Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:07:21 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: Given that commercial stuff is NOt enigeneered tpo 'worst case' but generally engineered to 99.99% chance' level, it's surprsng that stuff works as well as it does. You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro..._access_memory it is in fact pretty complicated. Quite a long way from 'here's an address, give me some data' And if you read it its pretty clear that there is plenty of room for 'one manufacturers implementation of the spec != another manufacturers implementation', with possible results being less than ideal. So I'd be inclined to lay that at the door of 'instant incompatibility' rather than speed. AFAIK RAM is designed to work UP TO the rated speed, so should be able to handle the lower spec being used. -- Landing: A controlled mid-air collision with a planet. |
#162
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:13:16 -0000, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/01/2014 20:33, D.M.Chapman wrote: In article , Uncle Peter wrote: I've found brand new cheap memory to be faulty 10% of the time. And decent memory to be faulty 3% of the time. Blimey... Do you install it on a nice nylon carpet with no static protection or something?? Out of hundreds (possibly even thousands - some machines take many DIMMs) I've had one failure that I remember, and that was far from cheap RAM. Sun microsystems stick of ram in a T5220 that buggered around from new (I think it was rebadged micron IIRC). I've fitted all sorts of cheap nasty RAM in machines over the years. Never had f single one turn out to be faulty (yet...) In terms of failures once installed - someone said they had never had RAM fail once installed? After hard drives (very frequent) and PSUs (fairly often) I'd say RAM is probably up there with CPU fan failures. Many of our machines run mirrored RAM so it doesn't take out the system but it's still far from unheard of. Yup had RAM failures after use. but as you say DOA type failures are very rare if the devices have been properly treated prior and during install. I would concur with HDs being the most common failure, Either PSUs next (but they are closely tied with motherboards), and RAM quite a way after. I have also had one CPU failure in use. Since half the RAM I buy is not shipped in antistatic bags.... -- How do you scare a man? Sneak up behind him and start throwing rice. |
#163
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: Given that commercial stuff is NOt enigeneered tpo 'worst case' but generally engineered to 99.99% chance' level, it's surprsng that stuff works as well as it does. You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro..._access_memory it is in fact pretty complicated. Quite a long way from 'here's an address, give me some data' And if you read it its pretty clear that there is plenty of room for 'one manufacturers implementation of the spec != another manufacturers implementation', with possible results being less than ideal. So I'd be inclined to lay that at the door of 'instant incompatibility' rather than speed. My latest update is that with 2 x 1GB of Kingston PC-6400, I left my PC running MemTest (not Memtest86+). I came back an hour later to find the PC running (well the fans were), but the screen was blank (not even the BSOD). It responded neither to keyboard or mouse. A re-power reboot came up with "NTLDR is missing". I Googled this, and was led to a YouTube video, where obtaining the missing file from the XP installation disk was demonstrated. However, once I had booted from the CD, it was obvious that my problem was that my drives had been swapped around - in fact, one was missing. The DVD drive I was booting from (there are two) was appeared to be E, whereas it should have been G (and the other H). The BIOS showed a my C-drive was Drive 0 Slave, and my second hard disk (partitioned as D,E and F) wasn't listed, and I think the PC was trying boot from it. By doing a bit of unplugging and plugging in, I got the BIOS to recognise my second hard drive. [I'll need to sort the boot order manually.] In the meantime, I've only got the proper C-drive connected. I've also returned the PC memory to what it was when I got it, ie 2 x 512MB PC-4200. I've been running MemTest for two hours (17 passes completed so far) - and there are 0 errors. So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions. -- Ian |
#164
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:24:26 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher writes On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro..._access_memory it is in fact pretty complicated. Quite a long way from 'here's an address, give me some data' And if you read it its pretty clear that there is plenty of room for 'one manufacturers implementation of the spec != another manufacturers implementation', with possible results being less than ideal. So I'd be inclined to lay that at the door of 'instant incompatibility' rather than speed. My latest update is that with 2 x 1GB of Kingston PC-6400, I left my PC running MemTest (not Memtest86+). I came back an hour later to find the PC running (well the fans were), but the screen was blank (not even the BSOD). It responded neither to keyboard or mouse. A re-power reboot came up with "NTLDR is missing". I Googled this, and was led to a YouTube video, where obtaining the missing file from the XP installation disk was demonstrated. However, once I had booted from the CD, it was obvious that my problem was that my drives had been swapped around - in fact, one was missing. The DVD drive I was booting from (there are two) was appeared to be E, whereas it should have been G (and the other H). The BIOS showed a my C-drive was Drive 0 Slave, and my second hard disk (partitioned as D,E and F) wasn't listed, and I think the PC was trying boot from it. By doing a bit of unplugging and plugging in, I got the BIOS to recognise my second hard drive. [I'll need to sort the boot order manually.] In the meantime, I've only got the proper C-drive connected. I've also returned the PC memory to what it was when I got it, ie 2 x 512MB PC-4200. I've been running MemTest for two hours (17 passes completed so far) - and there are 0 errors. So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions. I've never known faulty memory to prevent a disk being detected, but I suppose it's possible. It's not a Crucial SSD is it? If you have firmware before 040H, they can disappear intermittently. You can update the firmware from their website. -- If space is a vacuum, who changes the bags? |
#165
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 12:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: Given that commercial stuff is NOt enigeneered tpo 'worst case' but generally engineered to 99.99% chance' level, it's surprsng that stuff works as well as it does. You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... I am not confusing anything. I stated a fact. I have fallen foul of a similar problem once when using PLS devices. They changed the manufacturing process and the system failed as the setup and hold times no longer worked at the clock speed I was running the PLS at. It needed a few straps and a change to the programming to fix. |
#166
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:28:47 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/01/2014 12:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... I am not confusing anything. I stated a fact. I have fallen foul of a similar problem once when using PLS devices. They changed the manufacturing process and the system failed as the setup and hold times no longer worked at the clock speed I was running the PLS at. It needed a few straps and a change to the programming to fix. I can find no evidence online to suggest that 1600MHz memory will fail at 1066MHz for example, but plenty of people saying "of course you can use faster memory at slower speed". Prove otherwise..... -- Gary's weather forecasting stone: Stone is wet Rain Stone is dry Not raining Shadow on ground Sunny White on top Snowing Can't see stone Foggy Swinging stone Windy Stone jumping up and down Earthquake Stone gone Tornado |
#167
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:24:26 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , The Natural Philosopher writes On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro..._access_memory it is in fact pretty complicated. Quite a long way from 'here's an address, give me some data' And if you read it its pretty clear that there is plenty of room for 'one manufacturers implementation of the spec != another manufacturers implementation', with possible results being less than ideal. So I'd be inclined to lay that at the door of 'instant incompatibility' rather than speed. My latest update is that with 2 x 1GB of Kingston PC-6400, I left my PC running MemTest (not Memtest86+). I came back an hour later to find the PC running (well the fans were), but the screen was blank (not even the BSOD). It responded neither to keyboard or mouse. A re-power reboot came up with "NTLDR is missing". I Googled this, and was led to a YouTube video, where obtaining the missing file from the XP installation disk was demonstrated. However, once I had booted from the CD, it was obvious that my problem was that my drives had been swapped around - in fact, one was missing. The DVD drive I was booting from (there are two) was appeared to be E, whereas it should have been G (and the other H). The BIOS showed a my C-drive was Drive 0 Slave, and my second hard disk (partitioned as D,E and F) wasn't listed, and I think the PC was trying boot from it. By doing a bit of unplugging and plugging in, I got the BIOS to recognise my second hard drive. [I'll need to sort the boot order manually.] In the meantime, I've only got the proper C-drive connected. I've also returned the PC memory to what it was when I got it, ie 2 x 512MB PC-4200. I've been running MemTest for two hours (17 passes completed so far) - and there are 0 errors. So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions. I've never known faulty memory to prevent a disk being detected, but I suppose it's possible. It's not a Crucial SSD is it? If you have firmware before 040H, they can disappear intermittently. You can update the firmware from their website. The pair I started having the trouble with (and had the above problems with) are Kingston. The other pair which also didn't seem to play ball are Samsung. -- Ian |
#168
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
In message om,
"dennis@home" writes On 14/01/2014 12:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: Given that commercial stuff is NOt enigeneered tpo 'worst case' but generally engineered to 99.99% chance' level, it's surprsng that stuff works as well as it does. You could always buy RAM rated much faster than you're going to run it. Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... I am not confusing anything. I stated a fact. I have fallen foul of a similar problem once when using PLS devices. They changed the manufacturing process and the system failed as the setup and hold times no longer worked at the clock speed I was running the PLS at. It needed a few straps and a change to the programming to fix. Might my PC-6400 be happier if I upped the clock speed (or would that introduce other problems)? -- Ian |
#169
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 20:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
I can find no evidence online to suggest that 1600MHz memory will fail at 1066MHz for example, but plenty of people saying "of course you can use faster memory at slower speed". Prove otherwise..... I didn't say the memory will fail, I said it may not meet the system timing. I don't need to prove otherwise its just a fact. |
#170
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:38:56 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Uncle Peter writes On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:24:26 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , The Natural Philosopher writes On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro..._access_memory it is in fact pretty complicated. Quite a long way from 'here's an address, give me some data' And if you read it its pretty clear that there is plenty of room for 'one manufacturers implementation of the spec != another manufacturers implementation', with possible results being less than ideal. So I'd be inclined to lay that at the door of 'instant incompatibility' rather than speed. My latest update is that with 2 x 1GB of Kingston PC-6400, I left my PC running MemTest (not Memtest86+). I came back an hour later to find the PC running (well the fans were), but the screen was blank (not even the BSOD). It responded neither to keyboard or mouse. A re-power reboot came up with "NTLDR is missing". I Googled this, and was led to a YouTube video, where obtaining the missing file from the XP installation disk was demonstrated. However, once I had booted from the CD, it was obvious that my problem was that my drives had been swapped around - in fact, one was missing. The DVD drive I was booting from (there are two) was appeared to be E, whereas it should have been G (and the other H). The BIOS showed a my C-drive was Drive 0 Slave, and my second hard disk (partitioned as D,E and F) wasn't listed, and I think the PC was trying boot from it. By doing a bit of unplugging and plugging in, I got the BIOS to recognise my second hard drive. [I'll need to sort the boot order manually.] In the meantime, I've only got the proper C-drive connected. I've also returned the PC memory to what it was when I got it, ie 2 x 512MB PC-4200. I've been running MemTest for two hours (17 passes completed so far) - and there are 0 errors. So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions. I've never known faulty memory to prevent a disk being detected, but I suppose it's possible. It's not a Crucial SSD is it? If you have firmware before 040H, they can disappear intermittently. You can update the firmware from their website. The pair I started having the trouble with (and had the above problems with) are Kingston. The other pair which also didn't seem to play ball are Samsung. When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory. -- The wife had a birthday and her husband wanted to know what she desired. She said she'd like to have a Jaguar. He didn't think it was best for her. But, she begged and begged until he gave in and got her one. It ate her. |
#171
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:41:34 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 14/01/2014 12:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 14/01/14 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: In message om, "dennis@home" writes On 13/01/2014 23:02, Uncle Peter wrote: Not always.. sometimes the designer will use the minimum hold time for the ram to allow them to change the address to start the next cycle early. If the ram is too fast the output will change too soon and put the CPU into a metastable state. Then anything could happen. This disagrees with what Mike Tomlinson has just said when I asked the specific question as to whether 'faster than motherboard spec' memory could screw up your computer. A couple of weeks ago I replaced a pair of 512MB PC2-4200 (533MHz) with a pair 1GB PC2-6400 (800MHz). After a week of faultless operation, the PC suddenly started to play up. Another 1GB PC2-6400 pair (different make) also gave problems. [As Mike advises, I'll be carrying out more memory tests.] I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. I will concede the possibility that fast DRAM relies on - say - being refreshed more often than slower, and might leak charge away at a slower clock rate. I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. So, whilst I will concede a possibility, I am pretty sure (and most people writing on the subject agree) that the actuality is that faster RAM wont do any harm *on account of being faster*. I suspect what dennis is hinting at is an incomplete understanding of how SDRAM works... I am not confusing anything. I stated a fact. I have fallen foul of a similar problem once when using PLS devices. They changed the manufacturing process and the system failed as the setup and hold times no longer worked at the clock speed I was running the PLS at. It needed a few straps and a change to the programming to fix. Might my PC-6400 be happier if I upped the clock speed (or would that introduce other problems)? I've found LOWERING a memory's clock speed makes it more likely to pass the test. -- I was doing some remolishments to my house the other day and accidentally defurbished it. |
#172
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:41:54 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/01/2014 20:37, Uncle Peter wrote: I can find no evidence online to suggest that 1600MHz memory will fail at 1066MHz for example, but plenty of people saying "of course you can use faster memory at slower speed". Prove otherwise..... I didn't say the memory will fail, I said it may not meet the system timing. Which would cause it to fail memtest, and cause crashes. I don't need to prove otherwise its just a fact. You need to show a datasheet from a memory manufacturer and explain why a timing could end up being out of spec by running it slower. -- I was doing some remolishments to my house the other day and accidentally defurbished it. |
#173
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
In message , Uncle Peter writes
When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory. Well, I've had a very trying day. But no. C is a SATA HD, and D-E-F is an IDE HD. G is a CD RW / DVD ROM, and H is a DVD RW. The BIOS shows them all, but I'm having fun trying to set the boot order. -- Ian |
#174
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:59:15 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Uncle Peter writes When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory. Well, I've had a very trying day. But no. C is a SATA HD, and D-E-F is an IDE HD. G is a CD RW / DVD ROM, and H is a DVD RW. The BIOS shows them all, but I'm having fun trying to set the boot order. The BIOS doesn't use letters. They may get rearranged in the boot order if one of them is intermittently being detected. I guess ****ed memory might cause that, but in my experience it's usually the drive's fault. There may be an option in the BIOS to give it longer to spin up if it's an old thing. -- Local police hunting the 'knitting needle nutter', who has stabbed six people in the last 48 hours, believe the attacker could be following some kind of pattern. |
#175
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:17:23 -0000, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:59:15 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Uncle Peter writes When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory. Well, I've had a very trying day. But no. C is a SATA HD, and D-E-F is an IDE HD. G is a CD RW / DVD ROM, and H is a DVD RW. The BIOS shows them all, but I'm having fun trying to set the boot order. The BIOS doesn't use letters. They may get rearranged in the boot order if one of them is intermittently being detected. I guess ****ed memory might cause that, but in my experience it's usually the drive's fault. There may be an option in the BIOS to give it longer to spin up if it's an old thing. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...intermittently -- We've come so far that community service is considered punishment. |
#176
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 12:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I will also concede that it may be possible to rely on a propagation delay to achieve the desired result and getting rid of it could cause problems, though I am not so clear that anyone actually does this. I'll add that while you _could_ rely on it being slow to make your system work you can't _rely_ on it and no good designer would. There's a gap between "spec says 0-10nS" and "every device we've tested is 8nS" which you shouldn't cross. Andy |
#177
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 19:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
Since half the RAM I buy is not shipped in antistatic bags.... Get a new supplier. If someone shipped me RAM that wasn't protected I'd send it straight back. Andy. |
#178
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:56:49 -0000, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 14/01/2014 19:12, Uncle Peter wrote: Since half the RAM I buy is not shipped in antistatic bags.... Get a new supplier. If someone shipped me RAM that wasn't protected I'd send it straight back. Andy. Lots of things don't come as protected as they used to be. Either circuits are less sensitive nowadays, or the number of returns from static does not outweigh the cost of antistatic packaging. Are you one of those folk that still uses a wrist strap? -- 7 wheelchair athletes have been banned from the Paralympics after they tested positive for WD40. |
#179
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:17:23 -0000, Uncle Peter wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:59:15 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Uncle Peter writes When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory. Well, I've had a very trying day. But no. C is a SATA HD, and D-E-F is an IDE HD. G is a CD RW / DVD ROM, and H is a DVD RW. The BIOS shows them all, but I'm having fun trying to set the boot order. The BIOS doesn't use letters. They may get rearranged in the boot order if one of them is intermittently being detected. I guess ****ed memory might cause that, but in my experience it's usually the drive's fault. There may be an option in the BIOS to give it longer to spin up if it's an old thing. It seems that I have actually managed to hit on the correct boot order - although I'm still confused about the BIOS settings. The problem is that I have two SATAs and two IDEs. They are : C - Western Union SATA DEF - Hitachi IDE G - Sony CD RW / DVD ROM IDE H - Toshiba CD/DVD RW SATA I want the boot sequence to be G, then H, then if there is nothing bootable in either, C. I had it doing this before I had the memory problem, but that seemed to be responsible for screwing it up. Fortunately, I think I now have it back to square one. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...sed-bios-inter mittently Thanks. I'll have a look at that tomorrow. -- Ian |
#180
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:26:37 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Uncle Peter writes On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:17:23 -0000, Uncle Peter wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:59:15 -0000, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Uncle Peter writes When I said "Crucial SSD", I was referring to your failed DISK, not your memory. Well, I've had a very trying day. But no. C is a SATA HD, and D-E-F is an IDE HD. G is a CD RW / DVD ROM, and H is a DVD RW. The BIOS shows them all, but I'm having fun trying to set the boot order. The BIOS doesn't use letters. They may get rearranged in the boot order if one of them is intermittently being detected. I guess ****ed memory might cause that, but in my experience it's usually the drive's fault. There may be an option in the BIOS to give it longer to spin up if it's an old thing. It seems that I have actually managed to hit on the correct boot order - although I'm still confused about the BIOS settings. The problem is that I have two SATAs and two IDEs. They are : C - Western Union SATA DEF - Hitachi IDE G - Sony CD RW / DVD ROM IDE H - Toshiba CD/DVD RW SATA I want the boot sequence to be G, then H, then if there is nothing bootable in either, C. I had it doing this before I had the memory problem, but that seemed to be responsible for screwing it up. Fortunately, I think I now have it back to square one. Each BIOS is different as to how you select the boot order, but it should stay put until one of the drives is not there. If your C is failing, then when it doesn't spin up one day, perhaps the BIOS defaults to another hard drive, then sticks on that new setting even though C works on the next boot? -- "First things first, but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who |
#181
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 22:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 14/01/2014 19:12, Uncle Peter wrote: Since half the RAM I buy is not shipped in antistatic bags.... Get a new supplier. If someone shipped me RAM that wasn't protected I'd send it straight back. Andy. Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. -- Rod |
#182
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
En el artículo , polygonum
escribió: Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. It should have the 'anti-static' symbol on it - a hand within a triangle, crossed out. http://www.vermason.co.uk/Images/ESD...d_symbol_l.jpg -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
#183
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 20:48, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:41:54 -0000, dennis@home wrote: On 14/01/2014 20:37, Uncle Peter wrote: I can find no evidence online to suggest that 1600MHz memory will fail at 1066MHz for example, but plenty of people saying "of course you can use faster memory at slower speed". Prove otherwise..... I didn't say the memory will fail, I said it may not meet the system timing. Which would cause it to fail memtest, and cause crashes. I don't need to prove otherwise its just a fact. You need to show a datasheet from a memory manufacturer and explain why a timing could end up being out of spec by running it slower. I don't need to do any such thing. If you want to look into it then you can. Pay attention to the difference between registered memory and unregistered memory. |
#184
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 15/01/2014 07:50, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , polygonum escribió: Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. It should have the 'anti-static' symbol on it - a hand within a triangle, crossed out. http://www.vermason.co.uk/Images/ESD...d_symbol_l.jpg I cannot be sure that it doesn't, but the packaging looks very like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liewcf/4459164829/ .... and I haven't noticed such a symbol. (That is simply the first reasonable photo of the sort of packaging I meant. It is not mine!) -- Rod |
#185
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 15/01/2014 17:53, polygonum wrote:
On 15/01/2014 07:50, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , polygonum escribió: Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. It should have the 'anti-static' symbol on it - a hand within a triangle, crossed out. http://www.vermason.co.uk/Images/ESD...d_symbol_l.jpg I cannot be sure that it doesn't, but the packaging looks very like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liewcf/4459164829/ ... and I haven't noticed such a symbol. and if you read what is embossed onto the opening edge of their packaging is says "Anti-Static Packaging * ESD Safe" -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#186
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:53:28 +0000, polygonum wrote:
On 15/01/2014 07:50, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artÃ*culo , polygonum escribió: Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. It should have the 'anti-static' symbol on it - a hand within a triangle, crossed out. http://www.vermason.co.uk/Images/ESD...d_symbol_l.jpg I cannot be sure that it doesn't, but the packaging looks very like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liewcf/4459164829/ ... and I haven't noticed such a symbol. (That is simply the first reasonable photo of the sort of packaging I meant. It is not mine!) It just so happens that I bought some Crucial memory recently, and still have the packageing. I just went and look at it. It's the clera plastic as shown in the photo, and the inner tray has embossed: "ANTI STATIC PACKAGING ESD SAFE" No symbol, though (apart from the PET 1 one). -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post *lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor |
#187
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:23:19 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/01/2014 20:48, Uncle Peter wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:41:54 -0000, dennis@home wrote: On 14/01/2014 20:37, Uncle Peter wrote: I can find no evidence online to suggest that 1600MHz memory will fail at 1066MHz for example, but plenty of people saying "of course you can use faster memory at slower speed". Prove otherwise..... I didn't say the memory will fail, I said it may not meet the system timing. Which would cause it to fail memtest, and cause crashes. I don't need to prove otherwise its just a fact. You need to show a datasheet from a memory manufacturer and explain why a timing could end up being out of spec by running it slower. I don't need to do any such thing. If you want to look into it then you can. If you want me to get your point, you can explain it better, otherwise I will continue to believe what I've read on websites about faster memory working just fine. Pay attention to the difference between registered memory and unregistered memory. Ah, so you mean only registered memory must be the right speed? Why didn't you say so? Do elaborate.... -- Caution: Always engage brain before operating mouth. |
#188
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:47:03 -0000, Huge wrote:
On 2014-01-13, Vir Campestris wrote: On 13/01/2014 19:26, Uncle Peter wrote: That is the nature of stats. Peter, there are a few people here who are computer professionals and have built or worked on hundreds of machines. We've seen blue screens from bad memory - but not often. We've seen dead new memory - but not often. You seem to have a history of extremely frequent failures just after installation - which is not what the professionals get. You are Doing Something Wrong. Either bad choice of components, or mistreating them in some way we don't. Or he's a lying troll. Why would anyone make up something like that? And it's not large numbers. -- TEACHER: Clyde, your composition on "My Dog" is exactly the same as your brother's. Did you copy his? CLYDE : No, sir. It's the same dog. |
#189
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:13:23 -0000, polygonum wrote:
On 14/01/2014 22:56, Vir Campestris wrote: On 14/01/2014 19:12, Uncle Peter wrote: Since half the RAM I buy is not shipped in antistatic bags.... Get a new supplier. If someone shipped me RAM that wasn't protected I'd send it straight back. Andy. Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. Apparently that stuff is antistatic. Mind you, I bought some pink bubblewrap which claimed to be antistatic to package a computer (the whole computer). Just like the white bubblewrap, when I remove it, or when I wrap it round it, I build up static and the first time I touch the case I feel a sizeable static shock. If I was to have touched a socket on the back instead of the case, I would imagine something could fry (although I suppose it's most likely that the charge would hit the grounded part of the socket first). If you buy an Apple tower computer (this was a while ago, they may have stopped doing this), they are shipped with protective plastic film over the sides to stop scratches during transit. Pull that off, then touch the computer and you get a static shock. -- The dot over the letter i is called a tittle. |
#190
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 15/01/2014 18:12, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:53:28 +0000, polygonum wrote: On 15/01/2014 07:50, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artÃ*culo , polygonum escribió: Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. It should have the 'anti-static' symbol on it - a hand within a triangle, crossed out. http://www.vermason.co.uk/Images/ESD...d_symbol_l.jpg I cannot be sure that it doesn't, but the packaging looks very like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liewcf/4459164829/ ... and I haven't noticed such a symbol. (That is simply the first reasonable photo of the sort of packaging I meant. It is not mine!) It just so happens that I bought some Crucial memory recently, and still have the packageing. I just went and look at it. It's the clera plastic as shown in the photo, and the inner tray has embossed: "ANTI STATIC PACKAGING ESD SAFE" No symbol, though (apart from the PET 1 one). Thanks - obviously had not looked closely enough! -- Rod |
#191
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:42:01 +0000, polygonum wrote:
