Will PC3200 RAM make a difference?

[Guest]

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

Will upgrading from a PC2700 512MB RAM stick,
to a PC3200 512 RAM stick make any noticable
difference in performance.

My computer is running with a Celeron D 340, 533 MHz FSB.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

dk_ wrote:
> Will upgrading from a PC2700 512MB RAM stick,
> to a PC3200 512 RAM stick make any noticable
> difference in performance.
>
> My computer is running with a Celeron D 340, 533 MHz FSB.

None.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

In article <Mw2Ie.4560$z91.469768@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

> dk_ wrote:
> > Will upgrading from a PC2700 512MB RAM stick,
> > to a PC3200 512 RAM stick make any noticable
> > difference in performance.
> >
> > My computer is running with a Celeron D 340, 533 MHz FSB.
>
> None.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Thank you for the quick reply!

Why would the faster RAM make no difference in this case?

Thanks.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

It's only a 15% difference in speed between PC2700 and PC3200.
Sometimes you don't even notice a difference with a doubling of speed
in some components, let alone 15%.

You'll probably be able to demonstrate benchmarks which will prove it's
faster, but you still won't notice it in your day-to-day use. There's
two different measures of performance in most computer components: (1)
bandwidth, and (2) latency. Bandwidth is akin to a topspeed, while
latency is akin to an acceleration. In a car you feel its acceleration
much more so than you feel its topspeed. Switching from PC2700 to 3200
is just an increase in topspeed, but not in acceleration.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1123098915.638307.151670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's only a 15% difference in speed between PC2700 and PC3200.
> Sometimes you don't even notice a difference with a doubling of speed
> in some components, let alone 15%.
>
> You'll probably be able to demonstrate benchmarks which will prove it's
> faster, but you still won't notice it in your day-to-day use. There's
> two different measures of performance in most computer components: (1)
> bandwidth, and (2) latency. Bandwidth is akin to a topspeed, while
> latency is akin to an acceleration. In a car you feel its acceleration
> much more so than you feel its topspeed. Switching from PC2700 to 3200
> is just an increase in topspeed, but not in acceleration.
>

Very clear and very helpful!

Thank you.

Now here's my dilemma: ...my computer, (Celeron D 340, 533 MHz FSB),
came with one 512 MB PC2700 stick with 8 modules on it. I also have a
512 MB PC3200 stick with 16 modules on it.

I want to run the system with a total of 1024 MB's, and I understand
that I should not mix x8 with x16 sticks, so I now need to puarchase
either a 512 MB (x8) PC2700, or a 512 MB (x16) PC3200. (Currently the
PC3200 is cheaper.)

....so, does the 533 MHz FSB actually use the faster RAM (PC3200), or
does it top out with the PC2700???


Thanks.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Kessler
http://denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

Actually, that's not a hard and fast rule about not mixing single-sided
and double-sided ram with each other. It really depends on the chipset
and BIOS you get. It's a conservative rule, but not a general rule. It
does often happen that single- and double-sided ram may cause problems,
but the only way you're going to find out if it will cause problems on
your system is to actually try it out.

You should be able to mix the old 512M DIMM with the new one, but they
will both run at the slower stick's speed (lowest common denominator).

As for the proper ram speed for a 533Mhz FSB, it actually corresponds
to PC2100 (i.e. 533 * 4 = 2132 ~ 2100); while PC3200 corresponds to
800Mhz FSB (800 * 4 = 3200). PC2700 corresponds to a 666Mhz FSB, which
Intel just completely skipped, however AMD built processors which
corresponded to that speed.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1123103339.379432.244490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, that's not a hard and fast rule about not mixing single-sided
> and double-sided ram with each other. It really depends on the chipset
> and BIOS you get. It's a conservative rule, but not a general rule. It
> does often happen that single- and double-sided ram may cause problems,
> but the only way you're going to find out if it will cause problems on
> your system is to actually try it out.

I read on the Hewlett Packard site, 'not to mix' 8x and 16x for my
computer.


> You should be able to mix the old 512M DIMM with the new one, but they
> will both run at the slower stick's speed (lowest common denominator).

If I understand correctly what you explained below, ...running with
PC3200 would add no value at all to my machine which has a FSB speed of
533MHz.

I understand what you wrote below to mean that no speed above the PC2100
sticks would add any value. ...Right?

> As for the proper ram speed for a 533Mhz FSB, it actually corresponds
> to PC2100 (i.e. 533 * 4 = 2132 ~ 2100); while PC3200 corresponds to
> 800Mhz FSB (800 * 4 = 3200). PC2700 corresponds to a 666Mhz FSB, which
> Intel just completely skipped, however AMD built processors which
> corresponded to that speed.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Thanks once again.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Kessler
http://denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

dk_ wrote:
> I read on the Hewlett Packard site, 'not to mix' 8x and 16x for my
> computer.

Well, if it's been specifically written as such, then it must be thus.
Usually the suggestion not to mix single-sided and double-sided memory
are given anecdotally. For example:

Q: "Hi, I'm having trouble with my double-sided ram".

A: "Well, your chipset might not be designed for that double-sided
memory, switch to single-sided".

>>You should be able to mix the old 512M DIMM with the new one, but they
>>will both run at the slower stick's speed (lowest common denominator).
>
>
> If I understand correctly what you explained below, ...running with
> PC3200 would add no value at all to my machine which has a FSB speed of
> 533MHz.
>
> I understand what you wrote below to mean that no speed above the PC2100
> sticks would add any value. ...Right?

It's a little bit more complicated. The memory controller inside your
chipset is likely a "dual-channel" controller. That means that it can
take two DIMMs and make them act sort of like one faster DIMM. With a
single PC2100 DIMM, you're not maxing out your controller; you need two
PC2100 DIMMs to max it out. The two PC2100's are sort of combined into a
virtual PC4200 (real PC4200's don't actually exist). So a single PC2700
or PC3200 aren't really maxing out your memory controller's maximum
bandwidth either, but they're much closer to it than a single PC2100 is.
But when you combine a PC2700 and a PC3200, you're not going to get a
virtual PC5400 (dual PC2700) let alone a virtual PC5900 (PC2700 +
PC3200), you're stuck at a maximum of virtual PC4200 because that's as
fast as your FSB will go.

As an aside, this is really one of the main advantages to the new AMD64
designs -- they've completely eliminated the FSB, as they've built the
memory controller directly into the CPU rather than into the chipset.
The memory controller will talk to the rest of the CPU at full internal
CPU speeds instead of through the fixed FSB speed. This carries the
major advantage of not only increasing the bandwidth but also -- and
more importantly -- reducing the latency. Intel is expected to (forced
to?) adopt this design by 2007, because it will be four years behind AMD
at that point (because AMD will have had this since 2003).

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

In article <hJgIe.5649$z91.624168@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

> dk_ wrote:
> > I read on the Hewlett Packard site, 'not to mix' 8x and 16x for my
> > computer.
>
> Well, if it's been specifically written as such, then it must be thus.
> Usually the suggestion not to mix single-sided and double-sided memory
> are given anecdotally. For example:
>
> Q: "Hi, I'm having trouble with my double-sided ram".
>
> A: "Well, your chipset might not be designed for that double-sided
> memory, switch to single-sided".

I see.

This from the Hewlett Packard site...

"The following requirements must be met for
the DDR memory to function in Dual Channel mode:

* Same Density (128MB, 256MB, 512MB, etc.)
* Same DRAM chip technology (x8 or x16)
* All either single-sided or dual-sided
* Matched in both Channel A and Channel B memory channels"


> >>You should be able to mix the old 512M DIMM with the new one, but they
> >>will both run at the slower stick's speed (lowest common denominator).


I understand.

> > If I understand correctly what you explained below, ...running with
> > PC3200 would add no value at all to my machine which has a FSB speed of
> > 533MHz.
> >
> > I understand what you wrote below to mean that no speed above the PC2100
> > sticks would add any value. ...Right?
>
> It's a little bit more complicated. The memory controller inside your
> chipset is likely a "dual-channel" controller. That means that it can
> take two DIMMs and make them act sort of like one faster DIMM. With a
> single PC2100 DIMM, you're not maxing out your controller; you need two
> PC2100 DIMMs to max it out. The two PC2100's are sort of combined into a
> virtual PC4200 (real PC4200's don't actually exist). So a single PC2700
> or PC3200 aren't really maxing out your memory controller's maximum
> bandwidth either, but they're much closer to it than a single PC2100 is.
> But when you combine a PC2700 and a PC3200, you're not going to get a
> virtual PC5400 (dual PC2700) let alone a virtual PC5900 (PC2700 +
> PC3200), you're stuck at a maximum of virtual PC4200 because that's as
> fast as your FSB will go.

Very clear. Thank you, thank you.

> As an aside, this is really one of the main advantages to the new AMD64
> designs -- they've completely eliminated the FSB, as they've built the
> memory controller directly into the CPU rather than into the chipset.
> The memory controller will talk to the rest of the CPU at full internal
> CPU speeds instead of through the fixed FSB speed. This carries the
> major advantage of not only increasing the bandwidth but also -- and
> more importantly -- reducing the latency. Intel is expected to (forced
> to?) adopt this design by 2007, because it will be four years behind AMD
> at that point (because AMD will have had this since 2003).
>
> Yousuf Khan

Here's some numbers from an advertisement from e-machine's site...
"AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Processor (512KB L2 cache, 2.2GHz, 1600MHz FSB)".

The numbers show an FSB speed, (which is much faster than what is
advertised in an equivalently priced Celeron D machine.

Thanks for the help and education.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

dk_ <nobody@spamless.com> wrote:
> Here's some numbers from an advertisement from e-machine's site...
> "AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Processor (512KB L2 cache, 2.2GHz, 1600MHz FSB)".
>
> The numbers show an FSB speed, (which is much faster than what is
> advertised in an equivalently priced Celeron D machine.

That's not the real FSB speed, that's an estimate of the speed of the
Hypertransport bus.

Athlon 64 3200+ could be either a Socket 939 (dual channel) or Socket 754
chip. Either one has a 200mhz DDR (= "400mhz / DDC 400 / PC3200") FSB to
memory. In the case of the Socket 754, that is single channel, while the
Socket 939 chip supports dual channel memory so that it's the equivalent of
an 800mhz SDR bus (or the QDR 200mhz "800FSB" bus on recent Pentium 4
models, outside of the few 1066FSB EE's)

The raw bandwidth on Socket 939 and 800FSB P4s is similar; because of the
on-die memory controller, the latency for the AMDs is better. Then again,
even with Socket 754 (half the total bandwidth), the latency is better.

One other factor with bandwidth is that for the Athlons, there is a separate
memory bus (through the on-die controller) and I/O bus with the HT
connection to the AGP/PCI/PCI-E slots. On Intel chips, all this
bandwidth is shared between the memory and the I/O slots. In practice, I'm
not sure if this really makes a difference on single-CPU systems, although
having a separate connection for cache coherency and as many memory
controllers as there are CPUs definitely cab make a big difference for SMP
applications.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"I do have a cause, though. It is Obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer

 

[Guest]

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

dk_ wrote:
> Here's some numbers from an advertisement from e-machine's site...
> "AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Processor (512KB L2 cache, 2.2GHz, 1600MHz FSB)".
>
> The numbers show an FSB speed, (which is much faster than what is
> advertised in an equivalently priced Celeron D machine.

That's a "little white marketing lie". Since most people are used to
seeing a FSB speed rating, Emachines just took the closest thing they
could find to a front-side bus, which is the Hypertransport link, and
called it the FSB. The more proper answer to what is the FSB speed of
an AMD64 processor would be "not applicable", but of course that would
generate questions like "why is it not applicable?", or "if it doesn't
have a FSB, then how does it work?", etc.

The Hypertransport link does fulfill one of the functions of the
traditional FSB, which is that it connects the i/o chipset to the CPU.
However, the memory controller is not on the i/o chipset like with
Intels, the memory controller is inside the AMD CPU, so the only job an
AMD i/o chipset does is interface with peripheral devices like video
cards, hard disks, USB, etc. The AMD memory controller is not part of
the Hypertransport connection, it is its own independent connection.
That's why AMD has coined the marketing term "Direct Connect
Archictecture" to describe the combination of its internal memory
controller, and the Hypertransport link.

Also Hypertransport is not a bus in the strict sense of the word, it is
a point-to-point link, i.e. one-to-one only. Secondly, the speed rating
given to it in the ad, "1600MHz FSB", is just a maximum possible speed;
the HT link being point-to-point is a negotiated speed. So it only
connects at the highest speed common to the CPU and the chipset it is
connecting to. If the chipset can only go as fast as 1066MHz, then
that's the speed of the HT link that they will negotiate.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:29:03 -0700, dk_ <nobody@spamless.com> wrote:

>In article <1123098915.638307.151670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's only a 15% difference in speed between PC2700 and PC3200.
>> Sometimes you don't even notice a difference with a doubling of speed
>> in some components, let alone 15%.
>>
>> You'll probably be able to demonstrate benchmarks which will prove it's
>> faster, but you still won't notice it in your day-to-day use. There's
>> two different measures of performance in most computer components: (1)
>> bandwidth, and (2) latency. Bandwidth is akin to a topspeed, while
>> latency is akin to an acceleration. In a car you feel its acceleration
>> much more so than you feel its topspeed. Switching from PC2700 to 3200
>> is just an increase in topspeed, but not in acceleration.
>>
>
>Very clear and very helpful!
>
>Thank you.
>
>Now here's my dilemma: ...my computer, (Celeron D 340, 533 MHz FSB),
>came with one 512 MB PC2700 stick with 8 modules on it. I also have a
>512 MB PC3200 stick with 16 modules on it.
>
>I want to run the system with a total of 1024 MB's, and I understand
>that I should not mix x8 with x16 sticks, so I now need to puarchase
>either a 512 MB (x8) PC2700, or a 512 MB (x16) PC3200. (Currently the
>PC3200 is cheaper.)
>
>...so, does the 533 MHz FSB actually use the faster RAM (PC3200), or
>does it top out with the PC2700???

I'm afraid this whole discussion has gone completely astray, partly due to
lack of detailed info to start with.

First the x8 and x16 you mention in HP specs elsewhere in the thread does
not mean the number of chips on the DIMM - it's the width of the Data Out
of the memory chips used.

The HP specs you quoted are also talking about *dual* channel operation,
which it was not clear your mbrd supported to start with... but apparently
it does. Obviously with only one DIMM you are not running dual channel
with only one DIMM inserted.

