I have a 2010 Mac Pro with 24GB memory (6x4GB). I configured it this way based on 2 recommendations at the time:
(1) Apple Mac Pro "Nehalem" & "Westmere" models utilize high-performance multi-channel memory addressing that benefits from the installation of matched memory sets.
(2) The processors in the Mac Pro each contain three memory channels and I should be installing RAM modules in sets of three.
So, while there are theoretical benefits to have 6 matched modules, what's the real life effect of deviating from that?
I plan to add 16GB to bring the system to 40GB.
This review claims in one paragraph "Memory copy speed is 52% faster with six modules instead of eight (triple vs dual channel)" but in another paragraph "The difference between dual channel (8 modules) and triple channel (6 modules) generally amounts to no difference at all." (note: this was written for 2009 MP, but I assume it applies to 2010)
I've also seen a recommendation for "sticking with two 3-channel kits to still get a large amount of RAM at the fastest speed."
Thanks.
(1) Apple Mac Pro "Nehalem" & "Westmere" models utilize high-performance multi-channel memory addressing that benefits from the installation of matched memory sets.
(2) The processors in the Mac Pro each contain three memory channels and I should be installing RAM modules in sets of three.
So, while there are theoretical benefits to have 6 matched modules, what's the real life effect of deviating from that?
I plan to add 16GB to bring the system to 40GB.
This review claims in one paragraph "Memory copy speed is 52% faster with six modules instead of eight (triple vs dual channel)" but in another paragraph "The difference between dual channel (8 modules) and triple channel (6 modules) generally amounts to no difference at all." (note: this was written for 2009 MP, but I assume it applies to 2010)
I've also seen a recommendation for "sticking with two 3-channel kits to still get a large amount of RAM at the fastest speed."
Thanks.