Memory Upgrade problem

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Craig Shore, May 17, 2007.

  1. Craig Shore

    Craig Shore Guest

    Tonight I tried to upgrade the memory on mum's computer without success :-(

    The Mainboard is an Asus K8V-MX. It uses 64mb of system memory for the onboard
    graphics.

    It came with a single stick of DDR400 256mb memory. Windows boots and runs fine
    with this, but takes forever as it goes into virtual memory.
    I installed 2 new 512mb DDR400 sticks (removing the 256mb one).

    The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away. Windows
    XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it changes
    the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if Windows has
    written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.

    Has anyone got any ideas on what to try next?

    TIA.
    Craig Shore, May 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising


  2. >
    > The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away.
    > Windows
    > XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it
    > changes
    > the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if
    > Windows has
    > written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    > requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    > I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.


    Make sure the RAM you got in the correct for the MB. Sometimes Generic RAM
    may not work correctly.

    check www.kingston.com and put your MB details and you can see what it
    really needs. THE CL Rating sometimes makes a difference if you are using LC
    3 instead of 2 or vica versa. Double/Single Sided etc etc etc

    Thanks
    Craig Whitmore, May 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Craig Shore

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:54:48 +1200, "Craig Whitmore" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >>
    >> The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away.
    >> Windows
    >> XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it
    >> changes
    >> the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if
    >> Windows has
    >> written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    >> requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    >> I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.

    >
    >Make sure the RAM you got in the correct for the MB. Sometimes Generic RAM
    >may not work correctly.


    It's Kingmax DDR400 ram I got.

    >check www.kingston.com and put your MB details and you can see what it
    >really needs. THE CL Rating sometimes makes a difference if you are using LC
    >3 instead of 2 or vica versa. Double/Single Sided etc etc etc


    Kingston says

    Virtually any configuration up to 2GB can be reached using any combination of
    Kingston's 128, 256, 512MB, and 1GB modules.
    Craig Shore, May 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Craig Shore

    impossible Guest

    "Craig Shore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:54:48 +1200, "Craig Whitmore"
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight
    >>> away.
    >>> Windows
    >>> XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part
    >>> where it
    >>> changes
    >>> the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as
    >>> if
    >>> Windows has
    >>> written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win
    >>> freezes
    >>> requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    >>> I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.

    >>
    >>Make sure the RAM you got in the correct for the MB. Sometimes
    >>Generic RAM
    >>may not work correctly.

    >
    > It's Kingmax DDR400 ram I got.
    >
    >>check www.kingston.com and put your MB details and you can see what
    >>it
    >>really needs. THE CL Rating sometimes makes a difference if you are
    >>using LC
    >>3 instead of 2 or vica versa. Double/Single Sided etc etc etc

    >
    > Kingston says
    >
    > Virtually any configuration up to 2GB can be reached using any
    > combination of
    > Kingston's 128, 256, 512MB, and 1GB modules.
    >
    >


    Well, if you add the phrase "compatible with the device the module is
    designed for" to that line, you'd be on to something. That's how
    Kingston (and other reputable memory distributors) define a match. For
    the ASUS K8V-MX board, try this:

    http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...V-MX Motherboard&distributor=0&submit1=Search

    ....and then see if you can locate one of those part numbers elsewhere.
    Crucial has a similar search facility on their site. Otherwise, I'd
    suggest getting someone locally to sign off on the compatibility issue
    for any good brand they stock and buy directly through them.
    impossible, May 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Craig Shore

    Jerry Guest

    Craig Shore wrote:
    > Tonight I tried to upgrade the memory on mum's computer without success :-(
    >
    > The Mainboard is an Asus K8V-MX. It uses 64mb of system memory for the onboard
    > graphics.
    >
    > It came with a single stick of DDR400 256mb memory. Windows boots and runs fine
    > with this, but takes forever as it goes into virtual memory.
    > I installed 2 new 512mb DDR400 sticks (removing the 256mb one).
    >
    > The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away. Windows
    > XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it changes
    > the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if Windows has
    > written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    > requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    > I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.
    >
    > Has anyone got any ideas on what to try next?


    First, get a bootable memory diagnostic, don't test it on Windows. If
    you get a bad RAM stick it coulc corrupt the hard drive once Windows
    starts running. Test it with a diagnostic first, then boot Windows.
    Memtest86 at http://www.memtest86.com/ works well, or it is on the
    Ultimate Boot CD http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/

    Go back to your original configuration, and make sure everything works.
    Even test your memory diagnostic on the original ram.

    Now try your upgrade. It is quite possible you have a bad stick so
    install one stick at a time and test it. Be careful you don't ESD the
    RAM and your motherboard of course. If you find that one stick works
    and the other doesn't, take back the faulty stick
    Jerry, May 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Craig Shore

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Craig Shore wrote:
    > Tonight I tried to upgrade the memory on mum's computer without success :-(
    >
    > The Mainboard is an Asus K8V-MX. It uses 64mb of system memory for the onboard
    > graphics.
    >
    > It came with a single stick of DDR400 256mb memory. Windows boots and runs fine
    > with this, but takes forever as it goes into virtual memory.
    > I installed 2 new 512mb DDR400 sticks (removing the 256mb one).
    >
    > The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away. Windows
    > XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it changes
    > the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if Windows has
    > written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    > requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    > I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.
    >
    > Has anyone got any ideas on what to try next?


    Memtest; don't rely on the POST to check memory. Always use a proper
    memory diagnostic, you'll save a *lot* of time in the long run.

    One of my systems here appeared superficially to have no memory
    problems; it boots and installs fine. Memtest however shows errors all
    over and this is a widely reported defect with the mainboard (MSI).

    The fix? Disable USB legacy support. Weird.

    I also have some older P3 Compaqs that are very picky about memory
    combinations, often they'll boot fine but memtest shows errors.
    -=rjh=-, May 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Craig Shore

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "Craig Shore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tonight I tried to upgrade the memory on mum's computer without success
    > :-(
    >
    > The Mainboard is an Asus K8V-MX. It uses 64mb of system memory for the
    > onboard
    > graphics.
    >
    > It came with a single stick of DDR400 256mb memory. Windows boots and
    > runs fine
    > with this, but takes forever as it goes into virtual memory.
    > I installed 2 new 512mb DDR400 sticks (removing the 256mb one).
    >
    > The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away.
    > Windows
    > XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it
    > changes
    > the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if
    > Windows has
    > written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    > requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    > I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.
    >
    > Has anyone got any ideas on what to try next?
    >
    > TIA.
    Craig Sutton, May 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Craig Shore

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "Craig Shore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tonight I tried to upgrade the memory on mum's computer without success
    > :-(
    >
    > The Mainboard is an Asus K8V-MX. It uses 64mb of system memory for the
    > onboard
    > graphics.
    >
    > It came with a single stick of DDR400 256mb memory. Windows boots and
    > runs fine
    > with this, but takes forever as it goes into virtual memory.
    > I installed 2 new 512mb DDR400 sticks (removing the 256mb one).
    >
    > The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away.
    > Windows
    > XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where it
    > changes
    > the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if
    > Windows has
    > written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    > requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    > I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.
    >
    > Has anyone got any ideas on what to try next?
    >

    Put the old stick back in. Boot up in safe mode run scandisk shut down.
    Power off machine.

    open up remove single ram stick insert 1 module. Power up while holding down
    insert key to reset the bios.

    See if it boots this time? Xp likes to adapt itself when it sees the extra
    ram. I've put new ram into machines and they boot up just as slow. Then
    suddenly after a few reboots they seem to wake up to the extra memory.

    Use CPUZ to read the ram timings write them down and next time you reboot
    manually enter them in the bios menu in case your m.b is defaulting to the
    wrong settings.

    If you complete the boot using the first 512 meg stick you should be fine to
    put the 2nd in. Also UPGRADE your video drivers
    Craig Sutton, May 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Craig Shore

    Jerry Guest

    Craig Sutton wrote:
    >
    > "Craig Shore" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Tonight I tried to upgrade the memory on mum's computer without
    >> success :-(
    >>
    >> The Mainboard is an Asus K8V-MX. It uses 64mb of system memory for
    >> the onboard
    >> graphics.
    >>
    >> It came with a single stick of DDR400 256mb memory. Windows boots and
    >> runs fine
    >> with this, but takes forever as it goes into virtual memory.
    >> I installed 2 new 512mb DDR400 sticks (removing the 256mb one).
    >>
    >> The computer boots fine, and it recognises the new ram straight away.
    >> Windows
    >> XP then proceeds to boot. As soon as Windows gets to the part where
    >> it changes
    >> the graphics mode some small garbage comes up onto the screen (as if
    >> Windows has
    >> written data to the graphics part of the shared memory) and Win freezes
    >> requiring it to be reset with the power button.
    >> I've tried replacing the video driver, but that didn't help.
    >>
    >> Has anyone got any ideas on what to try next?
    >>

    > Put the old stick back in. Boot up in safe mode run scandisk shut down.
    > Power off machine.
    >
    > open up remove single ram stick insert 1 module. Power up while holding
    > down insert key to reset the bios.
    >
    > See if it boots this time? Xp likes to adapt itself when it sees the
    > extra ram. I've put new ram into machines and they boot up just as slow.
    > Then suddenly after a few reboots they seem to wake up to the extra memory.
    >
    > Use CPUZ to read the ram timings write them down and next time you
    > reboot manually enter them in the bios menu in case your m.b is
    > defaulting to the wrong settings.
    >
    > If you complete the boot using the first 512 meg stick you should be
    > fine to put the 2nd in. Also UPGRADE your video drivers


    I'd still recommend using memtest first. If you boot windows with
    faulty ram you can corrupt the data on your hard drive. Been there!
    Jerry, May 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Craig Shore

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:47:02 +1200, Craig Shore <>
    wrote:

    I have this computer running on the new ram now by manually setting the Command
    Rate to 2T. I'm guessing that I should be able to get it running on 1T, but
    will have to discover whatever other setting needs to be changed to acheive
    this.