For a 533MHz FSB, with a dual channel memory setup, the minimum speed match
for memory modules is PC2100 (actually 8*266.6 = 2133.3). Two channels of
those (4266.6) would match exactly your FSB of 533MHz (8*533.3 = 4266.6).
HP, however has used PC2700 DIMMs, possibly because they are the most
available.

The bottom line is that the best peformance will be obtained with the dual
channel setup and to get that you must have matched DIMMs, one (or two for
larger memory capacity according to slots) on each channel. What does
matched mean?... the same chip count, speed rating and chip arrangement on
each pair of DIMMs across the two channels. Whether you could make it work
with identically spec'd DIMMs from two different mfrs is a toss-up but I
would not even try it myself.

Your best bet: take a close look at the chips on the original DIMM and note
the mfr name and see if you can find a similar DIMM from an online vendor,
otherwise the only option is to cough up the HP price for a match. You
could post the chip codes here and soemone will likely be able to decode
them for you.

Also, check out www.crucial.com and enter the details of your system to see
what memory type and timings they recommend for it.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

In article <19u4f1pivd4ofk0maim5cl6tm9j4q44n04@4ax.com>,
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:


OK. Here's where I'm at now... I opened the new machine again and I took
out the single 512 MB stick and it is not a PC2700, but rather a PC3200,
(i.e., 400 MHZ DDR, double sided with 16 chips).

Today I purchased another 512 MB, 400 MHz DDR, double sided with 16
chips (a PC3200).

HP says on the box that it was equipped with a PC2700, but you're right
I'm sure, they actually used a PC3200 because of availability and cost.

I installed both PC3200's and booted the computer and looked in the
BIOS. The screen says there are two PC2700 sticks loaded, for a total of
1 gig total memory.

The motherboard has a FSB of 533 MHz, and according to this thread, the
motherboard will only use speed up to the PC 2100 (HP says PC2700). So
why the heck is the BIOS showing #2 PC2700 sticks, when it should
probably read #2 PC2100 sticks even though the machine actually is
loaded with #2 PC3200 sticks???!@#$%^&

BTW: where do these 4* or 8* multipliers come from?

Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that
these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I
haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I
assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a
stick and that they should be the same # on each stick.

The two sticks that are currently in the machine, are physically matched
(at least).

Q). How much of a difference would it make in performance if the two
chips were actually identically matched as a set, as you recommend?
(Currently by most criteria the two chips are matched, i.e., 512 MB, DDR
400, double-sided with #16 chips on each stick.)

(I did notice that in the store, and on a RAM manufacture's site that
they do talk about, and sell "dual DDR's" as a tested set.

My motherboard is an 'MSI MS-6577 version 4.1' running a Celeron D 340
if that adds any useful information.

-Dennis


> I'm afraid this whole discussion has gone completely astray, partly due to
> lack of detailed info to start with.
>
> First the x8 and x16 you mention in HP specs elsewhere in the thread does
> not mean the number of chips on the DIMM - it's the width of the Data Out
> of the memory chips used.
>
> The HP specs you quoted are also talking about *dual* channel operation,
> which it was not clear your mbrd supported to start with... but apparently
> it does. Obviously with only one DIMM you are not running dual channel
> with only one DIMM inserted.
>
> For a 533MHz FSB, with a dual channel memory setup, the minimum speed match
> for memory modules is PC2100 (actually 8*266.6 = 2133.3). Two channels of
> those (4266.6) would match exactly your FSB of 533MHz (8*533.3 = 4266.6).
> HP, however has used PC2700 DIMMs, possibly because they are the most
> available.
>
> The bottom line is that the best peformance will be obtained with the dual
> channel setup and to get that you must have matched DIMMs, one (or two for
> larger memory capacity according to slots) on each channel. What does
> matched mean?... the same chip count, speed rating and chip arrangement on
> each pair of DIMMs across the two channels. Whether you could make it work
> with identically spec'd DIMMs from two different mfrs is a toss-up but I
> would not even try it myself.
>
> Your best bet: take a close look at the chips on the original DIMM and note
> the mfr name and see if you can find a similar DIMM from an online vendor,
> otherwise the only option is to cough up the HP price for a match. You
> could post the chip codes here and soemone will likely be able to decode
> them for you.
>
> Also, check out www.crucial.com and enter the details of your system to see
> what memory type and timings they recommend for it.

--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

No. Not unless you actually raise the FSB. PC3200 just means the ram is
qualified to work UP TO 400(200) FSB. PC2700 is qualified to work UP TO
333(166) FSB. I believe your Celeron D works at a 133(133x4 for intel=533)
FSB. AMD uses a different front side bus(x2) than intel which uses a x4 bus
although they can both use the same memory.Weird huh?

"dk_" <nobody@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-DF2D91.02303703082005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> Will upgrading from a PC2700 512MB RAM stick,
> to a PC3200 512 RAM stick make any noticable
> difference in performance.
>
> My computer is running with a Celeron D 340, 533 MHz FSB.
>
> -Dennis
>
> --
> Dennis Kessler
> http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture
>

 

[dannysdailys]

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

As you can tell by all the posts, this is the problem with buying a
manufacturers PC. They're simply a mix and matched mess of parts.

