A message from Crucial

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I sent Crucial an email, outlining the fact that I'd purchased
a 256MB stick of CL2 pc133 SDRAM (CT32M64S8D7E)
and I was asking their advice about the DIMM memory speed
setting in the bios. For example, you can set 6-3-3 (normal)
6-3-2 (enhanced) 6-2-3 (fast) etc,etc.

This is their response:
"Hello Dave,
Thank you for your email. I would recommend leaving part number
CT32M64S8D7E at the normal setting of 6-3-3. If you overclock the part
it will void the warranty of the memory module."


I can understand that recommendation if it's based on the
expected correct operation of the memory; but surely
choosing one of the faster timings is not overclocking,
and therefore should not violate the terms of the warranty.


What is crucial telling me?
Dave
29 answers Last reply
More about message crucial
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:29:43 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >I sent Crucial an email, outlining the fact that I'd purchased
    >a 256MB stick of CL2 pc133 SDRAM (CT32M64S8D7E)
    >and I was asking their advice about the DIMM memory speed
    >setting in the bios. For example, you can set 6-3-3 (normal)
    >6-3-2 (enhanced) 6-2-3 (fast) etc,etc.
    >
    >This is their response:
    >"Hello Dave,
    >Thank you for your email. I would recommend leaving part number
    >CT32M64S8D7E at the normal setting of 6-3-3. If you overclock the part
    >it will void the warranty of the memory module."
    >
    >
    >
    >I can understand that recommendation if it's based on the
    >expected correct operation of the memory; but surely
    >choosing one of the faster timings is not overclocking,
    >and therefore should not violate the terms of the warranty.
    >
    >
    >What is crucial telling me?
    >Dave
    >

    If you run the ram out of spec (lower latency) then it's over clocking
    and may cause problems.

    If you're running Windows try running the free "CPU-Z" program, look at
    the memory section and see if tells you what the timings are of the ram
    sticks.

    Ed
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:00:29 -0600, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >If you're running Windows try running the free "CPU-Z" program, look at
    >the memory section and see if tells you what the timings are of the ram
    >sticks.

    CPU-Z Link: http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:02:44 -0600, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:00:29 -0600, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>If you're running Windows try running the free "CPU-Z" program, look at
    >>the memory section and see if tells you what the timings are of the ram
    >>sticks.
    >
    >CPU-Z Link: http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
    Thanks for the info, according to the SPD timings table,
    the crucial stick at 133MHz, can support
    CL2,
    ras to cas 2
    ras precharge 2
    TRas 6

    So to me, it looks as if Dimm memory of 6-2-2 is supported.
    Now, the response from crucial is even more nonsensical than
    it first seemed. Either that or the response from RusH is correct!

    Dave
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote :

    > What is crucial telling me?

    "get lost, NEXT ..."

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote :

    >
    > Surely, by usng these DIMM speed settings all you're doing is
    > accessing the memory past a speed it can (potentially) support.
    > Does this put strain of the memory? I always thought the answer
    > was no.

    and it is NO. You cant brake silicon with high frequency, high voltage
    is another thing.

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:59:59 +0000, RusH wrote:

    > da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote :
    >
    >>
    >> Surely, by usng these DIMM speed settings all you're doing is
    >> accessing the memory past a speed it can (potentially) support.
    >> Does this put strain of the memory? I always thought the answer
    >> was no.

    They don't support it, so it *is* over-clocking. It costs them money to
    answer you question. If it stops working tomorrow it costs them money to
    replace it.

    > and it is NO. You cant brake silicon with high frequency, high voltage
    > is another thing.

    Nonsense. Power is proportional to frequency. It *is* possible (though
    not likely for memory) to burn out "silicon" with a higher frequency.

    --
    Keith
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    da_test wrote:
    > No. I didn't respond to them. Nor did I say I was actually
    > "overclocking". It was just an inquiry. Secondly, according
    > to CPUZ it actually supports 6-2-2 !

    If the chip's own SPD says that it supports that speed, then that's the
    speed it supports. Doesn't your computer have a "use SPD" or "default
    timings" setting? Those are usually based off of the SPD settings.

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:21:05 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >da_test wrote:
    >> No. I didn't respond to them. Nor did I say I was actually
    >> "overclocking". It was just an inquiry. Secondly, according
    >> to CPUZ it actually supports 6-2-2 !
    >
    >If the chip's own SPD says that it supports that speed, then that's the
    >speed it supports. Doesn't your computer have a "use SPD" or "default
    >timings" setting? Those are usually based off of the SPD settings.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    Yes it does have an SPD setting, but that's the interleave item.
    I believe the interleave options are SPD, 4-way, 2-way or none.

    The bios doc is a little sparse, but nowhere is it inferred that
    that will affect the memory timings.
    My bios does have a setting for cl2/cl3 and a separate one
    for DIMM speed. The options are "normal" (622),
    "enhanced"(632), "fast" (623), "faster" (622) and
    "fastest" (522)

    Default timing are obviously cl3/normal, but it's going to
    choose that regardless of the memory capabilities.
    Dave
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:48:47 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >So to me, it looks as if Dimm memory of 6-2-2 is supported.
    >Now, the response from crucial is even more nonsensical than
    >it first seemed. Either that or the response from RusH is correct!
    >
    >Dave

    You could just set the BIOS to use "SPD" and it should set the timings
    correctly, but that doesn't always work correctly with all boards and
    ram sticks, I always set the ram timings manually to spec when I can.

    You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    error free.

    Ed
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:21:20 -0600, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:48:47 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>So to me, it looks as if Dimm memory of 6-2-2 is supported.
    >>Now, the response from crucial is even more nonsensical than
    >>it first seemed. Either that or the response from RusH is correct!
    >>
    >>Dave
    >
    >You could just set the BIOS to use "SPD" and it should set the timings
    >correctly, but that doesn't always work correctly with all boards and
    >ram sticks, I always set the ram timings manually to spec when I can.
    >
    >You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    >http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    >http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    >error free.
    >
    >Ed
    Ed, a couple of things, I've never had much luck with memory testers.
    If I set the timing aggresively, I will/have errors in Windiws.
    But memtest86+ never finds a problem.

    Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    Dave
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <7vLLd.4982$Ck1.888924@news20.bellglobal.com>, bbbl67@ezrs.com
    says...
    >
    >If the chip's own SPD says that it supports that speed, then that's the
    >speed it supports. Doesn't your computer have a "use SPD" or "default
    >timings" setting? Those are usually based off of the SPD settings.


    I bought this Crucial memory 2x512 BL6464Z402 from

    http://www.crucial.com/store/MPartspecs.Asp?mtbpoid=D53F57E0A5CA7304&WSMD
    =A8V+Deluxe&WSPN=BL6464Z402

    This web page text says 2-2-2-6 timing, so that was my expectation.

    However, the Asus A8V BIOS according to CPUZ interprets the SPD as
    2-2-2-8

    My default setting is 2.5V. Memory specs says 2.8V.
    Can that possibly affect SPD?
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:33:55 -0600, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <7vLLd.4982$Ck1.888924@news20.bellglobal.com>, bbbl67@ezrs.com
    >says...
    >>
    >>If the chip's own SPD says that it supports that speed, then that's the
    >>speed it supports. Doesn't your computer have a "use SPD" or "default
    >>timings" setting? Those are usually based off of the SPD settings.
    >
    >
    >I bought this Crucial memory 2x512 BL6464Z402 from
    >
    >http://www.crucial.com/store/MPartspecs.Asp?mtbpoid=D53F57E0A5CA7304&WSMD
    >=A8V+Deluxe&WSPN=BL6464Z402
    >
    >This web page text says 2-2-2-6 timing, so that was my expectation.
    >
    >However, the Asus A8V BIOS according to CPUZ interprets the SPD as
    >2-2-2-8
    >
    >My default setting is 2.5V. Memory specs says 2.8V.
    >Can that possibly affect SPD?
    Hi Wayne - don't know the answer to this.
    Open up a new thread, you'll get better visibilty.
    Dave
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:25:02 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:21:20 -0600, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:48:47 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>So to me, it looks as if Dimm memory of 6-2-2 is supported.
    >>>Now, the response from crucial is even more nonsensical than
    >>>it first seemed. Either that or the response from RusH is correct!
    >>>
    >>>Dave
    >>
    >>You could just set the BIOS to use "SPD" and it should set the timings
    >>correctly, but that doesn't always work correctly with all boards and
    >>ram sticks, I always set the ram timings manually to spec when I can.
    >>
    >>You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    >>http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    >>http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    >>error free.
    >>
    >>Ed
    >Ed, a couple of things, I've never had much luck with memory testers.
    >If I set the timing aggresively, I will/have errors in Windiws.
    >But memtest86+ never finds a problem.

    That's why Prime95 is a good follow-on to memtest86+ - it runs in the
    Windows environment which does things which memtest86+ doesn't. If
    Memtest86+ finds no errors, it usually means you can get Windows installed
    OK, though I admit, not always. It's not a bad idea to use manually set
    loose timings to get Windows installed.

    >Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    >in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    >unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    >think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.

    SPD states the operating timings for the DRAM, basically Tcas, Trcp, Trp,
    Tras and command rate, some of which are stated as delay time rather than
    cycles IIRC. Interleave is either on or off and in current DRAMs that
    means 4-way or auto-precharge and is usually controllable by a BIOS
    setting.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:37:32 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:25:02 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    >wrote:
    >>Ed, a couple of things, I've never had much luck with memory testers.
    >>If I set the timing aggresively, I will/have errors in Windiws.
    >>But memtest86+ never finds a problem.
    >
    >That's why Prime95 is a good follow-on to memtest86+ - it runs in the
    >Windows environment which does things which memtest86+ doesn't. If
    >Memtest86+ finds no errors, it usually means you can get Windows installed
    >OK, though I admit, not always. It's not a bad idea to use manually set
    >loose timings to get Windows installed.
    >
    >>Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    >>in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    >>unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    >>think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    >
    >SPD states the operating timings for the DRAM, basically Tcas, Trcp, Trp,
    >Tras and command rate, some of which are stated as delay time rather than
    >cycles IIRC. Interleave is either on or off and in current DRAMs that
    >means 4-way or auto-precharge and is usually controllable by a BIOS
    >setting.
    George, thanks for the info. I'll try and track down Prime95.
    Regards,
    Dave
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:24:06 -0800, da_test
    <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:37:32 -0500, George Macdonald

    >>That's why Prime95 is a good follow-on to memtest86+ - it runs in the
    >>Windows environment which does things which memtest86+ doesn't.

    >George, thanks for the info. I'll try and track down Prime95.
    >Regards,
    >Dave
    I just found something else that quickly detects memory problems.
    Open an avi file in virtualdub, hold down the shift key and drag the
    pointer.
    It should snap to key frames. Progress thru the avi should be
    smooth. With my memory timings a little too aggressive,
    I got hiccups and the avi display cleared to grey screen.

    I'm giving prime95 a try now.
    regards,
    Dave
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <g6evv09gukp303v0hcli5lkouu7tp7obpj@4ax.com>, Ed
    <nomail@hotmail.com> writes
    (snip)
    >
    >You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    >http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    >http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    >error free.

    Sorry?
    Prime95 does not "test lots of RAM". From the readme :
    " SETTING AVAILABLE MEMORY
    The P-1 factoring step prior to running a Lucas-Lehmer test is more
    effective if it is given more memory to work with. However, if you let
    the program use too much memory then the performance of ALL programs
    will suffer. The good news is that 98% of the time the program uses
    less than 8MB. In fact, the program will work just fine if you instruct
    the program to use only 8MB or less."
    etc ...
    --
    Roger Hunt
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:29:43 -0800, da_test
    <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >What is crucial telling me?

    They are telling you that they believe in Corporate
    PR-cover-our-ass-ism :P


    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:26:50 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:24:06 -0800, da_test
    ><davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:37:32 -0500, George Macdonald
    >
    >>>That's why Prime95 is a good follow-on to memtest86+ - it runs in the
    >>>Windows environment which does things which memtest86+ doesn't.
    >
    >>George, thanks for the info. I'll try and track down Prime95.
    >>Regards,
    >>Dave
    >I just found something else that quickly detects memory problems.
    >Open an avi file in virtualdub, hold down the shift key and drag the
    >pointer.
    >It should snap to key frames. Progress thru the avi should be
    >smooth. With my memory timings a little too aggressive,
    >I got hiccups and the avi display cleared to grey screen.
    >
    >I'm giving prime95 a try now.

    If you want to really pound the memory and do nothing else with the system,
    it's recommended to bump the priority up a touch... under Advanced/Priority
    try 8 or 9.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 06:43:38 +0000, Roger Hunt <test@carewg.demon.co.uk>
    wrote:

    >In article <g6evv09gukp303v0hcli5lkouu7tp7obpj@4ax.com>, Ed
    ><nomail@hotmail.com> writes
    >(snip)
    >>
    >>You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    >>http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    >>http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    >>error free.
    >
    >Sorry?
    >Prime95 does not "test lots of RAM". From the readme :
    >" SETTING AVAILABLE MEMORY
    >The P-1 factoring step prior to running a Lucas-Lehmer test is more
    >effective if it is given more memory to work with. However, if you let
    >the program use too much memory then the performance of ALL programs
    >will suffer. The good news is that 98% of the time the program uses
    >less than 8MB. In fact, the program will work just fine if you instruct
    >the program to use only 8MB or less."
    >etc ...

    Run it and see. The Torture Test ran up to 900MB on my 1GB system the last
    time I looked. I wonder if the para you quote is either out of date or
    applies to everything but the Torture Test... IOW the real work. In that
    respect, note that the Torture Test runs with a low priority on recent
    versions, so possibly they shuffled things around without updating the
    docs.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    da_test wrote:
    > Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    > in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    > unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    > think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    > Dave

    Why do you think that's the case? The SPD has nothing to do with
    interleave. The interleave is a factor that the system itself sets
    through the BIOS & chipset, but it runs the RAM at whatever settings you
    specified whether it's interleaved or not. Interleaving is outside the
    control of each individual DIMM, it works at the memory bank level.

    Yousuf Khan
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:36:21 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >da_test wrote:
    >> Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    >> in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    >> unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    >> think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    >> Dave
    >
    >Why do you think that's the case? The SPD has nothing to do with
    >interleave. The interleave is a factor that the system itself sets
    >through the BIOS & chipset, but it runs the RAM at whatever settings you
    >specified whether it's interleaved or not. Interleaving is outside the
    >control of each individual DIMM, it works at the memory bank level.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    Hello Yousuf,
    it's only because it's an option in my Bios.
    Options for "bank interleave" are 4-way, 2-way, "off" or
    "by spd"

    When "by spd" is chosen, 4-way is used. I checked that
    using pcredit. However, choosing that setting does not alter
    the memory timings in the chipset registers.
    They are still selected based on two other bios settings,
    "cas latency" and "Dimm memory speed"

    In other words there isn't a way in my bios to set cas latency
    or dimm memory speed based on any info the RAM supplies;
    rather, like most Bios' they have a default based on the
    most conservative; ie. cl3 and 6-3-3.

    regards,
    Dave
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <O4XpIKAaaHACFwAO@carewg.demon.co.uk>, Roger Hunt
    <test@carewg.demon.co.uk> writes

    >Sorry?
    >Prime95 does not "test lots of RAM".

    Run the "Torture Test". One of the test options uses "lots of RAM".

    --
    Rarely do people communicate; they just take turns talking.
    (source unknown)
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <evg1015d0vrgv42sc3t8tr45slqq6hk3qj@4ax.com>, George
    Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes
    >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 06:43:38 +0000, Roger Hunt <test@carewg.demon.co.uk>
    >wrote:
    >>In article <g6evv09gukp303v0hcli5lkouu7tp7obpj@4ax.com>, Ed
    >><nomail@hotmail.com> writes
    >>(snip)
    >>>You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    >>>http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    >>>http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    >>>error free.
    >>
    >>Sorry?
    >>Prime95 does not "test lots of RAM". From the readme :
    (snip)
    >
    >Run it and see. The Torture Test ran up to 900MB on my 1GB system the last
    >time I looked. I wonder if the para you quote is either out of date or
    >applies to everything but the Torture Test... IOW the real work. In that
    >respect, note that the Torture Test runs with a low priority on recent
    >versions, so possibly they shuffled things around without updating the
    >docs.
    >
    Ah, I see. I stand corrected.

    The thing is I run P95 23.8.1 24/7, and have been for seven years or so
    as a permanent fixture and long-term stability check and also as part of
    GIMPS (M34406129 ATM), and have never run any torture test - just
    factoring integers, so I missed that.
    (If you want to convert a Mersenne integer to decimal and boggle at the
    size use Mprint, http://www.apfloat.org/apfloat/ )

    Apologies to all and thanks for putting me right.

    Regards
    --
    Roger Hunt
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:25:02 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Ed, a couple of things, I've never had much luck with memory testers.
    >If I set the timing aggresively, I will/have errors in Windiws.
    >But memtest86+ never finds a problem.
    >
    >Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    >in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    >unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    >think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    >Dave

    Prime 95 works best for me, I mainly use memtest86 when building a new
    system, if you can't pass at least a few passes you know something is
    out od wack. ;p

    Not sure, I've only had one or two boards where the bios let you change
    interleave and it was a separate option, check the mobo manual.

    Ed
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:05:03 -0800, da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >In other words there isn't a way in my bios to set cas latency
    >or dimm memory speed based on any info the RAM supplies;
    >rather, like most Bios' they have a default based on the
    >most conservative; ie. cl3 and 6-3-3.
    >
    >regards,
    >Dave

    Maybe it's time to upgrade the mobo? ;p
    Ed
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:36:21 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >da_test wrote:
    >> Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    >> in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    >> unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    >> think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    >> Dave
    >
    >Why do you think that's the case? The SPD has nothing to do with
    >interleave. The interleave is a factor that the system itself sets
    >through the BIOS & chipset, but it runs the RAM at whatever settings you
    >specified whether it's interleaved or not. Interleaving is outside the
    >control of each individual DIMM, it works at the memory bank level.

    You are soooo stuck in the '80's, YK.

    There *are* banks in them there drams, son. And they can be configured via
    MSRs/EMSRs that exist inside the drams...

    /daytripper (Better start reading some recent vintage dram specs ;-)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:36:21 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >da_test wrote:
    >> Secondly, as I mentioned in another post in this thread,
    >> in my bios SPD seems related to interleave only,
    >> unless I'm misunderstanding something - but I don't
    >> think I am. I checked the chipset values using wpcredit.
    >> Dave
    >
    >Why do you think that's the case? The SPD has nothing to do with
    >interleave. The interleave is a factor that the system itself sets
    >through the BIOS & chipset, but it runs the RAM at whatever settings you
    >specified whether it's interleaved or not. Interleaving is outside the
    >control of each individual DIMM, it works at the memory bank level.

    Not sure what you're saying there but interleaving, as it applies to modern
    DIMMs, works at the memory chip level - all SDRAM chips >16Mb used in PCs
    have 4 banks right on the chip; the 16Mb chips had 2 banks. Years ago,
    Dave T told me that there was a plan to go to 8 banks with 256Mb[IIRC]
    chips but I guess it fell victim to backwards compatibility with chipsets,
    chipset cost... or maybe even inertia.

    The DDR SPD doc I have, from IBM, is old and maybe out of date but it seems
    to show that there are fields in SPD for both "physical banks" on the
    module, for which the term rank is preferred now, and the SDRAM device
    banks. In fact the device banks field caters for going to 255 banks;
    oddly, the "rank" fields cater for having different sizes of memory on each
    side of a module and even different sized and width chips.

    When you set the "interleave" in BIOS Setup it's the control on device
    banks which you are setting: 0/off, 2 or 4. Off just runs the chips with
    auto-precharge. The different chipsets have different ways of handling
    this device interleave of banks: on their better chipsets, Intel has
    generally allowed all 4 banks on every rank to be kept open simultaneously
    and favored an idle timer for precharge; VIA has generally allowed only 2
    ranks to have open banks simultaneously and precharged when an address went
    to a 3rd rank. In the absence of docs, I've no idea how nVidia handles
    things nor AMD.s 64s but I haven't tried to ferret that out.

    BTW, I believe that device banks is/was one of Rambus' infringement claims
    against SDRAM - their DRDRAM devices had 32 banks of which 16 could be open
    simultaneously - the sense amps were shared between adjacent banks. They
    also proposed changing to a different scheme for their later DRDRAM, with 4
    "independent" banks, just like SDRAM, but I beleive it was abandoned due to
    lack of interest by chipset mfrs, notably Intel.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:14:54 +0000, Roger Hunt <test@carewg.demon.co.uk>
    wrote:

    >In article <evg1015d0vrgv42sc3t8tr45slqq6hk3qj@4ax.com>, George
    >Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes
    >>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 06:43:38 +0000, Roger Hunt <test@carewg.demon.co.uk>
    >>wrote:
    >>>In article <g6evv09gukp303v0hcli5lkouu7tp7obpj@4ax.com>, Ed
    >>><nomail@hotmail.com> writes
    >>>(snip)
    >>>>You may want to test your setup with programs like Memtest86+
    >>>>http://www.memtest.org/ and Prime95(Tests lots of Ram)
    >>>>http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm just to make sure it's working
    >>>>error free.
    >>>
    >>>Sorry?
    >>>Prime95 does not "test lots of RAM". From the readme :
    >(snip)
    >>
    >>Run it and see. The Torture Test ran up to 900MB on my 1GB system the last
    >>time I looked. I wonder if the para you quote is either out of date or
    >>applies to everything but the Torture Test... IOW the real work. In that
    >>respect, note that the Torture Test runs with a low priority on recent
    >>versions, so possibly they shuffled things around without updating the
    >>docs.
    >>
    >Ah, I see. I stand corrected.
    >
    >The thing is I run P95 23.8.1 24/7, and have been for seven years or so
    >as a permanent fixture and long-term stability check and also as part of
    >GIMPS (M34406129 ATM), and have never run any torture test - just
    >factoring integers, so I missed that.

    Wow, your system gets a real workout then - care to share its specs and, of
    course brand/type of memory?

    >(If you want to convert a Mersenne integer to decimal and boggle at the
    >size use Mprint, http://www.apfloat.org/apfloat/ )

    Thanks.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <l5q201hp39kstu6a8sjb1n6b69b8cvi6se@4ax.com>, George
    Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes
    >>
    >>The thing is I run P95 23.8.1 24/7, and have been for seven years or so
    >>as a permanent fixture and long-term stability check and also as part of
    >>GIMPS (M34406129 ATM), and have never run any torture test - just
    >>factoring integers, so I missed that.
    >
    >Wow, your system gets a real workout then - care to share its specs and, of
    >course brand/type of memory?
    >
    It all really started when I bought a FIC VA-503+, stuck a P166MMX on it
    and discovered that it overclocked amazingly well - 2.5x100MHz,
    absolutely solid with P95 at all times, for 18 months. Then I played
    with a K6-2, K6-2+ etc etc, until meltdown occurred a year ago.

    The replacement system had to be bought in a hurry - a quick but rather
    boring Asus a7n8x-x, XP2800 and 2x256 + 1x512MB PC3200.
    Even though it's an unlocked XP2800 this a7n8x-x does not like 200 MHz
    FSB and all my overclocking attempts have so far been fruitless ...

    .... until a couple of hours ago that is, when I learnt in
    alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd, of a modded BIOS (1010-XMOD2_2T) for
    the a7n8x-x that lets it function at 200MHz FSB, and by golly it does
    too!
    (Warning - slight niggles - F1 key would not exit Awdflash, reboot
    resulted in power cycling, CMOS had to be cleared, but only once and OK
    since)
    For the first time now, it is purring at 10.5x200MHz, std voltages, and
    p95 is purring too. I haven't yet started twiddling voltages etc, but
    w98se works fine with 11x200Mhz, std volts, even though p95 falls over
    sooner or later.
    But this is early days - very encouraging early results and I'm
    optimistic that I can get this system much much quicker than it is,
    and I hope maybe soon to compete with these XP-M owners who post and
    boast about the awesome speeds that they obtain.
    Time to play. (dreams .... 2700MHz ... finding Mersenne prime ...)

    Regards
    --
    Roger Hunt
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Crucial Email Memory