XPx64 does not work with 2GBx2 Dual Chanell

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by churin, Jun 14, 2008.

  1. churin

    churin Guest

    I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC
    system. RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.

    I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel
    mode, and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured for
    single mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no problem with
    dual channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM operates as
    DDR400 in dual channel mode while in single channel mode the speed slows
    down to DDR333.

    The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for
    dual channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle
    right after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed as
    above.

    Is there any remedy for this?
     
    churin, Jun 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. You need to look at your hardware, not Windows. I have
    Vista x64 and XP x64 installed with 8GB of (4 x 2GB) Dual
    Channel DDR2 RAM. It was there when I ran the installation
    of both systems and it's still there - No problems.

    I have also had XP Pro (32-bit) in the system checking
    something out and it ran fine, but only sees about 3.5GB -
    don't remember the exact figure right now.


    churin wrote:
    > I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC
    > system. RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.
    >
    > I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel
    > mode, and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured for
    > single mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no problem with
    > dual channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM operates as
    > DDR400 in dual channel mode while in single channel mode the speed slows
    > down to DDR333.
    >
    > The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for
    > dual channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle
    > right after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed as
    > above.
    >
    > Is there any remedy for this?
    >
    >
     
    Bobby Johnson, Jun 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. churin

    churin Guest

    The problem is only with this Windows and is not with any other Windows
    being older or newer than this particular Windows. So, the problem must
    have something to do with this OS.

    Nevertheless, you indicate that my hardware is to be blamed. Then how
    can it be changed to remedy the problem.

    Bobby Johnson wrote:
    > You need to look at your hardware, not Windows. I have Vista x64 and XP
    > x64 installed with 8GB of (4 x 2GB) Dual Channel DDR2 RAM. It was there
    > when I ran the installation of both systems and it's still there - No
    > problems.
    >
    > I have also had XP Pro (32-bit) in the system checking something out and
    > it ran fine, but only sees about 3.5GB - don't remember the exact figure
    > right now.
    >
    >
    > churin wrote:
    >> I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC
    >> system. RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.
    >>
    >> I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel
    >> mode, and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured
    >> for single mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no problem
    >> with dual channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM operates
    >> as DDR400 in dual channel mode while in single channel mode the speed
    >> slows down to DDR333.
    >>
    >> The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for
    >> dual channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle
    >> right after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed
    >> as above.
    >>
    >> Is there any remedy for this?
    >>
    >>
     
    churin, Jun 14, 2008
    #3
  4. churin

    Dennis Pack Guest

    Churin:
    XP x64 addresses ram sectors differently than XP and other operating
    systems, which could be the cause. Running Memtest86 may find a bad sector
    in the ram. Since XP x64 was in beta I have had 1 stick of ram that didn't
    work due to a sector error. Also for dual channel the ram has to be matched
    for proper operation. I have at least 6 XP x64 systems running 2 or 4 GB ram
    in dual channel configuration without any problems. Have a great day.

    --
    Dennis Pack
    XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1
    WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007
    "churin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC system.
    >RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.
    >
    > I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel mode,
    > and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured for single
    > mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no problem with dual
    > channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM operates as DDR400 in
    > dual channel mode while in single channel mode the speed slows down to
    > DDR333.
    >
    > The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for dual
    > channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle right
    > after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed as above.
    >
    > Is there any remedy for this?
    >
    >
     
    Dennis Pack, Jun 14, 2008
    #4
  5. I don't know what you can do. It is extremely difficult and
    time consuming to attempt to troubleshoot anything when you
    are not physically there to see exactly what's happening. I
    know from experience that when trying to troubleshoot long
    distance there is absolutely no guarantee that what is being
    said on one side of the conversation is what's happening on
    the other side of the conversation.

    But, as I said before, I have 8GB (4 x 2GB) DDR2 installed
    and configured in the dual-channel mode. I installed
    Windows XP Professional x64 and Windows Vista Enterprise x64
    with ALL 8GB of memory installed and have never encountered
    any problems with either system. So, how can there be a
    problem with either version of Windows? And, I'm sure I am
    not the only person in the world that this works for.

