Ram question dual channel v quad

[online_olympian]

Is quad channel 1600mhz the same as dual channel 3200 mhz in memory bandwidth? 

[Lord_Karango17]

I don't think the difference between dial and quad channel is that drastic, but I would be very interested in finding out what the actual difference is. So far all I know is that quad channel is faster than dual, which is faster than single, but not by how much.

[online_olympian]

nothing?

[stconquest]

4 hours ago, online_olympian said:

Is quad channel 1600mhz the same as dual channel 3200 mhz in memory bandwidth? 

That is a good question.  I have no freakin' idea.  I would guess no, raw clockspeed would outweigh load management (channels).  

 

When I run a single 8GB stick, I do not notice much of a difference at all from my regular two sticks. 

[FruitBasketSilex]

No, 1600 quad does not equal 3200 dual.

There's a difference between bandwidth and speed (mhz)

 

Speed and bandwidth differences between quad, dual, and single are negligible unless you're running some very niche stuff.

 

 

[MNMadman]

1600MHz memory is 1600MHz memory, whether it's on a single-channel, dual-channel, triple-channel, or quad-channel mainboard.

 

For the average user who installs a discrete GPU, there is almost no difference between the the number of channels in actual gaming and such.  Some differences in scientific stuff though.

 

Single vs. Dual

Dual vs. Quad

[online_olympian]

I ask because my xeon doesn't accept higher bandwidth than 1600 mhz. I am running 4 x 4 gig sticks to take advantage of the quad channel though. But the difference in gaming should be negligible?

[NumLock21]

Bandwidth increase speed stays the same.

[online_olympian]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

Bandwidth increase speed stays the same.

How does that factor in real world performance?

[NumLock21]

19 minutes ago, online_olympian said:

How does that factor in real world performance?

Started out with dual channel at 1866MHz, then upgraded to quad channel at 2133MHz, even set it to 3000MHz. In real world performance, I can't tell squat. Doubling your memory capacity say from 8GB to 16GB, you'll get a sense that programs seem to run faster, but sooner or later it dies off. Just like upgrading from HDD to SSD, blazing fast when you first got it. A few days later, that "wow this is fast" isn't there anymore.

[MNMadman]

4 hours ago, online_olympian said:

I ask because my xeon doesn't accept higher bandwidth than 1600 mhz. I am running 4 x 4 gig sticks to take advantage of the quad channel though. But the difference in gaming should be negligible?

If you didn't read the Dual vs Quad link I put in my last post, do so.  There is almost no real-world difference between dual-channel and quad-channel in gaming.  Nothing you would actually notice.

 

And to clarify what NumLock said, the performance doesn't die off.  You get used to it, so it no longer seems amazingly fast.  It still is amazingly fast (SSDs versus HDDs), but the initial thrill has worn off.

[Siman]

For gaming you going to want to focus on speed vs bandwidth. Memory bandwidth is really only needed if your moving large amounts of data. But in the grand scheme of things as long as you have about 8+ gigs you don't need to worry. memory impact on games isn't significant.

[adithyay328]

Quad channel memory only allows your memory to talk to your mobo more, and since games don't really use this, no, not much difference. But I do agree that in certain workloads(scientific work, moving MASSIVE files), there would be some difference. Hope this helped at least a little!

[online_olympian]

Thanks for the replys.