Prev: Which is better: Driver Detective or Driver Cure?
Next: System idle but CPU usage is high!!
From: Colin Trunt on 8 Jul 2010 21:18

"Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
news:i15p61$ef$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Colin Trunt wrote:
>> "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
>> news:i15bur$bm3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Colin Trunt wrote:
>>>> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP.
>>>>
>>>> Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some
>>>> beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK.
>
>>
>> I would expect the system to do a memory test on start-up.
>> Infact i think it does, I got beeps at start-up sometime, this
>> was becasue I had badly seated memory.
>> I am not sure of the numberof beep I powered off after 3 or 4.
>> It might have been 1 long beeep repeated.
>>
>> Anyway the problem is cured, I woudl say when I had the CPU
>> usage problems there were no beeps (IIRC).
>> I think carefully inserting the memory properly may have been
>> the cure. I also have a graphics card which is badly secured and that
>> cause problems sometimes as it can become badly seated, however
>> usually results in no boot-up at all just the fan on maximum speed and
>> very loud which immediately make you want to poser off (at that stage
>> only pulling out the plug will work, the power switch on the front will
>> not work).
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for the help however it does seem to be cured
>> for the time being, that stuff will come in useful in the future I think.
>>
>> Also I have to add the last stick of ram, the last 256meg I have
>> never got it to boot with the full 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.256 = 2..256 GIG memory.
>>
>> I always got beeps with all three stciks in, I will have to carefully
>> count the
>> beeps next time, I have tendancy to just power off incase damage is
>> being done.
>>
>> Maybe I was not seating the ram properly, I have great problems
>> doing that.
>>
>> Also the mobo is dirty and full of fluff and dirt all covered in tobacco
>> smoke deposits so that does not help, a bit of dirt will cause an open
>> circuit it it gets in a slot.
>>
>> But I am OK at the momoent, I have both cores working properlly
>> and 2 gig of ram, the last 256gig is not a major concern really, a
>> marginal
>> ammount extra.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know the details of your motherboard (make and model),
> but I would recommend sticking with the 2x1GB configuration, and just
> leave the 256MB in your junk pile for now. On a dual channel capable
> motherboard, the 2x1GB can be plugged in, in a dual channel configuration.
> And that will do a better job on memory bandwidth. With AMD, there is
> a performance penalty due to bus loading, so some of the four stick
> configurations won't be quite as fast as a two stick configuration.
>
> It sounds to me, like you may have an S939 system, in which case
> I'd stick with the 2x1GB. If we go back far enough in time, there
> are revisions of S939 processor, that will ignore that third stick.
> As far as I know, Revision E or later, on S939, should be fully
> flexible (i.e. allow three sticks installed of four available), but
> there would still be a performance penalty associated with that.
>
> As an "inquiring mind", you should test your system in single channel
> and dual channel modes, to see what the impact is. Plug in a single
> 1GB stick. Run SuperPI benchmark, which has elements of CPU performance
> as well as memory performance. The 1 million digit benchmark has a
> 8MB memory footprint. The 32 million digit benchmark has a 256MB
> memory footprint. You want to run a test case, where the memory footprint
> is significantly larger than the processor cache (so any memory accesses
> while calculating PI, hit main memory).
>
> Now, plug in 2x1GB in dual channel, and repeat the same benchmark. How
> much difference did it make ? If the results are the same as with
> a single stick, you haven't put the two sticks in dual channel slots.
>
> Then, you could install the 256MB, and see what the third stick
> costs you in practical performance.
>
> You can get SuperPI benchmark here.
>
> http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/366/Super_PI_Mod_v1.5.html
>
> super_pi_mod.exe is 104,960 bytes and has an MD5SUM of
> ca977a1cd46b170ddea7adc4e19bd6ba . A virustotal.com scan of the
> file should take you here.
>
> http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c6bfdcb2de4612103a132c956006dc993232e291eb180e846695fc8937b69932-1278443869
>
> To understand that benchmark, you have to consider how it was built.
> It was written maybe 15 years ago, by a guy in Japan. The source
> code may have been lost. The original program, might not have
> given very accurate timings, due to the software method used
> to do timing.
>
> Someone modified the executable code file with a hex editor.
> They painstakingly added code, to make the program more robust
> (harder to create fake results), as well as increasing the digits
> of accuracy. And part of those efforts, may have resulted in
> the triggering of heuristic AV detection. I've been using that
> particular copy for some time.
>
> The benchmark used to be staged here, after it was hand modified.
> But it isn't there any more.
>
> http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
>
> There may be a copy on archive.org , which snapshots the file when
> it was on Extremesystems.
>
> http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
>
> The MD5SUM of that one, seems to be the same.
>
> You really should use memtest86+, and test your memory :-)
>
> Have fun,
> Paul

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00378480&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=uk&lang=en&product=1839474


* Four 184-pin DDR DIMM sockets
* Supports dual channel, eight memory banks DDR 333/400 DDR DIMMs
* Supports 2.5v DDR SDRAM DIMMs
* Maximum HP/Compaq approved memory is 4 GB* without ECC

It is a 939.

I was running with a 256 meg stick in slot one an a 1 gig stick in slot 2
for a long time, i wondered if it would be better with one stick in there
but well its 25% more memory and less paging.
Now it will only be 12.5% more memory so not such a big increase.

However I will try those memery benchmarks as I would be interested to
see the results.
The only problem is I have so much trouble getting the sticks into
the slots, I think that may have been the cause of a lot of my problems,
there are a lod of cables over the slots so it hard to see and hard to put
pressure on the sticks to put them in properly, sometimes I think I might
damage
something!!
Also I only have one really old back-up computer, howver so far I have
not broken either yet (touch wood).

It does seem to be running quite nicely at the moment though, very
little paging, fan rarely comes on, nice and quiet.
Still it has now gobbled up 90% of the memory but I think that
is normal, it will use as much as it can.

Will try those tests later.


From: Colin Trunt on 8 Jul 2010 21:26

"Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message
news:VNuZn.11792$c85.7337(a)newsfe15.ams2...
>
> "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
> news:i15p61$ef$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> Colin Trunt wrote:
>>> "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i15bur$bm3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Colin Trunt wrote:
>>>>> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some
>>>>> beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK.
>>
>>>
>>> I would expect the system to do a memory test on start-up.
>>> Infact i think it does, I got beeps at start-up sometime, this
>>> was becasue I had badly seated memory.
>>> I am not sure of the numberof beep I powered off after 3 or 4.
>>> It might have been 1 long beeep repeated.
>>>
>>> Anyway the problem is cured, I woudl say when I had the CPU
>>> usage problems there were no beeps (IIRC).
>>> I think carefully inserting the memory properly may have been
>>> the cure. I also have a graphics card which is badly secured and that
>>> cause problems sometimes as it can become badly seated, however
>>> usually results in no boot-up at all just the fan on maximum speed and
>>> very loud which immediately make you want to poser off (at that stage
>>> only pulling out the plug will work, the power switch on the front will
>>> not work).
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks for the help however it does seem to be cured
>>> for the time being, that stuff will come in useful in the future I
>>> think.
>>>
>>> Also I have to add the last stick of ram, the last 256meg I have
>>> never got it to boot with the full 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.256 = 2..256 GIG
>>> memory.
>>>
>>> I always got beeps with all three stciks in, I will have to carefully
>>> count the
>>> beeps next time, I have tendancy to just power off incase damage is
>>> being done.
>>>
>>> Maybe I was not seating the ram properly, I have great problems
>>> doing that.
>>>
>>> Also the mobo is dirty and full of fluff and dirt all covered in tobacco
>>> smoke deposits so that does not help, a bit of dirt will cause an open
>>> circuit it it gets in a slot.
>>>
>>> But I am OK at the momoent, I have both cores working properlly
>>> and 2 gig of ram, the last 256gig is not a major concern really, a
>>> marginal
>>> ammount extra.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know the details of your motherboard (make and model),
>> but I would recommend sticking with the 2x1GB configuration, and just
>> leave the 256MB in your junk pile for now. On a dual channel capable
>> motherboard, the 2x1GB can be plugged in, in a dual channel
>> configuration.
>> And that will do a better job on memory bandwidth. With AMD, there is
>> a performance penalty due to bus loading, so some of the four stick
>> configurations won't be quite as fast as a two stick configuration.
>>
>> It sounds to me, like you may have an S939 system, in which case
>> I'd stick with the 2x1GB. If we go back far enough in time, there
>> are revisions of S939 processor, that will ignore that third stick.
>> As far as I know, Revision E or later, on S939, should be fully
>> flexible (i.e. allow three sticks installed of four available), but
>> there would still be a performance penalty associated with that.
>>
>> As an "inquiring mind", you should test your system in single channel
>> and dual channel modes, to see what the impact is. Plug in a single
>> 1GB stick. Run SuperPI benchmark, which has elements of CPU performance
>> as well as memory performance. The 1 million digit benchmark has a
>> 8MB memory footprint. The 32 million digit benchmark has a 256MB
>> memory footprint. You want to run a test case, where the memory footprint
>> is significantly larger than the processor cache (so any memory accesses
>> while calculating PI, hit main memory).
>>
>> Now, plug in 2x1GB in dual channel, and repeat the same benchmark. How
>> much difference did it make ? If the results are the same as with
>> a single stick, you haven't put the two sticks in dual channel slots.
>>
>> Then, you could install the 256MB, and see what the third stick
>> costs you in practical performance.
>>
>> You can get SuperPI benchmark here.
>>
>> http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/366/Super_PI_Mod_v1.5.html
>>
>> super_pi_mod.exe is 104,960 bytes and has an MD5SUM of
>> ca977a1cd46b170ddea7adc4e19bd6ba . A virustotal.com scan of the
>> file should take you here.
>>
>> http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c6bfdcb2de4612103a132c956006dc993232e291eb180e846695fc8937b69932-1278443869
>>
>> To understand that benchmark, you have to consider how it was built.
>> It was written maybe 15 years ago, by a guy in Japan. The source
>> code may have been lost. The original program, might not have
>> given very accurate timings, due to the software method used
>> to do timing.
>>
>> Someone modified the executable code file with a hex editor.
>> They painstakingly added code, to make the program more robust
>> (harder to create fake results), as well as increasing the digits
>> of accuracy. And part of those efforts, may have resulted in
>> the triggering of heuristic AV detection. I've been using that
>> particular copy for some time.
>>
>> The benchmark used to be staged here, after it was hand modified.
>> But it isn't there any more.
>>
>> http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
>>
>> There may be a copy on archive.org , which snapshots the file when
>> it was on Extremesystems.
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
>>
>> The MD5SUM of that one, seems to be the same.
>>
>> You really should use memtest86+, and test your memory :-)
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Paul
>
> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00378480&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=uk&lang=en&product=1839474
>
>
> * Four 184-pin DDR DIMM sockets
> * Supports dual channel, eight memory banks DDR 333/400 DDR DIMMs
> * Supports 2.5v DDR SDRAM DIMMs
> * Maximum HP/Compaq approved memory is 4 GB* without ECC
>
> It is a 939.
>
> I was running with a 256 meg stick in slot one an a 1 gig stick in slot 2
> for a long time, i wondered if it would be better with one stick in there
> but well its 25% more memory and less paging.
> Now it will only be 12.5% more memory so not such a big increase.
>
> However I will try those memery benchmarks as I would be interested to
> see the results.
> The only problem is I have so much trouble getting the sticks into
> the slots, I think that may have been the cause of a lot of my problems,
> there are a lod of cables over the slots so it hard to see and hard to put
> pressure on the sticks to put them in properly, sometimes I think I might
> damage
> something!!
> Also I only have one really old back-up computer, howver so far I have
> not broken either yet (touch wood).
>
> It does seem to be running quite nicely at the moment though, very
> little paging, fan rarely comes on, nice and quiet.
> Still it has now gobbled up 90% of the memory but I think that
> is normal, it will use as much as it can.
>
> Will try those tests later.

So it seems mine is set up as a matched pair at the moment,
although I do not know it what matched means, does it mean
the same size and type, or is there more to it than that.
They should be both 1 gig unbbuffered non-ecc.

I guess running those tests should provide some answers.
>
>


From: Paul on 9 Jul 2010 01:02
Colin Trunt wrote:

>>>>> Colin Trunt wrote:
>>>>>> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP.
>>>>>>

>> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00378480&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=uk&lang=en&product=1839474
>>
>>
>> * Four 184-pin DDR DIMM sockets
>> * Supports dual channel, eight memory banks DDR 333/400 DDR DIMMs
>> * Supports 2.5v DDR SDRAM DIMMs
>> * Maximum HP/Compaq approved memory is 4 GB* without ECC
>>
>> It is a 939.
>>
>> I was running with a 256 meg stick in slot one an a 1 gig stick in slot 2
>> for a long time, i wondered if it would be better with one stick in there
>> but well its 25% more memory and less paging.
>> Now it will only be 12.5% more memory so not such a big increase.
>>
>> However I will try those memery benchmarks as I would be interested to
>> see the results.
>> The only problem is I have so much trouble getting the sticks into
>> the slots, I think that may have been the cause of a lot of my problems,
>> there are a lod of cables over the slots so it hard to see and hard to put
>> pressure on the sticks to put them in properly, sometimes I think I might
>> damage
>> something!!
>> Also I only have one really old back-up computer, howver so far I have
>> not broken either yet (touch wood).
>>
>> It does seem to be running quite nicely at the moment though, very
>> little paging, fan rarely comes on, nice and quiet.
>> Still it has now gobbled up 90% of the memory but I think that
>> is normal, it will use as much as it can.
>>
>> Will try those tests later.
>
> So it seems mine is set up as a matched pair at the moment,
> although I do not know it what matched means, does it mean
> the same size and type, or is there more to it than that.
> They should be both 1 gig unbbuffered non-ecc.
>
> I guess running those tests should provide some answers.
>

Gobbling up 90% of memory isn't normal. I have 2GB of RAM on
WinXP here, and a few minute ago, with Thunderbird and Firefox
open, I was using 462MB. With your 1GB of RAM, that would be
about half of it.

I still think something isn't right with your system, and
that you should be looking more carefully in Task Manager,
to see where the memory is going, and whether there is a
memory leak.

WinXP doesn't work the same way, as some of the later OSes.
Some of those, make more usage of RAM, and show it that
way in displays of status. But WinXP and Win2K don't do
that here for me. Memory usage should be proportional to
the usage the programs are making of it. The system
component shouldn't be ballooning.

*******

When you don't have documentation, on which slots hold the
matched set, you can always test. And SuperPI can help you
there. Try a DIMM configuration, and see how it benchmarks.

With respect to the force required to seat modules, I have
the most trouble with "low profile" Kingston modules. They
have a high insertion force, that hurts my fingers when the
modules finally seat. The lock latches on the ends, should both
rotate into the upright position, if the thing is seated. And
you might hear a bit of a click when it seats.

Placing 1GB in one channel, and 256MB in the other channel,
doesn't match them. So they'll operate in virtual single
channel mode, at least, as long as the processor is Rev.E or
later.

If you were to place the 1GB and 256MB on the same channel
(perhaps slot 1 and slot 3, not sure), the result would be
even slower than just having 1GB in slot 1. When the bus
has two loads on it, the memory clock rate is set a bit lower
on S939 (could drop from DDR400 to DDR333). A user can tweak that,
if the motherboard has adjustments. Whether it can be set more
aggressively than the BIOS configures it, depends on the
individual processor and the voltages involved.

Another tool for detecting matching, might be CPUZ. It
should be able to display "dual channel" or similar
terminology, when showing your hardware details. Now
that you don't have a matched set of RAM, then there
isn't any chance of it saying "dual channel" or 128 bit
mode.

(Select one of the no-install versions)
http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

The memory dimensions are rows, columns, banks, and ranks.
The first three, occupy a single memory chip. The memory
chip might have four banks, selected by BA bank bits. The
rows, columns, and banks, account for the number of bits
inside the memory chip. They put enough chips side by
side, to build a 64 bit wide array, and that is a rank.
A double sided module has room for two ranks.

If you had a single sided, 8 chip, 1GB module, and a
double sided, 16 chip, 1GB module, those modules would not
match. An S939 processor would have to be set up, to run
those sticks in virtual single channel mode. That's why,
when buying the memory DIMMs, it pays to buy a pair in a
package.

Companies like Kingston have got into a bit
of trouble with their customers, by forgetting about
the matching thing, and just changing the module chip
composition without telling anyone (as a function of
which chip type is cheapest today). In fact, on some
motherboards, where this practice resulted in customer
returns on memory, they stopped recommending memory
entirely for those motherboards, so it couldn't happen
again. If you, as a customer, insist on buying DIMMs
one at a time, then you have to put extra effort into
it, to make sure your rows, columns, banks and ranks match.
Roughly speaking, if two modules had 16 chips, and they
were 1GB total capacity, then chances are the dimensions
are the same. With some RAM companies, you can't tell in
advance, whether you're getting an 8 or a 16 chip module.
Kingston used to be good about that sort of thing, and
Kingston was one of the few companies that had datasheets
for their retail products (complete with drawing of the module
and info stating 64Mx8 for the chip). You used to be able to
rely on the datasheet, to predict the module composition
in advance. But there have been some products shipped, where
they couldn't be bothered to update their documentation,
which is a shame. If they want to play that game, it would
have been simple enough to give the alternative products
their own SKUs. They could price them independently,
such that customers could decide whether they wanted the
cheaper one, or wanted the other one because of its
dimensions.

Paul
From: Colin Trunt on 9 Jul 2010 12:55

"Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
news:i16age$ts2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Colin Trunt wrote:
>
>>>>>> Colin Trunt wrote:
>>>>>>> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP.
>>>>>>>
>
>>> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00378480&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=uk&lang=en&product=1839474
>>>
>>>
>>> * Four 184-pin DDR DIMM sockets
>>> * Supports dual channel, eight memory banks DDR 333/400 DDR DIMMs
>>> * Supports 2.5v DDR SDRAM DIMMs
>>> * Maximum HP/Compaq approved memory is 4 GB* without ECC
>>>
>>> It is a 939.
>>>
>>> I was running with a 256 meg stick in slot one an a 1 gig stick in slot
>>> 2
>>> for a long time, i wondered if it would be better with one stick in
>>> there
>>> but well its 25% more memory and less paging.
>>> Now it will only be 12.5% more memory so not such a big increase.
>>>
>>> However I will try those memery benchmarks as I would be interested to
>>> see the results.
>>> The only problem is I have so much trouble getting the sticks into
>>> the slots, I think that may have been the cause of a lot of my problems,
>>> there are a lod of cables over the slots so it hard to see and hard to
>>> put
>>> pressure on the sticks to put them in properly, sometimes I think I
>>> might damage
>>> something!!
>>> Also I only have one really old back-up computer, howver so far I have
>>> not broken either yet (touch wood).
>>>
>>> It does seem to be running quite nicely at the moment though, very
>>> little paging, fan rarely comes on, nice and quiet.
>>> Still it has now gobbled up 90% of the memory but I think that
>>> is normal, it will use as much as it can.
>>>
>>> Will try those tests later.
>>
>> So it seems mine is set up as a matched pair at the moment,
>> although I do not know it what matched means, does it mean
>> the same size and type, or is there more to it than that.
>> They should be both 1 gig unbbuffered non-ecc.
>>
>> I guess running those tests should provide some answers.
>>
>
> Gobbling up 90% of memory isn't normal. I have 2GB of RAM on
> WinXP here, and a few minute ago, with Thunderbird and Firefox
> open, I was using 462MB. With your 1GB of RAM, that would be
> about half of it.




If you open a lot of windows it will use more, I think it just
leaves things in memory in case it need them again,
Try running a video youtube and see what that does to meemory.

I currently have 770 mega avilalble but it I ran a lot of programs
it woudl eventualy gobble that up, especially it I was runnin diagnostic
programs and searchnig for a solution on the internet.

>
> I still think something isn't right with your system, and
> that you should be looking more carefully in Task Manager,
> to see where the memory is going, and whether there is a
> memory leak.



The things using memeory are Firefox and Chrome, but I
have 8 chrome and 2 firefox tabs open.


I also have something called jqs.exe, java quick starter, I don't
think I need this, I think I only have it because it has 'quick' in the
title.
I have killed it off and changed it's setting to not cache files, it had
been set to cache up to 1 giga byte.
I will see if that makes a diference to anything.

>
> WinXP doesn't work the same way, as some of the later OSes.
> Some of those, make more usage of RAM, and show it that
> way in displays of status. But WinXP and Win2K don't do
> that here for me. Memory usage should be proportional to
> the usage the programs are making of it. The system
> component shouldn't be ballooning.
>
> *******
>
> When you don't have documentation, on which slots hold the
> matched set, you can always test. And SuperPI can help you
> there. Try a DIMM configuration, and see how it benchmarks.
>
> With respect to the force required to seat modules, I have
> the most trouble with "low profile" Kingston modules. They
> have a high insertion force, that hurts my fingers when the
> modules finally seat. The lock latches on the ends, should both
> rotate into the upright position, if the thing is seated. And
> you might hear a bit of a click when it seats.

Yes they hurt my fingers too, at one point I was using the back of
a screw driver to apply the pressure, not too sensible really.

>
> Placing 1GB in one channel, and 256MB in the other channel,
> doesn't match them. So they'll operate in virtual single
> channel mode, at least, as long as the processor is Rev.E or
> later.
>
> If you were to place the 1GB and 256MB on the same channel
> (perhaps slot 1 and slot 3, not sure), the result would be
> even slower than just having 1GB in slot 1. When the bus
> has two loads on it, the memory clock rate is set a bit lower
> on S939 (could drop from DDR400 to DDR333). A user can tweak that,
> if the motherboard has adjustments. Whether it can be set more
> aggressively than the BIOS configures it, depends on the
> individual processor and the voltages involved.
>
> Another tool for detecting matching, might be CPUZ. It
> should be able to display "dual channel" or similar
> terminology, when showing your hardware details. Now
> that you don't have a matched set of RAM, then there
> isn't any chance of it saying "dual channel" or 128 bit
> mode.
>
> (Select one of the no-install versions)
> http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html
>
> The memory dimensions are rows, columns, banks, and ranks.
> The first three, occupy a single memory chip. The memory
> chip might have four banks, selected by BA bank bits. The
> rows, columns, and banks, account for the number of bits
> inside the memory chip. They put enough chips side by
> side, to build a 64 bit wide array, and that is a rank.
> A double sided module has room for two ranks.
>
> If you had a single sided, 8 chip, 1GB module, and a
> double sided, 16 chip, 1GB module, those modules would not
> match.

I think I have two 16 chips modules, old 256meg module is
one sided.

> An S939 processor would have to be set up, to run
> those sticks in virtual single channel mode. That's why,
> when buying the memory DIMMs, it pays to buy a pair in a
> package.
>
> Companies like Kingston have got into a bit
> of trouble with their customers, by forgetting about
> the matching thing, and just changing the module chip
> composition without telling anyone (as a function of
> which chip type is cheapest today). In fact, on some
> motherboards, where this practice resulted in customer
> returns on memory, they stopped recommending memory
> entirely for those motherboards, so it couldn't happen
> again. If you, as a customer, insist on buying DIMMs
> one at a time, then you have to put extra effort into
> it, to make sure your rows, columns, banks and ranks match.

I


> Roughly speaking, if two modules had 16 chips, and they
> were 1GB total capacity, then chances are the dimensions
> are the same. With some RAM companies, you can't tell in
> advance, whether you're getting an 8 or a 16 chip module.
> Kingston used to be good about that sort of thing, and
> Kingston was one of the few companies that had datasheets
> for their retail products (complete with drawing of the module
> and info stating 64Mx8 for the chip). You used to be able to
> rely on the datasheet, to predict the module composition
> in advance. But there have been some products shipped, where
> they couldn't be bothered to update their documentation,
> which is a shame. If they want to play that game, it would
> have been simple enough to give the alternative products
> their own SKUs. They could price them independently,
> such that customers could decide whether they wanted the
> cheaper one, or wanted the other one because of its
> dimensions.
>

Thanks, I am fairly sure mine should be matched, all dimensions
that are listed seem to be the same.
They are als in the same coloured slots which is necesary I belive.

I have not got round to running the memeory tests stuff yet
but I will have a go later.



> Paul


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Which is better: Driver Detective or Driver Cure?
Next: System idle but CPU usage is high!!