when I had DDR memory back in the day (lol, a couple of weeks ago) if you ran 2 sticks in dual channel it would run 1T if you had 4 sticks it would go to 2T.
from what I remember 1T was 5 to 10% faster than 2T.
when I had DDR memory back in the day (lol, a couple of weeks ago) if you ran 2 sticks in dual channel it would run 1T if you had 4 sticks it would go to 2T.
from what I remember 1T was 5 to 10% faster than 2T.
Some mobo's now can run 4 modules @ 1T in which case there's no performance hit, but most will only run 2 modules @ 1T, anything more and it's 2T or bust.
On older DFI mobos, it drops your speed from (natively of course) 400mhz to 333mhz. Bios updates later corrected that, but if im not mistaken some Intel boards do that too. Also, the 1T 2T thing. If you have a good mobo (like they said) that isnt a problem either. Really, like already mentioned, heat and power can be saved with only using 2 sticks.
2T means that all data is sent twice as your memory controller cannot keep up with the memory speed. If the mem does say 5Hz over the number of bits then there is a 5bit deficit, which basically = crash. When you put in on 2T there is no chance of a bit being missed as there is two of them. Im guessing that when there is more modules the distribution of bits takes longer and there are more failing to get there in time.
That is obviously a vast simplification but i have just gotten up
Unless your going for faster speeds on DDR1 then there really isnt a significant difference between 2t and 1t. Ive been running 2-2-2-5@2 for some time now, and if i switch to 1t i cant exactly see a difference in FPS or benchies.