Assuming the MSI is using an Intel chipset: As far as I'm aware,
Intel doesn't even make a dual channel memory bus. That's Nvidias
domain with the Nforce set of northbridge chips. So matching memory
seems silly to me. Maybe I'm misinformed.

Even at that, Nvidia's dual channel mode really only helps for on
board video. It's less then a 3% increase without it. I found that
out after I blew the money on a "matched" pair, put my computer in
dual channel mode, and noticed NO speed improvement.

Always remember, manufacturers are selling to the lowest common
demoninator and say all kinds of things, if it will help avoid a tech
support call.

I'm sorry you threw out your old RAM chip, because it probably would
have worked fine, even though it wasn't a direct match. You should
have popped it in and see if the computer would boot.

In a single channel environment, you can string any RAM modules
together. The only caviet being: Your RAM bus will run only as fast
as the slowest module installed.

The only quirk I'm aware of doing this, is having to have the largest
module in slot one. Otherwise, the system will only recognize what's
in slot one, to two. Example: If you have a 128 in slot 1, and a 256
in slot 2; the system will only see 128 in slot 2.

Maybe I'm missing something...

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:32:39 GMT, dannysdailys@aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid
(dannysdailys) wrote:

>As you can tell by all the posts, this is the problem with buying a
>manufacturers PC. They're simply a mix and matched mess of parts.

Well some of them are built to spec - the lowest for the price.

>Assuming the MSI is using an Intel chipset: As far as I'm aware,
>Intel doesn't even make a dual channel memory bus. That's Nvidias
>domain with the Nforce set of northbridge chips. So matching memory
>seems silly to me. Maybe I'm misinformed.

Just a wee bit out of date. Intel has had DDR dual memory channel
chipsets for ~2years now - they need it to keep up with the 4x clocked FSB.
IIRC, as far back as the DRDRAM chipsets, they were dual channel too,
except for the i820.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

In article <51g9f1dll6ogdtqik72scnuii2il6asfhv@4ax.com>,
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

> >Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that
> >these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I
> >haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I
> >assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a
> >stick and that they should be the same # on each stick.
>
> For same-size DIMMs, the effect is the same of course. If you look up any
> memory chip Data Sheets, you'll see that they commonly come in x8 and x16
> data widths for desktop system DIMMs and x4 and x32 for other applications.

Thank you for all the info and details.

I have been searching to find how I can identify or recognize 'data
widths' for each DRAM stick. How can I tell if the stick is x8 or x16.

In order for dual channel mode to work, some sources say the 'data
widths' must match, and some sources make no mention of this.

I have searched the term 'DRAM bus width', and so far I can find no
practical informaltion.

Help.

Thanks again.

-Dennis


--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

On 8/17/2005 15:45, George Macdonald wrote:
> Just a wee bit out of date. Intel has had DDR dual memory channel
> chipsets for ~2years now - they need it to keep up with the 4x clocked FSB.
> IIRC, as far back as the DRDRAM chipsets, they were dual channel too,
> except for the i820.

Other than server chipsets (hmm, maybe that was all serverworks anyway),
wasn't the 865 the first from Intel to support dual channel?

~Jason

--

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:28:45 -0400, Jason Gurtz <ask@NOmeSPAM.where> wrote:

>On 8/17/2005 15:45, George Macdonald wrote:
>> Just a wee bit out of date. Intel has had DDR dual memory channel
>> chipsets for ~2years now - they need it to keep up with the 4x clocked FSB.
>> IIRC, as far back as the DRDRAM chipsets, they were dual channel too,
>> except for the i820.
>
>Other than server chipsets (hmm, maybe that was all serverworks anyway),
>wasn't the 865 the first from Intel to support dual channel?

Well, in the strictly "desktop" arena that's probably true... if you figure
the i840 & i850 were at least targeted at a higher level. OTOH neither
ended up in many servers and they migrated down from even the workstation
slot to what I'd call the high-end desktop space. You gotta figure there
were a lot of people who did not want the full compromise of i810/i815 and
even i845 - Intel dropped the ball there... and DRDRAM *was* intriguing to
some. They just had to feel it for themselves.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:42:54 -0700, dk_ <nobody@spamless.com> wrote:

>In article <51g9f1dll6ogdtqik72scnuii2il6asfhv@4ax.com>,
> George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>> >Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that
>> >these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I
>> >haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I
>> >assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a
>> >stick and that they should be the same # on each stick.
>>
>> For same-size DIMMs, the effect is the same of course. If you look up any
>> memory chip Data Sheets, you'll see that they commonly come in x8 and x16
>> data widths for desktop system DIMMs and x4 and x32 for other applications.
>
>Thank you for all the info and details.
>
>I have been searching to find how I can identify or recognize 'data
>widths' for each DRAM stick. How can I tell if the stick is x8 or x16.

Hmm, I hope I haven't caused more confusion than I wanted here... more
detail than you need. By stick, do you mean module?.... i.e. DIMM? They
are all 64-bits wide and the only *chips* you can populate them with in
Intel's desktop chipset specs are either all x8 or all x16 bits wide on any
given module. IOW you can count the chips per DIMM side and know the width
of the chips: 8 chips per side means each side (rank) has x8 wide chips.;
if there were only four chips on a side they'd have to be x16 wide chips.

>In order for dual channel mode to work, some sources say the 'data
>widths' must match, and some sources make no mention of this.

That makes sense. It's a pity that a few charlatans have dumped odd-ball
configurations on the market with all chips, on both sides of a DIMM, being
used to make up the 64-bit wide bus - IOW 8 chips on each side grouped as
16 chips which are each x4 bits wide. That's the one to avoid at all costs
- sometimes known as a "high density *module*"

>I have searched the term 'DRAM bus width', and so far I can find no
>practical informaltion.

Well, again, the DRAM channel bus width is always 64-bits wide - it's the
number of chips used to get there that's important. DRAM chip Data Sheets,
which you can download from www.micron.com contain much more info than you
need but a quick glance will illustrate the different chips available.

Did the extra DIMM you bought not work in dual-channel along with the
original DIMM which came with the system? While it's possible that it
could, to avoid possibly playing roulette again, the only way to be sure
spec-wise is to buy a couple of identically spec'd DIMMs from say
www.crucial.com where you can enter the mfr and model number of your system
and get a recommendation.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ddh9g15jflqoitkpkcddsegmt3bl3uub0e@4ax.com>,
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:42:54 -0700, dk_ <nobody@spamless.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <51g9f1dll6ogdtqik72scnuii2il6asfhv@4ax.com>,
> > George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that
> >> >these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I
> >> >haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I
> >> >assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a
> >> >stick and that they should be the same # on each stick.
> >>
> >> For same-size DIMMs, the effect is the same of course. If you look up any
> >> memory chip Data Sheets, you'll see that they commonly come in x8 and x16
> >> data widths for desktop system DIMMs and x4 and x32 for other applications.

If I understand correctly, that for my purposes (i.e., to get two 512 MB
DIMMS to run in Dual Channel Mode), the follwoing will work...

I have two 512 MB PC3200 DIMMS, each are populated with #8 chips on each
side. I believe that is what you would refer to as x8 data width (which
is also #16 chips on each DIMM <<-->> #8 per side). Right? ...I hope so.




> >Thank you for all the info and details.
> >
> >I have been searching to find how I can identify or recognize 'data
> >widths' for each DRAM stick. How can I tell if the stick is x8 or x16.
>
> Hmm, I hope I haven't caused more confusion than I wanted here... more
> detail than you need. By stick, do you mean module?.... i.e. DIMM? They

It has been confusing and challenging. x8 and #8 per side,


> are all 64-bits wide and the only *chips* you can populate them with in

Does that mean 64-bits wide per side? (I am getting more and more
confused.)

> Intel's desktop chipset specs are either all x8 or all x16 bits wide on any
> given module. IOW you can count the chips per DIMM side and know the width
> of the chips: 8 chips per side means each side (rank) has x8 wide chips.;
> if there were only four chips on a side they'd have to be x16 wide chips.
>
> >In order for dual channel mode to work, some sources say the 'data
> >widths' must match, and some sources make no mention of this.
>
> That makes sense. It's a pity that a few charlatans have dumped odd-ball
> configurations on the market with all chips, on both sides of a DIMM, being
> used to make up the 64-bit wide bus - IOW 8 chips on each side grouped as
> 16 chips which are each x4 bits wide. That's the one to avoid at all costs
> - sometimes known as a "high density *module*"

Huh? ...You just lost me here with the math. What would that DIMM look
like? (What does 8 chips one each side grouped as 16 chips mean???)


> >I have searched the term 'DRAM bus width', and so far I can find no
> >practical informaltion.
>
> Well, again, the DRAM channel bus width is always 64-bits wide - it's the
> number of chips used to get there that's important. DRAM chip Data Sheets,
> which you can download from www.micron.com contain much more info than you
> need but a quick glance will illustrate the different chips available.

I did look at a sheet from Micon which totally confused me.

The sheet:
"512 MB: x4, x8, x16 DDR SDRAM."

32 meg x4 x4 banks (...what are banks?)
16 meg x8 x4 banks
8 meg x16 x4 banks

Again, huh?


> Did the extra DIMM you bought not work in dual-channel along with the
> original DIMM which came with the system? While it's possible that it
> could, to avoid possibly playing roulette again, the only way to be sure
> spec-wise is to buy a couple of identically spec'd DIMMs from say
> www.crucial.com where you can enter the mfr and model number of your system
> and get a recommendation.

I did buy a pair, (but I returned the set). They were Mushkin, green
line. The chips looked very poorly made. There was absolutly no marking
or labeling on the chips. The look of the DIMMS made me nervous.

I then purchased one PNY 512 MB DIMM (that looks well manufactured). It
has #8 chips per side, (#16 total), which is the same physical
configuration as the DIMM that came with the machine.

The BIOS in my machine does not indicate anything about 'currently
running' in either dual or single channel mode. So I have no way to know
how the RAM is functioning other than having run the Memtest-86 test for
2 rounds with no errors.

How can I determine if the machine is running in dual-channel mode?

Intel's web site says, (for a number of specific m-boards), that in
order to run in 'dual-channel mode', the following is *not required*:

Do NOT need: same brand, same timing specs, or same DDR speed.

*Do* need same DRAM bus width (x8 or x16).
All either single-sided, or all dual sided.

Infineon and Kingston say "Matching" modules means:
Both (DIMMS) have the same number of chips and module sides, (e.g.
both have the same number of chips on the module, and both are either
single-sided or double sided.)

Thanks.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:22:38 -0700, dk_ <nobody@spamless.com> wrote:

>In article <ddh9g15jflqoitkpkcddsegmt3bl3uub0e@4ax.com>,
> George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:42:54 -0700, dk_ <nobody@spamless.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <51g9f1dll6ogdtqik72scnuii2il6asfhv@4ax.com>,
>> > George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that
>> >> >these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I
>> >> >haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I
>> >> >assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a
>> >> >stick and that they should be the same # on each stick.
>> >>
>> >> For same-size DIMMs, the effect is the same of course. If you look up any
>> >> memory chip Data Sheets, you'll see that they commonly come in x8 and x16
>> >> data widths for desktop system DIMMs and x4 and x32 for other applications.
>
>If I understand correctly, that for my purposes (i.e., to get two 512 MB
>DIMMS to run in Dual Channel Mode), the follwoing will work...
>
>I have two 512 MB PC3200 DIMMS, each are populated with #8 chips on each
>side. I believe that is what you would refer to as x8 data width (which
>is also #16 chips on each DIMM <<-->> #8 per side). Right? ...I hope so.
>

Yes that's correct - probably the most common DIMM configuration

>> >Thank you for all the info and details.
>> >
>> >I have been searching to find how I can identify or recognize 'data
>> >widths' for each DRAM stick. How can I tell if the stick is x8 or x16.
>>
>> Hmm, I hope I haven't caused more confusion than I wanted here... more
>> detail than you need. By stick, do you mean module?.... i.e. DIMM? They
>
>It has been confusing and challenging. x8 and #8 per side,
>
>
>> are all 64-bits wide and the only *chips* you can populate them with in
>
>Does that mean 64-bits wide per side? (I am getting more and more
>confused.)

Yes - think of *Dual* Inline Memory Module... what DIMM means, i.e. dual
sided.

>> Intel's desktop chipset specs are either all x8 or all x16 bits wide on any
>> given module. IOW you can count the chips per DIMM side and know the width
>> of the chips: 8 chips per side means each side (rank) has x8 wide chips.;
>> if there were only four chips on a side they'd have to be x16 wide chips.
>>
>> >In order for dual channel mode to work, some sources say the 'data
>> >widths' must match, and some sources make no mention of this.
>>
>> That makes sense. It's a pity that a few charlatans have dumped odd-ball
>> configurations on the market with all chips, on both sides of a DIMM, being
>> used to make up the 64-bit wide bus - IOW 8 chips on each side grouped as
>> 16 chips which are each x4 bits wide. That's the one to avoid at all costs
>> - sometimes known as a "high density *module*"
>
>Huh? ...You just lost me here with the math. What would that DIMM look
>like? (What does 8 chips one each side grouped as 16 chips mean???)

Basically it means that there are DIMMs out there - of dubious origin -
where the "manufacturer" connects all 16 chips to only one side of the DIMM
- it's possible to do that with x4 wide memory chips but it violates the
formal DIMM specs. As long as you buy a reputable brand, you won't have
any risk of getting those.

>> >I have searched the term 'DRAM bus width', and so far I can find no
>> >practical informaltion.
>>
>> Well, again, the DRAM channel bus width is always 64-bits wide - it's the
>> number of chips used to get there that's important. DRAM chip Data Sheets,
>> which you can download from www.micron.com contain much more info than you
>> need but a quick glance will illustrate the different chips available.
>
>I did look at a sheet from Micon which totally confused me.
>
>The sheet:
> "512 MB: x4, x8, x16 DDR SDRAM."
>
> 32 meg x4 x4 banks (...what are banks?)
> 16 meg x8 x4 banks
> 8 meg x16 x4 banks
>
>Again, huh?

Yes - you can see the x4, x8 & x16 I've been talking about. The x4 chips
should not be used in unbuffered DIMMs for PC system memory.

Since the early days of SDRAM, all memory chips have had 4 banks, apart
from the first 16Mbit chips which had two. By keeping all four banks
"open" the chipset can manage "interleaved" accesses to the different banks
for a general speed-up of pseudo-random memory accesses.

