Will PC3200 RAM make a difference?
in [Chips]
|
From: dk_ on 19 Aug 2005 07:22 In article <ddh9g15jflqoitkpkcddsegmt3bl3uub0e(a)4ax.com>, George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks(a)tellurian.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:42:54 -0700, dk_ <nobody(a)spamless.com> wrote: > > >In article <51g9f1dll6ogdtqik72scnuii2il6asfhv(a)4ax.com>, > > George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks(a)tellurian.com> wrote: > > > >> >Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that > >> >these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I > >> >haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I > >> >assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a > >> >stick and that they should be the same # on each stick. > >> > >> For same-size DIMMs, the effect is the same of course. If you look up any > >> memory chip Data Sheets, you'll see that they commonly come in x8 and x16 > >> data widths for desktop system DIMMs and x4 and x32 for other applications. If I understand correctly, that for my purposes (i.e., to get two 512 MB DIMMS to run in Dual Channel Mode), the follwoing will work... I have two 512 MB PC3200 DIMMS, each are populated with #8 chips on each side. I believe that is what you would refer to as x8 data width (which is also #16 chips on each DIMM <<-->> #8 per side). Right? ...I hope so. ;) > >Thank you for all the info and details. > > > >I have been searching to find how I can identify or recognize 'data > >widths' for each DRAM stick. How can I tell if the stick is x8 or x16. > > Hmm, I hope I haven't caused more confusion than I wanted here... more > detail than you need. By stick, do you mean module?.... i.e. DIMM? They It has been confusing and challenging. x8 and #8 per side, > are all 64-bits wide and the only *chips* you can populate them with in Does that mean 64-bits wide per side? (I am getting more and more confused.) > Intel's desktop chipset specs are either all x8 or all x16 bits wide on any > given module. IOW you can count the chips per DIMM side and know the width > of the chips: 8 chips per side means each side (rank) has x8 wide chips.; > if there were only four chips on a side they'd have to be x16 wide chips. > > >In order for dual channel mode to work, some sources say the 'data > >widths' must match, and some sources make no mention of this. > > That makes sense. It's a pity that a few charlatans have dumped odd-ball > configurations on the market with all chips, on both sides of a DIMM, being > used to make up the 64-bit wide bus - IOW 8 chips on each side grouped as > 16 chips which are each x4 bits wide. That's the one to avoid at all costs > - sometimes known as a "high density *module*" Huh? ...You just lost me here with the math. What would that DIMM look like? (What does 8 chips one each side grouped as 16 chips mean???) > >I have searched the term 'DRAM bus width', and so far I can find no > >practical informaltion. > > Well, again, the DRAM channel bus width is always 64-bits wide - it's the > number of chips used to get there that's important. DRAM chip Data Sheets, > which you can download from www.micron.com contain much more info than you > need but a quick glance will illustrate the different chips available. I did look at a sheet from Micon which totally confused me. The sheet: "512 MB: x4, x8, x16 DDR SDRAM." 32 meg x4 x4 banks (...what are banks?) 16 meg x8 x4 banks 8 meg x16 x4 banks Again, huh? > Did the extra DIMM you bought not work in dual-channel along with the > original DIMM which came with the system? While it's possible that it > could, to avoid possibly playing roulette again, the only way to be sure > spec-wise is to buy a couple of identically spec'd DIMMs from say > www.crucial.com where you can enter the mfr and model number of your system > and get a recommendation. I did buy a pair, (but I returned the set). They were Mushkin, green line. The chips looked very poorly made. There was absolutly no marking or labeling on the chips. The look of the DIMMS made me nervous. ;) I then purchased one PNY 512 MB DIMM (that looks well manufactured). It has #8 chips per side, (#16 total), which is the same physical configuration as the DIMM that came with the machine. The BIOS in my machine does not indicate anything about 'currently running' in either dual or single channel mode. So I have no way to know how the RAM is functioning other than having run the Memtest-86 test for 2 rounds with no errors. How can I determine if the machine is running in dual-channel mode? Intel's web site says, (for a number of specific m-boards), that in order to run in 'dual-channel mode', the following is *not required*: Do NOT need: same brand, same timing specs, or same DDR speed. *Do* need same DRAM bus width (x8 or x16). All either single-sided, or all dual sided. Infineon and Kingston say "Matching" modules means: Both (DIMMS) have the same number of chips and module sides, (e.g. both have the same number of chips on the module, and both are either single-sided or double sided.) Thanks. -Dennis -- Dennis Kessler http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture
From: George Macdonald on 21 Aug 2005 07:38 On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:22:38 -0700, dk_ <nobody(a)spamless.com> wrote: >In article <ddh9g15jflqoitkpkcddsegmt3bl3uub0e(a)4ax.com>, > George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks(a)tellurian.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:42:54 -0700, dk_ <nobody(a)spamless.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <51g9f1dll6ogdtqik72scnuii2il6asfhv(a)4ax.com>, >> > George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks(a)tellurian.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >Regarding the discussion below about x8 and x16... you point out that >> >> >these 2 numbers don't refer to the number of chips on a stick; I >> >> >haven't see any FAQ's, or discussions, using those two numbers, so I >> >> >assumed the numbers were referring to the obvious number of chips on a >> >> >stick and that they should be the same # on each stick. >> >> >> >> For same-size DIMMs, the effect is the same of course. If you look up any >> >> memory chip Data Sheets, you'll see that they commonly come in x8 and x16 >> >> data widths for desktop system DIMMs and x4 and x32 for other applications. > >If I understand correctly, that for my purposes (i.e., to get two 512 MB >DIMMS to run in Dual Channel Mode), the follwoing will work... > >I have two 512 MB PC3200 DIMMS, each are populated with #8 chips on each >side. I believe that is what you would refer to as x8 data width (which >is also #16 chips on each DIMM <<-->> #8 per side). Right? ...I hope so. >;) Yes that's correct - probably the most common DIMM configuration >> >Thank you for all the info and details. >> > >> >I have been searching to find how I can identify or recognize 'data >> >widths' for each DRAM stick. How can I tell if the stick is x8 or x16. >> >> Hmm, I hope I haven't caused more confusion than I wanted here... more >> detail than you need. By stick, do you mean module?.... i.e. DIMM? They > >It has been confusing and challenging. x8 and #8 per side, > > >> are all 64-bits wide and the only *chips* you can populate them with in > >Does that mean 64-bits wide per side? (I am getting more and more >confused.) Yes - think of *Dual* Inline Memory Module... what DIMM means, i.e. dual sided. >> Intel's desktop chipset specs are either all x8 or all x16 bits wide on any >> given module. IOW you can count the chips per DIMM side and know the width >> of the chips: 8 chips per side means each side (rank) has x8 wide chips.; >> if there were only four chips on a side they'd have to be x16 wide chips. >> >> >In order for dual channel mode to work, some sources say the 'data >> >widths' must match, and some sources make no mention of this. >> >> That makes sense. It's a pity that a few charlatans have dumped odd-ball >> configurations on the market with all chips, on both sides of a DIMM, being >> used to make up the 64-bit wide bus - IOW 8 chips on each side grouped as >> 16 chips which are each x4 bits wide. That's the one to avoid at all costs >> - sometimes known as a "high density *module*" > >Huh? ...You just lost me here with the math. What would that DIMM look >like? (What does 8 chips one each side grouped as 16 chips mean???) Basically it means that there are DIMMs out there - of dubious origin - where the "manufacturer" connects all 16 chips to only one side of the DIMM - it's possible to do that with x4 wide memory chips but it violates the formal DIMM specs. As long as you buy a reputable brand, you won't have any risk of getting those. >> >I have searched the term 'DRAM bus width', and so far I can find no >> >practical informaltion. >> >> Well, again, the DRAM channel bus width is always 64-bits wide - it's the >> number of chips used to get there that's important. DRAM chip Data Sheets, >> which you can download from www.micron.com contain much more info than you >> need but a quick glance will illustrate the different chips available. > >I did look at a sheet from Micon which totally confused me. > >The sheet: > "512 MB: x4, x8, x16 DDR SDRAM." > > 32 meg x4 x4 banks (...what are banks?) > 16 meg x8 x4 banks > 8 meg x16 x4 banks > >Again, huh? Yes - you can see the x4, x8 & x16 I've been talking about. The x4 chips should not be used in unbuffered DIMMs for PC system memory. Since the early days of SDRAM, all memory chips have had 4 banks, apart from the first 16Mbit chips which had two. By keeping all four banks "open" the chipset can manage "interleaved" accesses to the different banks for a general speed-up of pseudo-random memory accesses. >> Did the extra DIMM you bought not work in dual-channel along with the >> original DIMM which came with the system? While it's possible that it >> could, to avoid possibly playing roulette again, the only way to be sure >> spec-wise is to buy a couple of identically spec'd DIMMs from say >> www.crucial.com where you can enter the mfr and model number of your system >> and get a recommendation. > >I did buy a pair, (but I returned the set). They were Mushkin, green >line. The chips looked very poorly made. There was absolutly no marking >or labeling on the chips. The look of the DIMMS made me nervous. ;) Poorly made chips? How can you tell?:-) It's becoming more common to see DIMMs where the module mfr has obliterated the chip markings - counters some of the prejudiced folklore on chip sources. Mushkin does have a good reputation AFAIK. >I then purchased one PNY 512 MB DIMM (that looks well manufactured). It >has #8 chips per side, (#16 total), which is the same physical >configuration as the DIMM that came with the machine. > >The BIOS in my machine does not indicate anything about 'currently >running' in either dual or single channel mode. So I have no way to know >how the RAM is functioning other than having run the Memtest-86 test for >2 rounds with no errors. > >How can I determine if the machine is running in dual-channel mode? On my AMD system I get a line in the BIOS startup screen which gives current memory timings and a data width of 128-bit. I don't know about your's or any Intel dual channel chipsets for that matter, since I've never actually worked with one. You could try the Sandra benchmarking suite which may give the effective memory channel width in one of its info modules... and you should be able to see the difference in measured bandwidth with its performance check. >Intel's web site says, (for a number of specific m-boards), that in >order to run in 'dual-channel mode', the following is *not required*: > > Do NOT need: same brand, same timing specs, or same DDR speed. > > *Do* need same DRAM bus width (x8 or x16). > All either single-sided, or all dual sided. > >Infineon and Kingston say "Matching" modules means: > Both (DIMMS) have the same number of chips and module sides, (e.g. >both have the same number of chips on the module, and both are either >single-sided or double sided.) Sounds like it should be working for you. -- Rgds, George Macdonald
From: dk_ on 26 Aug 2005 22:30 In article <lhlgg11tr6jg1usma3d7vvm6i514pucpo4(a)4ax.com>, George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks(a)tellurian.com> wrote: > >I did buy a pair, (but I returned the set). They were Mushkin, green > >line. The chips looked very poorly made. There was absolutly no marking > >or labeling on the chips. The look of the DIMMS made me nervous. ;) > > Poorly made chips? How can you tell?:-) It's becoming more common to see > DIMMs where the module mfr has obliterated the chip markings - counters > some of the prejudiced folklore on chip sources. Mushkin does have a good > reputation AFAIK. I'd bet that those poorly made chips that I returned, were low-end Mushkin chips. Nothing looked well made, i.e., solder joints, the board, no markings at all. The modules did not have a finished well manufactured look. The chips just looked like poor craftsmanship. The chips that I have now are, ...one that came with the machine, a Micron DIMM, and the other is PNY. They look almost identical in every detail. The boards are identical. > >I then purchased one PNY 512 MB DIMM (that looks well manufactured). It > >has #8 chips per side, (#16 total), which is the same physical > >configuration as the DIMM that came with the machine. > > > >The BIOS in my machine does not indicate anything about 'currently > >running' in either dual or single channel mode. So I have no way to know > >how the RAM is functioning other than having run the Memtest-86 test for > >2 rounds with no errors. > > > >How can I determine if the machine is running in dual-channel mode? > > On my AMD system I get a line in the BIOS startup screen which gives > current memory timings and a data width of 128-bit. I don't know about > your's or any Intel dual channel chipsets for that matter, since I've never > actually worked with one. You could try the Sandra benchmarking suite > which may give the effective memory channel width in one of its info > modules... and you should be able to see the difference in measured > bandwidth with its performance check. I downloaded the Sandra software, but haven't tried it yet. My chips are both x8, according to support at HP and at Crucial, but I am still confused (I got lost in all of my research) about how to know that they are x8. Thanks for all your help. -- Dennis Kessler http://www.denniskessler.com/acupuncture
From: traamu on 29 Aug 2005 21:42 Hi, On a different note, my PC which is 800MHz FSB had come with 512MB DDR400 (PC3200) memory installed in it. I have 4GB PC2100 memory with me. Can I install PC2100 into my 800MHz FSB machine? Does more memory at less speed has any gain over higher speed, fewer MB memory? Does it make sense to do this? Thanks.
From: dannysdailys on 29 Aug 2005 22:33
quote- On a different note, my PC which is 800MHz FSB had come with 512MB DDR400 (PC3200) memory installed in it. I have 4GB PC2100 memory with me. Can I install PC2100 into my 800MHz FSB machine? Does more memory at less speed has any gain over higher speed, fewer MB memory? Does it make sense to do this? - end quote... Yes and thanks: I had to look this up to see what my original post was. By the way, the guy who posted after me doesn't know the difference between a dual channel memory controller and DDR RAM: Dual channel is an Nvidia invention for the Northbridge chip. It can take two, and ONLY two or multipiers of therein, and run each RAM bank separately. When you hear dual channel matched RAM, that's what they're talking about. If the motherboard has four RAM slots, they'll be paired up to two discrete channels. That's why it's called dual channel. It's hyped as a 40 to 60% increase in RAM speed. (you may have read that) In real terms, it's about a 7% increase in RAM performance at best: It helps on board video and was created to make the Nvidia on board video perform better then Intel. (trying to sell their chip sets) So what? On board video sucks no matter who makes it. It has it's place, but not on these boards... I hope... So, it's really not a big deal. On board video, except in a very few exceptions, can be replaced with a 20 dollar video card, or less. That's why it has no place here. DDR is Dual Data Rate RAM and supposedly can do "twice" as many operations per cycle. One on the charge, and one on the discharge. (in simple terms) In theory, it will give you "twice" the performance of single rate RAM. In reality, more like 14% at best. That's it! DDR is the defacto memory today and needs no special treatment. Single rate memory won't even run. Matched sets don't apply... Now your question, and it's a good one: Yes, you can try slower RAM, but the sizes you mention won't help performance. 4 gigs of RAM, depending on what you do, won't help the average, or even the un-average person. The biggest jump in performance is from the 256meg level, to the 512 level. It's like a 30 -40% increase. From there on, performance increases drops quite a bit. I think 512 - 1 gig is like 12%. The only way a large amount of RAM would be needed, would be for a large database that has many users. Such as medical insurance records: Small files, but a million of them. And perhaps video encoding, but I'd want to make side by side tests to tell for sure. Other then that, a gig is perfect. By the way, the new dual processors also increase the performace for those very same data bases. They allow the computer to run for you, while large data base querys are going on. Other then being online, and running a virus check in the background, you probably won't notice that difference either. |