Dual channel DDR2 - is it worth it?

Hi
I will be building a new PC soon (to replace my aging P4 2.4Ghz sstem) and after doing a lot of (internet) research on suitable motherboard, cpu, ram options have 'discovered' that some motherboards support dual channel DDR2 ram and have also found that this ram has data rates DOUBLE normal ram.
Given that ram is no where near as fast as the CPU or onboard cache ram how important is dual channel ram and where would I notice the extra speed? Would it be better to spend extra on a motherboard which supports dual channel ram plus purchasing dual channel DDR2 dimms than a faster CPU?
I am on a tight budget and will limit the cpu to a Pentium cor4e 2 2.4Ghz max. (maybe slower) and thought that I could upgrade the cpu later to a faster one.
I rarely play games (maybe Combat Flight Simulator and MS Flight Simulator) but do a lot of video editing (using Corel Videostudio).
The motherboard I am considering is the Gigabyte GA-G33M-DS2 http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Spec.aspx?ProductID=2534
Thanks

 

For editing, I suggest you have two hard disk drives. One to read the original file and the other to write the edited file. A dual processor and a reasonable amount of RAM will handle the throughput of data, the bottleneck will be in reading and writing to the drive/s. If you got a motherboard with e-SATA or an e-SATA card and an external e-SATA drive, it would would run at the same speed as an internal drive and also be transportable (USB as well).

Games are graphics dependent, but as long as you are not trying to run the latest, a modest graphics card is all you need.

Try to keep the system "balanced ", don't under- or over-spend on some items to the detriment of others. Look at the features you will need in a motherboard. If the machine is going to be a little bit more than "basic ", think about using a graphics card you select yourself and leave out the built-in graphics. Built-in graphics, with the option of putting in a card later on, is fine, but you may as well get better graphics to start with, which will save the cost of the built-in system.

I try to look to the future. Moderate spending on each of the parts now will allow for better future-proofing, but also allow the possibility of better upgrading in the future. [Plus, you want a make a decent jump from your current system.] Those are my thoughts.

Matt

 

Stetching a tight budget .........

You've gotten some good advice from three very wise men. Considering the title of your post, its tough to pass on adding another comment. With the price of memory being what it is today, don't even think about skimping on memory - DDR2 pricing is so low right now, its a non-issue. Get the good stuff and forget about cutting corners here. Match it to your processor and motherboard which means a matched pair of 1066 MHz sticks based upon your post.

 

Thanks everyone for your good feedback.
It seems that I have lost touch a bit with hardware and in fact now have found that most mobo's do in fact have dual channel ram (the shop I was looking at must have some old stock) so enough of that HOWEVER
I now have another 'dilema'
I have a short list of TWO mobos both from Gigabyte (GA-EG31MF-S2 and GA-G33M-DS2R) and they differ in price by $50 (remember I am on a tight budget) and are much the same except the dearer one supports more ram (not too worried there), different CHIPSET (Intel G31 and Intel G33 - do not know anything about Chipsets and how important they are - there are different Chipsets on other boards eg Intel 945GC), the more expensive one supports max 1066 ram not just 800 (not too worried here), and the dearer one supports RAID.
From what I have read on the the internet it seems to me to be more suited to business use (as it supports shadowing). Can I (home user) benefit from it and how?
If anyone has time please check the differences in this comparison here - http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_ComparisonSheet.aspx?ProductID=2791,2534
Should I spend the extra $50?
I do not upgrade my PC very often and therefore want the best "bang for my bucks" and maybe something I can upgrade later (faster cpu).

 

Note that the figure for 1066 RAM has "(OC) ", which means Over Clocked. How that works, Rockster or somebody else might be able to explain.

RAID is different from the HDD setup I mentioned and you will not be able to run the method I spoke about (read from one HDD and write to another) I expect, unless you run RAID 10 with at least 4 HDDs or more.

RAID 0 provides speed, but can lose all data if the array is broken.

RAID 1 is a mirror or backup of the other HDD. Both drives have exactly the same data.