    The problem is either your hardware and/or how it's
    configured. It's possible one or more pieces of hardware
    has a flaw that cannot be fixed. Or, you are doing
    something wrong - not using the correct drivers, or
    something like that.



    churin wrote:
    > The problem is only with this Windows and is not with any other Windows
    > being older or newer than this particular Windows. So, the problem must
    > have something to do with this OS.
    >
    > Nevertheless, you indicate that my hardware is to be blamed. Then how
    > can it be changed to remedy the problem.
    >
    > Bobby Johnson wrote:
    >> You need to look at your hardware, not Windows. I have Vista x64 and
    >> XP x64 installed with 8GB of (4 x 2GB) Dual Channel DDR2 RAM. It was
    >> there when I ran the installation of both systems and it's still there
    >> - No problems.
    >>
    >> I have also had XP Pro (32-bit) in the system checking something out
    >> and it ran fine, but only sees about 3.5GB - don't remember the exact
    >> figure right now.
    >>
    >>
    >> churin wrote:
    >>> I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC
    >>> system. RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.
    >>>
    >>> I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel
    >>> mode, and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured
    >>> for single mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no
    >>> problem with dual channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM
    >>> operates as DDR400 in dual channel mode while in single channel mode
    >>> the speed slows down to DDR333.
    >>>
    >>> The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for
    >>> dual channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle
    >>> right after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed
    >>> as above.
    >>>
    >>> Is there any remedy for this?
    >>>
    >>>
     
    Bobby Johnson, Jun 14, 2008
    #5
  6. churin

    churin Guest

    Dennis:
    I understand it is desirable to get RAM sticks in pair if they are used
    for dual channel operation. I did not follow the above and each stick
    was obtained at different time although they are the same model. When I
    got the second stick I ran Memtest86 for over four hours on Vista x86
    with the RAM configured for dual channel mode and no error was reported.

    You indicate that XPx64 addresses RAM sectors differently than XP and
    other OS. Does the "other" OS include Vista x64 or do you mean that
    64bit OS differs from 32bit OS in the above regard? Please note that
    64bit Vista does not have any problem with the RAM configured for dual
    channel operation.

    Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that cause of the problem is the
    RAM which is not well matched. Although the pair works in dual channel
    mode for Vista x64, their level of match is probably not sufficient
    enough for XP x64.

    Dennis Pack wrote:
    > Churin:
    > XP x64 addresses ram sectors differently than XP and other
    > operating systems, which could be the cause. Running Memtest86 may find
    > a bad sector in the ram. Since XP x64 was in beta I have had 1 stick of
    > ram that didn't work due to a sector error. Also for dual channel the
    > ram has to be matched for proper operation. I have at least 6 XP x64
    > systems running 2 or 4 GB ram in dual channel configuration without any
    > problems. Have a great day.
    >
     
    churin, Jun 14, 2008
    #6
  7. churin

    Carlos Guest

    churin,
    Download and run (no installation required) CPU-Z 1.45.
    D/L link: http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz_145.zip
    Go to the memory tab and take note of the timings the bios has assigned to
    the memory.
    Now go to the SPD tab which lists the manufacturer's recommended timings for
    the memory in each slot.
    Compare the readings of the "Memory" and "SPD" tabs.
    See if there is any difference, maybe you are running one of the sticks
    above the specs.
    Carlos

    "churin" wrote:

    > Dennis:
    > I understand it is desirable to get RAM sticks in pair if they are used
    > for dual channel operation. I did not follow the above and each stick
    > was obtained at different time although they are the same model. When I
    > got the second stick I ran Memtest86 for over four hours on Vista x86
    > with the RAM configured for dual channel mode and no error was reported.
    >
    > You indicate that XPx64 addresses RAM sectors differently than XP and
    > other OS. Does the "other" OS include Vista x64 or do you mean that
    > 64bit OS differs from 32bit OS in the above regard? Please note that
    > 64bit Vista does not have any problem with the RAM configured for dual
    > channel operation.
    >
    > Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that cause of the problem is the
    > RAM which is not well matched. Although the pair works in dual channel
    > mode for Vista x64, their level of match is probably not sufficient
    > enough for XP x64.
    >
    > Dennis Pack wrote:
    > > Churin:
    > > XP x64 addresses ram sectors differently than XP and other
    > > operating systems, which could be the cause. Running Memtest86 may find
    > > a bad sector in the ram. Since XP x64 was in beta I have had 1 stick of
    > > ram that didn't work due to a sector error. Also for dual channel the
    > > ram has to be matched for proper operation. I have at least 6 XP x64
    > > systems running 2 or 4 GB ram in dual channel configuration without any
    > > problems. Have a great day.
    > >

    >
     
    Carlos, Jun 14, 2008
    #7
  8. churin

    churin Guest

    In dual channel mode RAM frequency and its timing displayed on Memory
    and SPD are the same as:
    200MHz, 3.0-3-3-8
    In single channel mode there are two different sets listed:
    Memory: 166MHz, 2.5-3-3-7
    SPD : 200MHz, 3.0-3-3-8

    The both modules are the same model and are supposed to be DDR400. The
    model is Patriot P5SD2G40036ERB. I have already noticed that the RAM
    speed goes down from DDR400 to DDR333 if the RAM is congifured for
    single channel mode.

    Carlos wrote:
    > churin,
    > Download and run (no installation required) CPU-Z 1.45.
    > D/L link: http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz_145.zip
    > Go to the memory tab and take note of the timings the bios has assigned to
    > the memory.
    > Now go to the SPD tab which lists the manufacturer's recommended timings for
    > the memory in each slot.
    > Compare the readings of the "Memory" and "SPD" tabs.
    > See if there is any difference, maybe you are running one of the sticks
    > above the specs.
    > Carlos
    >
    > "churin" wrote:
    >
    >> Dennis:
    >> I understand it is desirable to get RAM sticks in pair if they are used
    >> for dual channel operation. I did not follow the above and each stick
    >> was obtained at different time although they are the same model. When I
    >> got the second stick I ran Memtest86 for over four hours on Vista x86
    >> with the RAM configured for dual channel mode and no error was reported.
    >>
    >> You indicate that XPx64 addresses RAM sectors differently than XP and
    >> other OS. Does the "other" OS include Vista x64 or do you mean that
    >> 64bit OS differs from 32bit OS in the above regard? Please note that
    >> 64bit Vista does not have any problem with the RAM configured for dual
    >> channel operation.
    >>
    >> Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that cause of the problem is the
    >> RAM which is not well matched. Although the pair works in dual channel
    >> mode for Vista x64, their level of match is probably not sufficient
    >> enough for XP x64.
    >>
    >> Dennis Pack wrote:
    >>> Churin:
    >>> XP x64 addresses ram sectors differently than XP and other
    >>> operating systems, which could be the cause. Running Memtest86 may find
    >>> a bad sector in the ram. Since XP x64 was in beta I have had 1 stick of
    >>> ram that didn't work due to a sector error. Also for dual channel the
    >>> ram has to be matched for proper operation. I have at least 6 XP x64
    >>> systems running 2 or 4 GB ram in dual channel configuration without any
    >>> problems. Have a great day.
    >>>
     
    churin, Jun 15, 2008
    #8
  9. It will work with 4x2GB dual channel as well as 2x. There is nothing
    inherent to XP Pro x64 preventing it from working with a great deal more ram
    than that.

    It is a hardware issue, period. The BIOS, dram voltage, dram speed, and
    mobo drivers are all things you have to look at. Also, the test reports
    from the mobo manufacturer on the specific brand, speed, and latencies of
    the ram you purchased. If the ram is not listed in the QVL by the mobo mfg
    in the exact configuration you are using then your ram is probably not
    compatible. If the mobo mfg hosts user forums those are your best source
    of info.

    I would get the assistance of a qualified technician and follow his advice
    on the ram to use in your computer. The day is long past when any of us can
    buy components individually strictly on their great specs and expect a good
    result.

    Some of the things
    "churin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The problem is only with this Windows and is not with any other Windows
    > being older or newer than this particular Windows. So, the problem must
    > have something to do with this OS.
    >
    > Nevertheless, you indicate that my hardware is to be blamed. Then how can
    > it be changed to remedy the problem.
    >
    > Bobby Johnson wrote:
    >> You need to look at your hardware, not Windows. I have Vista x64 and XP
    >> x64 installed with 8GB of (4 x 2GB) Dual Channel DDR2 RAM. It was there
    >> when I ran the installation of both systems and it's still there - No
    >> problems.
    >>
    >> I have also had XP Pro (32-bit) in the system checking something out and
    >> it ran fine, but only sees about 3.5GB - don't remember the exact figure
    >> right now.
    >>
    >>
    >> churin wrote:
    >>> I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC
    >>> system. RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.
    >>>
    >>> I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel
    >>> mode, and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured for
    >>> single mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no problem with
    >>> dual channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM operates as
    >>> DDR400 in dual channel mode while in single channel mode the speed slows
    >>> down to DDR333.
    >>>
    >>> The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for
    >>> dual channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle
    >>> right after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed as
    >>> above.
    >>>
    >>> Is there any remedy for this?
    >>>
    >>>
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jun 15, 2008
    #9
  10. I also am running XP Pro x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 on 8GB (4 sticks of dual
    channel) of PC6400 (Samsung) memory. I stuck to the mobo mfg's QVL and read
    the test reports before I bought the mobo or the ram. It takes that these
    days to do a DIY box. It wasn't that way three or four years ago, but it
    seems to be now.

    One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say that the
    board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does not mean
    it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or 800 and only
    4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.

    "Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:u5Y$...
    >I don't know what you can do. It is extremely difficult and time consuming
    >to attempt to troubleshoot anything when you are not physically there to
    >see exactly what's happening. I know from experience that when trying to
    >troubleshoot long distance there is absolutely no guarantee that what is
    >being said on one side of the conversation is what's happening on the other
    >side of the conversation.
    >
    > But, as I said before, I have 8GB (4 x 2GB) DDR2 installed and configured
    > in the dual-channel mode. I installed Windows XP Professional x64 and
    > Windows Vista Enterprise x64 with ALL 8GB of memory installed and have
    > never encountered any problems with either system. So, how can there be a
    > problem with either version of Windows? And, I'm sure I am not the only
    > person in the world that this works for.
    >
    > The problem is either your hardware and/or how it's configured. It's
    > possible one or more pieces of hardware has a flaw that cannot be fixed.
    > Or, you are doing something wrong - not using the correct drivers, or
    > something like that.
    >
    >
    >
    > churin wrote:
    >> The problem is only with this Windows and is not with any other Windows
    >> being older or newer than this particular Windows. So, the problem must
    >> have something to do with this OS.
    >>
    >> Nevertheless, you indicate that my hardware is to be blamed. Then how can
    >> it be changed to remedy the problem.
    >>
    >> Bobby Johnson wrote:
    >>> You need to look at your hardware, not Windows. I have Vista x64 and XP
    >>> x64 installed with 8GB of (4 x 2GB) Dual Channel DDR2 RAM. It was there
    >>> when I ran the installation of both systems and it's still there - No
    >>> problems.
    >>>
    >>> I have also had XP Pro (32-bit) in the system checking something out and
    >>> it ran fine, but only sees about 3.5GB - don't remember the exact figure
    >>> right now.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> churin wrote:
    >>>> I have W2K, XPx86, XPx64, VISTAx86 and VISTAx64 installed in my PC
    >>>> system. RAM consits of two 2GB sticks.
    >>>>
    >>>> I could install XPx64 only with the RAM configured as single channel
    >>>> mode, and after installation, it could boot only with RAM configured
    >>>> for single mode *despite* that all other OSes as above have no problem
    >>>> with dual channel mode. Another thing noted is that the RAM operates as
    >>>> DDR400 in dual channel mode while in single channel mode the speed
    >>>> slows down to DDR333.
    >>>>
    >>>> The problem symptom of booting the XPx64 with the RAM configured for
    >>>> dual channel mode is that the boot process goes into rebooting cycle
    >>>> right after Windows splash display. Note that the XPx64 was installed
    >>>> as above.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is there any remedy for this?
    >>>>
    >>>>
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jun 15, 2008
    #10
  11. > One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say that the
    > board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does not

    mean
    > it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or 800 and

    only
    > 4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.


    You are right, Colin - it has come to be a mess!

    I was thinking the reason why the 'other' Windows versions accept the sticks
    as 'dual-channel' could be XP x64 being derived from the server version?

    For some time we have mainly attributed such behavior to the memory handling
    of the 64bit versions, but if Vista thinks it is allright, then not many
    more options remain?

    But there is a reason!


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 15, 2008
    #11
  12. No, other 64bit OSs can have the same problem. Timings are crucial and the
    memory controllers on some of the consumer mobos can't handle the load at
    the speeds users want to use. With the higher frequencies the electrical
    distances out and back to the further memory slots can be too much. There
    are lots of issues that are exacerbated by the 64bit OSs.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >> One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say that
    >> the
    >> board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does not

    > mean
    >> it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or 800 and

    > only
    >> 4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.

    >
    > You are right, Colin - it has come to be a mess!
    >
    > I was thinking the reason why the 'other' Windows versions accept the
    > sticks
    > as 'dual-channel' could be XP x64 being derived from the server version?
    >
    > For some time we have mainly attributed such behavior to the memory
    > handling
    > of the 64bit versions, but if Vista thinks it is allright, then not many
    > more options remain?
    >
    > But there is a reason!
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jun 15, 2008
    #12
  13. churin

    churin Guest

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > No, other 64bit OSs can have the same problem.


    My Vista x64 does NOT have the problem while my XP x64 does as stated in
    my original post at the top of this thread.

    Timings are crucial and
    > the memory controllers on some of the consumer mobos can't handle the
    > load at the speeds users want to use. With the higher frequencies the
    > electrical distances out and back to the further memory slots can be too
    > much. There are lots of issues that are exacerbated by the 64bit OSs.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >>> One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say
    >>> that the
    >>> board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does not

    >> mean
    >>> it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or 800 and

    >> only
    >>> 4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.

    >>
    >> You are right, Colin - it has come to be a mess!
    >>
    >> I was thinking the reason why the 'other' Windows versions accept the
    >> sticks
    >> as 'dual-channel' could be XP x64 being derived from the server version?
    >>
    >> For some time we have mainly attributed such behavior to the memory
    >> handling
    >> of the 64bit versions, but if Vista thinks it is allright, then not many
    >> more options remain?
    >>
    >> But there is a reason!
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
     
    churin, Jun 16, 2008
    #13
  14. But it is not Window's fault. Mobos are just a quirky as other high
    performance equipment. I have seen the reverse, where XP64 could handle
    memory that the same box would not handle under Vista64. I have pretty much
    turned over my hardware procurement to my local computer store and let them
    work it out. My last two boxes have worked like a charm as a result.

    "churin" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> No, other 64bit OSs can have the same problem.

    >
    > My Vista x64 does NOT have the problem while my XP x64 does as stated in
    > my original post at the top of this thread.
    >
    > Timings are crucial and
    >> the memory controllers on some of the consumer mobos can't handle the
    >> load at the speeds users want to use. With the higher frequencies the
    >> electrical distances out and back to the further memory slots can be too
    >> much. There are lots of issues that are exacerbated by the 64bit OSs.
    >>
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>>> One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say that
    >>>> the
    >>>> board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does not
    >>> mean
    >>>> it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or 800 and
    >>> only
    >>>> 4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.
    >>>
    >>> You are right, Colin - it has come to be a mess!
    >>>
    >>> I was thinking the reason why the 'other' Windows versions accept the
    >>> sticks
    >>> as 'dual-channel' could be XP x64 being derived from the server version?
    >>>
    >>> For some time we have mainly attributed such behavior to the memory
    >>> handling
    >>> of the 64bit versions, but if Vista thinks it is allright, then not many
    >>> more options remain?
    >>>
    >>> But there is a reason!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Tony. . .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jun 16, 2008
    #14
  15. churin

    churin Guest

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > But it is not Window's fault.

    I am not saying it is or not. I stated that 1)to indicate what you
    stated is not necessarily true and 2)as a possible clue to solve my problem.
    > I have seen the reverse, where XP64 could handle
    > memory that the same box would not handle under Vista64.

    That is that old OS is compatible with the hardware but the latest OS
    does not. That is more likely to happen than the opposite.
    >
    > "churin" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>> No, other 64bit OSs can have the same problem.

    >>
    >> My Vista x64 does NOT have the problem while my XP x64 does as stated
    >> in my original post at the top of this thread.
    >>
    >> Timings are crucial and
    >>> the memory controllers on some of the consumer mobos can't handle the
    >>> load at the speeds users want to use. With the higher frequencies
    >>> the electrical distances out and back to the further memory slots can
    >>> be too much. There are lots of issues that are exacerbated by the
    >>> 64bit OSs.
    >>>
    >>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>>> One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say
    >>>>> that the
    >>>>> board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does not
    >>>> mean
    >>>>> it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or 800
    >>>>> and
    >>>> only
    >>>>> 4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.
    >>>>
    >>>> You are right, Colin - it has come to be a mess!
    >>>>
    >>>> I was thinking the reason why the 'other' Windows versions accept
    >>>> the sticks
    >>>> as 'dual-channel' could be XP x64 being derived from the server
    >>>> version?
    >>>>
    >>>> For some time we have mainly attributed such behavior to the memory
    >>>> handling
    >>>> of the 64bit versions, but if Vista thinks it is allright, then not
    >>>> many
    >>>> more options remain?
    >>>>
    >>>> But there is a reason!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Tony. . .
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >
     
    churin, Jun 16, 2008
    #15
  16. When will you comprehend that the fault is not with Windows
    XP x64? It most likely is your hardware. The point about
    XP x64 being an offshoot of Server 2003 may well be the key
    to your memory problem, but no necessarily either.
    Unmatched RAM is definitely one possibility as well as RAM
    not specifically recommended by the motherboard manufacturer
    as being certified by them.

    Quit trying to beat a dead horse and move on!


    churin wrote:
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> But it is not Window's fault.

    > I am not saying it is or not. I stated that 1)to indicate what you
    > stated is not necessarily true and 2)as a possible clue to solve my
    > problem.
    >> I have seen the reverse, where XP64 could handle memory that the same
    >> box would not handle under Vista64.

    > That is that old OS is compatible with the hardware but the latest OS
    > does not. That is more likely to happen than the opposite.
    >>
    >> "churin" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>> No, other 64bit OSs can have the same problem.
    >>>
    >>> My Vista x64 does NOT have the problem while my XP x64 does as stated
    >>> in my original post at the top of this thread.
    >>>
    >>> Timings are crucial and
    >>>> the memory controllers on some of the consumer mobos can't handle
    >>>> the load at the speeds users want to use. With the higher
    >>>> frequencies the electrical distances out and back to the further
    >>>> memory slots can be too much. There are lots of issues that are
    >>>> exacerbated by the 64bit OSs.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%...
    >>>>>> One point folks miss is that just because the specs on a mobo say
    >>>>>> that the
    >>>>>> board supports 8GB and that it supports 667/800/1066/1333 ram does
    >>>>>> not
    >>>>> mean
    >>>>>> it supports 8GB of 1333. More likely it supports 8GB at 667 or
    >>>>>> 800 and
    >>>>> only
    >>>>>> 4GB at 1066/1333. It is a mess to figure out on your own.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are right, Colin - it has come to be a mess!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I was thinking the reason why the 'other' Windows versions accept
    >>>>> the sticks
    >>>>> as 'dual-channel' could be XP x64 being derived from the server
    >>>>> version?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> For some time we have mainly attributed such behavior to the memory
    >>>>> handling
    >>>>> of the 64bit versions, but if Vista thinks it is allright, then not
    >>>>> many
    >>>>> more options remain?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But there is a reason!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tony. . .
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>

    >>
     
    Bobby Johnson, Jun 16, 2008
    #16
  17. churin

    janman_dk Guest

    My old trusty MSI K8N Diamond runs fine with 4 GB (4 * Corsair 1 GB DDR2 400)
    which is the maximum amount that it can handle.
    But in single channel.

    However, back then it was well known, on various forums, that the Athlon 64
    could not handle all 4 banks in Dual Channel mode.
    When I installed the 4 sticks it defaulted to 333 MHz, but I had already
    read this on forums and I changed it in bios to 400.

    I had previously used a 2 * 512 MB in dual channel 400 without problems. But
    needed some more space and bought the 4*1 GB

    /Jan

    "churin" wrote:

    > In dual channel mode RAM frequency and its timing displayed on Memory
    > and SPD are the same as:
    > 200MHz, 3.0-3-3-8
    > In single channel mode there are two different sets listed:
    > Memory: 166MHz, 2.5-3-3-7
    > SPD : 200MHz, 3.0-3-3-8
    >
    > The both modules are the same model and are supposed to be DDR400. The
    > model is Patriot P5SD2G40036ERB. I have already noticed that the RAM
    > speed goes down from DDR400 to DDR333 if the RAM is congifured for
    > single channel mode.
    >
    > Carlos wrote:
    > > churin,
    > > Download and run (no installation required) CPU-Z 1.45.
    > > D/L link: http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz_145.zip
    > > Go to the memory tab and take note of the timings the bios has assigned to
    > > the memory.
    > > Now go to the SPD tab which lists the manufacturer's recommended timings for
    > > the memory in each slot.
    > > Compare the readings of the "Memory" and "SPD" tabs.
    > > See if there is any difference, maybe you are running one of the sticks
    > > above the specs.
    > > Carlos
    > >
    > > "churin" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Dennis:
    > >> I understand it is desirable to get RAM sticks in pair if they are used
    > >> for dual channel operation. I did not follow the above and each stick
    > >> was obtained at different time although they are the same model. When I
    > >> got the second stick I ran Memtest86 for over four hours on Vista x86
    > >> with the RAM configured for dual channel mode and no error was reported.
    > >>
    > >> You indicate that XPx64 addresses RAM sectors differently than XP and
    > >> other OS. Does the "other" OS include Vista x64 or do you mean that
    > >> 64bit OS differs from 32bit OS in the above regard? Please note that
    > >> 64bit Vista does not have any problem with the RAM configured for dual
    > >> channel operation.
    > >>
    > >> Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that cause of the problem is the
    > >> RAM which is not well matched. Although the pair works in dual channel
    > >> mode for Vista x64, their level of match is probably not sufficient
    > >> enough for XP x64.
    > >>
    > >> Dennis Pack wrote:
    > >>> Churin:
    > >>> XP x64 addresses ram sectors differently than XP and other
    > >>> operating systems, which could be the cause. Running Memtest86 may find
    > >>> a bad sector in the ram. Since XP x64 was in beta I have had 1 stick of
    > >>> ram that didn't work due to a sector error. Also for dual channel the
    > >>> ram has to be matched for proper operation. I have at least 6 XP x64
    > >>> systems running 2 or 4 GB ram in dual channel configuration without any
    > >>> problems. Have a great day.
    > >>>

    >
     
    janman_dk, Jun 22, 2008
    #17
    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. =?Utf-8?B?TG9yZF9aZWVr?=

    Installing XPx64 sfloppy.sys stop

    =?Utf-8?B?TG9yZF9aZWVr?=, Jul 10, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,254
    Randy
    Oct 15, 2005
  2. Ralf Krause

    Outlook 2003 in an XPx64 with 4ig of ram

    Ralf Krause, Sep 9, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Sep 9, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=

    from home to win XPx64

    =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=, Dec 2, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    521
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Dec 4, 2005
  4. jvi

    New Install XPx64 - Wrong HD letter

    jvi, Feb 8, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    462
  5. bjr
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    516
    Bruce Chambers
    May 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page