    I know bugger all about ram settings (any good place to learn on the net?), but
    assume this is making the ram slower? At the end of the day I guess it doesn't
    matter as the move from 256mb shared to 1gig shared makes the computer way
    faster because it's not living permanently in virtual memory!
    Craig Shore, May 20, 2007
    #10
  11. Craig Shore

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Craig Shore <> wrote in
    news::

    > I know bugger all about ram settings (any good place to learn on the
    > net?), but assume this is making the ram slower?


    Lower = faster
    They are like wait loops. Lees means the ram is polled faster, but this
    can cause problems. If it is working, leave it.
    I would recommend using memtest to be sure that windows isn't masking
    errors.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, May 20, 2007
    #11
  12. Craig Shore

    Craig Shore Guest

    On 20 May 2007 21:00:22 +1200, Dave Taylor <>
    wrote:

    >Craig Shore <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> I know bugger all about ram settings (any good place to learn on the
    >> net?), but assume this is making the ram slower?

    >
    >Lower = faster
    >They are like wait loops. Lees means the ram is polled faster, but this
    >can cause problems. If it is working, leave it.
    >I would recommend using memtest to be sure that windows isn't masking
    >errors.


    Sorry, I should have said, I was changing settings from auto to manual and
    running memtest. This one setting being changed made it pass testing.
    Craig Shore, May 20, 2007
    #12
  13. Craig Shore

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Craig Shore <> wrote in
    news::

    > This one setting being changed made it pass testing.


    So keep going, but remember what worked.
    Memtest is a guide.

    Overclocking ram timings makes very little real world difference now. It
    used to. IMHO.

    Just leave it alone if it works.
    Google for BIOS tweak guides if you want to go deeper.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, May 21, 2007
    #13
  14. Craig Shore

    Craig Shore Guest

    On 21 May 2007 19:31:57 +1200, Dave Taylor <>
    wrote:

    >Craig Shore <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> This one setting being changed made it pass testing.

    >
    >So keep going, but remember what worked.
    >Memtest is a guide.
    >
    >Overclocking ram timings makes very little real world difference now. It
    >used to. IMHO.
    >
    >Just leave it alone if it works.
    >Google for BIOS tweak guides if you want to go deeper.


    Actually I have decided to leave it because the thing I adjusted was probably
    the cause of the problem.

    from
    http://www.mushkin.com/doc/techSupport/papers/latency.asp


    What is CMD rate and why is it misunderstood?

    CMD rate is generally used to describe the time from a chip select until a row
    activate command can be given. The chip select defines the physical bank in
    which the row is located. In a system running a single, single sided memory
    module, there is never a question which bank will be selected since there is
    only one. Keep that in mind when reading the small print somewhere stating that
    the 1T CMD rate only applies to a single module in the system.

    More generally, the CMD Rate is a chipset latency that is not determined by the
    memory but by the time it takes the chipset to translate the virtual address
    space into physical memory addresses. Needless to say that higher density system
    memory with its more addresses will take longer to decode than a single low
    density module, even if it is double sided. Also keep in mind that the logical
    true for any signal on the command bus is a low voltage. Now, increasing the
    voltage is often enough simple enough, all you need to do is inject enough
    current. Dropping the voltage again, especially in an interconnected network may
    occur somewhat more slowly, especially if it is only one line out of 6 that
    needs to drop.

    Intel has taken care of this problem by simply limiting the number of banks
    supported per memory channel to four. This, in turn allows them to run all their
    chipsets on a fixed CMD rate of 1T, regardless of how much memory is installed
    in the system. Keep in mind that vendors that qualify only certain modules with
    a CMD rate of 1T may experience severe stability issues on modules that are not
    specifically covered under their 1T assurance umbrella.

    Currently, the only chipset manufacturers that are even condoning a 2T CMD rate
    are VIA technologies (mostly for the sake of supporting registered DIMMs) and
    SIS (on some of their chipsets that allowed asynchronous, overclocked operation
    of DRAM)

    Overall, rating a module as 1T is either false advertising or needs to be
    excused as blatant ignorance as all unbuffered modules are capable of a 1T CMD
    rate up to four banks per channel, beyond which chipset limitations come into
    play.
    Craig Shore, May 21, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jonas s
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    435
    jonas s
    Feb 4, 2004
  2. cisconewbie

    Cisco 837 upgrade IOS upgrade gone wrong

    cisconewbie, Sep 22, 2006, in forum: Hardware
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,333
    kuruvi
    Oct 5, 2008
  3. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    839
    Joe Hotchkiss
    Nov 28, 2004
  4. Walter Mautner

    Re: RAM Memory upgrade card problem.

    Walter Mautner, Dec 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    402
    Knut Arvid Keilen
    Dec 28, 2005
  5. Agent86
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    731
    Computerflyer
    Feb 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page