>> Did the extra DIMM you bought not work in dual-channel along with the
>> original DIMM which came with the system? While it's possible that it
>> could, to avoid possibly playing roulette again, the only way to be sure
>> spec-wise is to buy a couple of identically spec'd DIMMs from say
>> www.crucial.com where you can enter the mfr and model number of your system
>> and get a recommendation.
>
>I did buy a pair, (but I returned the set). They were Mushkin, green
>line. The chips looked very poorly made. There was absolutly no marking
>or labeling on the chips. The look of the DIMMS made me nervous.

Poorly made chips? How can you tell? It's becoming more common to see
DIMMs where the module mfr has obliterated the chip markings - counters
some of the prejudiced folklore on chip sources. Mushkin does have a good
reputation AFAIK.

>I then purchased one PNY 512 MB DIMM (that looks well manufactured). It
>has #8 chips per side, (#16 total), which is the same physical
>configuration as the DIMM that came with the machine.
>
>The BIOS in my machine does not indicate anything about 'currently
>running' in either dual or single channel mode. So I have no way to know
>how the RAM is functioning other than having run the Memtest-86 test for
>2 rounds with no errors.
>
>How can I determine if the machine is running in dual-channel mode?

On my AMD system I get a line in the BIOS startup screen which gives
current memory timings and a data width of 128-bit. I don't know about
your's or any Intel dual channel chipsets for that matter, since I've never
actually worked with one. You could try the Sandra benchmarking suite
which may give the effective memory channel width in one of its info
modules... and you should be able to see the difference in measured
bandwidth with its performance check.

>Intel's web site says, (for a number of specific m-boards), that in
>order to run in 'dual-channel mode', the following is *not required*:
>
> Do NOT need: same brand, same timing specs, or same DDR speed.
>
> *Do* need same DRAM bus width (x8 or x16).
> All either single-sided, or all dual sided.
>
>Infineon and Kingston say "Matching" modules means:
> Both (DIMMS) have the same number of chips and module sides, (e.g.
>both have the same number of chips on the module, and both are either
>single-sided or double sided.)

Sounds like it should be working for you.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

In article <lhlgg11tr6jg1usma3d7vvm6i514pucpo4@4ax.com>,
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

> >I did buy a pair, (but I returned the set). They were Mushkin, green
> >line. The chips looked very poorly made. There was absolutly no marking
> >or labeling on the chips. The look of the DIMMS made me nervous.
>
> Poorly made chips? How can you tell? It's becoming more common to see
> DIMMs where the module mfr has obliterated the chip markings - counters
> some of the prejudiced folklore on chip sources. Mushkin does have a good
> reputation AFAIK.


I'd bet that those poorly made chips that I returned, were low-end
Mushkin chips. Nothing looked well made, i.e., solder joints, the board,
no markings at all. The modules did not have a finished well
manufactured look. The chips just looked like poor craftsmanship.

The chips that I have now are, ...one that came with the machine, a
Micron DIMM, and the other is PNY. They look almost identical in every
detail. The boards are identical.


> >I then purchased one PNY 512 MB DIMM (that looks well manufactured). It
> >has #8 chips per side, (#16 total), which is the same physical
> >configuration as the DIMM that came with the machine.
> >
> >The BIOS in my machine does not indicate anything about 'currently
> >running' in either dual or single channel mode. So I have no way to know
> >how the RAM is functioning other than having run the Memtest-86 test for
> >2 rounds with no errors.
> >
> >How can I determine if the machine is running in dual-channel mode?
>
> On my AMD system I get a line in the BIOS startup screen which gives
> current memory timings and a data width of 128-bit. I don't know about
> your's or any Intel dual channel chipsets for that matter, since I've never
> actually worked with one. You could try the Sandra benchmarking suite
> which may give the effective memory channel width in one of its info
> modules... and you should be able to see the difference in measured
> bandwidth with its performance check.

I downloaded the Sandra software, but haven't tried it yet.

My chips are both x8, according to support at HP and at Crucial, but I
am still confused (I got lost in all of my research) about how to know
that they are x8.

Thanks for all your help.


--
Dennis Kessler
http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture

 

[Guest]

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

Hi,

On a different note, my PC which is 800MHz FSB had come with 512MB
DDR400 (PC3200) memory installed in it. I have 4GB PC2100 memory with
me. Can I install PC2100 into my 800MHz FSB machine?

Does more memory at less speed has any gain over higher speed, fewer
MB memory? Does it make sense to do this?

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:42:38 GMT, traam@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid
(traamu) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On a different note, my PC which is 800MHz FSB had come with 512MB
>DDR400 (PC3200) memory installed in it. I have 4GB PC2100 memory with
>me. Can I install PC2100 into my 800MHz FSB machine?
>
>Does more memory at less speed has any gain over higher speed, fewer
>MB memory? Does it make sense to do this?

If you were seriously constrained on memory, which shouldn't normally be
the case with 512MB, it might improve performance slightly but otherwise
it's a big loss because your DDR400 will run at DDR266... the speed of the
slow module. Certainly at the price of memory now, it makes no sense at
all to me.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald