[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A new, unstable system, HW problem ???



Lennart Sorensen wrote:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 09:14:09AM +0300, jpahka@welho.com wrote:
Ok, yesterday I ran the memtest86+ utility and indeed it showed some errors on
the test 5 of the test series (but the test 8 showed no errors). And this is
what the memtest86 webpage says...

"There have been numerous reports of errors with only tests 5 and 8 on Athlon
systems. Often the memory works in a different system or the vendor insists that
it is good...."

What do you guys think? Can I be relatively certain that it's infact the memory
modules that are just not compatible with amd64 + VIA K8T800 cobination? I think
I'm going to replace the ram since when I bought it I was going for some "abit
approved" memory, but the seller convinced me that "this is as good but cheaper" :)

It may be perfectly good working memory, just not if you require the
timings the athlon64 memory controller expects from DDR400 memory.  it
really expects the memory to perform as it says in it's SPD eeprom.  If
it doesn't, expect trouble.  Most memory controllers in chipsets seem
slightly less picky (maybe because they already have more delays
involved in getting requests to and from the memory.)  Of course I also
read somewhere that the newer athlon64's are getting some improvements
in the memory controller to make them more flexible on memory modules (I
think it was supposed to make it easier to run 4 dimm's too).
I second this. The memory might be just fine, not just too compatible. A future BIOS release, or certain BIOS settings may or may not help.

If in any way possible, test the system with another memory. At least we've seen Kingston Value Ram working nicely. Probably a big load of other brands too. Of course, if you bought the motherboard and memory from the same place, it would seem sensible that they'd be willing to provide another memory option. With the amount of such issues coming to my attention, I'm ready to define Twinmos as a rather bad idea for Athlon64.


/v\



Reply to: