is 1333 single channel a lot slower than 1600 dual channel?

[Bondy3]

I was having some issues with the memory in my laptop and to get it to boot and run normally I had to seriously lower the performance of my memory.

 

am I going to see any noticable difference between running 1333 single channel compared to the 1600 dual channel that I had running before?

 

I understand in benchmarks there will be a difference, but what about in practical applications such as compiling code, image-resizing and SQL jobs?

[NoobCase]

You most likely won't be able to tell the difference 

[Blackhole890]

1333  < 1666, so yes...?

[Electronics Wizardy]

you wont notice a difference. For most use you thinking less than a 5% difference

[Doramius]

Depending on how it loads into the memory, you may see a noticeable difference.  How noticeable will be based solely on the app being used.

[vanished]

My money is on that you will see a difference in those tasks, but if you get a chance to measure the before and after, it would be great to have confirmation one way or the other  

[WkdPaul]

There will be a difference but chances are it'll be minimal.

 

Here's a test done years ago on Gamernexus, even though it's old, I'm pretty sure it's still valid

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel/Page-3

[Bondy3]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

There will be a difference but chances are it'll be minimal.

 

Here's a test done years ago on Gamernexus, even though it's old, I'm pretty sure it's still valid

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel/Page-3

thanks, that was useful information.

 

makes me feel better about my new memory set-up