RAID 5 are 10 are basically more intricate combinations of those and use 3 or more HDDs.

Others might be able to tell you more or you can read about them at Wikipedia or by doing a websearch.

Matt

 

I didn't address

Unless you are prepared to get more than two HDDs for RAID, I would have a normal HDD system with two HDDs (unless you want to back-up using optical disks). Use one drive for the system and the other (which I like the thought of an external e-SATA drive) for backups and data handling.

RAM...is 1066 over 800 worth the extra? A 32 bit Windows system can only utilise (less than) 4GB of RAM. If you go to 64 bit, it may be hard to find drivers for older hardware.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always something I consider...
Back up the data on the current system (which will be wise in any event), format and install a fresh version of Windows. Unless you are itching to run something new and it requires a more powerful system, "rejuvenate" the old one and save a few extra dollars for a better system when that has proved to be worn-out again. (I've held off and saved for many months using that method.) In the mean-time, you can plan the new system carefully.

More than one way to skin a c...omputer.

Matt

 

Matt:

My goof - I just looked at the first board specs in the original post again and 800 is what's recommended for that board. I read an AnandTech review earlier which compared three boards with that chipset (circa 2007) and it gave the nod to an Asus board that was less expensive.

 

Hi Rockster,

refers to jparnold's second link http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_ComparisonSheet.aspx?ProductID=2791,2534
In the comparison of specifications, the second motherboard has a RAM spec of 1066(OC), the OC will refer to it being over-clocked, but without finding and reading through the details, I am not sure how it will be over-clocked.

Matt

 

Hi back to you Matt,

The curiosity got me ..... as you know, I'm not an Intel type, so just did a little reading.

Re: overclockability - the SX, in this case, S2 naming convention is Gigabyte's reference to overclocking friendliness with 2 being the worst and 5 being the best. That's for reference only - I would not recommend trying to overclock either of these boards. Methodology would involve changing either the multiplier or the bus speed or both but this quite often requires an increase in voltage to achieve stability and in this particular case would most likely require an increase in voltage to the memory controller. I don't know what would be required re: core voltage and those Intel Core 2 processors have that "heat throttle" so who knows? Again, not my recommendation.

Now, both of these boards are micro budget boards. Both of the boards use whats called a GMCH (graphics memory controller hub) and run asynchronis memory (different memory speed than system bus). One will note if comparing different Intel chipsets (can be done on the Intel site) this is not necessarily the norm on Intel based boards.

Having said all of that, which is somewhat foreign to me, I'll stick with more familiar turf - I still believe AMD delivers more bang for the buck. Admittedly, they aren't the fastest game in town at this hot second but for the money, they are damned tough to beat.

 

Thanks Rockster

The more I read (of the replies) the more I learn but also the more I ponder.
In the past people have often said that AMD processor systems save money but I have never used (in the 12 years I have had PCs) anything except Intel.
I have never overclocked nor would I be game to do so.
I have decided to build a new system rather than try and 'beef up' my P4 2.4Ghz socket 478 system as I have recently obtained a game which requires a better video card than I have and it is almost impossible to purchase AGP video cards now and thought that if I built a new system then I would be free of upgrade problems for a lot more years than if I retained my existing system.


You worried me a little mentioning GMCH.
Would this only be applicable using the onboard video as I eventually intend installing a video card but probably a cheaper one such as a Asus Radeon 3450 PCI-E 256MB?

Regarding AMD processors.
I DID notice that the AMD dual core processors appear to have less cache memory than Intel processors. I know this affects performance.
Do you know of any internet sites which compare performance of Itel and AMD dual core processors especially the E2220 (2.4Ghz 1Mb cache) and the AM2 64 X2 4800 2.4GHz (L2-2x1MB) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Dual Core?
Or could you comment on difference in performance between these two?

