Is more RAM always better?

[Blain]

>> Benchmarks <<
I want to see benchmarks for different memory configurations under XP and/or 2000! Show Me! :laugh:

 

[Blain]

Let's see those benchmarks!

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Googer
fewer sticks of higher capcity means lower latency and = better performance



Adding memory to the 3rd slot makes your system run in single channel mode at higher latency

Hello, Dr. Cools 2nd account!!

You are wrong in that statement however. 100% wrong. As long as you have 2<= then you will runn in Dual Channel. As for higher latency yeah if you put all 4 slots filled you will have to increase the Command Rate to 2T on most M/B. However your statement that smaller memory is faster is utter bullsh!t.
#1. Its just wrong.
#2. THe only thing that DOES apply to is cache which isn't DRAM it is SRAM.

Maybe you should check your information before you post.

-Kevin

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Blain
>> Benchmarks <<
I want to see benchmarks for different memory configurations under XP and/or 2000! Show Me! :laugh:

SOMEONE link up some benchmarks for this guy! :laugh:

 

[winterlude]

Can you underclock your RAM to be in synch with the FSB?

 

[ts3433]

Of course you can.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: chocoruacal
Run the RAM synch with your FSB. If you're using a 133mhz FSB chip, then running the RAM at 200x2=400mhz isn't going to make any difference; you can fill all three slots and run at 133x2=266mhz.

EDIT: and to answer the title of the thread, no, in certain applications running more RAM could hinder performance.

EDIT: and to answer the title of the thread, no, in certain applications running more RAM could hinder performance.

IF that is so true then name a few, and if you can explain how.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Googer
fewer sticks of higher capcity means lower latency and = better performance



Adding memory to the 3rd slot makes your system run in single channel mode at higher latency

Hello, Dr. Cools 2nd account!!

You are wrong in that statement however. 100% wrong. As long as you have 2<= then you will runn in Dual Channel. As for higher latency yeah if you put all 4 slots filled you will have to increase the Command Rate to 2T on most M/B. However your statement that smaller memory is faster is utter bullsh!t.
#1. Its just wrong.
#2. THe only thing that DOES apply to is cache which isn't DRAM it is SRAM.

Maybe you should check your information before you post.

-Kevin

Thanks Kevin, I knew that but You mis-understood my statement or I was just a little bit incomplete. Adding a third stick to a dual channel config will cause it to operate in single channel mode. I know all about dual channel, it was used long before DDR came around.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Googer
fewer sticks of higher capcity means lower latency and = better performance



Adding memory to the 3rd slot makes your system run in single channel mode at higher latency

Hello, Dr. Cools 2nd account!!

You are wrong in that statement however. 100% wrong. As long as you have 2<= then you will runn in Dual Channel. As for higher latency yeah if you put all 4 slots filled you will have to increase the Command Rate to 2T on most M/B. However your statement that smaller memory is faster is utter bullsh!t.
#1. Its just wrong.
#2. THe only thing that DOES apply to is cache which isn't DRAM it is SRAM.

Maybe you should check your information before you post.

-Kevin

Thanks Kevin, I knew that but You mis-understood my statement or I was just a little bit incomplete. Adding a third stick to a dual channel config will cause it to operate in single channel mode. I know all about dual channel, it was used long before DDR came around.

What in the world are you talking about????

You can run 3 dimms in Dual channel mode #1.

And #2 dual channel was not out before DDR. Dont you think we would have been using it otherwise.

Why dont you post some sources of that information? Too bad you cant because its false 🙂

-Kevin

 

[Googer]

Kevin 3 DIMM's will cause the memory controller to treat them all as if they were on the same channel.
I am well aware that 4 DIMMS will run at a higher command rate in DUAL Channel Mode, DUH! . But an odd number Like 1 or 3 will cause it to run in single channel mode.
I will find a motherboard manual somewhere, and when I do I will post it.
Kevin if you are so sure of your self then why havent you provided some kind of doccumentation?

 

[Gamingphreek]

No it wont!!! You have no idea what you are talking about.

They have 2 Channels.

Bank 1 = Channel 1 and can hold 1 DIMM. Banks 2 &amp; 3 are on channel 2 and can hold 1 DIMM each =2. They are still on seperate memory channels! Why in the hell do you think they have boards with 3 DIMMS if it is going to run in SC.

You should just stop posting.

-Kevin

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
No it wont!!! You have no idea what you are talking about.

They have 2 Channels.

