Harvester on 30/3/2012 at 22:40
Hi guys
I have a friend's older PC at home at the moment and I'm trying to figure out why it crashed so often as his place, although it doesn't seem to crash as much here. I have a couple of questions about memory.
The PC has got an ASUS P5B SE mainboard with a 64-bit Intel Quad Core 2.4 GHZ processor. I'm running Windows 7 Professional 64bit on it.
As it stands, it has 8 GB of memory, but the thing is, it has two 2GB 800MHz DIMMs and two 2GB 667MHz DIMMs.
I have two questions:
1) does having memory of different speeds affect stability? Can it be responsible for the freezes my friend experienced? I do have the memory in the correct slots according to the manual, the fastest memory is paired and so is the slowest.
2) what do you guys recommend for speed? Remove the slowest 4GB so the memory runs at 800MHz instead of 667MHz, or keep it all in there? I thought maybe with 8GB of memory Windows doesn't use the swap file as much, that might be faster. Or would you recommend having just 4GB of higher clocked memory? Keep in mind the box is not going to run brand new state-of-the-art games that need 8GB, the processor and video card (8600GT) are too slow for that. It's also not going to be used for any video editing or somesuch. What do you think will be faster for day-to-day operations and games that are a few years old?
Thanks in advance.
Renzatic on 30/3/2012 at 23:37
Quote Posted by Harvester
1) does having memory of different speeds affect stability? Can it be responsible for the freezes my friend experienced? I do have the memory in the correct slots according to the manual, the fastest memory is paired and so is the slowest.
If he's running the FSB at 400Mhz, then yeah, it will. The slower memory is being overclocked in that situation, and it's probably causing his computer to flake out on occasion. Dropping the FSB down to match what the slower RAM is rated for will (probably) fix his crashing issues.
Quote:
2) what do you guys recommend for speed? Remove the slowest 4GB so the memory runs at 800MHz instead of 667MHz, or keep it all in there? I thought maybe with 8GB of memory Windows doesn't use the swap file as much, that might be faster. Or would you recommend having just 4GB of higher clocked memory? Keep in mind the box is not going to run brand new state-of-the-art games that need 8GB, the processor and video card (8600GT) are too slow for that. It's also not going to be used for any video editing or somesuch. What do you think will be faster for day-to-day operations and games that are a few years old?
Thanks in advance.
4GB is fine these days, unless you're doing tons of rendering and/or PS work. Windows 7 will only rarely hit the swap file with 4GB installed, and all your games will run perfectly well. If he's having problems, take out the DDR2-667, and move on. You won't notice any difference.
...unless you really really really want that 8GB in there. If you do, drop the FSB to 333MHz and adjust your multipliers accordingly. That'll end up costing you more on the performance front than removing half your RAM though, so I wouldn't recommend it.
Harvester on 30/3/2012 at 23:46
Thanks for the reply. I ran Memtest86+ on the 8GB and it reported it running at 667 MHz, if that's correct the FSB is running at 333MHz, not 400. I'm now running PCMark 7 to see if there's any difference in the score between 4GB and 8GB.
The reason there's even 8GB in such a dated machine, is that it was used for Java programming by my friend. The programming environment Eclipse benefits from lots of memory, as well as the other stuff he used to run on it.
But if the FSB is running at 333 (I could force it at that level in the BIOS to make sure) having two types of memory shouldn't cause instability?
PCMark 7 just completed, shows absolutely no difference in performance.
EDIT: what I just said is not exactly right. I know very little about hardware stuff, the reason I offered my friend to check out what's causing his instability is because I have more time for it than he has, not because I'm very knowledgeable. About the FSB, the BIOS says it's 1066MHz. That's not a multiplier of 333. I have the CPU Ratio Setting at Auto, and it's currently at 09.0.
Renzatic on 31/3/2012 at 00:13
Quote Posted by Harvester
Thanks for the reply. I ran Memtest86+ on the 8GB and it reported it running at 667 MHz, if that's correct the FSB is running at 333MHz, not 400. I'm now running PCMark 7 to see if there's any difference in the score between 4GB and 8GB.
The reason there's even 8GB in such a dated machine, is that it was used for Java programming by my friend. The programming environment Eclipse benefits from lots of memory, as well as the other stuff he used to run on it.
But if the FSB is running at 333 (I could force it at that level in the BIOS to make sure) having two types of memory shouldn't cause instability?
PCMark 7 just completed, shows absolutely no difference in performance.
Hmm. Well hell.
The only thing I can think of that'd cause instability in that situation would be the memory timings, and that's just a maybe possibly cause. It's the reason why you usually don't want to mix different types of RAM together. Something somewhere isn't running to spec. You can't have DDR2-800 running at 333MHz running at it's recommended 5-5-5-15 (for example) specs. It has to change it's default timings to hit a lower clock. Most of the time, it doesn't make a bit of difference. All it means is it isn't running "as well as it could". But sometimes, it can cause instabilities.
If I were to take a wild semi-educated guess, it'd be that. Two of your sticks are running timings they weren't designed for, and it might be causing you some problems. Unlikely, but possible.
Quote:
About the FSB, the BIOS says it's 1066MHz. That's not a multiplier of 333. I have the CPU Ratio Setting at Auto, and it's currently at 09.0.
That means you're running at 533MHz. Which means you're overclocked. But the ratio setting? That's weird. A 9.0 multiplier running at 533Mhz would mean your CPU would be clocked at 4.8Ghz or thereabout. You sure you're reading it right? :confused:
edit 2: Yeah. Your timings are all kinds of weird. Assuming you're actually running your FSB at 333MHz, then a 9.0 multiplier would give you just shy of 3Ghz. Not 2.4. Something somewhere has to be off.
Harvester on 31/3/2012 at 03:14
No, according to the manual, an FSB of 533MHz is actually supported by this mainboard and is not an overclocking setting.
Al_B on 31/3/2012 at 10:55
memtest86+ is a great program and I've used it many times in the past, but I don't think its bus timings can be relied upon. Try (
http://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/1.60-setup-en.exe) CPU-Z for that instead (just don't allow it to install the "Ask" toolbar - I hate it when installers try to sneak that in).
As far as the memories are concerned I don't like to mix different speed RAM together. It's possible that the BIOS will be able to find a clock speed and refresh strategy that meets the minimum timings required for all of the RAM but I personally feel it's a bit hit and miss.
Have you tried using the system with just 2GB memory installed? Theorising about what might and what might not be acceptable is fine but it doesn't replace actual tests.
Harvester on 31/3/2012 at 14:44
Turns out it might be the 64GB SSD drive that Windows was on that might be the problem. My friend has the same drive in his new rig and that one also freezes in the same way. Another guy who visited had disconnected the power once when the machine was running, that might have done something with the drive. Otherwise I don't know what it might be, because on his old rig I have Windows running on an old IDE drive I had lying around and it's pretty much perfectly stable so far. No weird freezes, even with 2 different types of memory in it.
The freezes my friend experiences are kind of weird too, it's not a BSOD or anything, everything just locks up, you can't even move the mouse pointer. I've seen that before when a hard drive crashed on me so I suspect it's the SSD that's at fault.
EDIT: But I'll try that CPU-Z you mentioned anyway, just to see what the memory is doing.
Harvester on 2/4/2012 at 21:00
Quote Posted by Harvester
EDIT: But I'll try that CPU-Z you mentioned anyway, just to see what the memory is doing.
Memory is running at 333 MHz, timings 5:5:5:15:2T. Running stable so far.
