Unfortunately, instead of the 2-3-2-6 timings they are sold at, they come up
(auto) on the board (Epox 9NDA3I) as 2.5-3-3-8 timings. Attempting to set
them at the stated speed results in the board slowing them down to 166MHz
(PC 2700, DDR 333), and setting the memory back up to 200MHz results in
errors in memtest86.
I was rather surprised when the tech support fellow at Kingston told me that
I would have to set the memory timings manually in order to get them to run
at the specified timings.
So, my question is, is it generally required to have to set memory timings
manually in order to get the timings that are specified by the manufacturer?
Also, is it generally required to have to manually increase the voltage of
memory in order to get them to run at the timings specified by the
manufacturer?
"Jon Danniken" <jonREMOVETHISdanniken@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4s5hisFs1sjeU1@mid.individual.net...
> Hello,
>
> I bought a pair of Kingston HyperX RAM sticks, and tried to use them today;
> these ones:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820144114
>
> Unfortunately, instead of the 2-3-2-6 timings they are sold at, they come up
> (auto) on the board (Epox 9NDA3I) as 2.5-3-3-8 timings. Attempting to set
> them at the stated speed results in the board slowing them down to 166MHz
> (PC 2700, DDR 333), and setting the memory back up to 200MHz results in
> errors in memtest86.
>
> I was rather surprised when the tech support fellow at Kingston told me that
> I would have to set the memory timings manually in order to get them to run
> at the specified timings.
>
> So, my question is, is it generally required to have to set memory timings
> manually in order to get the timings that are specified by the manufacturer?
>
> Also, is it generally required to have to manually increase the voltage of
> memory in order to get them to run at the timings specified by the
> manufacturer?
The SPD chip on most memory modules is set to JEDEC
standards, regardless of the module's actual speed and
timing capabilities. Manufacturers do this so they can
maintain compliance with JEDEC standards. A system bios
(in auto mode) simply reads whatever timings are stored on
the SPDs, and it's up to the end-user to override these
default timings.
Also, whether a module needs extra voltage to achieve its
rated speed specs depends on the memory chips used in
the module. Some chips need a voltage boost, others don't.
For this reason manufacturers have begun specifying a
voltage range for a given module (e.g. 3.1-3.3V) instead of
a single number.
use something like CPU-Z or WCPU-ID to find out what the ram's reported
SPD settings are - these SHOULD be what the mobo wants to set them at by
default. The SPD values may not match the given spec, but the ram should
work at the given spec if you manually set it there. Bump voltage 0.1
volt up if a memtest86+ fails. If still no good at stated spec then send
'em back and get another brand.
are there any other sticks in there? the mobo will need to set a speed
that is compat w/ all sticks.
ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS do a memtest to validate new ram BEFORE booting into
any OS on the HD - boot from floppy and make sure it passes! Booting to an
OS has the potential to corrupt the HD (HD data buffers are stored in RAM
prior to writting, so if ram is bad data written to disk can be bad too.)
NEVER install an OS to HD if ram is not 100% perfect!
<frodo@theshire.net> wrote:
> use something like CPU-Z or WCPU-ID to find out what the ram's reported
> SPD settings are - these SHOULD be what the mobo wants to set them at by
> default. The SPD values may not match the given spec, but the ram should
> work at the given spec if you manually set it there. Bump voltage 0.1
> volt up if a memtest86+ fails. If still no good at stated spec then send
> 'em back and get another brand.
>
> are there any other sticks in there? the mobo will need to set a speed
> that is compat w/ all sticks.
>
> ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS do a memtest to validate new ram BEFORE booting into
> any OS on the HD - boot from floppy and make sure it passes! Booting to an
> OS has the potential to corrupt the HD (HD data buffers are stored in RAM
> prior to writting, so if ram is bad data written to disk can be bad too.)
> NEVER install an OS to HD if ram is not 100% perfect!
Hi Frodo,
Yeah, this is a new build, on the kitchen table ATM, haven't even hooked up
a HDD yet. That is the only RAM in it right now; is there a way to get
CPU-Z or WCPU-ID to run from from DOS?
BTW, when it failed Memtest, it actually crashed it; I had to hard boot the
machine with the power button. .
I'll try bumping up the voltage a tenth of a volt. Otherwise I'm thinking
of getting the Crucial Ballistix (2 x 512) instead; any thoughts on those?
"blahblah_nospam@sbcglobal.net"
> The SPD chip on most memory modules is set to JEDEC
> standards, regardless of the module's actual speed and
> timing capabilities. Manufacturers do this so they can
> maintain compliance with JEDEC standards. A system bios
> (in auto mode) simply reads whatever timings are stored on
> the SPDs, and it's up to the end-user to override these
> default timings.
