I've been looking at buying a laptop and have noticed that most of them come with 3GB of memory (whether AMD or Intel). I was informed by the guy in the shop that this is almost always made up from 1 x 1GB and 1 x 2GB as most laptops have only 2 memory slots.

So I assume this means this memory is not being run in dual channel mode? Or do new motherboards and processors get around this somehow? Is there a difference between Intel and AMD in this respect?

As far as I understand 32bit Vista would be better for the average user who requires <4GB RAM. Would 32 / 64bit Vista be a consideration for being able to run in dual channel mode?

All help appreciated.

A few examples in case anyone wants specifics: http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Toshiba-Satellite-P305D-S8828-17-Widescreen-Laptop-P305DS8828/sem/rpsm/oid/215097/catOid/-12963/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do#prodspecs http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8898348&type=product&id=1212192622613

I've wondered about this myself.

For me I would rather have an extra gig of RAM than dual channel. The last I looked the performance benefits of single vs. dual channel were minimal. This could have changed or I could be wrong. It's been awhile since I read a comparrison.

Dual channel is important in some situations. Most notebooks will never be put in a completely memory bound situation, hence peak memory bandwidth doesn't need to be as high as say a  high-end gaming rig.  Because the notebook will never really make use of the bandwidth, there's less of a need to run in dual channel mode.

humm there we go... i would say its much better if you want to OC, it just make is eaiser

I wonder how many new laptops actually support dual-channel (I bought a new Compaq R4000 a while back and was shocked to discover it didn't). Anyone seen that info readily-available whilst laptop shopping?  I HEREBY CHALLENGE ANYONE ON THIS FORUM TO POST WHETHER OR NOT THE TOSHIBA SATELLITE LISTED ABOVE SUPPORTS DUAL-CHANNEL! 

Dual-channel memory support is very important to me and I would very much prefer it on all my rigs; even if the performance gain is minimal! My laptop has only 1GB of RAM, an Athlon 4000 single-core, Radeon Xpress 200M video, and I just installed Vista Ultimate on it last week to see how it would perform. It performs GREAT! The RAM utilization gadget on my desktop is currently showing 62% (it has never gone over 90%) and the beautiful Vista DreamScene desktop videos play smoothly. I had no knowledge of Vista's DreamScene so I was very pleased when I discovered it and put it to use! In case you don't know, DreamScene allows animation on desktop wallpaper (read HERE). It is available only on Vista Ultimate, although I believe there may be some hacks to install it on lesser Vista versions. The first time my wife saw the rollercoaster DreamScene on my laptop's desktop she said it made her dizzy! This is a fresh Windows installation (still no A-V installed) and I will soon be adding more RAM because I suspect it will be needed as more programs are installed.

I forgot to welcome you to the HotHardware forums, DanceMonkeyBoy! When you finally get your new laptop home you may wish to take a look at THIS article about the PC De-Crapifier. Enjoy! 

I guess if f what you do most on your PC is not memory intensive more RAM would be better. On the other hand if most of what you do IS memory intensive, than dual channel would be of greater benefit. I'll agree that most laptops will never use the bandwidth that dual channel allows and this may explain why Superdave's doesn't have it.