![]() The result was, again, pretty surprising and disappointing. I run the conventional portion rather than the GPU portion to keep the workload restricted to the CPU itself. This synthetic test attempts to simulate a workload of photo editing, video encoding, light gaming and browsing. My next task was PCMark 8’s Creative Conventional test. I saw virtually no difference in our encoding test between dual-channel and quad-channel RAM. ![]() Sorry, dual-channel RAM: Quad-channel is way better. This chart is probably the only good news for quad-channel memory, but I’ll let you bask in the bandwidth for now. Going from dual-channel DDR4/2666 to quad-channel DDR4/2666 nearly doubles the available memory bandwidth. The results were as expected (and also a good way to double-check that I hadn’t put the modules in the wrong slots). It’s long been a standard to measure available memory bandwidth in a PC. This jack-of-all trades benchmark suite measures and pokes just about everything in your PC. My first test was SiSoft Sandra’s memory bandwidth test. ![]() I simluated dual-channel performance using this MicroExpress B20 system with its X99 chipset and Core i7-5820K chip. So for the record: We’re testing 16GB of DDR4/2666 in dual-channel mode vs. 8GB of total RAM would affect the results. I could have just pulled two of the systems’ original four memory sticks but I decided some would be concerned the 16GB vs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |