Memory on 815 boards - Page 2

bosshog_abx · 07-05-2001, 03:02 AM

i understand your fustration eturnl ,but as is usually the case no two systems are alike.what works for some fails for others.
but yesterday i managed to try a century 256mb pc133(samsungTC75) db/banked with my db/banked 128mb century and sgle/banked 128mb infineon// total again 5bnks sure it still came up as 512mb @pc133 but it caused lockups when playing mp3's and graphics distortions so put my d/bnk 256mb infineon back in no probs again so not all ram will work.abit of luck involved maybe i use
bios 1007final.
DRAM Page Closing policy =onebank
SDRAM driving mode =strong
does it lock no matter what cas/cycletime/underclk speed(100bus)/memspeed or bios ver you try?

**CrowdAds** · [Remove Advertisement]

eturnl · 07-05-2001, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bosshog
i understand your fustration eturnl ,but as is usually the case no two systems are alike.what works for some fails for others.
but yesterday i managed to try a century 256mb pc133(samsungTC75) db/banked with my db/banked 128mb century and sgle/banked 128mb infineon// total again 5bnks sure it still came up as 512mb @pc133 but it caused lockups when playing mp3's and graphics distortions so put my d/bnk 256mb infineon back in no probs again so not all ram will work.abit of luck involved maybe i use
bios 1007final.
DRAM Page Closing policy =onebank
SDRAM driving mode =strong
does it lock no matter what cas/cycletime/underclk speed(100bus)/memspeed or bios ver you try?

hi boss, well i've only used cas2 2/2/2 since thats what's detected by spd. i havent relally tried cas3, dont really want to....

nor have i tried changing the bus.....

also keep in mind that i dont overclock......

this is with bios 1006a. oh and i wanted to ask, what is the dram page closing policy??? and what should i set it at???

johnswan · 07-05-2001, 04:03 PM

Hi,

I'm using 2 Crucial PC133 CAS3 doublesided 256Mb sticks and each shows up as 128Mb...

I'm not too chuffed as in my old Gigabyte GA-6VX7-1394 they were recognised as the full 256Mb.

This is Crucial memory so the problem isn't due to "quality" versus generic RAM.

bookem · 07-06-2001, 04:35 AM

I decided to go out, and buy 2 pieces of 256mb ram. I got 2 Kingston 133 (think it was cas2), which is supposed to be good isn't it?

Both were recognised as 128. I took them straight back, and swapped them for generic 256mb/133, which works fine. No problems as yet in any os, and my machine is so much faster.

Goglu2 · 07-06-2001, 05:31 AM

Hello,

I just bought another 256mb DIMM, when i got home my
CUSL-2 detected only 384mb, took it back to my local
computer store, the clerck asked me if I had an ASUS
motherboard ! , they exchanged it for another, this time
it worked... I asked if he gave me a better brand of
memory, he said " no, we have an CUSL-2 in the back
and we check all DIMM we get, if they pass the test,
they go in a separate pile".. how nice of them.. they
sell it the same price!

bosshog_abx · 07-09-2001, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eturnl

hi boss, well i've only used cas2 2/2/2 since thats what's detected by spd. i havent relally tried cas3, dont really want to....

nor have i tried changing the bus.....

also keep in mind that i dont overclock......

this is with bios 1006a. oh and i wanted to ask, what is the dram page closing policy??? and what should i set it at???

it states in your mobo manual briefly what it means but basically having to refresh/precharge all open banks would be slower than onebank only(5%) according to some.so faster if set to ''one bank''but maybe more prone to errors or instability!

scotty · 07-09-2001, 01:01 PM

Aside from the number of sides issue is the somewhat debated
issue of how well win98 can handle 512Mb.
I would suggest going and setting up your virtual memory
under system properties/performance/virtual memory like this...........
min = 1024
max = 1536.

This complies with the general formula for gaming. i.e:

set min to double your system ram and max to triple your system ram.

This may help. But still the 512Mb with win 98 is still a sticky one.
Win 2000 has no such diff with 512Mb but is generally slower overall performance for gaming.

Anyways - you definetly do not need 512 for gaming.
256 is more than enough AND I get the best performance with a single stick o 128 single sided. A few games with huge textures may do better with 256.
You only need 512Mb for Video editing and huge files ( 100+Mb)
in an image editor.
For gaming it only slows things down and causes probs with win 98.

eturnl · 07-09-2001, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scotty
Aside from the number of sides issue is the somewhat debated
issue of how well win98 can handle 512Mb.
I would suggest going and setting up your virtual memory
under system properties/performance/virtual memory like this...........
min = 1024
max = 1536.

This complies with the general formula for gaming. i.e:

set min to double your system ram and max to triple your system ram.

This may help. But still the 512Mb with win 98 is still a sticky one.
Win 2000 has no such diff with 512Mb but is generally slower overall performance for gaming.

Anyways - you definetly do not need 512 for gaming.
256 is more than enough AND I get the best performance with a single stick o 128 single sided. A few games with huge textures may do better with 256.
You only need 512Mb for Video editing and huge files ( 100+Mb)
in an image editor.
For gaming it only slows things down and causes probs with win 98.

hey scotty,

i was wondering how you got those virtual memory settings... is that what you'd recommend for 512mb?

i was never familiar with windows virtual memory, and but i've always figured that windows should adjust it accoring to how much ram you have, and would change the setting if you were to add or remove ram... right?

anyway just wanted to get some more insite on this stupid virtual memory stuff, becuase i do believe my win98se is causing my instability.

i cant wait till winXP professional!!

scotty · 07-09-2001, 01:56 PM

Those are the best settings for gaming.
min = double + max = triple.
Don't let windows manage these settings.
But - like I said - Don't run with 512 for gaming.
It will only slow down and make unreliable.

If you must have a lott o ram then go with 384 and adjust virt mem accordingly. min = 768 + max = 1152.

For most games without huge textures - you get best performance with 128 Mb . virt-- min = 256 = max 384.

Check my mem bandwidth with 1 singlesided 128 and virt mem set as suggested........

What your looking for is maximum memory bandwidth - not maximum memory! hope this helps

eturnl · 07-09-2001, 05:21 PM

hehe, its funny how you say not to go with 512mb....first of all, I run A LOT of high end apps. and do lots of video editing and encoding. i also run an ftp and web server at times with moderate traffic. believe me i will benifit from the 512 more than just the average gamer. secondly, its DIRT CHEAP!!

also where can i get sandra soft benchmark from? can you gimme a link please?

eturnl · 07-09-2001, 06:27 PM

nevermind, found sandra.....nifty proggy

scotty · 07-09-2001, 07:38 PM

I said not to go with 512 for gaming!
If you have need for 512 then use the virt mem settings I suggested.
What is funny about any of that?
First you could say thanks before asking for link favours
you bozo!

eturnl · 07-09-2001, 09:12 PM

well first of all, reeeeeelax! and yes, it is funny, because where did you come up with the idea that 512mb is bad for games? if i could i'd use 768mb cuz that how much i have. there is no limit to the amount of ram you should use unless you got a stupid 815mobo like you and i :-)

secondly i still wanna know who told you about this "formula" for the virtual memory setting thats best for gamers...

you might wanna check out what 3dspotlight has to say about virtual memory setting... and i'll even be kind enough to provide you with a link:

http://www.3dspotlight.com/tweaks/memory/

oh and here's your thank you. <-------- ;-)

scotty · 07-09-2001, 11:50 PM

I have done extensive testing to see how memory bandwidth could be maximized.
As you know , the more mem bw you can get the more gaming performance you will have.
My testing showed that the best bw came from lower amounts of ram. In fact 1 stick o 128 Mb single sided was the best performer.
The more ram went in the more the bw went down.
AS I said - if the game has large textures you may be better off with 256.
The tech info and help section at MadOnion advised about virt mem setting and I tested and found them to be correct.
You think its funny that that I have info that is diff from what you believe?
There is nothing funny except your idea that an 815 mobo is crap.
There is a limit to the amount of ram you should use and it is as much as you need. More will only strain the system and lessen performance.
The only reason I brought it up was because you seemed to think that the more ram you have - the better. The fact is that the less you have - the better and it is the memory bandwidth that determines 3D performance anyways.

eturnl · 07-10-2001, 01:29 PM

i can see that this is going to become an argument, so i'm going to leave this as my last post.

you seem to think memory bandwidth is the only benefit from system ram. i hope you know what memory bandwidith is a major bottleneck to ANY systems performance. a P4 sys, is a bit better but still a bottleneck. im not disagreeing with you, and i never said more ram is better than bandwidth. I noticed your sandra ram scores: 489/570 ALU/FPU respectivly well when i did my test yesterday i got: 412/497, this is with 512mb ram and default test with most of my background programs open as well as my browser. Now you want me to sacrific 384mb of my system ram Just to get about 70mb/s more bandwidth? i doubt it will make THAT much difference. then again in not quit sure.

super ram bandwidth would be great! but face the facts bud. there's no such thing. and like i said before, i dont ONLY play games on my pc. and it isnt the only hardware that your games benefit from.

how can you not see that your whole idea of this "lose the ram for better bandwidth" is funny. because it NOT worth it! there's already a HUGE bottleneck and it wont make much difference for sacrific of a few hundred mb's of ram. Besides it ISNT the only factor to your games performance... so i think i'll stick to my 512mb sys ram, and leave my 64mb of video ram to worry about my games.

and scotty, quit miss-interpreting my posts. i never said the cusl2 was crap, im quite happy with my mobo. and what i post are not my beliefs. also try and get a more broad idea of a systems overall performance. besides games. im not trying tell you whats better or worse, im just saying keep an open mind to what im posting and try to see where im coming from. as i myself keep an open mind to what you say. different people use their pc for different task. and quit getting so defensive, im not here to argue.

If this post sounds a bit cluttered, sorry, im in a hurry. dont have time re-read

07-05-2001, 03:02 AM	#16
bosshog_abx Registered User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: NewZealand Posts: 15	i understand your fustration eturnl ,but as is usually the case no two systems are alike.what works for some fails for others. but yesterday i managed to try a century 256mb pc133(samsungTC75) db/banked with my db/banked 128mb century and sgle/banked 128mb infineon// total again 5bnks sure it still came up as 512mb @pc133 but it caused lockups when playing mp3's and graphics distortions so put my d/bnk 256mb infineon back in no probs again so not all ram will work.abit of luck involved maybe i use bios 1007final. DRAM Page Closing policy =onebank SDRAM driving mode =strong does it lock no matter what cas/cycletime/underclk speed(100bus)/memspeed or bios ver you try?
(Offline)

07-05-2001, 04:03 PM	#18
johnswan Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1	Hi, I'm using 2 Crucial PC133 CAS3 doublesided 256Mb sticks and each shows up as 128Mb... I'm not too chuffed as in my old Gigabyte GA-6VX7-1394 they were recognised as the full 256Mb. This is Crucial memory so the problem isn't due to "quality" versus generic RAM. __________________ Child is father of the man...
(Offline)

07-06-2001, 04:35 AM	#19
bookem Registered User Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 3	I decided to go out, and buy 2 pieces of 256mb ram. I got 2 Kingston 133 (think it was cas2), which is supposed to be good isn't it? Both were recognised as 128. I took them straight back, and swapped them for generic 256mb/133, which works fine. No problems as yet in any os, and my machine is so much faster.
(Offline)

07-06-2001, 05:31 AM	#20
Goglu2 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1	Hello, I just bought another 256mb DIMM, when i got home my CUSL-2 detected only 384mb, took it back to my local computer store, the clerck asked me if I had an ASUS motherboard ! , they exchanged it for another, this time it worked... I asked if he gave me a better brand of memory, he said " no, we have an CUSL-2 in the back and we check all DIMM we get, if they pass the test, they go in a separate pile".. how nice of them.. they sell it the same price!
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 01:01 PM	#22
scotty General Bozo Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 141	Aside from the number of sides issue is the somewhat debated issue of how well win98 can handle 512Mb. I would suggest going and setting up your virtual memory under system properties/performance/virtual memory like this........... min = 1024 max = 1536. This complies with the general formula for gaming. i.e: set min to double your system ram and max to triple your system ram. This may help. But still the 512Mb with win 98 is still a sticky one. Win 2000 has no such diff with 512Mb but is generally slower overall performance for gaming. Anyways - you definetly do not need 512 for gaming. 256 is more than enough AND I get the best performance with a single stick o 128 single sided. A few games with huge textures may do better with 256. You only need 512Mb for Video editing and huge files ( 100+Mb) in an image editor. For gaming it only slows things down and causes probs with win 98. __________________ gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?1389138
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 01:56 PM	#24
scotty General Bozo Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 141	Those are the best settings for gaming. min = double + max = triple. Don't let windows manage these settings. But - like I said - Don't run with 512 for gaming. It will only slow down and make unreliable. If you must have a lott o ram then go with 384 and adjust virt mem accordingly. min = 768 + max = 1152. For most games without huge textures - you get best performance with 128 Mb . virt-- min = 256 = max 384. Check my mem bandwidth with 1 singlesided 128 and virt mem set as suggested........ What your looking for is maximum memory bandwidth - not maximum memory! hope this helps __________________ gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?1389138
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 05:21 PM	#25
eturnl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Houston Posts: 26	hehe, its funny how you say not to go with 512mb....first of all, I run A LOT of high end apps. and do lots of video editing and encoding. i also run an ftp and web server at times with moderate traffic. believe me i will benifit from the 512 more than just the average gamer. secondly, its DIRT CHEAP!! also where can i get sandra soft benchmark from? can you gimme a link please?
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 06:27 PM	#26
eturnl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Houston Posts: 26	nevermind, found sandra.....nifty proggy
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 07:38 PM	#27
scotty General Bozo Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 141	I said not to go with 512 for gaming! If you have need for 512 then use the virt mem settings I suggested. What is funny about any of that? First you could say thanks before asking for link favours you bozo! __________________ gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?1389138
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 09:12 PM	#28
eturnl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Houston Posts: 26	well first of all, reeeeeelax! and yes, it is funny, because where did you come up with the idea that 512mb is bad for games? if i could i'd use 768mb cuz that how much i have. there is no limit to the amount of ram you should use unless you got a stupid 815mobo like you and i :-) secondly i still wanna know who told you about this "formula" for the virtual memory setting thats best for gamers... you might wanna check out what 3dspotlight has to say about virtual memory setting... and i'll even be kind enough to provide you with a link: http://www.3dspotlight.com/tweaks/memory/ oh and here's your thank you. <-------- ;-)
(Offline)

07-09-2001, 11:50 PM	#29
scotty General Bozo Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 141	Dosn't actually digest what I said before. I have done extensive testing to see how memory bandwidth could be maximized. As you know , the more mem bw you can get the more gaming performance you will have. My testing showed that the best bw came from lower amounts of ram. In fact 1 stick o 128 Mb single sided was the best performer. The more ram went in the more the bw went down. AS I said - if the game has large textures you may be better off with 256. The tech info and help section at MadOnion advised about virt mem setting and I tested and found them to be correct. You think its funny that that I have info that is diff from what you believe? There is nothing funny except your idea that an 815 mobo is crap. There is a limit to the amount of ram you should use and it is as much as you need. More will only strain the system and lessen performance. The only reason I brought it up was because you seemed to think that the more ram you have - the better. The fact is that the less you have - the better and it is the memory bandwidth that determines 3D performance anyways. __________________ gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?1389138
(Offline)

07-10-2001, 01:29 PM	#30
eturnl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Houston Posts: 26	i can see that this is going to become an argument, so i'm going to leave this as my last post. you seem to think memory bandwidth is the only benefit from system ram. i hope you know what memory bandwidith is a major bottleneck to ANY systems performance. a P4 sys, is a bit better but still a bottleneck. im not disagreeing with you, and i never said more ram is better than bandwidth. I noticed your sandra ram scores: 489/570 ALU/FPU respectivly well when i did my test yesterday i got: 412/497, this is with 512mb ram and default test with most of my background programs open as well as my browser. Now you want me to sacrific 384mb of my system ram Just to get about 70mb/s more bandwidth? i doubt it will make THAT much difference. then again in not quit sure. super ram bandwidth would be great! but face the facts bud. there's no such thing. and like i said before, i dont ONLY play games on my pc. and it isnt the only hardware that your games benefit from. how can you not see that your whole idea of this "lose the ram for better bandwidth" is funny. because it NOT worth it! there's already a HUGE bottleneck and it wont make much difference for sacrific of a few hundred mb's of ram. Besides it ISNT the only factor to your games performance... so i think i'll stick to my 512mb sys ram, and leave my 64mb of video ram to worry about my games. and scotty, quit miss-interpreting my posts. i never said the cusl2 was crap, im quite happy with my mobo. and what i post are not my beliefs. also try and get a more broad idea of a systems overall performance. besides games. im not trying tell you whats better or worse, im just saying keep an open mind to what im posting and try to see where im coming from. as i myself keep an open mind to what you say. different people use their pc for different task. and quit getting so defensive, im not here to argue. If this post sounds a bit cluttered, sorry, im in a hurry. dont have time re-read
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode