Single channel or dual channel RAM?
We independently test the products and technologies that we recommend.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3f23d/3f23df4fed73360df1355a402aeb7e197a525f3e" alt=""
Multi-channel memory
Two RAM channels are far from the limit for modern PCs. Back in 2008, the first generation of Core i7 processors (Nehalem LGA1366, see the article "Evolution of Intel processors: from Core 2 Duo to Core i9") received a built-in three-channel RAM controller. And in 2011, Core i7 Extreme processors for the LGA2011 socket with a four-channel memory controller were released. There are no rumors about the development of a five-channel memory controller at the moment.
Nevertheless, it is the two RAM channels that remain the most common to this day. This is the number supported by most modern desktop and laptop Intel and AMD chips. The width of one channel is 64 bits, and the bandwidth in the case of DDR4 memory with a frequency of 2400 MHz is 19.2 GB/s. Accordingly, two channels of similar memory are already 128 bits and 38.4 GB/s. Naturally, adjusted for the latency (latency) of the memory controller of a particular processor: Intel has it on average faster than AMD.
That is why AMD's processors, both old FX and new Ryzen (see the article "AMD Processor Anthology: from Athlon 64 X2 to Ryzen"), are more dependent on memory speed and receive a significant increase in performance from the dual-channel memory mode. The number of channels does not always equal the number of DIMM slots. So, mid-price and top-end motherboards are equipped with four slots, which allows you to set the appropriate number of RAM strips, but the operating mode will still be strictly two-channel.
If there are four memory slots, and only two slats, then they need to be installed through one slot. Moreover, it is better to use the second and fourth slots. Firstly, it will solve the problem of compatibility of high-radiator slats with a large processor cooler. Secondly, on some motherboards, it is the second and fourth slots that support higher-frequency memory than the first and third (see the article"How to overclock RAM?").
Silicon Power DDR4 with Heatsink is now a rare RAM with a radiator and without annoying LED backlight. Moreover, the radiator is made of really thick-walled sheet metal and in height only half a centimeter protrudes above the textolith of the memory module, so it certainly will not interfere with the installation of the tower cooler.
There are several options for the volume of Silicon Power DDR4 with Heatsink: separate modules for 4, 8 or 16 GB or two-module sets with a total volume of up to 32 GB. The frequency is strictly 2400 MHz, and the supply voltage is 1.2 V. Under the metal radiators are generation 1-die RAM chips.
By increasing the voltage to 1.35 V, we managed to overclock the 2x8 GB kit to 2933 MHz, and even with a partial reduction in timings (delays) — from 17-17-17-39 to 16-18-18-38. It turns out +533 MHz or +22 percent — not a record, but still a very decent result. Perhaps you will come across a more successful instance that will chase up to 3000 MHz or even higher.
As a result, Silicon Power DDR4 with Heatsink is a pleasant—looking and well-cooled memory for Intel LGA1151 and AMD AM4 platforms, from which you can squeeze more performance by manual overclocking. If you need a truly overclocking memory, we advise you to pay attention to the older Silicon Power models: XPower AirCool and XPower Turbine with a factory frequency up to 4133 MHz.
Configuration of the test bench
- processor AMD Ryzen 3 Raven Ridge 2200G BOX ;
- cooler Enermax ETS-N31-02 Price from £21.99 up to £30.90 ;
- graphics card — built-in Vega 8;
- motherboard Biostar B450GT3 Ver. 6.x ;
- RAM Silicon Power DDR4 Gaming 1x8Gb SP008GBLFU240BS2 ;
- solid-state drive Silicon Power Ace A55 SP512GBSS3A55S25 512 GB Price from £23.99 up to £41.44 ;
- hard drive Seagate BarraCuda Compute ST2000DM008 2 TB 256/7200 Price from £34.99 up to £69.13 ;
- power supply unit Cougar VTE VTE600 .
Benchmark results
We will compare the performance of the memory subsystem in one and two-channel mode using the example of a computer with an AMD Ryzen 3 2200G chip. In addition to the four Zen processor cores, it also has a built-in Vega 8 graphics accelerator, which makes it as dependent on RAM speed as possible.
![]() |
We also overclocked the memory from 2400 to 2933 MHz to check whether the single-channel mode is compensated by the increased frequency. By the way, the opinion that one memory bar accelerates better than two has not been confirmed. More precisely, it may be true for two different RAM modules (model, volume, base frequency), but not in the case of absolutely identical slats from one ready-made set. Four RAM bars, even the same ones, really create an increased load on the memory controller, forcing it to reduce the frequency.
![]() |
But the two-channel mode will work fine in the case of different modules. Moreover, if the volume of one module is, say, 8 GB, and the second is only 4 GB, then the two—channel will work for half the volume of the first bar, and the second half will have to be content with a single-channel.
![]() |
AIDA64, WinRAR and the Tomb Raider 2013 game were used as benchmarks. The game was deliberately chosen relatively old so that it could be run on an integrated vidyukha. All measurements were carried out four times: in one and two-channel mode, with a frequency of 2400 and 2933 MHz.
![]() |
So, in the AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmark test, overclocked single—channel memory showed lower (better) latency than a non-overclocked dual-channel — 79 vs 89 ns. But in terms of the speed of reading, writing and copying data, the two—channel was twice ahead of the single-channel — on average 34 against 17 GB/s.
![]() |
As for real applications, such as the popular WinRAR archiver, the overclocked single—channel turned out to be a little faster than a two-channel — 4600 vs. 4350 kB/s. But in the Tomb Raider 2013 game, which is more dependent on the graphics card than on the processor, even the overclocked dual-channel memory gave out 34 FPS against only 26 FPS for the overclocked single-channel.
![]() |
Conclusions
For Intel processors with integrated graphics and AMD processors, even without graphics, dual-channel RAM is more preferable. And for AMD APU chips with dual-channel integration, in general, the dual-channel is critically important. In this case, it is more reasonable to either immediately purchase two large modules (say, 2x8 GB), or for the first time limit yourself to two small slats (2x4 GB), but then be sure to take a motherboard with four DIMM slots. In the presence of a discrete graphics card with its own video memory, junior Intel processors (Pentium and Core i3) will definitely have enough single-channel, so you can save on the motherboard. For older Core i5, i7 and i9, it is desirable, if not immediately, then at least later, to buy a second RAM module. Otherwise, it is the memory subsystem that will become the "weak link" of the entire PC.
Was this article useful? Yes0 No0 |
Articles, reviews, useful tips
All materialsdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/da303/da30374511fc721ed112b8c2cd6621bf57a14167" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/479d9/479d92457c34b0ba15be0c9104ad076249b0a36a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c32e9/c32e93002dba71d5e7a2ba905be747d46d1b5b58" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/661d6/661d652a98d64caee0bc243908a941577fad19db" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/03143/031431bfc4634545890ff767afea9a32de271fb2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/78f78/78f789ba9a7ca638268f21f6f2f3a26561326b61" alt=""