Dual-channel is faster, right?

[Mortis Angelus]

I have the choice of 1x 4gb 1600 Mhz CL11 and 2x 2GB 1600 Mhz CL11 memory modules. Shouldn't I use the 2+2 then instead of the single 4 gb?

[ZetZet]

sure, but not enough to notice a difference.

[MarcelKapono]

yes

[Kryptyx]

4gb isn't really much... Are you on a 32-bit OS? I would go 2x4gb at least. Getting 2 sticks of 2gb ram leaves you with less upgrade room in the future.

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

I have the choice of 1x 4gb 1600 Mhz CL11 and 2x 2GB 1600 Mhz CL11 memory modules. Shouldn't I use the 2+2 then instead of the single 4 gb?

Dual channel has twice the peak theoretical bandwidth of single channel. Quad channel has four times the peak theoretical bandwidth of single channel, and twice the peak theoretical bandwidth of dual channel. However, as you add more channels, efficiency decreases. With single channel being the most efficient (being able to hit its rated bandwidth nearly perfectly) dual and quad channel struggle to do so. My dual channel configuration, when heavily tweaked in every single timing, is only 98% efficient (I can hit 98% of my peak theoretical bandwidth) and quad channel tends to fall even shorter, topping out at around 95% efficiency.

 

In your specific case, dual channel with 2+2 would be a good idea, if you do not need more than 4GB of ram. Both are single rank, so you do not have the choice between Rank Interleaving and not, like you would if you were comparing 4GB vs 8GB. 

[Mortis Angelus]

Thanks for your replies guys!

 

 

3 minutes ago, Kryptyx said:

4gb isn't really much... Are you on a 32-bit OS? I would go 2x4gb at least. Getting 2 sticks of 2gb ram leaves you with less upgrade room in the future.

That wasn't the question. Purpose is to run a small computer with linux for my parents everyday use. I'm rather sure they won't require more than 4 gb of RAM considering my old laptop with Win7 and only 4 GB ram can handle most things I need to be done, even some light gaming (like even battles in Total War: Rome).

 

At my University we had a 3Ghz hexacore AMD running win 7 with only 2 gb ram. THAT was not enough I can tell you.

 

[Kryptyx]

Just now, Mortis Angelus said:

Thanks for your replies guys!

 

 

That wasn't the question. Purpose is to run a small computer with linux for my parents everyday use. I'm rather sure they won't require more than 4 gb of RAM considering my old laptop with Win7 and only 4 GB ram can handle most things I need to be done, even some light gaming (like even battles in Total War: Rome).

 

At my University we had a 3Ghz hexacore AMD running win 7 with only 2 gb ram. THAT was not enough I can tell you.

 

I can understand that but a browser can easily eat up that memory. Since memory is so cheap I thought I would recommend going with 8gb instead unless of course you were on a 32-bit OS. GL.

[Mortis Angelus]

14 minutes ago, Kryptyx said:

I can understand that but a browser can easily eat up that memory. Since memory is so cheap I thought I would recommend going with 8gb instead unless of course you were on a 32-bit OS. GL.

Thanks for the concern. But considering I currently have Spotify, Steam, Logitech Gaming Software, Cooler Master Keyboard driver, Dropbox, Uplay, Spyder Elite Calibration Software, overwolf, Norton Antivirus, and mozilla with 9 tabs open running now on my windows 7 machine and I only pull 3.4 - 3.5 Gb of memory I don't think it will be an issue for my parents. Especially since Linux (should) uses even less resources. My parents are not that heavy on multi-tasking. ^-^