Is dual channel RAM designed exclusively for Dual Cores or Dual processors?

[xMax]

I've asked this question before but didnt get a concrete answer.

I currently have two 512MB 5400ul Corsair RAMmodules hooked up in dual channel mode to my asus P5WD2 motherboard. The processor im using is the single core P4 3.73EE.

The situation is that i really dont need that extra module of ram and could sell it for money that i could use right about now.

Here is my question; Is dual channel ram designed only for dual cores or dual processors, or is it actually designed for all types of processors, including single cores.

I dont care to know whats better or worse, i just want to know if dual channel ram is designed for all cpus or just dual cores and dual processors.

Thanks.

 

[Mik3y]

no, dual-channel is designed for any system that can support it, so the number of processors or cores does not matter.

 

[xMax]

Thanks Mik3y.

Any others agree so that i can be assurred that Mik3y is correct about his answer.

 

[BrownTown]

yes, hes correct, dual channel and dual core and not related at all, single cores can use dual channel memmory, and dual cores can use single channel memmory.

 

[secretanchitman]

yes, browntown and mik3y are correct. though intels will definitely benefit more with dual-channel than with amds...

 

[xMax]

Thanks a lot guys. Nothing like a simple question with a simple answer followed by simple validations.

 

[BrownTown]

will Intel processors really get that much more of a benefit?, with the FSB they cant even use the full bandwidth of dual channel memmory, so how can it help them all that much?

 

[xMax]

Well...Although i dont know much, i do know that my FSB on my Intel 3.73ee is 1066, as my asus board supports a bus speed of 1066. In contrary to previous generations Intels that only had an 800 FSB, then i can see how the benefit could be put to question, but with 1066, then perhaps there is much to gain.

Even then, intel boards wouldn't bother with dual channel RAM support if there was no gain at all. So there has to be a gain. How much exactly, for 800 or 1066 FSB, i have no clue.

 

[BrownTown]

even at 1066FSB you cannot take full advantage of dual channel memmory.

 

[xMax]

Do you have proof to back up your claim. Like a link showing clear facts from a professional point of view. Or are you simply giving your opinion.

 

[BrownTown]

667*2 = 1334 > 1066

As stated above, 2 channels of PC5400 RAM will exceed the full bandwidth of your FSB, plus ther is the communication to your video card and other periphrials to worry about, so you will not be able to reach full bandwidth even in perfect conditions.

 

[xMax]

Well let me put it this way then. Will dual channel RAM be slower than single channel RAM, or will it be equal to or greater than single channel RAM?

 

[BrownTown]

obviously it will be equal to or greater, but it could be alot mroe better if Intel wasn't still using crappy slow FSB. When AM2 comes out the Athlon chips will have better bandwidth and lower memmory latentcy then anything Intel can produce until late 2007.

 

[Shenkoa]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Obviously it will be equal to or greater than, but it could be allot more better if Intel wasn't still using a obsolete and non innovative FSB system. Currently at the moment, AMD is producing chips that have a much more innovative memory scheme and Intel wont be able to match it until late 2007.

Fixed.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
667*2 = 1334 > 1066

As stated above, 2 channels of PC5400 RAM will exceed the full bandwidth of your FSB, plus ther is the communication to your video card and other periphrials to worry about, so you will not be able to reach full bandwidth even in perfect conditions.

Thats not how dual channel works. You can't look at it as 667*2. It's doubling the number of lanes, not doubling the clock speed. 128bit wide instead of 64bit wide. It's like doubling the lanes on a highway and keeping the speed limit the same. Sure traffic is moving along at the same speed, but now you can fit twice as many cars. Dual channel makes up to around a 20% differance with netburst chips, while more efficient designs such as A64's and Pentium-M's already run efficient enough, that dual channel doesn't make as big of a differance.

 

[BrownTown]

yeah, you pretty much can look at it as 667*2 because thats exactly what it is, 2 channels running at 667 mhz. Nobodys saying its runnign at 1333MHZ, but thats the effective data transfer rate. You don't see people refering to DDR as DDR2x200, they just say DDR400 even though the ICs are only working at half that speed.

 

[xMax]

So in plain and simple, dual channel RAM is still equal to or greater than single channel RAM. But the performance gain versus cost is questionable on some or most intel based chips.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: xMax
So in plain and simple, dual channel RAM is still equal to or greater than single channel RAM. But the performance gain versus cost is questionable on some or most intel based chips.

The performance gain on P4's and Pentium-D's is pretty significant.

 

[ahurtt]

I think there is some confusion here where DDR and dual channel are concerned. DDR and Dual Channel are not synonomous. There is not any such thing as "Dual Channel RAM." There is DDR. Dual channel is a type of RAM configuration, supported more by the motherboard and the memory controller (either on the chipset or on the CPU itself depending on if you are talking about Intel vs. AMD). You can put any kind of memory in dual channel configuration as long as the memory controller supports dual channel.

AMD and Intel based systems can both benefit from dual channel RAM configurations, but right now, Intel based systems will see a better performance gain from using DDR 2 than AMD systems will. The AMD systems run efficiently enough on plain DDR that the DDR 2 isn't necessary. But the point is DDR != Dual Channel. They have little if anything to do with each other aside from the fact they both have to do with memory. In short,
DDR = type of RAM
Dual Channel = RAM configuration.

 

[xMax]

I was aware that dual channel ram is just a type of ram configuration. Perhaps others were not. So the clarification still has merit.

The bottom line is that if there is a performance gain with dual channel ram configuration, then i will keep my second module of ram in dual channel mode with my other module.

 

[BrownTown]

so far as i see only ahurtt seems to be confused

 

[ahurtt]

How so? Care to enlighten me then?

 

[aka1nas]

the 1066 FSB is still not perfectly matched with dual channel DDR2@ 667Mhz, however a single channel of said DDR2 would starve the FSB. Don't forget that the FSB is using both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle to transfer data too. Also, the CPU is not the only thing that talks directly to RAM as other devices do have DMA channels, so some extra memory bandwith is no doubt used up.

 

[NaiMan]

How can you tell if your Ram is Dual Channel or not?

I have the Kingston Hyper X 2x512 kit.

Right now i have them installed as one channel...channel A

 

[xMax]

If you mean how can you tell your RAM is single or dual channel, then the answer to that question is there is no such thing. Look at ahurtts' first reply.

If you mean how can you tell if your RAM is setup in single or dual channel mode, then the answer to that question is probably in many ways, with the only one i know of being the bootup screen messages that appear just before windows xp starts to load.

So i have an intel P4 3.73ee, an Asus P5WD2, and a pair of 5400UL Corsair RAM modules each at 512mb and thus totalling 1024mb. I also have a 7800 GTX 256MB from BFG. Anyways, my computer bootup screen is showing my RAM as PC2-4300 as opposed to something like PC2-5400. I checked the corsair forum and discovered that my motherboards default is apparently 533mhz, which is PC2-4300, as their RAM technical adviser recommends setting it to 667mhz.

What should i do. Should i leave it at 533 or should i change it to 667mhz in the BIOS. Im confused because i dont know if i have to change other timings or if i can just change the DRAM frequency and leave everything else in auto mode.

And even then, if i make the change, would i need a special fan in my system. Because my ram, the 5400UL, is supposed to run at 675mhz without needing overclocking. Setting it to 667mhz in my motherboard constitutes overclocking only because my motherboard defaults to 533mhz. So m RAM is supposed to run at 667 without needing special fans. Even then, i have like 5 fans in my system; the cpu fan, the video card far, the psu fan, and two more fans, one in the front and one in the back. And my system is pretty plain and empty with nothing but a DVD drive and a hard drive.