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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

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.

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

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

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.

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 |
\================================================= ================/