A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 18, 07:04 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Norm X[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

Happy New Year,

My old Intel MOBO has accepted many upgrades but is stuck at 4GB RAM. Even
though prohibited, Win10 works reliably on one stick SOCHOX 4GB 667MHz DDR2
AMD, the past couple of years. However, when two such modules are plugged
in, Win10 boots until it panics and flashes a QR code error and shuts down.
Paul has attributed such failure to power supply inadequacies of Intel MOBO
versus AMD.

Still wanting the best that can be achieved with least money, I came across
"SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD " on eBay. It comes in a two
module 16GB package, while I only need 8GB. At first blush, 800MHz seems
better than 667MHz. Current CPU-Z output says this newer RAM module may be a
good idea.

Comments?



  #2  
Old January 1st 18, 08:05 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 886
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

Norm X wrote:
Happy New Year,

My old Intel MOBO has accepted many upgrades but is stuck at 4GB RAM. Even
though prohibited, Win10 works reliably on one stick SOCHOX 4GB 667MHz DDR2
AMD, the past couple of years. However, when two such modules are plugged
in, Win10 boots until it panics and flashes a QR code error and shuts down.
Paul has attributed such failure to power supply inadequacies of Intel MOBO
versus AMD.

Still wanting the best that can be achieved with least money, I came across
"SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD " on eBay. It comes in a two
module 16GB package, while I only need 8GB. At first blush, 800MHz seems
better than 667MHz. Current CPU-Z output says this newer RAM module may be a
good idea.

Comments?


Ebay has a picture.

D9HGN

I got lucky on this one. I found the Micron "FBGA Decoder"
and it gave me the first number. Doing a Micron site search,
the part number could not be found. But a Kontron web page
converted that part number into a config. These are x4 chips.
Verboten. You can see in the Kontron module example, their
module has 18 chips. Yours has 16 and has no parity/ECC chips.

MT47H1G4THM-3:A

Micron DDR2-667, CAS Latency 5,
FY-667A1D4 MT47H1G4THM-3:A Micron 0467E IDT C1-667 FMHS (1Gbx4)*18
15-May-08

OK, so the module has 16 chips arranged as a single rank.

You say it's an "Intel Mobo", but my recollection it, it
had an NVidia chipset on it. And those are cranky to start with.

x4 memories work best with AMD, which in dual channel mode supports
ChipKill ECC protection and correction. Your Ebay modules
are 8 chips per side, 16 total, meaning no parity/ECC chips on board.
An 18 chip module would have ECC. If you had (18) x4 chips and an
AMD motherboard, there would be a better chance of it working.

AMD, for their processors that have the memory interface right
on the processor, they use the same arch for server and desktop.
This means AMD has server features (x4 support) on their desktop
products. You have to check the AMD motherboard manual to make sure.

To make Chipkill (an IBM parity technology) work on AMD, requires
matched modules in dual channel - the 144 bit wide array provides
just enough parity information, to in effect allow the "excess" chip
on the module, to replace any other chip. Chipkill supports up to four
bit errors in the syndrome, so a whole chip can die on an 18 chip
module, and as long as it's dual channel, the memory protection
can correct all the errors.

Intel desktop chipsets at least (with Intel CPU connected), those only
support x8 and x16 memory chips. Driving x4 single rank, probably
violates loading on a few of the control signals.

You're way way out in left field on this one.

Plugging the module in, it probably won't burn.
Will anything else good happen ? Nope.

When NVidia makes a chipset for Intel LGA775, they can barely
make the interfaces work (as their chipsets have historically
been "cranky"). Plugging in an x4 based module ? Ker-plunk. Plop. Etc.
Black screen. An Nvidia desktop chipset can barely holds its pants
up, with x8 chips to use. Owners of those, quite often have
to turn the memory clock down, to get a semblance of stability.

*******

If that really is your NVidia chipset board, you should
be pretty happy... when it works. Taunting it with "overweight"
memory products ? Yikes.

Paul
  #3  
Old January 2nd 18, 01:05 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Norm X[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD


"Paul" wrote in message
news
Norm X wrote:
Happy New Year,

My old Intel MOBO has accepted many upgrades but is stuck at 4GB RAM.
Even though prohibited, Win10 works reliably on one stick SOCHOX 4GB
667MHz DDR2 AMD, the past couple of years. However, when two such modules
are plugged in, Win10 boots until it panics and flashes a QR code error
and shuts down. Paul has attributed such failure to power supply
inadequacies of Intel MOBO versus AMD.

Still wanting the best that can be achieved with least money, I came
across "SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD " on eBay. It comes in a
two module 16GB package, while I only need 8GB. At first blush, 800MHz
seems better than 667MHz. Current CPU-Z output says this newer RAM module
may be a good idea.

Comments?


Ebay has a picture.

D9HGN

I got lucky on this one. I found the Micron "FBGA Decoder"
and it gave me the first number. Doing a Micron site search,
the part number could not be found. But a Kontron web page
converted that part number into a config. These are x4 chips.
Verboten. You can see in the Kontron module example, their
module has 18 chips. Yours has 16 and has no parity/ECC chips.

MT47H1G4THM-3:A

Micron DDR2-667, CAS Latency 5,
FY-667A1D4 MT47H1G4THM-3:A Micron 0467E IDT C1-667 FMHS (1Gbx4)*18
15-May-08

OK, so the module has 16 chips arranged as a single rank.

You say it's an "Intel Mobo", but my recollection it, it
had an NVidia chipset on it. And those are cranky to start with.

x4 memories work best with AMD, which in dual channel mode supports
ChipKill ECC protection and correction. Your Ebay modules
are 8 chips per side, 16 total, meaning no parity/ECC chips on board.
An 18 chip module would have ECC. If you had (18) x4 chips and an
AMD motherboard, there would be a better chance of it working.

AMD, for their processors that have the memory interface right
on the processor, they use the same arch for server and desktop.
This means AMD has server features (x4 support) on their desktop
products. You have to check the AMD motherboard manual to make sure.

To make Chipkill (an IBM parity technology) work on AMD, requires
matched modules in dual channel - the 144 bit wide array provides
just enough parity information, to in effect allow the "excess" chip
on the module, to replace any other chip. Chipkill supports up to four
bit errors in the syndrome, so a whole chip can die on an 18 chip
module, and as long as it's dual channel, the memory protection
can correct all the errors.

Intel desktop chipsets at least (with Intel CPU connected), those only
support x8 and x16 memory chips. Driving x4 single rank, probably
violates loading on a few of the control signals.

You're way way out in left field on this one.

Plugging the module in, it probably won't burn.
Will anything else good happen ? Nope.


Thanks Paul. I think you are saying this is a viable experiment that won't
destroy anything but you predict it won't work. CPU-Z says core voltage is
1.334V, DRAM frequency is 333.3MHz, SPD specifies 333MHz @ 1.8V. The
attained DRAM clocks are not equal to SPD JEDEC clocks. But it works no
problem after ~2 years. 800MHz memory should work when slowed down a bit.

When NVidia makes a chipset for Intel LGA775, they can barely
make the interfaces work (as their chipsets have historically
been "cranky"). Plugging in an x4 based module ? Ker-plunk. Plop. Etc.
Black screen. An Nvidia desktop chipset can barely holds its pants
up, with x8 chips to use. Owners of those, quite often have
to turn the memory clock down, to get a semblance of stability.

*******

If that really is your NVidia chipset board, you should
be pretty happy... when it works. Taunting it with "overweight"
memory products ? Yikes.

Paul



  #4  
Old January 1st 18, 08:21 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,297
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

Norm X wrote:

Happy New Year,

My old Intel MOBO has accepted many upgrades but is stuck at 4GB RAM. Even
though prohibited, Win10 works reliably on one stick SOCHOX 4GB 667MHz DDR2
AMD, the past couple of years. However, when two such modules are plugged
in, Win10 boots until it panics and flashes a QR code error and shuts down.
Paul has attributed such failure to power supply inadequacies of Intel MOBO
versus AMD.

Still wanting the best that can be achieved with least money, I came across
"SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD " on eBay. It comes in a two
module 16GB package, while I only need 8GB. At first blush, 800MHz seems
better than 667MHz. Current CPU-Z output says this newer RAM module may be a
good idea.

Comments?


The reason there is a limit on the total capacity of system memory on
the mobo (besides power distribution constraints) is there just aren't
the necessary address lines to beyond that maximum addressable range.
The 4 GB limit means 32 address lines (2^32 = 4 GB) on the mobo. If the
mobo doesn't physically have more address lines (which go to each
module/slot for interleaving) then you cannot get beyond 4 GB. When you
add the 2nd module, and due to interleaving or dual mode or both, you're
trying to use more capacity than the mobo can handle.

If the mobo says its addressing limit is 4 GB, that means the total
across all slots. Doesn't matter if you use only 1 slot or all 2 or 4
slots. Yeah, it's sad when you see the unused slots and want to fill
them but if you've maxed out the memory addressable range of the mobo
then you didn't plan well back when you bought the mobo for the
foreseeable future of owning that mobo. If you want more system RAM,
you need to get a mobo that specs out to handle it.

Also, despite going higher on the memory module's clock rate, there is
no way the mobo is going to magically handle clock rates higher than
what its own clock can handle. You can get a bigger bucket but it's
still going to get filled only as much as before with the smaller
bucket. Only if you plan on overclocking the mobo and hope it, the CPU,
and memory are stable at the higher clock rate does it make sense to get
the higher clockable memory (because you then aren't overclocking that
memory but are overclocking the CPU -- unless the mobo gives separate
clock dividers for CPU and memory but the mismatch means the CPU has to
wait to get in sync so you don't gain much, if anything, and could
actually slow the PC).

If you want more system RAM than what your current mobo can handle at
its designed max of 4 GB, you need a new mobo. If you overclock,
getting higher clockable memory means one less component to go unstable.
That's like one sane guy in a house of crazies. If you don't overclock
then only bother with higher clockable memory modules if they are priced
the same or sometimes cheaper than the max clock modules the mobo
specifies (yep, sometimes the higher clockable modules are cheaper then
the slower modules). A $1.2M Hennessey Venom GT that goes 0 to 149 and
back to 0 in 30 seconds but stuck in rush-hour traffic is a sad joke.

To get more system RAM means a new mobo. A new mobo also means you can
go to higher clockable DDR4 memory modules.
  #5  
Old January 2nd 18, 12:48 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Norm X[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
Norm X wrote:

Happy New Year,

My old Intel MOBO has accepted many upgrades but is stuck at 4GB RAM.
Even
though prohibited, Win10 works reliably on one stick SOCHOX 4GB 667MHz
DDR2
AMD, the past couple of years. However, when two such modules are plugged
in, Win10 boots until it panics and flashes a QR code error and shuts
down.
Paul has attributed such failure to power supply inadequacies of Intel
MOBO
versus AMD.

Still wanting the best that can be achieved with least money, I came
across
"SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD " on eBay. It comes in a two
module 16GB package, while I only need 8GB. At first blush, 800MHz seems
better than 667MHz. Current CPU-Z output says this newer RAM module may
be a
good idea.

Comments?


The reason there is a limit on the total capacity of system memory on
the mobo (besides power distribution constraints) is there just aren't
the necessary address lines to beyond that maximum addressable range.
The 4 GB limit means 32 address lines (2^32 = 4 GB) on the mobo. If the
mobo doesn't physically have more address lines (which go to each
module/slot for interleaving) then you cannot get beyond 4 GB. When you
add the 2nd module, and due to interleaving or dual mode or both, you're
trying to use more capacity than the mobo can handle.

If the mobo says its addressing limit is 4 GB, that means the total
across all slots. Doesn't matter if you use only 1 slot or all 2 or 4
slots. Yeah, it's sad when you see the unused slots and want to fill
them but if you've maxed out the memory addressable range of the mobo
then you didn't plan well back when you bought the mobo for the
foreseeable future of owning that mobo. If you want more system RAM,
you need to get a mobo that specs out to handle it.

Also, despite going higher on the memory module's clock rate, there is
no way the mobo is going to magically handle clock rates higher than
what its own clock can handle. You can get a bigger bucket but it's
still going to get filled only as much as before with the smaller
bucket. Only if you plan on overclocking the mobo and hope it, the CPU,
and memory are stable at the higher clock rate does it make sense to get
the higher clockable memory (because you then aren't overclocking that
memory but are overclocking the CPU -- unless the mobo gives separate
clock dividers for CPU and memory but the mismatch means the CPU has to
wait to get in sync so you don't gain much, if anything, and could
actually slow the PC).

If you want more system RAM than what your current mobo can handle at
its designed max of 4 GB, you need a new mobo. If you overclock,
getting higher clockable memory means one less component to go unstable.
That's like one sane guy in a house of crazies. If you don't overclock
then only bother with higher clockable memory modules if they are priced
the same or sometimes cheaper than the max clock modules the mobo
specifies (yep, sometimes the higher clockable modules are cheaper then
the slower modules). A $1.2M Hennessey Venom GT that goes 0 to 149 and
back to 0 in 30 seconds but stuck in rush-hour traffic is a sad joke.

To get more system RAM means a new mobo. A new mobo also means you can
go to higher clockable DDR4 memory modules.


Thanks for the comment. I am using an Intel Q6600 CPU. See:
https://ark.intel.com/products/29765...z-1066-MHz-FSB

"Intel® 64 architecture delivers 64-bit computing on server, workstation,
desktop and mobile platforms when combined with supporting software.¹ Intel
64 architecture improves performance by allowing systems to address more
than 4 GB of both virtual and physical memory."

I think that the easy explanation of how this works, is by multiplexing.
E.g. USB is more versatile than parallel I/O. Within a CPU, all address and
data lines may be present, but outside the package it is multiplexed. The
Q6600 is LGA775, but up to LGA 2066 exists. LGA2066 may be super-duper but
is can only be super-expensive.


  #6  
Old January 2nd 18, 01:45 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 886
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

Norm X wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
Norm X wrote:

Happy New Year,

My old Intel MOBO has accepted many upgrades but is stuck at 4GB RAM.
Even
though prohibited, Win10 works reliably on one stick SOCHOX 4GB 667MHz
DDR2
AMD, the past couple of years. However, when two such modules are plugged
in, Win10 boots until it panics and flashes a QR code error and shuts
down.
Paul has attributed such failure to power supply inadequacies of Intel
MOBO
versus AMD.

Still wanting the best that can be achieved with least money, I came
across
"SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD " on eBay. It comes in a two
module 16GB package, while I only need 8GB. At first blush, 800MHz seems
better than 667MHz. Current CPU-Z output says this newer RAM module may
be a
good idea.

Comments?

The reason there is a limit on the total capacity of system memory on
the mobo (besides power distribution constraints) is there just aren't
the necessary address lines to beyond that maximum addressable range.
The 4 GB limit means 32 address lines (2^32 = 4 GB) on the mobo. If the
mobo doesn't physically have more address lines (which go to each
module/slot for interleaving) then you cannot get beyond 4 GB. When you
add the 2nd module, and due to interleaving or dual mode or both, you're
trying to use more capacity than the mobo can handle.

If the mobo says its addressing limit is 4 GB, that means the total
across all slots. Doesn't matter if you use only 1 slot or all 2 or 4
slots. Yeah, it's sad when you see the unused slots and want to fill
them but if you've maxed out the memory addressable range of the mobo
then you didn't plan well back when you bought the mobo for the
foreseeable future of owning that mobo. If you want more system RAM,
you need to get a mobo that specs out to handle it.

Also, despite going higher on the memory module's clock rate, there is
no way the mobo is going to magically handle clock rates higher than
what its own clock can handle. You can get a bigger bucket but it's
still going to get filled only as much as before with the smaller
bucket. Only if you plan on overclocking the mobo and hope it, the CPU,
and memory are stable at the higher clock rate does it make sense to get
the higher clockable memory (because you then aren't overclocking that
memory but are overclocking the CPU -- unless the mobo gives separate
clock dividers for CPU and memory but the mismatch means the CPU has to
wait to get in sync so you don't gain much, if anything, and could
actually slow the PC).

If you want more system RAM than what your current mobo can handle at
its designed max of 4 GB, you need a new mobo. If you overclock,
getting higher clockable memory means one less component to go unstable.
That's like one sane guy in a house of crazies. If you don't overclock
then only bother with higher clockable memory modules if they are priced
the same or sometimes cheaper than the max clock modules the mobo
specifies (yep, sometimes the higher clockable modules are cheaper then
the slower modules). A $1.2M Hennessey Venom GT that goes 0 to 149 and
back to 0 in 30 seconds but stuck in rush-hour traffic is a sad joke.

To get more system RAM means a new mobo. A new mobo also means you can
go to higher clockable DDR4 memory modules.


Thanks for the comment. I am using an Intel Q6600 CPU. See:
https://ark.intel.com/products/29765...z-1066-MHz-FSB

"Intel® 64 architecture delivers 64-bit computing on server, workstation,
desktop and mobile platforms when combined with supporting software.¹ Intel
64 architecture improves performance by allowing systems to address more
than 4 GB of both virtual and physical memory."

I think that the easy explanation of how this works, is by multiplexing.
E.g. USB is more versatile than parallel I/O. Within a CPU, all address and
data lines may be present, but outside the package it is multiplexed. The
Q6600 is LGA775, but up to LGA 2066 exists. LGA2066 may be super-duper but
is can only be super-expensive.


Actually, you can get "cheap" LGA2066 processors.

https://ark.intel.com/products/12149...up-to-4_50-GHz

The good part:

# of Cores 4
# of Threads 8
Processor Base Frequency 4.30 GHz

The bad part:

Only two of four memory channels work. That means four of eight
DIMM slots are "dead". Nothing is wired to them, in effect.

Only 16 PCI Express lanes exist on the processor
(LGA2066 CPUs come with 16, 28, or 44 lanes, and the
motherboard manual tells you which slots stop working
if you buy the "puny" stuff.)

CPU is missing AVX512 apparently, compared to the high end ones.

It is little better than a 4790 in a way. If they made
a MicroATX motherboard with just four memory slots, and
one video card slot, plus the LGA2066 socket, that processor
would be OK. But mixing an "expensive" motherboard with that
piece of crap, is just silly. It's just a way for Intel to make
money for nothing (charge more for chipset).

But the mis-appropriation of features, makes the socket
choice a terrible one. It's just an LGA1151 CPU on a LGA2066
substrate.

Also, some desktop motherboards take Xeon branded CPUs, and the
CPU Support chart shows official motherboard company support for
them. If you see a bargain somewhere, Xeons offer an alternative
means of getting a processor for your motherboard.

*******

On some chipsets, the actual chipset had a "max addressable".
My chipset, I think it won't go above 8GB. So even if I found
DDR2 modules that were addressable, it wouldn't help.

There was one Intel chipset, where the slots took 4x2GB,
yet the chipset had a defined 4GB limit. Practical configurations
ended up being 4x1GB or 2x2GB (with two slots empty).

The absolute worst, was the Intel chipset that supported
512MB DIMMs per slot, had three slots, yet the entire chipset
had a *512MB* limit. Useful configurations might be
256+128+128 all the way to 512MB,nothing,nothing. Now,
how is that for wasting slots ?

I have a TUV4X from that era, a VIA board, and it took
3x512MB and that's what I had in it when I tested it
six months ago. It was a spare motherboard that I'd never
used. The thing worked fine. When VIA did stuff like that,
that's why Intel had to get even with them, and take their
license away. And push them out of the chipset business.
Now, Intel has all the chipsets (PCH) to itself.

Paul
  #7  
Old February 24th 18, 12:32 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Norm X[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

"Paul" wrote
[snippage]
Actually, you can get "cheap" LGA2066 processors.

https://ark.intel.com/products/12149...up-to-4_50-GHz

The good part:

# of Cores 4
# of Threads 8
Processor Base Frequency 4.30 GHz

The bad part:

Only two of four memory channels work. That means four of eight
DIMM slots are "dead". Nothing is wired to them, in effect.

Only 16 PCI Express lanes exist on the processor
(LGA2066 CPUs come with 16, 28, or 44 lanes, and the
motherboard manual tells you which slots stop working
if you buy the "puny" stuff.)

CPU is missing AVX512 apparently, compared to the high end ones.

It is little better than a 4790 in a way. If they made
a MicroATX motherboard with just four memory slots, and
one video card slot, plus the LGA2066 socket, that processor
would be OK. But mixing an "expensive" motherboard with that
piece of crap, is just silly. It's just a way for Intel to make
money for nothing (charge more for chipset).

But the mis-appropriation of features, makes the socket
choice a terrible one. It's just an LGA1151 CPU on a LGA2066
substrate.

Also, some desktop motherboards take Xeon branded CPUs, and the
CPU Support chart shows official motherboard company support for
them. If you see a bargain somewhere, Xeons offer an alternative
means of getting a processor for your motherboard.

*******

On some chipsets, the actual chipset had a "max addressable".
My chipset, I think it won't go above 8GB. So even if I found
DDR2 modules that were addressable, it wouldn't help.

There was one Intel chipset, where the slots took 4x2GB,
yet the chipset had a defined 4GB limit. Practical configurations
ended up being 4x1GB or 2x2GB (with two slots empty).

The absolute worst, was the Intel chipset that supported
512MB DIMMs per slot, had three slots, yet the entire chipset
had a *512MB* limit. Useful configurations might be
256+128+128 all the way to 512MB,nothing,nothing. Now,
how is that for wasting slots ?

I have a TUV4X from that era, a VIA board, and it took
3x512MB and that's what I had in it when I tested it
six months ago. It was a spare motherboard that I'd never
used. The thing worked fine. When VIA did stuff like that,
that's why Intel had to get even with them, and take their
license away. And push them out of the chipset business.
Now, Intel has all the chipsets (PCH) to itself.

Paul


Thanks Paul,

The SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD arrived in the mail. I tested
it and the CPU would not POST. Perhaps I am being punished for not accepting
the wisdom of the crowd here, perhaps not. I have been using SOCHOX 4GB DDR2
PC2-5300 667Mhz DIMM AMD for some time and it is infinitely stable. The CPU
would POST and boot Win10 with two RAM modules but crash with a minute.
Thanks to Paul for thinking about the problem.

The weak link in the chain is the my Q6600 CU. But I have a Q9650 CPU on
order from eBay. I'll install it with current RAM. Then I will test it with
the SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD and see if that configuration
will POST and boot Win10. If it does I am laughing. 4GB is too little RAM
for Win10 and my usage. There is much paging to the pagefile. If the
pagefile was installed of HDD, that would be bad, but my pagefile is located
on SSD. Reduced paging should offer speedup and greater longevity of the
SSD.

I'll keep you informed of next step.


  #8  
Old April 4th 18, 01:38 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Norm X[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

"Paul" wrote
[massive snippage]
Paul


The Intel Q9650 arrived and its performance is well worth the price. I tried
the SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD RAM and it still won't boot.
The MOBO can't handle it, I guess.


  #9  
Old April 6th 18, 01:48 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
~misfit~[_16_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD

Once upon a time on usenet Norm X wrote:
"Paul" wrote
[massive snippage]
Paul


The Intel Q9650 arrived and its performance is well worth the price.
I tried the SOCHOX 8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 800Mhz DIMM AMD RAM and it still
won't boot. The MOBO can't handle it, I guess.


Great CPU. I've been running a Q[X]9650 for the best part of a decade now
and it's still doing everything that I ask of it and rarely runs above 50%
CPU usage, even when gaming.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASUS P4-P5N9300 (DDR2-800MHz) Memory memorytn General Hardware 0 July 28th 09 07:09 PM
P5WDH Deluxe, E8500, PC 6400 DDR2 Norbert Wenkel Asus Motherboards 1 August 17th 08 09:15 PM
2-Gigabyte PC-6400 DDR2-800 DIMM - Is there such a thing? Anoxia Homebuilt PC's 4 February 27th 07 11:36 AM
800MHz DDR2 single channel vs 667MHz DDR2 dual channel... KILOWATT General 4 July 29th 06 08:27 PM
P4PE-X .....ASUS says only one DIMM when running 800Mhz! [email protected] Asus Motherboards 2 December 24th 04 07:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.