Bank 1 = Channel 1 and can hold 1 DIMM. Banks 2 &amp; 3 are on channel 2 and can hold 1 DIMM each =2. They are still on seperate memory channels! Why in the hell do you think they have boards with 3 DIMMS if it is going to run in SC.

You should just stop posting.

-Kevin

No kidding! Show me your Proof if you are ooooh soo sure!

 

[Googer]

Acording to your logic adding 3 DIMMS will cause the Motherboard to operate in Triple Channel Mode! I know that it would be awesome, but its time to stop dreaming.

Lets Hope nVIDIA will release a Quad-Bank Memory Controller for Intel chips cause they certainly need it.

 

[Googer]

fewer sticks of higher capcity means lower latency and = better performance

Let me rephrase it so maybe it might be a bit clearer.
fewer sticks of higher capcity memory on any single channel: means lower latency and = better performance.

(kevin this applies to single channel as well as dual channel memory controllers) Just keep the number of DIMM'S to a minimum on a memory channel.

Ignorance is only bliss, when raising children.

 

[Gamingphreek]

You are full of shit. Didn't you read my post?!?! I said
BANK 1 is on Memory Channel 1
BANKS 2 &amp;3 are on memory Channel 2.

Where in that statement did i every say that each was on its on dedicated channel?

Why dont you just stop posting now that i have continually proved you wrong. Or at least just stop posting in this thread.

-Kevin

 

[jvarszegi]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are full of shit. Didn't you read my post?!?! I said
BANK 1 is on Memory Channel 1
BANKS 2 &amp;3 are on memory Channel 2.

Where in that statement did i every say that each was on its on dedicated channel?

Why dont you just stop posting now that i have continually proved you wrong. Or at least just stop posting in this thread.

-Kevin

As an impartial observer (who also doesn't know who's right), I have to say that neither of you has proved anything. Why don't you point to some online authority? That ought to settle things.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Reply fine.

Link

That is to the manual of the Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe Nforce 2 Ultra based Motherboard.

On Page 23 it shows Dimms A1 and A2 (same channel) and B1.

On page 29 it shows the valid DDR configurations.

Im currently downloading a manual for an A64 939 based M/B. I will update when it is finished.

Now Googer.... where is your info?

-Kevin

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jvarszegi
As an impartial observer (who also doesn't know who's right), I have to say that neither of you has proved anything. Why don't you point to some online authority? That ought to settle things.

DAPUNISHER and mechBgon good enough? I had a discussion with both of them about the NF2 and dual-channel memory. Apparently, it is the exception to the rule, and it doesn't require matched pairs of memory in pairs of banks in order to operate in dual-channel. As long as you populate each memory channel with X bytes of RAM of the same organization, then the addresses up to 2X will run in dual-channel, and any further memory will run in single-channel mode. Sounds pretty neat to me.

P4 dual-channel systems are of course different, and require exact matched pairs, otherwise the system reverts to something Intel calls "virtual single-channel mode", or something like that. So stick in 3 DIMMs, or a non-matched pair of DIMMs, and you'll only get single-channel performance out of the whole thing.

A historical FYI, there have been multi-channel/multi-bank/interleaved memory arrangements before, but I don't think that they were ever specifically called "dual-channel". DEC Alpha workstation boards used to work that way, as did many servers, and I think the Intel 440GX chipset, if you populated all of the memory banks, could do some serious four-way interleaved memory action. Interestingly, even the original Pentium chips were effectively dual-channel, since they required matched pairs of 32-bit SIMMs, to match the 64-bit data bus of the CPU. (And then DIMMs were invented, and were 64/72-bit wide themselves, so no more need for pairs of memory... until DC DDR rolled around again...)

 

[Gamingphreek]

You do not need matched pairs. As long as you have the slots populated it will run in Dual Channel. It is best to balance oout the channels such as 512 in one channel and 2x 256 in the second channel.

Also most P4 systems have 4 Dimm Slots, and at any rate they will still run in Dual Channel because each channel is populated. I remember the argument which you are referring to also. But i dont remember the content/conclusion.

-Kevin

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jvarszegi

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are full of shit. Didn't you read my post?!?! I said
BANK 1 is on Memory Channel 1
BANKS 2 &amp;3 are on memory Channel 2.

Where in that statement did i every say that each was on its on dedicated channel?

Why dont you just stop posting now that i have continually proved you wrong. Or at least just stop posting in this thread.

-Kevin

As an impartial observer (who also doesn't know who's right), I have to say that neither of you has proved anything. Why don't you point to some online authority? That ought to settle things.

