It was suggested to me that with modern CPUs/motherboards, running with dual-channel memory was unnecessary because there's no difference. My understanding was there is a modest performance increase in using dual-channel. I decided to do a quick test to see.
For the test I used Handbrake (0.9.9) to transcode a 187MB 1080p video. This isn't a true benchmark because the conditions are maybe too uncontrolled (hence it's a "quick test"), but I thought using a real-world application like transcoding would give an idea of the performance difference if any.
I swapped between a single 4GB RAM stick and 2x2GB sticks. It was in my low-powered HTPC, so it took a while. These are the results:
| RAM type | Run # | Time taken |
|---|---|---|
| 1x4GB | 1 | 4m 55s |
| 1x4GB | 2 | 4m 48s |
| 1x4GB | 3 | 4m 49s |
| 2x2GB | 1 | 4m 36s |
| 2x2GB | 2 | 4m 37s |
| 2x2GB | 3 | 4m 35s |
It works out to about a 5% performance improvement using dual-channel, which is consistent with other things I've read. How that translates from a processor intensive task like transcoding to everyday use I'm not sure, I suspect it would be unnoticeable though.
Rest of the system specs, for reference:
- OS: Xubuntu 12.04.1 (64-bit)
- CPU: G2020
- Mobo: Asus P8B75-M LX
- RAM: G-Skill NT 1x4GB or G-Skill NT 2x2GB
- SSD: Kingston V300 60GB
- HDD: Toshiba 1TB 7200RPM
- GPU: Gigabyte GT610
- PSU: Antec EarthWatts 380
Thanks for that test. It was exactly what I was looking for.
ReplyDelete