Given that I have done some research on AMD processors and motherboards available from my favorite PC shop and have come up with the following motherboard which has a Integrated ATI Radeon HD3200-based graphics (DX10) which seems to be ok

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products...oard&ProductID=2758&ProductName=GA-MA78GM-S2H

Could you (or anyone else) give me your thoughts on this, thanks

 

Thanks Christer.

I must say that after checking what my favourite PC component store has in the range for AMD I became a bit excited with a Gigabyte mobo which had a good integrated (Radeon) video chip and even had HDMI output but then read a report on the AMD 2.4Ghz dual channel CPU (this is the one I would choose) which although running cool and consuming little power is not (in the reviewers opinion) good for video rendering which is mainly what I do.
Maybe the new Phenom AMD processors are better but they are too expensive for me.

If I remember correctly I have read in the past that while AMD processors (benchmarks) compare favorably with the equivalant (speed) Intel CPU they are not nearly as good (fast) for some applications.

Looks like I should stick with Intel Pentium dual channel.
Anyone else like to comment?

 

It's my recollection that Intel has always been recommended over AMD for video-editing...even in the days when AMD "ruled the roost ".

Currently, Intel still rules the roost but it might be possible to get better value with AMD as Rockster suggested. Though there are many inexpensive Intel cpus out there as well.

If memory serves me, the advantage of dual-channel memory over non-dual-channel memory came to a whopping 3% performance improvement. Dual-channel's implication that the performance is doubled is completely misleading.

 

I've been out of pocket for a couple of days but upon opening this thread tonight was pleased to learn that you are doing some further investigation. I'll make a few additional comments which may help to both clarify and confuse.

First, as is often the case, Chiles4 is right on the money as to long-time superiority of Intel with regard to video editing. A lot of this advantage is a direct result of the traditionally larger memory cache on their processors and this relates back to the basic architecture differences between AMD and Intel. Despite this, most of your newer processors are going to handle this task quite well and unless one is doing something extremely CPU intensive, you'll have to use benchmarking software to quantify a difference. In simple terms, you and I aren't going to be able to notice much difference.

As to the dual channel memory - Here's an informative read. By this author's benchmarks, there's an actual 64% improvement. Please note, this is not a 64% total system improvement.

I believe the 3% improvement Childs4 referenced is the actual boost one can expect by running RAID 0 (stripe) - something all together different but equally telling in terms of debunking the myth of awesome RAID performance gains.

If you are working with a local shop (not a major retailer), ask them for their recommendations. Speak to the service manager or an experienced bench technician. They should be able to give you a few ideas of what's the best of what they have to offer for your specific budget from an inventory perspective. What they might not do is tell you about something they don't carry.

Lastly, don't buy cheap memory and don't buy an off the wall cheap power supply. What you think you might be saving here will "cost you dearly ".

 

Thanks Rockster.
I am now tossing up between the following motherboards all Gigabyte with FSB 1333/1066/800
GA-EG41MF-S2 max 4gb DDR2 800/667
GA-P35-DS3 max 8gb DDR2 1066/800/667 no IEEE 1394
GA-G33M-DS2R max 8gb DDR2 800/667
I am 'leaning' towards the second one (even though it means having to buy an IEEE 1394 board and would end up costing as much as the 3rd mobo) as it allows upgrade to 1066 DDR2 in the future (too expensive now)

LAST questionS. When a mobo supports a particular speed DDR2 I assume that it will only run at the fastest speed of the installed CPU eg if using an Intel E4600 (which is 800) then it would be useless installing ram faster than 800 irrespective of if the mobo supports a faster FSB. Is that correct?
Please also elaborate on why I shouldn't but cheap ram (is it not as stable or not as fast as branded?) and also "off the shelf power supply ". Many cases come with a PSU already installed. Do cheaper power supplies not have currents regulated as well as dearer ones? Or is it that they are mopre prone to failure.

I am considering the Intel E4600 with 2MB cache and the E2220 with 1MB cache (both 2.4Ghz) - I am trying to keep costs to a minimum but don't want to wish I had chosen differently later. Will the extra cache result in faster performance in most applications?