If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
Puddin' Man wrote:
Just about 1 year ago, I built a desktop based on: Intel i5-650 Asus P7H55D-M EVO G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL etc The Ripjaws mem tested OK with memtest86+. The system has been doing well for the last year. Newegg now has a sale on: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9S-4GBRL for $34. Note that the "old" is 9D, the "new" is 9S. I can't discern any difference in the specs: "old" - http://www.gskill.com/products.php?index=222 "new" - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...6&SID=FW9wkedl (apologies for wrap) The Asus P7H55D-M EVO has 2 empty dimm slots. Any reason -not- to expect full compatibility between the old and new Ripjaws mem? Thx, P One product consists of (2) 2GB sticks, while the other is (1) 4GB stick ? Maybe the "D" stands for Dual, the "S" for Single ? Check the vip.asus.com forums, or use the Newegg reviews for your P7H55D-M EVO motherboard, to see how well 4GB sticks work. Paul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:01:51 -0400, Paul wrote:
One product consists of (2) 2GB sticks, while the other is (1) 4GB stick ? It appears you are correct. I missed the obvious. Maybe the "D" stands for Dual, the "S" for Single ? Less certain about that. Check the vip.asus.com forums, or use the Newegg reviews for your P7H55D-M EVO motherboard, to see how well 4GB sticks work. The reviews looked very good, but mine is a dual-channel design, and, as I recall, a 4gb stick would unbalance it. Prefer not to go that route. Many Thanks, P "Law Without Equity Is No Law At All. It Is A Form Of Jungle Rule." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
Puddin' Man wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:01:51 -0400, Paul wrote: One product consists of (2) 2GB sticks, while the other is (1) 4GB stick ? It appears you are correct. I missed the obvious. Maybe the "D" stands for Dual, the "S" for Single ? Less certain about that. Check the vip.asus.com forums, or use the Newegg reviews for your P7H55D-M EVO motherboard, to see how well 4GB sticks work. The reviews looked very good, but mine is a dual-channel design, and, as I recall, a 4gb stick would unbalance it. Prefer not to go that route. Many Thanks, P You could use 2x2GB plus 2x4GB. The speed would be adjusted to the slowest pair of modules. A slight correction may be required with four modules - if memory testing shows a problem, you can make a slight adjustment (bump up CAS one notch, use extra VDimm, command rate is probably already 2N, drop memory bus clock rate one notch). Don't boot into Windows, until memtest86+ is passing clean. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:12:10 -0400, Paul wrote:
Puddin' Man wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:01:51 -0400, Paul wrote: One product consists of (2) 2GB sticks, while the other is (1) 4GB stick ? It appears you are correct. I missed the obvious. Maybe the "D" stands for Dual, the "S" for Single ? Less certain about that. Check the vip.asus.com forums, or use the Newegg reviews for your P7H55D-M EVO motherboard, to see how well 4GB sticks work. The reviews looked very good, but mine is a dual-channel design, and, as I recall, a 4gb stick would unbalance it. Prefer not to go that route. Many Thanks, P You could use 2x2GB plus 2x4GB. The speed would be adjusted to the slowest pair of modules. A slight correction may be required with four modules - if memory testing shows a problem, you can make a slight adjustment (bump up CAS one notch, use extra VDimm, command rate is probably already 2N, drop memory bus clock rate one notch). Don't boot into Windows, until memtest86+ is passing clean. At least 3 full iterations. Worth considering, I guess, but I'm not sure I'm gonna need 12 gb in the long run. Suspect 8 gb would be sufficient. Somewhat curious that the same 2x2GB that I originally installed is now priced at $47.99 while the "equivalent" 1x4GB is down to $34. Maybe they'll price the 2x2GB down as well before it's all over. Best, P "Law Without Equity Is No Law At All. It Is A Form Of Jungle Rule." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
Puddin' Man wrote:
Worth considering, I guess, but I'm not sure I'm gonna need 12 gb in the long run. Suspect 8 gb would be sufficient. Somewhat curious that the same 2x2GB that I originally installed is now priced at $47.99 while the "equivalent" 1x4GB is down to $34. Maybe they'll price the 2x2GB down as well before it's all over. Best, P I like to keep my modules in pairs, as it would make potential resale easier. If you look in section 2.4.2 of the manual ("Memory Configurations" or something similar), you'll likely see that the memory controller supports flex memory. You can use three DIMMs, like this. Two DIMMs go on one channel, and one DIMM on the other channel. Memory quantity in each channel is equal, which means it's "dual channel from top to bottom". Memory speed would be reflective of a 4 stick configuration, as the more heavily loaded channel limits how aggressively it can be set up. 2GB 4GB 2GB Another thing you can do, is tolerate this kind of configuration. 2GB 4GB In that case, the lower 2GB+2GB of memory space is dual channel, while the last remaining 2GB on the right, runs single channel. This makes the bandwidth performance of the memory, location specific. The computer still works. (I tested this about five years ago, on one of my computers, and couldn't detect which memory space I was in, based on the observed speed.) So you can do just about anything you want with it. If it was mine, I'd run it like this 4GB 4GB and save the 2x2GB in a drawer for later. If the 4GB modules fail, you have some spare memory on hand. Or, if you decide some day to test 12GB, again, you can do it. (I prefer to run my machines with two sticks, and have done so, on the last four computers.) 4GB 4GB 2GB 2GB HTH, Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:07:52 -0400, Paul wrote:
Puddin' Man wrote: Worth considering, I guess, but I'm not sure I'm gonna need 12 gb in the long run. Suspect 8 gb would be sufficient. Somewhat curious that the same 2x2GB that I originally installed is now priced at $47.99 while the "equivalent" 1x4GB is down to $34. Maybe they'll price the 2x2GB down as well before it's all over. Best, P I like to keep my modules in pairs, as it would make potential resale easier. There are numerous advantages in keeping modules in pairs. If you look in section 2.4.2 of the manual ("Memory Configurations" or something similar), you'll likely see that the memory controller supports flex memory. I cannot count the Asus manual as the definitive authority on the memory controller as it resides in the 45nm "half" of my i5-650 cpu die and lies in the "Domain of Intel", not Asus. You can use three DIMMs, like this. Two DIMMs go on one channel, and one DIMM on the other channel. Memory quantity in each channel is equal, which means it's "dual channel from top to bottom". Memory speed would be reflective of a 4 stick configuration, as the more heavily loaded channel limits how aggressively it can be set up. 2GB 4GB 2GB A literal reading indicates you are correct in this. I was assuming it somehow mapped the mem by dimm sockets. The manual indicates any combination of 1, 2, and 4gb modules are OK and dual-channel performance is totally maintained whenever mem capacity in both channels is equal. Another thing you can do, is tolerate this kind of configuration. 2GB 4GB In that case, the lower 2GB+2GB of memory space is dual channel, while the last remaining 2GB on the right, runs single channel. This makes the bandwidth performance of the memory, location specific. The computer still works. (I tested this about five years ago, on one of my computers, and couldn't detect which memory space I was in, based on the observed speed.) You couldn't discern a difference between single and dual-channel performance? I don't follow you on this. If you have 2gb in channel A and 4gb in channel B: a.) It is dual-channel unbalanced. b.) According to the manual, the board maps 2gb from each channel as dual- channel, and the excess 2gb in channel B as single-channel (per section 2.4.2). So you can do just about anything you want with it. Subject to certain performance constraints. If it was mine, I'd run it like this 4GB 4GB and save the 2x2GB in a drawer for later. If the 4GB modules fail, you have some spare memory on hand. Or, if you decide some day to test 12GB, again, you can do it. (I prefer to run my machines with two sticks, and have done so, on the last four computers.) 4GB 4GB 2GB 2GB There are certain advantages in so doing. If the 4gb modules were selling for, say, $12 each ... Cheers, P "Law Without Equity Is No Law At All. It Is A Form Of Jungle Rule." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
Puddin' Man wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:07:52 -0400, Paul wrote: Puddin' Man wrote: Worth considering, I guess, but I'm not sure I'm gonna need 12 gb in the long run. Suspect 8 gb would be sufficient. Somewhat curious that the same 2x2GB that I originally installed is now priced at $47.99 while the "equivalent" 1x4GB is down to $34. Maybe they'll price the 2x2GB down as well before it's all over. Best, P I like to keep my modules in pairs, as it would make potential resale easier. There are numerous advantages in keeping modules in pairs. If you look in section 2.4.2 of the manual ("Memory Configurations" or something similar), you'll likely see that the memory controller supports flex memory. I cannot count the Asus manual as the definitive authority on the memory controller as it resides in the 45nm "half" of my i5-650 cpu die and lies in the "Domain of Intel", not Asus. You have the option of downloading the datasheet for the Intel processor and verifying the existence of a flex memory controller. When Asus writes the manual, they too would have access to the datasheet, and how the memory (and BIOS setup code) works. I'd download the file myself and look, but it means booting up a VM and viewing the PDF there. (I use a certain version of Acrobat Reader, as the newest versions, suck. Intel PDF documents now require the latest Reader.) You can use three DIMMs, like this. Two DIMMs go on one channel, and one DIMM on the other channel. Memory quantity in each channel is equal, which means it's "dual channel from top to bottom". Memory speed would be reflective of a 4 stick configuration, as the more heavily loaded channel limits how aggressively it can be set up. 2GB 4GB 2GB A literal reading indicates you are correct in this. I was assuming it somehow mapped the mem by dimm sockets. The manual indicates any combination of 1, 2, and 4gb modules are OK and dual-channel performance is totally maintained whenever mem capacity in both channels is equal. There are two implementations of dual channel in existence. The AMD version, used to make a "128 bit wide DIMM" from two DIMMs, and that method implied a need to match modules religiously. The other method, is to have a memory controller per DIMM, and when an access request comes in, the mapping logic determines which controller responds. In the 2+2 versus 4GB DIMM case, the "hits" fall in the appropriate place, and alternate between channels. Since accesses tend to involve cache line sized requests, there aren't really any "boundary" conditions to speak of. When you have mismatched amounts of memory on each channel, the requests are all answered by a single controller on one channel, when there is no memory across from it. The Flex memory setup, always does the best it can (i.e. you can't "build a better one"). And all it needs to do that, is for the hardware (controllers) to be set up properly, so that a continuous physical memory map exists (i.e. don't have two controllers respond to the same absolute address). Another thing you can do, is tolerate this kind of configuration. 2GB 4GB In that case, the lower 2GB+2GB of memory space is dual channel, while the last remaining 2GB on the right, runs single channel. This makes the bandwidth performance of the memory, location specific. The computer still works. (I tested this about five years ago, on one of my computers, and couldn't detect which memory space I was in, based on the observed speed.) You couldn't discern a difference between single and dual-channel performance? I don't follow you on this. If you have 2gb in channel A and 4gb in channel B: a.) It is dual-channel unbalanced. b.) According to the manual, the board maps 2gb from each channel as dual- channel, and the excess 2gb in channel B as single-channel (per section 2.4.2). I was able to use a specially modified copy of memtest86+, to verify my memory controller actually worked that way. The dual channel section of the memory space, ran 1400MB/sec, while the single channel section of the memory space, ran 900MB/sec. (That gives you some idea how long ago this was.) The memory config looked like this. 512MB --- remaining memory runs at single channel rates 512MB 512MB --- dual channel memory space What I'm saying is, when running applications in Windows, if you're blindfolded, you can't tell which portion of that space you're using at the moment. Even though there is a 500MB/sec difference in memory bandwidth, the L1 and L2 cache tend to hide the details. It feels just as smooth, as if the machine was running fully at 1400MB/sec. The benchmark application can detect the difference, and I used memtest86+ because it works with physical memory addresses, and I could be absolutely sure of what I was testing. The code change required adding three lines to the source, to print additional information to the memtest screen. So you can do just about anything you want with it. Subject to certain performance constraints. Pre-built computers are frequently shipped with "stupid" configurations, which takes advantage of Flex memory, and nobody is the wiser. If it was mine, I'd run it like this 4GB 4GB and save the 2x2GB in a drawer for later. If the 4GB modules fail, you have some spare memory on hand. Or, if you decide some day to test 12GB, again, you can do it. (I prefer to run my machines with two sticks, and have done so, on the last four computers.) 4GB 4GB 2GB 2GB There are certain advantages in so doing. If the 4gb modules were selling for, say, $12 each ... Cheers, P So you're saying, you don't appreciate the fact you're getting a gigabyte of memory for roughly $10 ? How many things can you buy at the store today, that are falling in price ? I went to Home Depot the other day, to price a four foot length of tubular steel, and they wanted close to $16 for it. Luckily for us, memory is still headed in the opposite direction. And it's not even clear, why that is happening. You'd think with Japan all messed up, there'd be some price gouging. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:34:45 -0400, Paul wrote:
Puddin' Man wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:07:52 -0400, Paul wrote: Puddin' Man wrote: Worth considering, I guess, but I'm not sure I'm gonna need 12 gb in the long run. Suspect 8 gb would be sufficient. Somewhat curious that the same 2x2GB that I originally installed is now priced at $47.99 while the "equivalent" 1x4GB is down to $34. Maybe they'll price the 2x2GB down as well before it's all over. Best, P I like to keep my modules in pairs, as it would make potential resale easier. There are numerous advantages in keeping modules in pairs. If you look in section 2.4.2 of the manual ("Memory Configurations" or something similar), you'll likely see that the memory controller supports flex memory. Note ref to "memory controller" (singular). I cannot count the Asus manual as the definitive authority on the memory controller as it resides in the 45nm "half" of my i5-650 cpu die and lies in the "Domain of Intel", not Asus. You have the option of downloading the datasheet for the Intel processor and verifying the existence of a flex memory controller. When Asus writes the manual, they too would have access to the datasheet, and how the memory (and BIOS setup code) works. I'd download the file myself and look, but it means booting up a VM and viewing the PDF there. (I use a certain version of Acrobat Reader, as the newest versions, suck. Intel PDF documents now require the latest Reader.) That's hardly necessary. However, I'll briefly mention that the datasheet is written in (hopefully, hopefully) understandable American-English, while the Asus manual is written in (very ambitious) Taiwanese-English, thereby leaving considerable margin for less-than-perfect interpretation(s). :-) You can use three DIMMs, like this. Two DIMMs go on one channel, and one DIMM on the other channel. Memory quantity in each channel is equal, which means it's "dual channel from top to bottom". Memory speed would be reflective of a 4 stick configuration, as the more heavily loaded channel limits how aggressively it can be set up. 2GB 4GB 2GB A literal reading indicates you are correct in this. I was assuming it somehow mapped the mem by dimm sockets. The manual indicates any combination of 1, 2, and 4gb modules are OK and dual-channel performance is totally maintained whenever mem capacity in both channels is equal. There are two implementations of dual channel in existence. The AMD version, used to make a "128 bit wide DIMM" from two DIMMs, and that method implied a need to match modules religiously. This is likely what I was previously thinking of. The other method, is to have a memory controller per DIMM, and "a memory controller per DIMM"??? Uh-oh, we could have difficulties, here. :-) when an access request comes in, the mapping logic determines which controller responds. Note ref to "which controller" (implies several). In the 2+2 versus 4GB DIMM case, the "hits" fall in the appropriate place, and alternate between channels. Since accesses tend to involve cache line sized requests, there aren't really any "boundary" conditions to speak of. When you have mismatched amounts of memory on each channel, the requests are all answered by a single controller on one channel, when there is no memory across from it. This statement seems to contradict itself. If there is -some- volume of memory on each channel, there cannot be an absence of memory on any adjacent channel. The Flex memory setup, always does the best it can (i.e. you can't "build a better one"). And all it needs to do that, is for the hardware (controllers) to be set up properly, so that a continuous physical memory map exists (i.e. don't have two controllers respond to the same absolute address). Note ref to "memory controllers" (plural). Another thing you can do, is tolerate this kind of configuration. 2GB 4GB In that case, the lower 2GB+2GB of memory space is dual channel, while the last remaining 2GB on the right, runs single channel. This makes the bandwidth performance of the memory, location specific. The computer still works. (I tested this about five years ago, on one of my computers, and couldn't detect which memory space I was in, based on the observed speed.) You couldn't discern a difference between single and dual-channel performance? I don't follow you on this. If you have 2gb in channel A and 4gb in channel B: a.) It is dual-channel unbalanced. b.) According to the manual, the board maps 2gb from each channel as dual- channel, and the excess 2gb in channel B as single-channel (per section 2.4.2). I was able to use a specially modified copy of memtest86+, to verify my memory controller actually worked that way. The dual channel section of the memory space, ran 1400MB/sec, while the single channel section of the memory space, ran 900MB/sec. (That gives you some idea how long ago this was.) The memory config looked like this. 512MB --- remaining memory runs at single channel rates 512MB 512MB --- dual channel memory space What I'm saying is, when running applications in Windows, if you're blindfolded, you can't tell which portion of that space you're using at the moment. Even though there is a 500MB/sec difference in memory bandwidth, the L1 and L2 cache tend to hide the details. It feels just as smooth, as if the machine was running fully at 1400MB/sec. Check. The benchmark application can detect the difference, and I used memtest86+ because it works with physical memory addresses, and I could be absolutely sure of what I was testing. The code change required adding three lines to the source, to print additional information to the memtest screen. Neat. So you can do just about anything you want with it. Subject to certain performance constraints. Pre-built computers are frequently shipped with "stupid" configurations, which takes advantage of Flex memory, and nobody is the wiser. One reason why we build. If it was mine, I'd run it like this 4GB 4GB and save the 2x2GB in a drawer for later. If the 4GB modules fail, you have some spare memory on hand. Or, if you decide some day to test 12GB, again, you can do it. (I prefer to run my machines with two sticks, and have done so, on the last four computers.) 4GB 4GB 2GB 2GB There are certain advantages in so doing. If the 4gb modules were selling for, say, $12 each ... Cheers, P So you're saying, you don't appreciate the fact you're getting a gigabyte of memory for roughly $10 ? Actually a bit less. $34/4 = $8.50. How many things can you buy at the store today, that are falling in price ? I went to Home Depot the other day, to price a four foot length of tubular steel, and they wanted close to $16 for it. Yeah, it's been like that around here for years. Vicious price increases and strictly comical gov't efforts to lie about it. Luckily for us, memory is still headed in the opposite direction. And it's not even clear, why that is happening. You'd think with Japan all messed up, there'd be some price gouging. Most memory is made in non-Nipponese Asian locales? For the record, I -have- to appreciate the $8.50/gb price because I cannot forget having to pay ~ $110/4 = $27.50/gb for it 13 months ago. There was a "spike", and I needed to complete/test a build. But I have to justify expense on pc resources according to expectations of usage. If the "sweet spot" for my little desktop is expected to be around 8gb physical mem, it's hard to justify the additional expense of an added 4gb, if only $34. Prost, P "Law Without Equity Is No Law At All. It Is A Form Of Jungle Rule." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Memory compatibility?
Puddin' Man wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:34:45 -0400, Paul wrote: Puddin' Man wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:07:52 -0400, Paul wrote: Puddin' Man wrote: Worth considering, I guess, but I'm not sure I'm gonna need 12 gb in the long run. Suspect 8 gb would be sufficient. Somewhat curious that the same 2x2GB that I originally installed is now priced at $47.99 while the "equivalent" 1x4GB is down to $34. Maybe they'll price the 2x2GB down as well before it's all over. Best, P I like to keep my modules in pairs, as it would make potential resale easier. There are numerous advantages in keeping modules in pairs. If you look in section 2.4.2 of the manual ("Memory Configurations" or something similar), you'll likely see that the memory controller supports flex memory. Note ref to "memory controller" (singular). I cannot count the Asus manual as the definitive authority on the memory controller as it resides in the 45nm "half" of my i5-650 cpu die and lies in the "Domain of Intel", not Asus. You have the option of downloading the datasheet for the Intel processor and verifying the existence of a flex memory controller. When Asus writes the manual, they too would have access to the datasheet, and how the memory (and BIOS setup code) works. I'd download the file myself and look, but it means booting up a VM and viewing the PDF there. (I use a certain version of Acrobat Reader, as the newest versions, suck. Intel PDF documents now require the latest Reader.) That's hardly necessary. However, I'll briefly mention that the datasheet is written in (hopefully, hopefully) understandable American-English, while the Asus manual is written in (very ambitious) Taiwanese-English, thereby leaving considerable margin for less-than-perfect interpretation(s). :-) You can use three DIMMs, like this. Two DIMMs go on one channel, and one DIMM on the other channel. Memory quantity in each channel is equal, which means it's "dual channel from top to bottom". Memory speed would be reflective of a 4 stick configuration, as the more heavily loaded channel limits how aggressively it can be set up. 2GB 4GB 2GB A literal reading indicates you are correct in this. I was assuming it somehow mapped the mem by dimm sockets. The manual indicates any combination of 1, 2, and 4gb modules are OK and dual-channel performance is totally maintained whenever mem capacity in both channels is equal. There are two implementations of dual channel in existence. The AMD version, used to make a "128 bit wide DIMM" from two DIMMs, and that method implied a need to match modules religiously. This is likely what I was previously thinking of. The other method, is to have a memory controller per DIMM, and "a memory controller per DIMM"??? Uh-oh, we could have difficulties, here. :-) when an access request comes in, the mapping logic determines which controller responds. Note ref to "which controller" (implies several). In the 2+2 versus 4GB DIMM case, the "hits" fall in the appropriate place, and alternate between channels. Since accesses tend to involve cache line sized requests, there aren't really any "boundary" conditions to speak of. When you have mismatched amounts of memory on each channel, the requests are all answered by a single controller on one channel, when there is no memory across from it. This statement seems to contradict itself. If there is -some- volume of memory on each channel, there cannot be an absence of memory on any adjacent channel. The Flex memory setup, always does the best it can (i.e. you can't "build a better one"). And all it needs to do that, is for the hardware (controllers) to be set up properly, so that a continuous physical memory map exists (i.e. don't have two controllers respond to the same absolute address). Note ref to "memory controllers" (plural). Another thing you can do, is tolerate this kind of configuration. 2GB 4GB In that case, the lower 2GB+2GB of memory space is dual channel, while the last remaining 2GB on the right, runs single channel. This makes the bandwidth performance of the memory, location specific. The computer still works. (I tested this about five years ago, on one of my computers, and couldn't detect which memory space I was in, based on the observed speed.) You couldn't discern a difference between single and dual-channel performance? I don't follow you on this. If you have 2gb in channel A and 4gb in channel B: a.) It is dual-channel unbalanced. b.) According to the manual, the board maps 2gb from each channel as dual- channel, and the excess 2gb in channel B as single-channel (per section 2.4.2). I was able to use a specially modified copy of memtest86+, to verify my memory controller actually worked that way. The dual channel section of the memory space, ran 1400MB/sec, while the single channel section of the memory space, ran 900MB/sec. (That gives you some idea how long ago this was.) The memory config looked like this. 512MB --- remaining memory runs at single channel rates 512MB 512MB --- dual channel memory space What I'm saying is, when running applications in Windows, if you're blindfolded, you can't tell which portion of that space you're using at the moment. Even though there is a 500MB/sec difference in memory bandwidth, the L1 and L2 cache tend to hide the details. It feels just as smooth, as if the machine was running fully at 1400MB/sec. Check. The benchmark application can detect the difference, and I used memtest86+ because it works with physical memory addresses, and I could be absolutely sure of what I was testing. The code change required adding three lines to the source, to print additional information to the memtest screen. Neat. So you can do just about anything you want with it. Subject to certain performance constraints. Pre-built computers are frequently shipped with "stupid" configurations, which takes advantage of Flex memory, and nobody is the wiser. One reason why we build. If it was mine, I'd run it like this 4GB 4GB and save the 2x2GB in a drawer for later. If the 4GB modules fail, you have some spare memory on hand. Or, if you decide some day to test 12GB, again, you can do it. (I prefer to run my machines with two sticks, and have done so, on the last four computers.) 