[Last Call] Learn how to a build a cloud-first strategyRegister Now

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 638
  • Last Modified:

Is DDR3 triple-channel interleaving worth it?

I'm looking at the rankings on CPUbenchmark.net and it says that the Intel Core i7 2600k is significantly higher than the Core i7 920.  The problem is that the 2600k only recognizes dual-channel memory, while the 920 will recognize and run at triple-channel.  And no AMD chip (or at least what I've seen) can support triple channel, but they're a much better value than their Intel equivalents.

Anyways, is triple-channel interleaving really worth it?  I'm thinking about building a computer but not sure if I should spend extra on this feature.
0
epichero22
Asked:
epichero22
2 Solutions
 
Neil RussellTechnical Development LeadCommented:
It kind of depends on what your going to do with your computer, what demands you are going to make on it.
0
 
epichero22Author Commented:
What type of use would make one interested in that technology?  What common software uses it?
0
 
garycaseCommented:
Go with the Sandy Bridge CPU (2600K).    The appreciably higher CPU performance will easily outweight the small increase in memory bandwidth you could get with triple channel operation.

... the exception would be if you want to spring for a hex-core i7-980 ==> then you could get both better CPU performance AND higher memory bandwidth.
0
Enhanced Intelligibility Without Cable Clutter

Challenge: The ESA office in Brussels wanted a reliable audio conference system for video conferences. Their requirement - No participant must be left out from the conference and the audio quality must not be compromised.

 
MISOperationsCommented:
Honestly the 2600k makes up entirely for the dual channel only feature. Really if you have 4 4GB dimms and get up to 16gb you wont notice and difference between that and a 24gb setup on the 920. I have had both, and 2600k is the way to go. Sata 6GBPS and USB 3.0 is a nice addition too.
0
 
epichero22Author Commented:
Anyone know why would they backtrack to dual-channel?
0
 
_Commented:
cost less, easier to implement.
0
 
garycaseCommented:
They haven't completely back-tracked.    The 1066 socket CPU's were always targeted at the higher-end market .. and required a more expensive chipset with triple channel support.    With the move to on-chip memory controllers in the Nehalem and later architectures, they had to decide how much on-chip real-estate to dedicate to the memory controller ... and clearly decided in favor of a dual channel controller for the desktop grade CPUs.    The Sandy Bridge CPUs are designed to give excellent performance in relatively low-cost systems ... and they do a superb job of this.

Note that the Core i7's with dual channel operation give outstanding performance, so it wasn't a bad trade-off.    But the newer server CPU's (hex-core and above Xeons) have triple channel and even quad channel (in the 10-core CPUs) support ... so you can get some truly amazing memory bandwidth.

0
 
epichero22Author Commented:
Thanks.
0

Featured Post

Eye-catchers on the conference table

Challenge: The i-unit group was not satisfied with the audio quality during remote meetings. They were looking for a portable solution with excellent audio quality for use in their conference room but also at their client’s offices.

Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now