>
> Also, whether a module needs extra voltage to achieve its
> rated speed specs depends on the memory chips used in
> the module. Some chips need a voltage boost, others don't.
> For this reason manufacturers have begun specifying a
> voltage range for a given module (e.g. 3.1-3.3V) instead of
> a single number.
Interesting, thanks for that. Now if only the actual SPD timings would be
listed by the manufacturers.
MemTest86 will display the main timings, at least when run on a mobo
equipped with an nVidia nForce chipset.
I've never bought Kingston HyperX memory, only ValueRAM, but I've found
that it can't be overclocked at all, and often it needs to be run at
slower than the SPD settings, especially the 1T/2T command time
parameter (but many BIOSes seem to set this to 2T, even when the SPD
says 1T). Oddly, I've never had a failure with PNY brand DDR memory.
"larry moe 'n curly" wrote:>
>
> I've never bought Kingston HyperX memory, only ValueRAM, but I've found
> that it can't be overclocked at all, and often it needs to be run at
> slower than the SPD settings, especially the 1T/2T command time
> parameter (but many BIOSes seem to set this to 2T, even when the SPD
> says 1T). Oddly, I've never had a failure with PNY brand DDR memory.
Thanks, Larry. Indeed only changing the command rate to 1T caused a failure
in these sticks. I don't know if I got a bad batch, or if it is indicative
of all Kingston HyperX, but I'm not planning to find out. These are going
back to where they came from, and a different brand showing up in their
place.
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Jon Danniken <jonREMOVETHISdanniken@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jon Danniken" wrote:
> > ...is there a way to get
> > CPU-Z or WCPU-ID to run from from DOS?
No, but memtest86+ does show the SPD values (actually, I think it shows
the values BEING USED, not necc. the SPD reported values.)
You could try booting a cd rom (http://www.ubcd4win.com/), I think it has
cpu-z on it, if not you can add whatever you want to it when creating the
UBCD4Win. This is a useful tool to have, take the time to make it now,
it'll save ya someday!
<frodo@theshire.net> wrote:
> Jon Danniken wrote:
> > > ...is there a way to get
> > > CPU-Z or WCPU-ID to run from from DOS?
>
> No, but memtest86+ does show the SPD values (actually, I think it shows
> the values BEING USED, not necc. the SPD reported values.)
Indeed; it shows the values being used. I read that CPU-Z works in DOS, but
it turns out it only runs in a dos window, not pure DOS.
> You could try booting a cd rom (http://www.ubcd4win.com/), I think it has
> cpu-z on it, if not you can add whatever you want to it when creating the
> UBCD4Win. This is a useful tool to have, take the time to make it now,
> it'll save ya someday!
Aye, thanks. I did d/l Bart's PE the other night, gonna have to put it
together and do some poking around with it.
In the meantime, I ordered a pair of the Crucial Ballistix (512 x 2) sticks,
so I'll see how those do when they arrive.
> I don't know if I got a bad batch, or if it is indicative
> of all Kingston HyperX, but I'm not planning to find out. These are going
> back to where they came from, and a different brand showing up in their
> place.
My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules out of
11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number of errors seemed
to correlate with the markings on the chips
larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> Jon Danniken wrote
>> I don't know if I got a bad batch, or if it is indicative
>> of all Kingston HyperX, but I'm not planning to find out.
>> These are going back to where they came from, and
>> a different brand showing up in their place.
> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
"larry moe 'n curly" wrote:
> Jon Danniken wrote:
>
> > I don't know if I got a bad batch, or if it is indicative
> > of all Kingston HyperX, but I'm not planning to find out. These are
going
> > back to where they came from, and a different brand showing up in their
> > place.
>
> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules out of
> 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number of errors seemed
> to correlate with the markings on the chips
Damn, that's some bad sticks there!
Further experimentation on mine (still the HyperX PC3200) reveals that
either single stick will run just fine at 1T command rate, but putting them
both in (dual channel) gives errors with 2T command rate (errors in Memtest
Test #8, to be precise). .
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:13:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Jon Danniken wrote
>
>>> I don't know if I got a bad batch, or if it is indicative
>>> of all Kingston HyperX, but I'm not planning to find out.
>>> These are going back to where they came from, and
>>> a different brand showing up in their place.
>
>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>
>They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
>
Depends on your definition of appropriate. If the bios uses
the SPD programmed timings and can't run them stable in
situations where other brands of memory can run at their
same, SPD programmed timings, it does indicate a problem.
