TR Forums

I'm temporarily gaming on sandy bridge integrated graphics while I wait for things to be released or reviewed (HD 580, Polaris 10, 21:9 screens with decent adaptive sync ranges & so on).

While the HD 2000 does run a fair number of games, some of them are fairly marginal and I'm wondering how much difference upgrading the single stick of 4GB to 2x4GB in dual channel will make in performance. I know for newer ones it makes a big difference - 50% performance increase or more - but I'm struggling to find anyone who's tested it for the HD 2000.

Does anyone know of any such benchmarks, or has personal experience of it?

Here's what I would say: If you still plan on using this Sandy Bridge chip with the new GPU then do the RAM upgrade regardless. Dual channel RAM helps even when you have a discrete GPU. If you will be moving to a new (DDR4?) platform along with the GPU then just save your money.

I'm sure that adding the extra RAM will help, but let's be real here: any new discrete GPU will annihilate those integrated graphics.

The upgrade to 8 GiB of memory is worthwhile even if you use a discrete gaming graphics card. It's only a $20 investment.

Even a $105 -20MIR Radeon R7-360 2GiB would provide a better gaming experience than your integrated Intel HD2000 graphics.

chuckula wrote:

Here's what I would say: If you still plan on using this Sandy Bridge chip with the new GPU then do the RAM upgrade regardless. Dual cjannel RAM helps even when you have a discrete GPU. If you will be moving to a new (DDR4?) platform along with the GPU then just save your money.

I'm sure that adding the extra RAM will help, but let's be real here: any new discrete GPU will annihilate those integrated graphics.

It's a MiniPC system without a PCI-E slot so reusing the i3 CPU or adding a graphics card doesn't make a lot of sense. Specifically a Dell Optiplex 790 USFF.

I'll catch up on the less demanding games for the next eight months then swap it for an entirely new system and move this one off to other duties or sell it off. I'm perfectly happy with the performance for that, but the single channel memory is mildly bugging me and I was wondering whether upgrading it to dual channel would show the sorts of big improvements seen on the newer Intel integrated graphics.

EndlessWaves wrote:
I'll catch up on the less demanding games for the next eight months then swap it for an entirely new system and move this one off to other duties or sell it off. I'm perfectly happy with the performance for that, but the single channel memory is mildly bugging me and I was wondering whether upgrading it to dual channel would show the sorts of big improvements seen on the newer Intel integrated graphics.

You will see enough improvement to be worth upgrading.

I know you said you were waiting for Polaris, but since JAE suggested an R9-360, I feel the need to warn you that not all 300-series GPUs support Freesync. The R9-360, R9-380 and up support it, but the R9-370 does not, and neither do the R7s.

Since I'm posting I might as well throw my vote in that I'd also highly suggest getting the second stick of RAM, regardless of whether you're using the IGP or dGPU.

Doubling the system bandwidth should help integrated graphics quite a bit (even if they are fairly weak on Sandybridge). Going from 4 -> 8 should also improve system performance as well. Definitely add another chip.

Hell, with RAM so cheap these days, you might even jump up to 16GB.

If a $20 memory upgrade can make the system slightly more useful while it is still your primary system, I'd say that's worth it. I would certainly do it myself.

Once the system is replaced and is used for something else, at least you'll know that its not being crippled by a lack of bandwidth or available RAM.

I can't remember where I saw the benchmarks because it was so long ago now but I vaguely remember thinking that Sandy gets a 15-30% performance gain from dual-channel gaming on average, the differences being bigger the higher your resolution goes.

Since a lot of the framerates at higher resolutions are completely unplayable, assume it's closer to 15% in a situation where you're using it.

I couldn't find any benchmarks in the end but I've decided to give it a punt. Now all I have to do is figure out some decent repeatable sections in the games I play so I can benchmark it.

Might as well, I'm sure plenty here would be interested in seeing your results.

Fingers crossed it adds something for you.

Chrispy_ wrote:

I can't remember where I saw the benchmarks because it was so long ago now but I vaguely remember thinking that Sandy gets a 15-30% performance gain from dual-channel gaming on average, the differences being bigger the higher your resolution goes.

Since a lot of the framerates at higher resolutions are completely unplayable, assume it's closer to 15% in a situation where you're using it.

Chrispy_ is on the nose - the harder you push the IGP, the more dual channel will help. That's good news for performance scaling, but the bad news is that even with dual channel available, absolute performance is about 66% of what a discrete Radeon 5450 will offer. Keep your expectations reasonable and it'll scurry along with a little extra spring in its step after the upgrade. 8 gigs of RAM is much nicer than 4 for maintaining cruising velocity during general PC usage in 2016, and that should make such a cheap upgrade worthwhile for repurposing the system later.

edit: Oh, and I'd love to see those benchmarks too. My i3 2120's HD 2000 graphics were pretty pokey for what I threw at it - Binding of Isaac Rebirth was fine, Soma not so much - but benchies are welcome!