'd benefit from 4x512MB?

I am not really asking what is better to run, just asking if he will benifit or will the performance hit make it neglible.

Thanks.

(please PM me if this is considered 'thread-jacking').

When I went from 2x256 to 2x256 + 2x512, I saw a huge jump in performance in BF2142/BF2. You're not going to see a "performance hit."

 

[deadken]

Cool... I figured as much, but it never hurts to ask.

Thanks Nathelion and DSF