The problem might be that the Kingston specs aren't as
conservative as other modules. Trying enough boards you
might find one that can run them but they're not sold as
board specific modules so that can't rule out boards
demonstrating stability with other modules.
Rod Speed wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> > My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
> > out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
> > of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>
> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400 mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3
mobo. Thaiphoon reported the same SPD timings for all of these PC3200
modules, but all the modules with the completely unmarked chips all
failed, most of those with Dxxxxxx chips failed, while almost all the
modules with Fxxxxx chips tested fine, and even the failing ones showed
only 3-5 errors.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> Jon Danniken wrote
>>>> I don't know if I got a bad batch, or if it is indicative
>>>> of all Kingston HyperX, but I'm not planning to find out.
>>>> These are going back to where they came from, and
>>>> a different brand showing up in their place.
>>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
> Depends on your definition of appropriate.
Nope.
> If the bios uses the SPD programmed timings and can't run them
> stable in situations where other brands of memory can run at
> their same, SPD programmed timings, it does indicate a problem.
'a problem' isnt the same thing as BAD ram.
> The problem might be that the Kingston specs
> aren't as conservative as other modules. Trying
> enough boards you might find one that can run them
Makes more sense to try different timing detail etc.
> but they're not sold as board specific modules so that can't
> rule out boards demonstrating stability with other modules.
Separate matter entirely to whether the module is BAD.
larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
> One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
> mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> Thaiphoon reported the same SPD timings for all of these PC3200
> modules, but all the modules with the completely unmarked chips all
> failed, most of those with Dxxxxxx chips failed, while almost all the
> modules with Fxxxxx chips tested fine, and even the failing ones
> showed only 3-5 errors.
Very unlikely indeed that all the ones that were
unmarked were deliberately shipped by Kingston BAD.
Much more likely that the data in the spd is incorrect with SOME chipsets etc.
And we are currently seeing with DDR2 ram, some motherboard bios
like one Gigabyte particularly going thru plenty of revisions of the bios
to even allow the system to boot with known good high quality ram, so
its not just a simple matter of reading the spd and using the values in it.
Rod Speed wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>
>> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
>
> > One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
> > mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
>
> The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
That's all I can afford. OTOH why did all the Corsair and PNY modules
work fine with those mobos? The only modules that performed as badly
as the Kingstons were Muskin Enhanced (budget) -- all three showed lots
of errors, even when the command timing was set to 2T. Oddly,
Thaiphoon said that those Mushkins were made by Kingston.
> > Thaiphoon reported the same SPD timings for all of these PC3200
> > modules, but all the modules with the completely unmarked chips all
> > failed, most of those with Dxxxxxx chips failed, while almost all the
> > modules with Fxxxxx chips tested fine, and even the failing ones
> > showed only 3-5 errors.
>
> Very unlikely indeed that all the ones that were
> unmarked were deliberately shipped by Kingston BAD.
Why would they ship such chips, especially considering the costs of
warranty replacements?
> Much more likely that the data in the spd is incorrect with SOME chipsets etc.
larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>>> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
>>> One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
>>> mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
>> The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> That's all I can afford.
Irrelevant to your original claim.
> OTOH why did all the Corsair and PNY modules work fine with those mobos?
It liked those better. Doesnt mean that the others are BAD.
> The only modules that performed as badly as the Kingstons
> were Muskin Enhanced (budget) -- all three showed lots of
> errors, even when the command timing was set to 2T. Oddly,
> Thaiphoon said that those Mushkins were made by Kingston.
Nothing odd about it, they would all have worked fine with appropriate timing etc.
>>> Thaiphoon reported the same SPD timings for all of these PC3200
>>> modules, but all the modules with the completely unmarked chips all
>>> failed, most of those with Dxxxxxx chips failed, while almost all
>>> the modules with Fxxxxx chips tested fine, and even the failing ones
>>> showed only 3-5 errors.
>> Very unlikely indeed that all the ones that were
>> unmarked were deliberately shipped by Kingston BAD.
> Why would they ship such chips, especially
> considering the costs of warranty replacements?
Basically because on the whole they do end up ahead.
Not all motherboards have a problem with them.
>> Much more likely that the data in the spd is incorrect with SOME chipsets etc.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:04:11 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>
>>>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>>>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>>>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>
>>>> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing etc for them.
>
>>>> One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
>>>> mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
>
>>> The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>
>> That's all I can afford.
>
>Irrelevant to your original claim.
>
>> OTOH why did all the Corsair and PNY modules work fine with those mobos?
>
>It liked those better. Doesnt mean that the others are BAD.
>
If the board runs stable with the other memory at certain
timings, but can't run stabiliy with that memory at same
timings, and those timings are what the Kingston was spec'd
to use, it implicates the memory.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:58:37 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
| If the board runs stable with the other memory at certain
| timings, but can't run stabiliy with that memory at same
| timings, and those timings are what the Kingston was spec'd
| to use, it implicates the memory.
Bingo!
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>>>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>>>>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>>>>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>>>>> They aint 'bad', the bios just isnt using the appropriate timing
>>>>> etc for them.
>>>>> One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
>>>>> mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
>>>> The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>>> That's all I can afford.
>> Irrelevant to your original claim.
>>> OTOH why did all the Corsair and PNY modules work fine with those mobos?
>> It liked those better. Doesnt mean that the others are BAD.
> If the board runs stable with the other memory at certain
> timings, but can't run stabiliy with that memory at same
> timings, and those timings are what the Kingston was
> spec'd to use, it implicates the memory.
I just dont believe that Kingston is shipping ram with anything
like that percentage BAD at the top. Bad in the sense that you
get that percentage in every system. That is just plain silly, it
must have a problem with just some chipsets, like I said.
Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> If the board runs stable with the other memory at certain
>> timings, but can't run stabiliy with that memory at same
>> timings, and those timings are what the Kingston was
>> spec'd to use, it implicates the memory.
> Bingo!
Nope, its just not believable that Kingston is actually shipping
some ram that 11 out of 12 bad in all systems its used in.
No one's quality control is THAT bad.
It'll work fine in some other chipsets/bios so aint actually BAD at all.
Rod Speed wrote:
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>> One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
>> mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
> I just dont believe that Kingston is shipping ram with anything
> like that percentage BAD at the top. Bad in the sense that you
> get that percentage in every system.
Not in every system. I counted a module as bad if it failed in at
least one of those systems when it was run at its SPD settings.
> That is just plain silly, it must have a problem with just some chipsets, like I said.
Then why didn't any of my Corsair or PNY modules fail in any of the
systems, even when overclocked, and why did the Kingstons with the
Fxxxxxx chips work much better than other Kingstons with the same SPD
information?
On 21 Nov 2006 17:20:13 -0800, "larry moe 'n curly"
<larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> That is just plain silly, it must have a problem with just some chipsets, like I said.
>
>Then why didn't any of my Corsair or PNY modules fail in any of the
>systems, even when overclocked, and why did the Kingstons with the
>Fxxxxxx chips work much better than other Kingstons with the same SPD
>information?
Remember who you are arguing with. There is no end.
larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> My batting average for Kingston ValueRAM is 8 bad PC3200 modules
>>> out of 11 or 12 and maybe 30% bad PC2100 modules. The number
>>> of errors seemed to correlate with the markings on the chips
>>> One BIOS was in an Asrock/Asus KT400
>>> mobo, the other in an ECS nForce3 mobo.
>> I just dont believe that Kingston is shipping ram with
>> anything like that percentage BAD at the top. Bad in the
>> sense that you get that percentage in every system.
> Not in every system. I counted a module as bad if it failed in at
> least one of those systems when it was run at its SPD settings.
Thats nothing like bad ram, just that system not using the spd values properly.
>> That is just plain silly, it must have a problem
>> with just some chipsets, like I said.
> Then why didn't any of my Corsair or PNY modules fail in any of the systems,
Different timing detail that the bios can handle better.
> even when overclocked, and why did the Kingstons with the Fxxxxxx chips
> work much better than other Kingstons with the same SPD information?
Again, different timing detail that the bios can handle better.
It would only be bad ram if you got that 8 out of 11 or 12 result
in all systems that specify that that particular ram is what it can
handle and I dont believe Kingston ships ram like that.
It isnt bad ram unless its not possible to find any timing specs which give
an error free result with say memtest86 and the Prime95 ramfucker test.
> It would only be bad ram if you got that 8 out of 11 or 12 result
> in all systems that specify that particular ram is what it can
> handle and I dont believe Kingston ships ram like that.
I thought the standard of quality should be that the memory works
perfectly in all computers for which it's specifed, not just in one of
them.
> It isnt bad ram unless its not possible to find any timing specs which give
> an error free result with say memtest86 and the Prime95 ramfucker test.
I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at their rated 266
MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow the other timings were, but they
worked fine at 200 MHz. So by your reasoning, those modules weren't
bad?
larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>>> Then why didn't any of my Corsair or PNY modules fail in any of the systems,
>> Different timing detail that the bios can handle better.