On 15/01/2014 18:12, Bob Eager wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:53:28 +0000, polygonum wrote: On 15/01/2014 07:50, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artÃ*culo , polygonum escribió: Recent (i.e. in last year) RAM from Crucial has not been in obviously anti-static packaging. Just directly within a clear plastic container. Of course, that might be "special" in some way - but it hasn't been obvious to me that it is. It should have the 'anti-static' symbol on it - a hand within a triangle, crossed out. http://www.vermason.co.uk/Images/ESD...d_symbol_l.jpg I cannot be sure that it doesn't, but the packaging looks very like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liewcf/4459164829/ ... and I haven't noticed such a symbol. (That is simply the first reasonable photo of the sort of packaging I meant. It is not mine!) It just so happens that I bought some Crucial memory recently, and still have the packageing. I just went and look at it. It's the clera plastic as shown in the photo, and the inner tray has embossed: "ANTI STATIC PACKAGING ESD SAFE" No symbol, though (apart from the PET 1 one). Thanks - obviously had not looked closely enough! Neither had I until you mentioned it! -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post *lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor |
#192
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. The general answer is that with synchronous memory devices, faster *should* be ok. However in the real world you have designs that were never verified with the faster memory (probably did not exist at the time of design), and on rare occasions you might get problems. Many motherboard makers publish tables of certified ram/motherboard combinations. Its often worth using them. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#193
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 14/01/2014 19:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions. I think someone has already mentioned Prime95 - but its torture test will often reveal problems hiding in otherwise apparently working hardware. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#194
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
In message , John
Rumm writes On 14/01/2014 19:24, Ian Jackson wrote: So the only two conclusions I can come to are "Yes, 'too fast' memory MIGHT screw up your computer" - or maybe it's simply that I've got a duff pair of PC-6400 (although they did work OK for a week). As I had problems with my second pair of PC-6400, maybe they are also duff. If MemTest doesn't show any problems, I'll next try Mike Tomlinson's test suggestions. I think someone has already mentioned Prime95 - but its torture test will often reveal problems hiding in otherwise apparently working hardware. Indeed they did (if it passes Memtest86). The present situation is that after appearing to run fine, on boot-up the BIOS stopped detecting one or more drives. Googling for advice on this syndrome, the many answers are reveal that it could be almost anything (including there not being an R in the month). Just in case, I took out the BIOS battery to check it, and it was over 3V (but I'll pop a new one in, just in case). I obviously had it out too long, as afterwards, the save BIOS settings had reverted (presumably) the defaults. All drives now seem to be being detected (so far). Just for luck, I did a 'Load optimised settings" (or whatever it's called), and it's still OK. Other obvious problems could be intermittent dodgy PSU connections - or even a flaky PSU (which I'll be checking). -- Ian |
#195
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 16/01/2014 11:55, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/01/2014 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. The general answer is that with synchronous memory devices, faster *should* be ok. However in the real world you have designs that were never verified with the faster memory (probably did not exist at the time of design), and on rare occasions you might get problems. Many motherboard makers publish tables of certified ram/motherboard combinations. Its often worth using them. Modern chipsets read the memory speed from a chip on the dimm and set the correct speed, older ones didn't. |
#196
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Pro vs XP Pro
On 16/01/2014 20:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 16/01/2014 11:55, John Rumm wrote: On 14/01/2014 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote: I have to say that despite extensive Googling, I have found it very difficult to find any definitive and authoritative statements about using 'too fast' memory. When the subject is raised, most discussions rapidly veer away from the original question, and your are left wondering whether the answer was 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' - or, more often, 'nobody here knows the answer, so we'll answer a question that no one asked'. The general answer is that with synchronous memory devices, faster *should* be ok. However in the real world you have designs that were never verified with the faster memory (probably did not exist at the time of design), and on rare occasions you might get problems. Many motherboard makers publish tables of certified ram/motherboard combinations. Its often worth using them. Modern chipsets read the memory speed from a chip on the dimm and set the correct speed, older ones didn't. Indeed - although even then there can still be problems IME. Getting less frequent it has to be said though -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|