Single-sided vs. Double-sided RAM

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
each? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <chllm0leef2e87f1viaf56nuhk4f78q70g@4ax.com>, Jack says...
> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
> each? Thanks.
>
One is low density and the other high density. Older motherboards might
not work with high density so double sided RAM is used.

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:54:13 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:

>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>each? Thanks.

It might help to put your question in context, like what
specific memory and system. One-sided "might" be higher
density, might use less power, but might not overclock as
well in some situations... or it might. Generally speaking
it would reduce the load to choose modules with fewer chips,
more often single-sided.

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:11:38 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:54:13 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>each? Thanks.
>
>It might help to put your question in context, like what
>specific memory and system. One-sided "might" be higher
>density, might use less power, but might not overclock as
>well in some situations... or it might. Generally speaking
>it would reduce the load to choose modules with fewer chips,
>more often single-sided.

Thanks for the responses. I'm adding it to an EMachine with a 2.4 GHz
Celeron; unsure of the MB make/model; has Intel 845GV chipset.
If it's helpful, I'll crack open the case tomorrow and try to ID the
MB. Thanks again for the help!

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:51:21 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:11:38 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:54:13 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>each? Thanks.
>>
>>It might help to put your question in context, like what
>>specific memory and system. One-sided "might" be higher
>>density, might use less power, but might not overclock as
>>well in some situations... or it might. Generally speaking
>>it would reduce the load to choose modules with fewer chips,
>>more often single-sided.
>
>Thanks for the responses. I'm adding it to an EMachine with a 2.4 GHz
>Celeron; unsure of the MB make/model; has Intel 845GV chipset.
>If it's helpful, I'll crack open the case tomorrow and try to ID the
>MB. Thanks again for the help!

Unable to ID MB, but I pulled the current memory and it's single-sided
Samsung. Also, found it's only a 250v PS! Newegg has a good price on
Kingston, but it's double-sided. Might the extra load cause a problem,
or am I confusing the term "load" that you referenced above?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Jack wrote:
> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
> each? Thanks.
This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever. When it
comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your motherboard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:15:18 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:51:21 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:11:38 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:54:13 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>>each? Thanks.
>>>
>>>It might help to put your question in context, like what
>>>specific memory and system. One-sided "might" be higher
>>>density, might use less power, but might not overclock as
>>>well in some situations... or it might. Generally speaking
>>>it would reduce the load to choose modules with fewer chips,
>>>more often single-sided.
>>
>>Thanks for the responses. I'm adding it to an EMachine with a 2.4 GHz
>>Celeron; unsure of the MB make/model; has Intel 845GV chipset.
>>If it's helpful, I'll crack open the case tomorrow and try to ID the
>>MB. Thanks again for the help!
>
>Unable to ID MB, but I pulled the current memory and it's single-sided
>Samsung. Also, found it's only a 250v PS! Newegg has a good price on
>Kingston, but it's double-sided. Might the extra load cause a problem,
>or am I confusing the term "load" that you referenced above?

Not having one of those boards nor being aware of any issues
with the 845GV chipset I can't properly advise you. I
suspect any DDR of suitable speed rating will work and
suggest PC3200 since the price difference is only slight,
but it may be more useful in the future to have rather than
lower, PC2100 or PC2700. You didn't mention the capacity
of the modules you're considering either, as that effects
the density of the chips and is more often an issue than the
number of sides. Generally disclosing all info up front is
the most efficient way to get someone who knows, informed
enough to help... but I can't since i have no 845GV
experience. You might see if there's anything on Intel's
website. http://www.intel.com/technology/memory/ or in the
chipset section
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/845gv/pbrief.htm
or ID the motherboard then consult it's manual.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>> each? Thanks.
>>>
>
> One is low density and the other high density. Older motherboards might
> not work with high density so double sided RAM is used.

Weird thing I ran into on this subject while building my computer.
In the booklet that came with my Asus K8V-X motherboard, they list
all the different recommended configurations of RAM chips in the
three slots on the motherboard. There is *no* configuration listed
that allows two Double Sided DDR 400 chips to be used together. None.

I studied this table (on page 11 of the booklet) for about 20
minutes, because I couldn't believe they didn't give a
recommendation for two double-sided DDR 400 RAM chips. Naturally
the RAM I bought was 2 double-sided DDR 400 chips. They show the
placement for two double-sided DDR 333 chips, and for two
single-sided DDR 400 chips, but *not* for two double-sided DDR 400
chips. I just thought this was really, really strange.

