Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-16-11, 09:58 AM   #13
Q
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,808
Default Re: What's up with Intel going back to dual channel memory?

$$ vs $$$

More processors sold when total system costs are cheaper.
Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-11, 10:50 AM   #14
Bman212121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,726
Default Re: What's up with Intel going back to dual channel memory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobkn View Post
Odd that no one has mentioned:

Intel has gone to quad channel with Socket 2011, and the Sandy Bridge E processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_2011
Yea, which makes even less sense for the typical desktop user. Sandy Bridge E is considered a workstation / server platform, so the real advantage is in the number of DIMMS you can stick onto one board. The other thing to point out is that if you were using memory intensive programs that required ECC memory, quad channel could be useful because the modules are usually clocked slower. You might have 1333 mhz ECC modules where a desktop user could be using 1600+.
Bman212121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-11, 01:55 PM   #15
frenchy2k1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 449
Default Re: What's up with Intel going back to dual channel memory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter View Post
You are comparing platforms for two different market segments.

The successor to the workstation platform, with chips from the Nehalem/Gulftown generations, is Sandy Bridge E. Not Sandy Bridge.
SNB-E uses a quad channel interface, so Intel actually moved forward here.

The desktop platform never used Triple Channel.
Even though the i7 920 was a very successful CPU and very popular for enthusiasts, it was part of the previous workstation platform.
^ this

On top of that, they qualified higher speed memory. Nehalem was actually officially limited to 1333. SNB is rated for use with DDR3 1600. SNB-E, same, but with 4 channels.

Intel loves their market segmentation. Best way to extract the optimum amount of money from each customer (if the customer does not get too confused).
__________________
As the universe is curved, there cannot be a straight answer...
frenchy2k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-11, 02:17 PM   #16
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: What's up with Intel going back to dual channel memory?

I've not used tri-channel since owning this x58- always dual channel and DDR3 1600. Well, for a brief while I was running DDR3 1333 but...
Redeemed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-11, 10:55 PM   #17
uOpt
FreeBSD cheering section
 
uOpt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Boston, MA, USA
Posts: 609
Default Re: What's up with Intel going back to dual channel memory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyeagle View Post
I've read at least 5 Sandy Bridge reviews, and none of them touch on why triple channel memory is no longer offered/needed. One review did talk about improvements with pre-fetch, which makes it sound like Sandy Bridge just doesn't need as much bandwidth as Nehalem. Is that right?

I think Nehalem using triple channel has 25% more memory bandwidth than SB, but seems hard to believe pre-fetch improvements alone could lead to SB using 25% less bandwidth.
Did you ever see that translate into a real-world application performance difference?
__________________

My Unix benchmark results
uOpt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.