DDR3200 Slowdown? 1

[apex1x]

Motherboard: GA-K8N
RAM: 2x VS512MB400CS Value Select Corsair

Problem: When two 512 modules (same sticks) are put together, they run at 333mhz, but seperately they run at 400 mhz.

I checked out gigabyte and this is something they mention:

http://www.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/FAQ/FAQ_444.htm

If you look at the diagram, it says that this is a limitation with the Athlon 64 CPU?

What's the difference between single and double rank? Does double just have RAM chips on both sides?

Why would there be such a "limitation"? What sort of options do I have?

Thanks.

 

[Nelviticus]

@apex1x: it's possible to re-flash your BIOS to an older version. That way you could at least use both sticks without having to buy a new motherboard. They won't be running at full speed but the impact on your overall system speed will be tiny.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[apex1x]

Would it be significantly better than 512 mb at 400mhz? Cheers.

 

[Nelviticus]

In overall use, yes - 1GB at 333MHz will result in a generally faster PC than 512MB at 400MHz. This is because Windows will have to rely on virtual memory a lot less.

Note: Windows will always use some virtual memory no matter how much 'real' memory you have (unless you turn it off). It'll just use less of it the more 'real' memory you have.

Technically if you were only running one application that didn't need much memory it would run fractionally faster with 512 @ 400. In real-world situations 1GB @ 333 is likely to be much better though. Memory speed has an impact on system performance, just not a very big one in most situations.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[cdogg]

The problem you might encounter is longer latencies, or wait times, when the FSB has to wait for memory that is clocked out of synch. For example, if you had a Athlon XP Barton that ran on a 400MHz FSB, using 333MHz DDR memory could severely cripple overall performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/05/08/more_speed_/page2.html

But for the Athlon 64, I'm so sure if this is that much of a concern. Just wanted to point out that in some cases, the memory speed is a big factor...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[cdogg]

Sorry, that should say "I'm NOT so sure...

 

[apex1x]

Yeh, being out of sync is what I'm worried about. Why wouldn't it be as much of a concern for the Athlon 64?
I just cant believe that a major and common memory module does not work properly in this motherboard. What is the gigabyte R&D department doing?

 

[cdogg]

Well, the Athlon 64 memory architecture works a bit different than the old standard. Hypertransport is the name of the bus used on the newer Athlons. It doesn't run at a set speed per se. The specs actually state, "Up to 1GHz".

So even at 400MHz, the memory isn't running in synch all the time anyway, unlike older configurations. That's what I meant by possibly not being that much of a factor on the Athlon 64.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[apex1x]

Ok. I flashed to older BIOS versions but have been unable to boot with both RAM sticks in, in any combination. I am able to boot using either one by itself. Any suggestions?

 

[cdogg]

The best suggestion I can think of is to sell both sticks, and buy single rank memory modules as replacements.

Then I would flash back to the latest BIOS.

It's just not worth any more headaches in my opinion...


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884