Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-amd64 (338 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [suse-amd64] Be careful with memory compatibility
- From: Darrell Shively <sused@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:08:40 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <20040318171001.46E91534F6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Alain:
I must concur with Daniele.
I have a Tyan s2885 w/dual Opterons and went through a more than a month of
poo trying to get this system to work reliably with the OCZ DDR400. Note
that this memory was specifically designed to work with Athlon 64 FX.
Several RMA's later the vendor ended up changing their SPD programming and
the PLL's on the DIMMs. Their tech support was great and it works now - but
I really didn't need all that down time.
On Thursday 18 March 2004 08:29, Black, Alain wrote:
> Daniele,
>
> What motherboard are you using? Typically the RAM compatibility is more
> motherboard dependant rather than CPU.
That is largely true, but less so with AMD64. The DRAM controller is now
built into the processor - it's no longer a function of the core chipset.
On the other hand, the BIOS programming of the DRAM controller is very
important and is tied to the motherboard. Unfortunately for me, the BIOS on
this motherboard does not support tweaking of memory timings.
> I have the MSI K8T NEO-FIS2R and CORSAIR 32MX8 (256Meg sticks) for RAM and
> have had wonderful performance and reliability.
Cool! :-)
> -Alain.
Regards,
- Darrell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Orlandi [mailto:daniele@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:57 AM
> To: suse-amd64@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [suse-amd64] Be careful with memory compatibility
>
>
> I suggest everyone with an Athlon64 (not FX) to thoroughly test his
> memory with memtest86, expecially with test 5 and 8.
>
> I did try with 2 different memory brands without luck. I ended up with
> Kingston KVR400X64C25/512 (Kingston states that it is ok with Athlon64)
> clocked at 333 since at 400 it still had problems.
>
> I don't know if it is the Athlon64 too much stringent with timings or
> memories not conformant... but I lost much time trying to find a
> reliable configuration.
>
> Bye.
- --
sused@xxxxxxxxx "Perfect! ....what am I doing?"
-- Washu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAWddGeo6c0kw6mZ0RApHUAKCUbP3AWbFhL9ip2GESVvp+kK4/gwCfZ6nH
82P974e7GNRu181zXfolMmA=
=TSSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Alain:
I must concur with Daniele.
I have a Tyan s2885 w/dual Opterons and went through a more than a month of
poo trying to get this system to work reliably with the OCZ DDR400. Note
that this memory was specifically designed to work with Athlon 64 FX.
Several RMA's later the vendor ended up changing their SPD programming and
the PLL's on the DIMMs. Their tech support was great and it works now - but
I really didn't need all that down time.
On Thursday 18 March 2004 08:29, Black, Alain wrote:
> Daniele,
>
> What motherboard are you using? Typically the RAM compatibility is more
> motherboard dependant rather than CPU.
That is largely true, but less so with AMD64. The DRAM controller is now
built into the processor - it's no longer a function of the core chipset.
On the other hand, the BIOS programming of the DRAM controller is very
important and is tied to the motherboard. Unfortunately for me, the BIOS on
this motherboard does not support tweaking of memory timings.
> I have the MSI K8T NEO-FIS2R and CORSAIR 32MX8 (256Meg sticks) for RAM and
> have had wonderful performance and reliability.
Cool! :-)
> -Alain.
Regards,
- Darrell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Orlandi [mailto:daniele@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:57 AM
> To: suse-amd64@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [suse-amd64] Be careful with memory compatibility
>
>
> I suggest everyone with an Athlon64 (not FX) to thoroughly test his
> memory with memtest86, expecially with test 5 and 8.
>
> I did try with 2 different memory brands without luck. I ended up with
> Kingston KVR400X64C25/512 (Kingston states that it is ok with Athlon64)
> clocked at 333 since at 400 it still had problems.
>
> I don't know if it is the Athlon64 too much stringent with timings or
> memories not conformant... but I lost much time trying to find a
> reliable configuration.
>
> Bye.
- --
sused@xxxxxxxxx "Perfect! ....what am I doing?"
-- Washu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAWddGeo6c0kw6mZ0RApHUAKCUbP3AWbFhL9ip2GESVvp+kK4/gwCfZ6nH
82P974e7GNRu181zXfolMmA=
=TSSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| < Previous | Next > |