wich ram combination is better 2gigs running dual channel or 3 gigs running single channel?

2 gigs running in dual channel will run better.

I should point out that 3GB's of memory can actually be run in a single/dual channel configuration. If we are talking about 3 sticks of 1GB memory then apparently (I haven't done it myself however) the first two Gigs will be run in dual channel and only when it needs more memory will it access the third module in single channel mode. If it's a 2x1GB 2x512MB combination you have, and assuming your board has 4 memory banks, you will be able to run all of it in dual channel.

I didn't know about the first scenario I mentioned above for the longest time so I thought I should pass the info on. Hope that helps.

I think you can only run 1, 2 or 4 sticks.

I think it depends on the motherboard, but really I can't see much reason for running 3 gig vice 4 gig.

Even if XP can't access all 4g (Microsoft says it does in the background), at least with 4 sticks, all available memory is running in dual channel mode.

dual channel > single channel, but as evidenced by the early versions of recent Nvidia on-board vid chipsets... it doesn't make as big a difference as we'd think.

Ya its 3x1gig sticks it will be 4gigs just havnt picked up my second dual channel kit yet

what i was told i dunno if it is true or not. maybe some1 can confirm this.
if u have 4 gb of ram installed on a x86 (32bit) os. it will only post 3.1 or 3.2 gb of the acthual ram that is accessable. but if u have 4 sticks in the computer it will still run the 3gb at dual channel because technically its 4gb of memory

you mean 2 or 4 sticks. 1 cant be dual channel or am i wrong

nah you're right, you need 2 to run dual channel

yey rone was rite.

1 for single channel

Here is a good read to answer your questions with regards to memory addressing in 32 and 64 bit windows. It doesn't get into why a 32 bit OS only sees 4GB of RAM. This is because it can only address 2 to the 32nd power memory addresses (2 to the 32nd power = 4GB hence it can only see 4GB of physical memory). I won't go to deep into it but give the article a read.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archiv ... ndows.aspx

For the gamer (most of us here) M$ has put out a hotfix to help with virtual address space issues in Vista. It is included in SP1 also.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

prettymuch for a 32 bit operating system 2 good gigs is all thats really required.. exclude this from vista, as no one gives a fuck about vista

Vista will or xp will boot seeing only 3.2gb of memory not the total 4gb

I'm a sad panda when I boot up XP and ave 4.7GB of ram be totally useless