Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Hammer Fan

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 13, 2004
1,352
515
I added a 2 GB RAM module in the fourth memory slot and have now 14 GB RAM installed. I ran Xbench and I got the same results in the memory speed test. I checked the memory with the memory slot utility and Techtool Pro and everything is fine. I know that triple channel is optimal, but 14 GB RAM seems to work too.
 
Your 3x4GB should still run in triple-channel and the fourth module should run in single-channel, that's why there is no difference. Tri-channel provides very little in real world as most apps can't take advantage of the extra memory bandwidth that it provides.

IMO more RAM > memory bandwidth
 
Your 3x4GB should still run in triple-channel and the fourth module should run in single-channel, that's why there is no difference. Tri-channel provides very little in real world as most apps can't take advantage of the extra memory bandwidth that it provides.

IMO more RAM > memory bandwidth


It actually makes it run in dual channel, although the performance is faster than you would from a true dual channel memory system. The difference between any of them in the real world for most applications of course is negligable.
 
It actually makes it run in dual channel, although the performance is faster than you would from a true dual channel memory system. The difference between any of them in the real world for most applications of course is negligable.

This topic comes up regularly. I did some poking around last time this game up and unearthed this useful tid-bit from AnandTech on how Intel handles 4 DIMMS on three channels...

With a three-channel DDR3 memory controller, Nehalem requires the use of three DDR3 modules to achieve peak bandwidth - which also means that the memory manufacturers are going to be selling special 3-channel DDR3 kits made specifically for Nehalem. Motherboard makers will be doing one of two things to implement Nehalem's three-channel memory interface on boards; you'll either see boards with four DIMM slots or six.

In the four-slot configuration the first three slots correspond to the first three channels, the fourth slot is simply sharing one of the memory channels. The downside to this approach is that your memory bandwidth drops to single-channel performance as you start filling up your memory. For example, if you have 4 x 1GB sticks, the first 3GB of memory will be interleaved between the three memory channels and you'll get 25.6GB/s of bandwidth to data stored in the first 3GB. The final 1GB however won't be interleaved and you'll only get 8.5GB/s of bandwidth to it. Despite the unbalanced nature of memory bandwidth in this case, your aggregate bandwidth is still greater in this configuration than a dual-channel setup.

Source... http://www.anandtech.com/show/2658/5
 
This topic comes up regularly. I did some poking around last time this game up and unearthed this useful tid-bit from AnandTech on how Intel handles 4 DIMMS on three channels...



Source... http://www.anandtech.com/show/2658/5

That is how I assumed it worked too originally, however Dell, Sun and Supermicro disagree as do the benchmarks. Also logically it woudn't make sense to have unbalanced performance on such hardware, especially when all other aspects of using unbalanced memory seek to balance.


http://www.delltechcenter.com/page/04-08-2009+-+Nehalem+and+Memory+Configurations?t=anon
 
I went from a 3x2GB to a 4x4GB configuration on my 2010 3.2 Quad. Geekbench (32 bit) dropped <1% with the 4 module configuration so the real world difference is non-existent between these mem configurations.

JohnG
 
I was running with 3x4GB for a while then put in a spare 2GB stick about 2 months ago. I didn't notice any loss in speed. But having the extra 2GB helps me alot sometimes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.