So I put the two double-sided DDR 400 chips in slots 1 and 2, and
haven't had any problems at all with them. Thanks for nothing,
Asus booklet writer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Last Boy Scout wrote:

> Jack wrote:
>
>> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>> each? Thanks.
>
> This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.

That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.

The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
still say "double sided," regardless.

Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.

> When it
> comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
> manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
> motherboard.

 

[JS]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote in news:EcYad.147071$Np3.6335975@ursa-
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:

>
> So I put the two double-sided DDR 400 chips in slots 1 and 2, and
> haven't had any problems at all with them. Thanks for nothing,
> Asus booklet writer.

Does your PC see all the memory? I suspect that AMD does not spec the CPU's
for this board to run with two double-sided DDR 400 chips. That may be why
ASUS does not spec two double sided memory sticks. What CPU are you
running? IIRC, AMD spec's the Athlon64's (single channel types) for only
one double sided memory stick. I thought this was because they only
provided three bank selects. The number of bank selects being a hard limit
on memory configurations, it would be interesting to know which CPU and
memory your are using. Could you please reply with your CPU and memory make
and model info. Double sided usually means two banks selects are used, so
two double sided sticks would usually require (but not always) four bank
selects.

TIA

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:51:09 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Last Boy Scout wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>> each? Thanks.
>>
>> This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.
>
>That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
>single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
>one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
>components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
>electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
>likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.
>
>The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
>stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
>'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
>to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
>still say "double sided," regardless.
>
>Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
>computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
>organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.
>
Thanks. I had also come across a less thorough reference to that
practice in my follow-up reading. Nothing like further muddying
things
I found that the chipset (and I assume MB?) supports either. If so,
then the question goes back to which is better for me; again, with a
possible problem of having a small PS. Any more thoughts on that
issue? Thanks again for any and all feedback!
>> When it
>> comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
>> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
>> manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
>> motherboard.

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:48:53 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:51:09 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Last Boy Scout wrote:
>>
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>> each? Thanks.
>>>
>>> This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.
>>
>>That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
>>single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
>>one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
>>components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
>>electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
>>likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.
>>
>>The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
>>stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
>>'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
>>to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
>>still say "double sided," regardless.
>>
>>Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
>>computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
>>organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.
>>
>Thanks. I had also come across a less thorough reference to that
>practice in my follow-up reading. Nothing like further muddying
>things
>I found that the chipset (and I assume MB?) supports either. If so,
>then the question goes back to which is better for me; again, with a
>possible problem of having a small PS. Any more thoughts on that
>issue? Thanks again for any and all feedback!
Oops..forgot to mention capacity. Probably just 256 MB; it's got 256
already. Running XP, and going to be used for kids games and general
purpose. No reason to go to 768, is there, except just to have a 512
for later use, though. Oh yeah, I assume that going with PC3200, as
suggested by one person, would just mean that it would only run at
166MHz, but it would run fine? Thanks again!
>>> When it
>>> comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
>>> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
>>> manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
>>> motherboard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

>>So I put the two double-sided DDR 400 chips in slots 1 and 2, and
>>> haven't had any problems at all with them. Thanks for nothing,
>>> Asus booklet writer.
>
>
> Does your PC see all the memory? I suspect that AMD does not spec the CPU's
> for this board to run with two double-sided DDR 400 chips. That may be why
> ASUS does not spec two double sided memory sticks. What CPU are you
> running? IIRC, AMD spec's the Athlon64's (single channel types) for only
> one double sided memory stick. I thought this was because they only
> provided three bank selects. The number of bank selects being a hard limit
> on memory configurations, it would be interesting to know which CPU and
> memory your are using. Could you please reply with your CPU and memory make
> and model info. Double sided usually means two banks selects are used, so
> two double sided sticks would usually require (but not always) four bank
> selects.
>
> TIA

Both RAM chips are Infineon 512 MB PC3200 400MHz DDR chips. They
have transistors on both sides, so I'm assuming they are
double-sided. When I told the guy in the computer shop where I
bought my parts that I wanted two 512 MB RAM chips, he sort of
hesitated, which at the time I thought was odd. Maybe it has
nothing to do with anything, though.