>>> even when overclocked, and why did the Kingstons with the Fxxxxxx chips
>>> work much better than other Kingstons with the same SPD information?
>> Again, different timing detail that the bios can handle better.
>> It would only be bad ram if you got that 8 out of 11 or 12
>> result in all systems that specify that particular ram is what
>> it can handle and I dont believe Kingston ships ram like that.
> I thought the standard of quality should be that the memory
> works perfectly in all computers for which it's specifed,
Not all bios can setup the chipset properly with some ram.
We're currently seeing a considerable problem with DDR2 ram
in some gigabyte motherboards, with later bios doing better.
We have also seen some DDR ram thats
know to not work well with all chipsets etc.
> not just in one of them.
You havent established that it only works fine in one, just
one of the ones you have. I just dont believe that Kingston
is shipping ram that fails at that 8 out of 11 or 12 rate in
the vast bulk of systems that can take that type of ram.
>> It isnt bad ram unless its not possible to find any timing specs which give
>> an error free result with say memtest86 and the Prime95 ramfucker test.
> I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at their rated 266
> MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow the other timings were, but they
> worked fine at 200 MHz. So by your reasoning, those modules weren't bad?
Only if you get that result in all systems that can take PC2100 modules
and I just dont believe that Kingston would be shipping ram like that.
Rod Speed wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> It would only be bad ram if you got that 8 out of 11 or 12
> result in all systems that specify that particular ram is what
> it can handle and I dont believe Kingston ships ram like that.
>
> > I thought the standard of quality should be that the memory
> > works perfectly in all computers for which it's specifed,
>
> Not all bios can setup the chipset properly with some ram.
That doesn't explain why some brands of modules were much less
troublesome than others or why I've never had an error during testing
with any module containing chips that had the chip manufacturer's full
markings on them.
> It isnt bad ram unless its not possible to find any timing specs which give
> an error free result with say memtest86 and the Prime95 ramfucker test.
>
> > I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at their rated 266
> > MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow the other timings were, but they
> > worked fine at 200 MHz. So by your reasoning, those modules weren't bad?
>
> Only if you get that result in all systems that can take PC2100 modules
> and I just dont believe that Kingston would be shipping ram like that.
I still don't buy your line that if a module works correctly in even
one computer, then it's fine, especially because some module makers
claim that they use more than one type of mobo to test their memory.
Why would they do that if one was enough? Also Kingston ValueRAM has
always been the least overclockable I've ever tested, not that I
consider a module bad if it won't overclock.
larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> larry moe 'n curly <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote
>> It would only be bad ram if you got that 8 out of 11 or 12
>> result in all systems that specify that particular ram is what
>> it can handle and I dont believe Kingston ships ram like that.
>>> I thought the standard of quality should be that the memory
>>> works perfectly in all computers for which it's specifed,
>> Not all bios can setup the chipset properly with some ram.
> That doesn't explain why some brands of modules
> were much less troublesome than others
Corse it does, they have different detail in the spd that the bios can handle.
> or why I've never had an error during testing
> with any module containing chips that had the
> chip manufacturer's full markings on them.
Plenty of others have, and currently with DDR2 ram like that which wont
even allow the system to boot at all, let alone just produce some errors.
>> It isnt bad ram unless its not possible to find any timing specs which give
>> an error free result with say memtest86 and the Prime95 ramfucker test.
>>> I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at
>>> their rated 266 MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow
>>> the other timings were, but they worked fine at 200 MHz.
>>> So by your reasoning, those modules weren't bad?
>> Only if you get that result in all systems that can take PC2100 modules
>> and I just dont believe that Kingston would be shipping ram like that.
> I still don't buy your line that if a module works
> correctly in even one computer, then it's fine,
Its clearly not BAD RAM. THAT was your original silly claim.
> especially because some module makers claim that they
> use more than one type of mobo to test their memory.
You dont know that that ram you saw such an obscene failure
rate with doesnt work fine in a number of types of motherboard.
I just dont believe that Kingston would be shipping ram that gets
the result you got in all except one particular motherboard.
> Why would they do that if one was enough?
I never ever said that one was enough. I JUST said that you dont
have any evidence to support your silly claim that its BAD RAM.
> Also Kingston ValueRAM has always been
> the least overclockable I've ever tested,
Irrelevant to whether its BAD RAM.
ALL that indicates is that it isnt as conservatively rated.
> not that I consider a module bad if it won't overclock.
Its irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether those modules
you saw that obscene failure rate with are actually BAD RAM.
Should RAM timings have to be set manually? 
Linear Mode
