@ Ghot




8:20 seconds for gaming bench marks..

This post was edited by Funion on Aug 18 2014 09:14pm

bro there was like a 10th of a fps difference
liar...

THIS, yet again.

So you are telling people to buy dual channel based on benchmarks.. bad benchmarks at that. Every time you have complained was on a gaming computer meaning the ram would make absolutely no noticeable difference... seriously zzz

You're video boy got the same general results. For the gaming results.... I wouldn't exactly say he did that extensive of a test


/e ...and why exactly is AIDA64 a bad benchmark?

This post was edited by Ghot on Aug 18 2014 11:39pm

His results said that the difference isn't noticeable for a personal user but for a company doing large transfers and compressions it would be.

Show me the build we made for a company where we suggested single channel layout


Your benchmark is bad because you are comparing 16 gb and 8 gb

This post was edited by Funion on Aug 18 2014 11:41pm

Hey hold on. I need to go refill my bourbon and coke.



Okay continue.

Just about EVERY thing he tested, except for one game and the mention of 3 others, showed dual channel was faster. I mean ppl do, do other things on their comps, besides gaming...even if they are gamers.

Every time you unzip something, edit pics, video or music, run a AV scan, even browse...dual channel is faster.

The things that were faster were in nano and milliseconds which is why personal use wouldn't be affected since the average budget pc builder isn't planning on creating files that requires a lot of compression and transfers

Yes ghot because I care if unzipping a file takes .5 more seconds

This post was edited by Funion on Aug 18 2014 11:47pm

load times/10