Single Channel vs Dual Channel Memory – Laptop Gaming and CPU Benchmarks
But by how much in this video I've tested sixteen different games at all setting levels, as well as nine CPU benchmarks, to show you the differences in performance between single channel and dual channel memory in a laptop generally, when people talk about memory, they focus on total Size such as eight gig verse, sixteen gig or even speeds like twenty four hundred megahertz. First, two thousand six hundred sixty six megahertz. While these are important, they are what we're talking about here. So just a quick explanation of what single and dual channel memory actually means. The simplest way of understanding it is that single channel memory is where you run one physical stick of memory, while dual channel is typically where you have two physical sticks of memory installed, there's more to it than that. But this is the simplest way to understand it. In a laptop as pretty much all motherboards these days should have support for dual channel as a common misconception. It'S also worth noting that single or dual channel memory has nothing to do with the memory sticks themselves, so you don't buy a single or dual channel memory. It depends on how many channels the platform supports in a dual channel configuration the memory bandwidth is doubled, which is what we're testing here to test this out. I'Ve used two, the meta box, P 950 EP laptop, which I recently reviewed when arranging for the laptop to be sent over, I asked if I could get to eight gig sticks and 116 gig, stick of ddr4 memory to do this testing and they were happy to Help out the laptop as an Intel, i7 8750 H, CPU, along with Nvidia 1066 good graphics, and the memory was running at 2400.
Mega Hertz speeds in both single and dual channel configurations, so same speeds and total size of memory. All we're changing is single to dual channel. All tests were completed with the exact same Windows updates, Nvidia drivers and game updates applied. Literally the only thing changing between my tests was swapping out. The memory sticks, we'll start with the gaming results and then work our way into the CPU application tests after starting out with Fortnight we're. Getting pretty nice results with both configurations. However, it doesn't notice difference.when stepping up to dual channel with an 8 boost on average in max settings and even larger at lower settings over which was tested playing with the bots and up max settings. There'S. Just a three percent boost on the averages, but a 16 percent boost in 1 lows and again much larger increases as we drop down in settings. Pub G was tested using the replay feature, so the exact same replay was tested in both memory configurations at Ultra settings. We'Re, seeing a 14 percent improvement on the averages and a 34 percent improvement to the one percent lows, csgo was tested using the you medical benchmark and with maximum settings. There was just a 4 performance improvement, but this increases up to 30 in the averages of minimum settings Rainbow six siege was tested with the built in benchmark and a max settings. There was just under a three percent improvement, but over a 17 percent improvement in average frame rates with low settings battlefield one was tested in the first campaign mission and at Ultra settings there was a 17 percent performance improvement in the average frame rates.
But more importantly, a 47 percent improvement in one percent lows and once more, this increases as we lower the settings. Far cry 5 was tested with the built in benchmark and while there was only a 3 percent improvement to the averages at Ultra settings, there's a much larger 25 to the 1 lows, which again rises at the lower levels. Assassin'S Creed origins was also tested with the built in benchmark that we're, seeing a much larger performance increase in this game. Over 31 percent, better averages of max settings doom was tested using Vulcan and in this game, wherein they sing a very small difference in performance which rises a little more at the lowest level in The Witcher 3 there's. Basically, no difference in terms of the averages of max settings, but the 1 lows are seeing more improvements and this seems to apply to the other settings to ashes of the singularity was tested as a more CPU intensive game, and in this one there was just a 4 improvement to the averages of max settings, but this rose up to 43 at low settings. Ghost Recon saw similar results. The same 1 lows at max settings with almost no difference in the averages, but this rises to around 20 at low settings. Dota 2 was tested using a fairly intensive replay and at Ultra settings we're getting just under a 30 improvement to the average frame rates rise of the to marry was tested using the built in benchmark and out ultra settings.
There was just a 3 boost to the averages which increases to 16 at the lowest settings. Shadow of wall was also tested with the built in benchmark and max settings. The results were basically the same and slowly grew apart as we move down in setting levels where there was a 15 improvement with dual Channel at minimum. Watchdog'S 2 is a fairly resource, intensive game and at max settings dual channel memory was giving us close to a tempest and improvement on the averages and up to 43 percent of an increase to the averages and low settings. In general, we saw a larger performance increases at the lowest setting levels, which makes sense, as the CPU is used more at the lowest setting levels, while the graphics are actually better utilized at the highest setting levels. Additionally, the dual channel configuration seems to have made nice improvements to the 1 lows which received larger improvements in the average frame rates. Now, under the benchmarking tools, I've tested, Heaven Valley and super position from Unigine, as well as bias track time. Spy and VR mark from 3d mark just pause. The video, if you want a detailed look at these results, but for the most part in these tests there wasn't very much difference with single or dual tunnel configurations. While I expected better results in dual channel going into this testing, I didn't expect anywhere near this. Much of a performance boost in the games, I tried to test as many games as I had available at all setting levels to try and give the best coverage and all tests are the average result of multiple runs.
So I was consistently seeing these differences now. Let'S check out some more CPU specific workloads, starting out with Cinebench. There was basically no difference at all. Realistically, these results are within margin of error ranges. Both single and dual channel results are the averages of 5 tests in a derby premiere I've rendered my review video on the asou Sepphoris GX 501 gaming laptop, which goes for around 10 minutes at 1080p, using the h.264 high bitrate preset no GPUs were in use for This test, these results are CPU tests only and the export completed about 13, faster with the dual channel configuration a similar result was noted in handbrake, i've encoded, a 4k video file to 1080p and then a separate 1080p video file to 720p, using the HQ, the 1080p Export completed 8 faster with the dual channel configuration while the 4k export was just 2 quicker. The 7 zip benchmark was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and the additional memory bandwidth seems to help out a lot with compression, with almost a 40 percent boost to the compression speeds. But almost no difference in decompression. The veracrypt benchmark was used to test for a EES encryption and decryption speeds and in the dual channel, configuration we're, seeing a 35 percent improvement to both of these tasks in the past Mach 9 benchmark. The single core results were basically the same with a much larger difference in the multi core test which scored about 17 better with dual channel memory.
Gate bench for showed similar results not too much of a difference at single call, then, just under a 17 percent improvement in the multi core test. The corona benchmark renders a scene using the CPU and was just under five percent, quicker in general configuration the vein rate benchmark was also run, and in this particular workload there was almost no real difference between single and dual channel configurations in these cpu specific tests. Overall, dual channel configurations were performing that are, although it vary quite a lot, as it greatly depends on the specific task and how much it depends on the memory bandwidth performance. Should you upgrade to Joe channel memory in your laptop? If you've got a spare memory slot free and what a boosts performance, then it can definitely help out in some workloads, especially games. Even though the price of memory is currently quite high in most modern laptops, you aren't able to upgrade the CPU or graphics, typically you'll just have the option of changing the memory or drives yes, some laptops do allow you to swap out the CPU or GPU, but It'S far less common, if you're buying a new laptop and have the option of selecting single channel memory or paying a bit more for dual channels, and I think it's definitely worth considering paying the extra for a dual channel configuration. Though, of course, it depends on exactly how much, if your laptop has integrated memory, that's soldered to the motherboard, like the Dell XPS 15 2 amp 1.
I recently reviewed, for example, that unfortunately you're out of luck and are not able to easily upgrade the best way to know for sure would be to check the manual for your specific model of laptop on the vendors website or even just simply open up the laptop And see how many slots you have and what Reese tics are currently in place. You can definitely use software like hardware info to check, but occasionally I found some laptops to report incorrect information that doesn't match up to the physically available memory slots when opening it up. So you're probably worth actually checking and confirming before buying some a shiny, new RAM, there's, also the issue of mismatching memory. Typically, if you're already running in single channel, it would make sense to simply buy another stick of the same size to move to dual channel rather than buying two new sticks and wasting your existing stick of memory. While mismatching memory doesn't seem to be as big of an issue these days as it was in the past generally, where possible, it seems to be recommended to use the same sticks of memory and dual channel for best compatibility. I don't personally have any experience running mismatched memory and laptops, so I can't speak from experience on this topic. I'Ve been asked in previous videos. If additional memory will increase heat technically, I suppose it would as there's an additional component that requires power to run. But realistically I doubt it will make any negative difference to performance and offset.
The gains to be had especially is thermal throttling in CPU or GPU is generally what you worry about with heat and those components aren't directly connected to the heat pipes anyways. So it really shouldn't matter so there you have it in general, the dual channel memory configuration will give you decent improvements in gaming, but it of course depends on the specific game and settings used, as we saw here. Bigger games can be heard at the lowest selling levels. Presumably is the CPU is actually doing more work, as discussed as for other applications. It will depend on whether or not the specific workload will benefit from increased memory bandwidth, but in general, where possible I'd definitely suggest running in your channel, where possible for best performance. So do you guys run in single or dual channel if you've just got single what's stopping you from upgrading? Let me know your thoughts down in the comments and leave a like if you found all the benchmarks useful and consider sharing the video with someone that's interested in this topic. I would greatly appreciate it as this video took a long time to make due to all the benchmarks, thanks for watching and don't forget to subscribe for future tech.