<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Why 2 is better than 1</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/</link> <description>A technology news blog covering software, mobile phones, gadgets, security, the Internet and other relevant areas.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:27:17 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Eric</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/comment-page-1/#comment-162148</link> <dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:21:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/#comment-162148</guid> <description>Dual channel can have a nice affect on performance - but like you said, that is generally with demanding games.  More memory is better - even with Windows XP.  Vista is hobbled at 512MB.  Hmmmm... I think I might pull out Civ for a couple hours of gaming.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dual channel can have a nice affect on performance &#8211; but like you said, that is generally with demanding games.  More memory is better &#8211; even with Windows XP.  Vista is hobbled at 512MB.  Hmmmm&#8230; I think I might pull out Civ for a couple hours of gaming.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Martin</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/comment-page-1/#comment-162136</link> <dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:54:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/#comment-162136</guid> <description>Yes it is dual channel. I probably do some tests when I find the time..</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes it is dual channel. I probably do some tests when I find the time..</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: vance</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/comment-page-1/#comment-162134</link> <dc:creator>vance</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:42:05 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/#comment-162134</guid> <description>some poeple recommend 4 pcs of 512 mb rams than 2 pcs of 1 gb rams.. but it still depends on the buyer especially if you want to have some more room for memory ugrades.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>some poeple recommend 4 pcs of 512 mb rams than 2 pcs of 1 gb rams.. but it still depends on the buyer especially if you want to have some more room for memory ugrades.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: NomenNescio</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/comment-page-1/#comment-162133</link> <dc:creator>NomenNescio</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:25:01 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/#comment-162133</guid> <description>Assuming, ofcourse ,that the computer in question even has a dual-channel capable motherboard and CPU.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assuming, ofcourse ,that the computer in question even has a dual-channel capable motherboard and CPU.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: NomenNescio</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/comment-page-1/#comment-162132</link> <dc:creator>NomenNescio</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:22:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/07/28/why-2-is-better-than-1/#comment-162132</guid> <description>If you do plan to conduct any test, also do them with the working 512MB stick still in there. Sure, you&#039;d lose the extra 50-60%  (at best) memory bandwidth but do you actually use any apps that benefit that much from the extra bandwidth, apart from some benchmark programs ?
Then you&#039;d have the full 2GB all for your apps with 512MB for windows kernel.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you do plan to conduct any test, also do them with the working 512MB stick still in there. Sure, you&#8217;d lose the extra 50-60%  (at best) memory bandwidth but do you actually use any apps that benefit that much from the extra bandwidth, apart from some benchmark programs ?<br
/> Then you&#8217;d have the full 2GB all for your apps with 512MB for windows kernel.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