I can confirm that Kevin is indeed correct. He's not exactly being congenial though. Learn some respect dude. You shouldn't have a quote about trolls in your sig if you're going to act like one. :thumbsdown:

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: jvarszegi

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are full of shit. Didn't you read my post?!?! I said
BANK 1 is on Memory Channel 1
BANKS 2 &amp;3 are on memory Channel 2.

Where in that statement did i every say that each was on its on dedicated channel?

Why dont you just stop posting now that i have continually proved you wrong. Or at least just stop posting in this thread.

-Kevin

As an impartial observer (who also doesn't know who's right), I have to say that neither of you has proved anything. Why don't you point to some online authority? That ought to settle things.

I can confirm that Kevin is indeed correct. He's not exactly being congenial though. Learn some respect dude. You shouldn't have a quote about trolls in your sig if you're going to act like one. :thumbsdown:

Sorry guys. I guess im arguing over nothing and just randomly insulting, i feel so ashamed 😱 😱 ... i have used my one noob "posting" for the month of December 😛 . At any rate i am sorry, just get your sources and info straight before you post, if you are found to be wrong DONT keep arguing.

I did find 1 thing wrong with my statement though. In order to use DC on the A64 and the P4 you do indeed have to keep the channels balanced no matter what. (ie: Channel 1=1x512mb Channel 2=2x256mb).

-Kevin

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: jvarszegi
As an impartial observer (who also doesn't know who's right), I have to say that neither of you has proved anything. Why don't you point to some online authority? That ought to settle things.

DAPUNISHER and mechBgon good enough? I had a discussion with both of them about the NF2 and dual-channel memory. Apparently, it is the exception to the rule, and it doesn't require matched pairs of memory in pairs of banks in order to operate in dual-channel. As long as you populate each memory channel with X bytes of RAM of the same organization, then the addresses up to 2X will run in dual-channel, and any further memory will run in single-channel mode. Sounds pretty neat to me.

P4 dual-channel systems are of course different, and require exact matched pairs, otherwise the system reverts to something Intel calls "virtual single-channel mode", or something like that. So stick in 3 DIMMs, or a non-matched pair of DIMMs, and you'll only get single-channel performance out of the whole thing.

A historical FYI, there have been multi-channel/multi-bank/interleaved memory arrangements before, but I don't think that they were ever specifically called "dual-channel". DEC Alpha workstation boards used to work that way, as did many servers, and I think the Intel 440GX chipset, if you populated all of the memory banks, could do some serious four-way interleaved memory action. Interestingly, even the original Pentium chips were effectively dual-channel, since they required matched pairs of 32-bit SIMMs, to match the 64-bit data bus of the CPU. (And then DIMMs were invented, and were 64/72-bit wide themselves, so no more need for pairs of memory... until DC DDR rolled around again...)

Correct, you must remember the old days of FPM memory. [i486]

original Pentium chips were effectively dual-channel, since they required matched pairs of 32-bit SIMMs

SIMM's were 16bit's each it took Two of them to make a 32bit data path, that was untill Synchronous ram apearead on the market and a single DIMM was 32bits wide It put a temporary end to having to buy memory in pairs. I remember that.

 

[jvarszegi]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Sorry guys. I guess im arguing over nothing and just randomly insulting, i feel so ashamed 😱 😱 ... i have used my one noob "posting" for the month of December 😛 . At any rate i am sorry, just get your sources and info straight before you post, if you are found to be wrong DONT keep arguing.

Classy apology, and you get bonus points for actually being right! 🙂 I think that probably everyone gets frustrated once in a while, and there's no benefit of actual face-to-face dialogue here, with facial expressions etc. to sort things out. I too get really frustrated when people say things that aren't supportable and then just keep repeating what they said in the first place, without really supporting their argument. The best ammo against this is to just overwhelm 'em with links, but not even documentation always works.

As a relative newbie, I learned a lot from this thread; thanks to all who were involved.

 

[V00D00]

Memory only runs at full speed when you have all the slots on your board populated to their maximum. At least that's what I was told.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: V00D00
Memory only runs at full speed when you have all the slots on your board populated to their maximum. At least that's what I was told.

No that's not true. In fact, when you have all the slots populated, quite often you will be forced to run your memory at speeds slower than what it is rated for. For example, PC3200 bumps back to PC2700 speed when you populate all three slots on an Abit NF7-S.

Stability is also a huge concern when you fill all your memory slots. It's always best to get fewer sticks with larger capacities, unless dual-channel will give you a large boost (P4).