Going from one stick of single channel memory, to dual channel with two sticks is a simple
way to boost gaming performance, but how much of a boost can we expect with the new Ryzen
7 3750H laptop CPUs? In this video we’ll test out 15 different games at all setting
levels to help you see if dual channel memory is worth it in an AMD laptop.
Generally when people talk about memory they focus on total size, such as 8gb vs 16gb,
or even speeds and timings. While these are important, they aren’t what we’re talking
about here.
The simplest way to understand the difference between single channel and dual channel memory,
is basically that single channel will use one stick of memory, while dual channel needs
two sticks of memory. All modern laptops should have support for dual channel memory, and
most have two SODIMM slots on the motherboard for two sticks. There are some strange ones
like the ASUS GX701 that has 8gb or 16gb soldered to the motherboard, however we can still run
this in dual channel by installing our single stick.
As a common misconception that’s also worth noting is that single or dual channel memory
has nothing to do with the memory sticks themselves, so you don’t buy single or dual channel
memory, it just depends on how many channels the platform supports. In a dual channel configuration
the memory bandwidth is doubled with a second stick, which is what we’re testing here.
I’ve previously compared single channel to dual channel memory with an Intel based
laptop, and in that video we saw significant improvements to performance in and out of
gaming. Ever since then, I’ve been asked to do the same testing with an AMD laptop.
Now that I’ve finished reviewing the ASUS TUF FX505DU gaming laptop, I’ve got one
available with their latest AMD Ryzen 7 3750H processor to test this with.
The FX505DU has Nvidia 1660 Ti graphics and was tested with the same drivers. We’ll
also be testing with memory running at DDR4-2400, as this is the highest speed these Zen+ CPUs
support at this time on the laptop side, so a slight step down from the DDR4-2666 speeds
supported on a modern Intel platform. In this testing I’m testing single channel with
one 16gb stick, and dual channel with two 8gb sticks, so in both cases we’ve got 16gb
of total memory running at DDR4-2400. There was a small difference in the timings, the
stick used for single channel was slightly faster, but this small difference will be
no match for the dual channel configuration, as we’ll see now.
Let’s start off with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, which was tested with the built in
benchmark. I’ve got the single channel results shown by the red bars, dual channel results
shown by the purple bars, and the setting levels the game offers on the left, ranging
from low to maximum at the top. Full disclosure up front, this game saw the largest improvement
out of all 15 tested with the dual channel memory upgrade, I’m showing it first to
show what’s possible as a best case. Even the 1% lows from the dual channel config are
above the averages from running single channel, and at max settings dual channel was averaging
40% higher FPS.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode, as it allows me to perform the exact same
test run each time, perfect for comparisons like this. Something to note is that in general
we will see a larger performance difference between single and dual channel memory at
lower settings. This is because at higher settings we’re more GPU bound and it seems
to make less of a difference. In this case at ultra, dual channel gave us 17% higher
FPS, while at low there was a 33% improvement to average FPS.
Apex Legends was tested with either all settings at minimum or maximum, as there are no built
in setting presets. At max settings there was a 12% improvement to average frame rate,
just below average in the 15 games I’ve tested, but still there’s extra performance
to be had from such a simple upgrade.
Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the built in benchmark, and as a game that seems to
be quite CPU heavy we’re seeing a large 37% improvement to average FPS at ultra settings
in this test. In most cases, even the 1% lows from the dual channel config are ahead of
the averages that single channel is able to give us, so a very nice improvement here.
CS:GO was tested with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and there was basically no change to the 1%
low results in this test. The average frame rate was getting a fair boost though, with
a 13% improvement with all settings maxed out, and a larger 23% improvement with all
settings at minimum.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built in benchmark, and there was less of an improvement
in this test at higher settings, with just a small 2.6% uplift to average FPS at ultra.
This rises to a 16% improvement with low settings though, with larger boosts to the 1% low which
you could argue are important for a first person shooter like this.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range as it allows me to very easily perform the
exact same test run, ideal for comparison purposes like this. Again at max settings
there was only a small change between the two, less than 2% higher average FPS with
dual channel. This rises as we step down in settings though, where we now see a 30% higher
average FPS at low settings.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the built in benchmark, and we’ve got the
familiar pattern of smaller results at higher settings and bigger differences at lower settings.
Despite this, at ultra there was still almost a 12% improvement to average FPS, with a larger
32% increase at lowest settings.
Watch Dogs 2 is a pretty CPU heavy game, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing
fairly big improvements here with dual channel. At ultra settings there was a 21% boost to
average FPS, which rises to 29% with low settings, though when it comes down to it even ultra
settings with single channel was still pretty playable.
The Witcher 3 was tested with hairworks disabled, and we saw a smaller difference in this one,
At ultra settings there was just a 6% improvement to average FPS, while at low settings there
was a bigger 20% rise.