4GB 4GB 2GB 2GB There are certain advantages in so doing. If the 4gb modules were selling for, say, $12 each ... Cheers, P So you're saying, you don't appreciate the fact you're getting a gigabyte of memory for roughly $10 ? Actually a bit less. $34/4 = $8.50. How many things can you buy at the store today, that are falling in price ? I went to Home Depot the other day, to price a four foot length of tubular steel, and they wanted close to $16 for it. Yeah, it's been like that around here for years. Vicious price increases and strictly comical gov't efforts to lie about it. Luckily for us, memory is still headed in the opposite direction. And it's not even clear, why that is happening. You'd think with Japan all messed up, there'd be some price gouging. Most memory is made in non-Nipponese Asian locales? For the record, I -have- to appreciate the $8.50/gb price because I cannot forget having to pay ~ $110/4 = $27.50/gb for it 13 months ago. There was a "spike", and I needed to complete/test a build. But I have to justify expense on pc resources according to expectations of usage. If the "sweet spot" for my little desktop is expected to be around 8gb physical mem, it's hard to justify the additional expense of an added 4gb, if only $34. Prost, P "Law Without Equity Is No Law At All. It Is A Form Of Jungle Rule." I don't know, exactly how Intel chose to implement their memory control. But the difference is, there is more independence between DIMMs and channels. AMD simplified their scheme, because doing so reduced the design time to get their product to market. Intel has about 10x the design resources of AMD, so they can do all sorts of stuff if they want. As far as I know, Nvidia were the first to support this sort of thing (Flex memory like operation), so Intel shouldn't necessarily get all the credit. In the case of the Nforce2 chipset (the one I tested with the custom version of memtest86+), if you looked in Device Manager, there was actual evidence of individual entries for controllers. Intel doesn't show such details. Which is fine, because it can all remain safely hidden at the BIOS level. (The BIOS does all the heavy lifting anyway, and sets up the mappings and any hardware details. Windows shouldn't be doing that.) When there are uneven amounts of memory on each channel, for some amount of that memory available, it'll be possible to identify matching amounts. For example, for the purposes of drawing a diagram, I can install two DIMMs like this. 512MB 1GB and it ends up looking like this, for the purposes of explanation. 512MB 512MB 512MB For the bottom 1GB of space, you can alternate side to side, going up through the memory space. At just above the 1GB mark, now, you've only got 512MB remaining, and it's on the right hand channel. There is no opportunity to go from side to side any more. Accesses can only go to that channel, and so the measured memory bandwidth drops. When I did my benchmark with memtest86+, that's what I found. Above the "magic mark" for my configuration, bandwidth changed from 1400MB/sec to 900MB/sec. You can see here, that Flex Memory usage is detectable with synthetic benchmarks, but is harder to see with practical applications. Notice that the system still works in single channel, and single channel mode has a bit more of a penalty. The problem with doing benchmarks in this way, is you have no control over what memory is being tested. Presumably, at least initially after a reboot, Windows "fills" memory in a certain direction. Either choosing to start at the top of the physical address space, or nearer the bottom. So when doing these kinds of tests, with a memory configuration like the one I show above, particular care would have to be used to get the "right" result. For example, if your benchmark happened to run within the lower 1GB, you might see no difference at all between true dual channel, and some unbalanced flex mode. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ch,830-28.html This isn't a worry for you. If you want to run 2+2 on one channel and 4GB on the other channel, that is "dual channel all the way". If you want to test how much of an effect an unbalanced config can make, you can also test 2GB on one channel, and 4GB on the other (6GB total). Then do your benchmarks. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Memory compatibility | joanne fee | Homebuilt PC's | 6 | January 31st 07 08:14 AM |
memory compatibility | [email protected] | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | December 6th 05 01:07 AM |
memory compatibility | bigdog11 | General Hardware | 7 | July 27th 04 08:55 PM |
Memory compatibility | Mark S | Compaq Servers | 1 | February 22nd 04 02:12 AM |
MEMORY COMPATIBILITY | brian | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | January 23rd 04 12:53 AM |