Dual channel memory worth it?

[Muncher]

I've noticed that since I've installed Leopard, my computer is slower and takes more memory . 1GB of memory was sufficient for Tiger, but obviously not anymore. At first I thought macs didn't use dual channel, but after reading searching around the web, I found that indeed they are.

I have enough money right now to get a second 1GB stick, allowing my imac dual channel, or I can get a 2GB memory stick. Which will be faster? And does anyone have any benchmarks to prove it?

Thanks for the help (no, seriously ),
Alex

 

[adamfishercox]

3 GB unmatched is faster and better than 2 GB matched. The only times when you can really see a difference with matched pairs is at smaller sizes, like 2 256 MB sticks or something.

The best thing to do would be to get 2x 2 GB sticks, and max it out to 4 GB. But definitely get a 2 GB stick. If you get another 1 GB, you'll replace it later anyway when you need even more. If you get 2, then you max out one of your RAM slots, so you won't need to replace it.

 

[negatv1]

With the price of memory right now, you should definitely go with a 2gb so-dimm for your machine. Set you back ~$60 or so (OWC, Newegg,etc), and 3gb is much better than 2gb matched as the above poster mentioned.

Dual channel is great, but if you had to choose between the two: dual channel gives the CPU/chipset a slight increase in access speed to the memory, where as more memory gives you much more overhead and less likely to have to page out to disk. This is performance you will see without running a benchmark tool.

 

[natewsmith]

I have 2 in mine and I see that Leopard is using more than Tiger. I'm going to upgrade here pretty soon to 4.

 

[solvs]

It's cheap enough, and getting cheaper, that when you can just get 2x 2GB for the whole 4GB. Sell the other stick on eBay. Leopard will use all the RAM you've got, and 4GB will definitely speed it up.