Strange Brigade was tested with Vulkan using the built in benchmark, and out of all 15
games tested this one saw the smallest change at ultra settings, with just a 1.4% higher
average frame rate. There was a bigger difference at low though, putting it about in the middle
of the pack now with a 22% increase to average FPS.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature, and the results from this game are a bit different
to what we’ve seen before. At ultra settings there was a larger improvement with dual channel
compared to lower settings, as ultra saw a 24% boost to average FPS, while very low settings
received a lower 17% improvement.
Ghost Recon was tested with the built in benchmark, and while there was only a tiny 2.6% increase
to average FPS at ultra, there was a much larger 21% rise in 1% low. Like most other
games we’re getting a bigger difference at lower settings, and even though this game
is coming in at last place in terms of improvement at lowest settings, there’s still a 12%
higher average frame rate with dual channel.
Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle lane with an average amount of action going on.
At ultra settings there was a 16% boost to average FPS, while low settings saw the second
smallest change out of all games tested, lowering to just 13% ahead of the single channel configuration.
Fortnite was tested with the replay feature, and while only getting a 9% increase to average
FPS at epic settings, there was a much larger 43% improvement to the 1% low, so it’s going
to deliver a much smoother experience. At lower settings, like most other games, there’s
a much larger 28% higher average FPS with dual channel.
These are the percentage improvements we saw in all 15 games tested with dual channel at
maximum settings, so an average 14% higher average FPS. As you can see, it really depends
on the game, and while a few only saw a small single digit percentage increase, the majority
had much better results. CPU intensive games like Far Cry and Assassin’s Creed saw large
benefits around the 40% mark.
I’ve also got the same graph but for all games at minimum settings, and now we can
see that the average has risen to 26% faster with dual channel. This is because at lower
settings we’re more CPU bound, which seems to matter more when going from single to dual
channel memory, so it goes to show it depends on the settings you’re playing with as well
as to how much improvement you should expect.
Just for a non gaming test, I’ve also tested exporting a 10 minute 1080p video with Adobe
Premiere, and in this workload I was seeing the dual channel configuration being 14% faster
than single channel. It will of course depend on the specific workload, but in general we
can clearly see there is a nice performance uplift to gain from running dual channel memory.
While I’ve known since my previous testing how much of a difference dual channel memory
makes, it’s been good to confirm similar results with AMD’s platform.
Should you upgrade to dual channel memory in your laptop? If you've got a spare memory
slot free and want to boost performance, then it can definitely help out in some workloads,
especially games. If you’re looking to upgrade, ideally try and buy the same model stick,
but in most cases as long as you match size, timings and speed you’ll probably be fine.
You can use software like hardware info to check the model currently installed, or just
open up and visually inspect the free slots. You can probably search your laptop model
online and see what memory other people have used, some laptops like the Gigabyte Aero
for instance can be pretty picky in what they accept.
If you’re buying new and have the option, generally I’d recommend going for dual channel
straight away and having the better experience. Not only are average frame rates in games
improved, but 1% lows see nice improvement too, which means less stuttering and dips,
leading to much smoother game play. Even out of games, when I went from single to dual
channel in my Aero 15x I noticed just interacting with Windows was snappier, previous micro
freezes that were there before disappeared.
If your laptop has the memory soldered to the motherboard, like the Dell XPS 13 I recently
tested, unfortunately you’re out of luck in terms of user upgrade options, however
many of these will still run in dual channel which is good to see.
The differences in game performance shown here is why I get a little annoyed when modern
gaming laptops sell with single channel memory. Yes, you could of course upgrade yourself,
but should you have to? I suppose it depends. If you get a laptop with 16gb of memory and
it comes with one stick, they’ve given you an upgrade path to 32gb in dual channel if
you want, however if you never upgrade or don’t know any better, you’re losing performance
compared to having that same 16gb as two 8gb sticks.
On the other hand, if they did provide two 8gb sticks out of the box gaming performance
would be quite a bit better, and it doesn’t cost that much more considering the gains
to be had, so it seems strange to me that there are gaming laptops aren’t sold with
dual channel. I’m sure a small number of people would be annoyed if they wanted to
upgrade to 32gb as they’d then need two 16gb sticks, making the two 8gb sticks useless,
but overall this still seems better to me, or otherwise give us the option when buying.
It’s strange that many companies appear to prefer saving a few dollars doing single
channel when they could provide significantly better performance which would reflect in
their benchmarks.
Let me know down in the comments if you’re running single channel or dual channel, and
if single will you be looking to upgrade after seeing the improvements that are available?
If you’re on single I honestly think going to dual channel is the single biggest upgrade
you can easily do to boost performance, it’s definitely worth investigating. Anyway, let
me know, and if you’re new to the channel consider getting subscribed for future comparisons
and tech videos like this one.