Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
3x8GB or 6x4GB RAM
- Thread starter rdru
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
6x4GB is also triple channel. Each processor would also have it's own memory and the memory would be unbuffered meaning 6x4GB will be faster but offers lack of expansion.
I asked one of the Mac memory vendors and they say there are no differences?
(I can not post their answers publicly ...)
My doubt is whether the 2 processors can access memory in parallel.
If they can the 6x4GB is better.
I'll run multithreaded algorithms that do access RAM constantly through 8 or more threads.
This can not be an issue for most applications, since they do not access large chunks of RAM in parallel.
(I can not post their answers publicly ...)
My doubt is whether the 2 processors can access memory in parallel.
If they can the 6x4GB is better.
I'll run multithreaded algorithms that do access RAM constantly through 8 or more threads.
This can not be an issue for most applications, since they do not access large chunks of RAM in parallel.
MFDoom,
The use of 3x8GB or 6x4GB runs in triple channel.
The matter is whether the 2 RAM banks can be accessed in parallel.
If 3x8GB only one bank is used whereas with 6x4GB the 2 banks are used.
I heard people saying that there is an association between each processor
and a RAM bank. This is why of my question.
The use of 3x8GB or 6x4GB runs in triple channel.
The matter is whether the 2 RAM banks can be accessed in parallel.
If 3x8GB only one bank is used whereas with 6x4GB the 2 banks are used.
I heard people saying that there is an association between each processor
and a RAM bank. This is why of my question.
6x4 would give you better performance, as it would give each cpu its own memory, and the CPUs can access the memory in their bank faster than the other