Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Pretty much the thread answer (though there were some good answers before this, this one is it haha).
if i need that much i rather get a threadripper or a epyc processor and put in over 2 tb of memory with 192 gb sticks
There are absolutely tons of benchmarks proving that dual channel is vastly superior. It's been heavily documented for so many years that it's considered common knowledge at this point.
It seems like you just haven't bothered to keep up or look for it.
There was never a statement made that there isn't a performance benefit to dual channel.
The statement was that there is no issue with a 24 GB configuration consisting of 2x 8 GB and 2x 4 GB.
So, Channel A = Dual, Channel B = Single, for example.
It's basically only HEDT and above that supports quad channel, i.e. Xeons and Threadrippers.
The extra performance from also diminished. For example, dual channel does not double your real world performance. It's much smaller than that. And then quad channel is typically an even smaller increase.
well whatevs it gots me running with 4 sticks of 8gb so i take it for quad since its fast, whatever floats your boat