The CPU is an AMD 64-bit 3200+ S754 2.25 Ghz 512k HyperTransport.
As I said in my previous post, the motherboard is ASUS K8V-X VIA
K8T800 RAID 0 1.

The motherboard booklet does allow for two double-sided RAM
sticks, but only at DDR 333. They can be any configuration -- it
shows them in slots 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 1 and 3. I just found it
really odd that it didn't mention two double-sided DDR 400 sticks,
especially since those were the ones I bought. It shows lots of
combinations of one single-sided DDR 400 with one double-sided DDR
400, however.

The two, in slots 1 and 2, are functioning flawlessly, and are
showing up as 1 gig of RAM in Windows XP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:23:50 GMT, Al Smith
<invalid@address.com> wrote:


>Both RAM chips are Infineon 512 MB PC3200 400MHz DDR chips. They
>have transistors on both sides, so I'm assuming they are
>double-sided. When I told the guy in the computer shop where I
>bought my parts that I wanted two 512 MB RAM chips, he sort of
>hesitated, which at the time I thought was odd. Maybe it has
>nothing to do with anything, though.
>
>The CPU is an AMD 64-bit 3200+ S754 2.25 Ghz 512k HyperTransport.
>As I said in my previous post, the motherboard is ASUS K8V-X VIA
>K8T800 RAID 0 1.
>
>The motherboard booklet does allow for two double-sided RAM
>sticks, but only at DDR 333. They can be any configuration -- it
>shows them in slots 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 1 and 3. I just found it
>really odd that it didn't mention two double-sided DDR 400 sticks,
>especially since those were the ones I bought. It shows lots of
>combinations of one single-sided DDR 400 with one double-sided DDR
>400, however.
>
>The two, in slots 1 and 2, are functioning flawlessly, and are
>showing up as 1 gig of RAM in Windows XP.


The sounds typical, what Asus has done with past boards too.
Essentially they only "support" lower bus speeds OR max
memory config... it's not that their boards are less stable
necessarily, rather they are a bit more conservative
(honest?) about the situation, potential that memory merely
meeting JEDEC spec, might not be stable. Often people don't
buy the bare minimum spec though, rather a bit better memory
either by choice or merely accident, a function of memory
yields making most chips able to perform beyond their
ratings.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Jack wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:51:09 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Last Boy Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>>each? Thanks.
>>>
>>>This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.
>>
>>That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
>>single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
>>one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
>>components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
>>electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
>>likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.
>>
>>The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
>>stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
>>'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
>>to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
>>still say "double sided," regardless.
>>
>>Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
>>computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
>>organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.
>>
>
> Thanks. I had also come across a less thorough reference to that
> practice in my follow-up reading. Nothing like further muddying
> things
> I found that the chipset (and I assume MB?) supports either. If so,
> then the question goes back to which is better for me; again, with a
> possible problem of having a small PS. Any more thoughts on that
> issue? Thanks again for any and all feedback!

If the board supports is then it doesn't matter for normal use.

>
>>> When it
>>>comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
>>> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
>>>manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
>>>motherboard.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Jack wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:48:53 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:51:09 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Last Boy Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>>>each? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.
>>>
>>>That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
>>>single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
>>>one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
>>>components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
>>>electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
>>>likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.
>>>
>>>The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
>>>stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
>>>'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
>>>to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
>>>still say "double sided," regardless.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
>>>computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
>>>organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks. I had also come across a less thorough reference to that
>>practice in my follow-up reading. Nothing like further muddying
>>things
>>I found that the chipset (and I assume MB?) supports either. If so,
>>then the question goes back to which is better for me; again, with a
>>possible problem of having a small PS. Any more thoughts on that
>>issue? Thanks again for any and all feedback!
>
> Oops..forgot to mention capacity. Probably just 256 MB; it's got 256
> already. Running XP, and going to be used for kids games and general
> purpose. No reason to go to 768, is there, except just to have a 512
> for later use, though.

512 Meg is fine for normal use but I'm not up on how voracious the latest
'kids games' are.

> Oh yeah, I assume that going with PC3200, as
> suggested by one person, would just mean that it would only run at
> 166MHz, but it would run fine? Thanks again!

Well, if 166 Mhz is the speed you're running the RAM at then it'll run at
166 Mhz. Which is probably the case if you have a 333 Mhz FSB Athlon.

>
>>>> When it
>>>>comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
>>>> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
>>>>manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
>>>>motherboard.
>
>

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:18:30 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:48:53 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:51:09 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Last Boy Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>>> each? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.
>>>
>>>That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
>>>single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
>>>one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
>>>components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
>>>electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
>>>likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.
>>>
>>>The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
>>>stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
>>>'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
>>>to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
>>>still say "double sided," regardless.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
>>>computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
>>>organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.
>>>
>>Thanks. I had also come across a less thorough reference to that
>>practice in my follow-up reading. Nothing like further muddying
>>things
>>I found that the chipset (and I assume MB?) supports either. If so,
>>then the question goes back to which is better for me; again, with a
>>possible problem of having a small PS. Any more thoughts on that
>>issue? Thanks again for any and all feedback!
>Oops..forgot to mention capacity. Probably just 256 MB; it's got 256
>already. Running XP, and going to be used for kids games and general
>purpose. No reason to go to 768, is there, except just to have a 512
>for later use, though. Oh yeah, I assume that going with PC3200, as
>suggested by one person, would just mean that it would only run at
>166MHz, but it would run fine? Thanks again!
Okay, the last questions! I hope. Other stats that I'd like to know if
it matters (seems they often change when going to PC3200/DDR 400) are
that my current and supported RAM is 2.5v, and 2.5 Cas. Many (all?) of
the DDR400's are 2.6v, and 3.0 Cas. Will they work in mine?
"Officially" the intel site says that 2.5v only will, as well as DDR
333/266/200 MHz only. Is that hard and fast, or merely what they've
tested it with and that they'll guarantee with.

FWIW: they also say, under System Memory Features
(http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/fn/fn_mem.htm):
"Unbuffered single-sided or double-sided DIMMs"
and then down the page say,
"Integrator's Notes:
Registered DIMMs are not supported.
Double-sided x16 DIMMs are not supported."

Since they don't just say double-sided, but also x16, if I understand
it right, they mean actual double-banked chips are not supported. But
the first statement "seems" to say otherwise. Or is the first
statement referring to the physical configuration, and the second
saying that double-banked ones aren't?
Aarghhh... Thanks again.

>>>> When it
>>>> comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
>>>> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
>>>> manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
>>>> motherboard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Jack wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:18:30 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:48:53 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:51:09 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Last Boy Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
>>>>>>each? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is just whether the chips are on both sides or whatever.
>>>>
>>>>That isn't how most sellers are using the term. What they usually mean, for
>>>>single or double 'sided', is that the memory is electrically organized as
>>>>one or two banks, respectively. For example, a 256MB DIMM built with 16Mx16
>>>>components may appear physically as a single-sided DIMM but the logical
>>>>electrical organization of the DIMM is dual bank, and the seller will, most
>>>>likely, call it "double sided" even though everything is on 'one side'.
>>>>
>>>>The misuse goes back to the days when, to get two 'banks' of memory on a
>>>>stick, you'd necessarily need to put a 'bank' on each side, so it appeared
>>>>'double sided' when it was 'dual bank', and it was a heck of a lot easier
>>>>to explain 'chips on both sides' than to explain what a 'bank' is. Now they
>>>>still say "double sided," regardless.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, they kept the description that doesn't matter because your
>>>>computer couldn't care less where the chips are located; it's the bank
>>>>organization that matters because the socket addressing needs to support it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks. I had also come across a less thorough reference to that
>>>practice in my follow-up reading. Nothing like further muddying
>>>things
>>>I found that the chipset (and I assume MB?) supports either. If so,
>>>then the question goes back to which is better for me; again, with a
>>>possible problem of having a small PS. Any more thoughts on that
>>>issue? Thanks again for any and all feedback!
>>
>>Oops..forgot to mention capacity. Probably just 256 MB; it's got 256
>>already. Running XP, and going to be used for kids games and general
>>purpose. No reason to go to 768, is there, except just to have a 512
>>for later use, though. Oh yeah, I assume that going with PC3200, as
>>suggested by one person, would just mean that it would only run at
>>166MHz, but it would run fine? Thanks again!
>
> Okay, the last questions! I hope. Other stats that I'd like to know if
> it matters (seems they often change when going to PC3200/DDR 400) are
> that my current and supported RAM is 2.5v, and 2.5 Cas. Many (all?) of
> the DDR400's are 2.6v, and 3.0 Cas. Will they work in mine?
> "Officially" the intel site says that 2.5v only will,

Use 2.5 volt memory.

> as well as DDR
> 333/266/200 MHz only. Is that hard and fast, or merely what they've
> tested it with and that they'll guarantee with.

It's what they tested and what speeds the board will *run* the memory at.
And why test with faster than what's useful? Meaning, if the memory isn't
clocked to DDR400 then why pay for it, or test it? (test it to what? 333?)

Generally speaking, the 'faster' memory should work fine, at the lower
speed it'll be clocked.

Would you consider the statement "Supports DDR400, as long as you run it
333, 266, or 200" really a case of 'supporting' DDR400? Because that's the
functional case.

>
> FWIW: they also say, under System Memory Features
> (http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/fn/fn_mem.htm):
> "Unbuffered single-sided or double-sided DIMMs"
> and then down the page say,
> "Integrator's Notes:
> Registered DIMMs are not supported.
> Double-sided x16 DIMMs are not supported."
>
> Since they don't just say double-sided, but also x16, if I understand
> it right, they mean actual double-banked chips are not supported. But
> the first statement "seems" to say otherwise. Or is the first
> statement referring to the physical configuration, and the second
> saying that double-banked ones aren't?

They're telling you that 'one' configuration of double banked, using x16
chips, is not supported.

> Aarghhh... Thanks again.
>
>
>>>>> When it
>>>>>comes down to choosing RAM, just go to the manufacturers site and see if
>>>>> what RAM they recommend for your motherboard. Most name-brand
>>>>>manufacturers have websites that tell you what to use with your
>>>>>motherboard.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:36:28 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:


>Okay, the last questions! I hope. Other stats that I'd like to know if
>it matters (seems they often change when going to PC3200/DDR 400) are
>that my current and supported RAM is 2.5v, and 2.5 Cas. Many (all?) of
>the DDR400's are 2.6v, and 3.0 Cas. Will they work in mine?
>"Officially" the intel site says that 2.5v only will, as well as DDR
>333/266/200 MHz only. Is that hard and fast, or merely what they've
>tested it with and that they'll guarantee with.
>
>FWIW: they also say, under System Memory Features
>(http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/fn/fn_mem.htm):
>"Unbuffered single-sided or double-sided DIMMs"
>and then down the page say,
>"Integrator's Notes:
> Registered DIMMs are not supported.
> Double-sided x16 DIMMs are not supported."
>
>Since they don't just say double-sided, but also x16, if I understand
>it right, they mean actual double-banked chips are not supported. But
>the first statement "seems" to say otherwise. Or is the first
>statement referring to the physical configuration, and the second
>saying that double-banked ones aren't?
>Aarghhh... Thanks again.
>

Crucial sells PC3200 for same chipset that is CL3 and 2.6V,
as well as other modules that are CL2.5 and 2.5V, but in
slower than PC3200 speed.

Basically what it boils down to is that a lower CAS rating,
lower voltage, and higher "PC(nnnn)" rating is preferrible.
You could just buy one of the following from crucial,
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BProductline=Intel%2B+Motherboards&mfr=Intel&cat=RAM&model=D845GLVA&submit=Go
or there are also a few lower-cost PC3200, CAS2.5, 2.5V at
Newegg (use search function on left side of page or last
link).
http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=147&DEPA=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-145-025&depa=1

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:13:48 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:
>
>Use 2.5 volt memory.
>
>Generally speaking, the 'faster' memory should work fine, at the lower
>speed it'll be clocked.
>
>Would you consider the statement "Supports DDR400, as long as you run it
>333, 266, or 200" really a case of 'supporting' DDR400? Because that's the
>functional case.
>
>>
>> FWIW: they also say, under System Memory Features
>> (http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/fn/fn_mem.htm):
>> "Unbuffered single-sided or double-sided DIMMs"
>> and then down the page say,
>> "Integrator's Notes:
>> Registered DIMMs are not supported.
>> Double-sided x16 DIMMs are not supported."
>>
>
>They're telling you that 'one' configuration of double banked, using x16
>chips, is not supported.
>

Thanks for all the info. I understood that they wouldn't test at the
faster speed; my question was about the voltage and Cas, which I don't
even understand the meaning of. Thanks for clearing up the voltage
question. I think I understand the "double-sided x16 DIMMs are not
supported" statement (am I right in believing that x16 means
double-banked?) If so, then I guess what you and they are saying is
that double-sided double-banked are not supported, but single-sided
double-banked are. Again, just one more example of the problem with
the double-meaning of "sided".

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:43:26 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:36:28 GMT, Jack <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Okay, the last questions! I hope. Other stats that I'd like to know if
>>it matters (seems they often change when going to PC3200/DDR 400) are
>>that my current and supported RAM is 2.5v, and 2.5 Cas. Many (all?) of
>>the DDR400's are 2.6v, and 3.0 Cas. Will they work in mine?
>>"Officially" the intel site says that 2.5v only will, as well as DDR
>>333/266/200 MHz only. Is that hard and fast, or merely what they've
>>tested it with and that they'll guarantee with.
>>
>>FWIW: they also say, under System Memory Features
>>(http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/fn/fn_mem.htm):
>>"Unbuffered single-sided or double-sided DIMMs"
>>and then down the page say,
>>"Integrator's Notes:
>> Registered DIMMs are not supported.
>> Double-sided x16 DIMMs are not supported."
>>
>>Since they don't just say double-sided, but also x16, if I understand
>>it right, they mean actual double-banked chips are not supported. But
>>the first statement "seems" to say otherwise. Or is the first
>>statement referring to the physical configuration, and the second
>>saying that double-banked ones aren't?
>>Aarghhh... Thanks again.
>>
>
>Crucial sells PC3200 for same chipset that is CL3 and 2.6V,
>as well as other modules that are CL2.5 and 2.5V, but in
>slower than PC3200 speed.
>
>Basically what it boils down to is that a lower CAS rating,
>lower voltage, and higher "PC(nnnn)" rating is preferrible.
>You could just buy one of the following from crucial,
>http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BProductline=Intel%2B+Motherboards&mfr=Intel&cat=RAM&model=D845GLVA&submit=Go
>or there are also a few lower-cost PC3200, CAS2.5, 2.5V at
>Newegg (use search function on left side of page or last
>link).
>http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=147&DEPA=1
>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-145-025&depa=1
>
Thanks for the links, and clarification!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Jack wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:13:48 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Use 2.5 volt memory.
>>
>>Generally speaking, the 'faster' memory should work fine, at the lower
>>speed it'll be clocked.
>>
>>Would you consider the statement "Supports DDR400, as long as you run it
>>333, 266, or 200" really a case of 'supporting' DDR400? Because that's the
>>functional case.
>>
>>
>>>FWIW: they also say, under System Memory Features
>>>(http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/fn/fn_mem.htm):
>>>"Unbuffered single-sided or double-sided DIMMs"
>>>and then down the page say,
>>>"Integrator's Notes:
>>> Registered DIMMs are not supported.
>>> Double-sided x16 DIMMs are not supported."
>>>
>>
>>They're telling you that 'one' configuration of double banked, using x16
>>chips, is not supported.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for all the info. I understood that they wouldn't test at the
> faster speed; my question was about the voltage and Cas, which I don't
> even understand the meaning of. Thanks for clearing up the voltage
> question.

CAS is one of the delays involved with accessing memory and smaller CAS is
faster.

> I think I understand the "double-sided x16 DIMMs are not
> supported" statement (am I right in believing that x16 means
> double-banked?)

No. x16 is the type of memory chip being used.

> If so, then I guess what you and they are saying is
> that double-sided double-banked are not supported, but single-sided
> double-banked are. Again, just one more example of the problem with
> the double-meaning of "sided".

No, they're saying that double banked using x16 memory chips is not
supported regardless of where they're physically placed on the memory
stick. That is the one exception to supporting double banked memory, in
general, that they listed.

Memory chips are organized as x MBytes by y bits. The memory bus is 64 bits
wide. So 64/y is how many chips it takes to fit the width of the bus to
make up a 'bank'. Say you're using 128MB by 8 bit chips. 8 chips, times 8
bits wide, fills the 64 bit wide bus and is a 'bank'. Put those 8 on a
memory stick and you have a single bank of 128 megabytes. Put another 8
chips on the stick and you have two banks of 128 megabytes each for 256 meg
total. Where the chips are located, one side or both sides, is purely a
matter of physical geometry that the computer couldn't care less about.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Jack wrote:
> Could someone clarify the difference? Advantages/disadvantages of
> each? Thanks.
Who Cares?

You use the memory that is compatible with your motherboard. It is
really irrelevant. Memory DIMMS all use an interleave process to make
it faster anyway.