1.5gb of ram= problem

[Crashman]

My bad, I should have read the original question instead of Saint's response.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[phsstpok]

i thought someone a while back said it was about 10watts per 128mb.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different thread.

I said 1.36 watt per PC133 128/256mb module and gave a link to the Intel spec.

Here are some excerpts from that specification.

"Vcc is specified at 3.0v to 3.6v, although <b>3.45v</b> is viewed as the sustained max Vcc in the system.
Total device power can be broken into 2 segments, core power and I/O power, or:
Power (total) = Power (core) + Power (I/O)"

"Power (core) for 128M/256M devices is viewed as 185ma x <b>3.45</b> = 638 mw"

"For core + I/O (8Mx8, 4Mx16, and 8Mx16 devices)
569mw + 359.2mw = 928.2mw, for 8Mx8 device.
569mw + 718.4mw = 1.29W , for 4Mx16 device.
<b>638mw + 718.4mw = 1.36W, for 8Mx16 device.</b>"


<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[phsstpok]

Happens to me a lot. Jumping into the middle of a thread directly from one's email, it's tempting to respond to just one message as opposed to the entire thread.

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[mbetea]

perhaps that's what i said. a while back, anyways, it was posted by dhlucke, in a DIFFERENT thread, here:
<A HREF="http://www.pcpowerandcooling.com/maxpc/index_cases.htm" target="_new">click here for hot, steamy, oops </A>

well if luck is a lady, it explains why i have no luck :frown:

 

[chaotictech]

problem solved im now running 3 512mb sticks in a brand new msi kt7 turbo limited. Thanks Everyone, This is why I consider this the best harware forum on earth(or the net).

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[phsstpok]

from the link you provided

"Some of your individual components may actually list their specific power requirements, so use these numbers for more <b>accurate</b> calculations."

which sounds to me that the numbers given are estimates.

Still, it seems we have a discrepancy. I hope someone can post the correct power cosumption of a memory module. It can make a huge difference to some people. 8 watts requires 2.4 amps at 3.3 volts where 1.36 watts only requires 0.4 amp. At 8 watts, 3 modules would pose a big load, 7.2 amps. Some power supplies (cheap ones) only support a maximum of 10-14 amps on the 3.3 volt line.

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Sorry Crash, I am not too familiar with detailed RAM specs and such, so I was unsure of the buffered/unbuffered deal. That is why I suggested it.

Sorry for de-railin' ya.

:tongue: Have you ever tried cooking an egg on your HSF? Tasty. :tongue:

 

[chaotictech]

got it strait, mine is a 300 watt antec and it out puts 20 watts to the 3.3 lead. so im still going to have to go bigger on the psu,450 or maybe 550 enermax should do me fine.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[Guest]

well 400W PSU is pretty cheap nowdays..

 

[chaotictech]

I thought about that but im planing on upgrading to an xp 1800 and another 80 gig for a raid array and maybe a few more things.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[phsstpok]

20 amps on 3.3V is the minimum www.geforcefaq.com recommends for someone with the combination of a geforce card and an Athlon. Now, that was for the original geforce and early Athlons. I think it is still a good minimum for later Geforce2's and 3's which use less power (a little) than the original and for later Athlons which use more power.

However, who wants to have the minimum? Even the Enermax 350 watter can supply 30+ amps on the 3.3v and 5v lines. The Enermax 430 watter a real nice PSU. Go for the 550 if it makes you that much more confident. You can't go wrong if you can afford it.

When you get the bigger power supply and if you have the time I would be interested in how the old motherboard and 3 DIMMS fare. Thanks.

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[chaotictech]

I got the new mobo with the three 512's running, Without the new supply. I'm as happy as a pup with two p33ters. Only problem is my temp on the k7t pro2-a was around 109f and in the k7t turbo-r limited edition its at 145-155. It seems odd but im not haveing anymore problems, No more lockups and i got 1.5 gigs of ram to play with, I can even overclock the geforce 2 10mhz faster on the gpu im at 265 now. One more thing do you all think it would be ok to disable the virtual memory in xp because with this much ram i doubt ill ever need virtual memory but would it cause any instabilities.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[btvillarin]

No...you must keep it on. Even with the disabled paging file setting, I'm still hovering around a minimum of 90MB usage (I have 512MB RAM also).

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=13406" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[chaotictech]

So even with 1.5gigs of ram(three 512 sticks) I still need virtual mem?

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[phsstpok]

One more thing do you all think it would be ok to disable the virtual memory in xp because with this much ram i doubt ill ever need virtual memory but would it cause any instabilities.

Maybe. Try it! Let us know. I once ran Windows 98SE without virtual memory for about 3 weeks. I was just testing and I only have 384MB of RAM. I use Cacheman which stabilized things a lot. Still got some Exception errors and some strange errors like programs going into limbo while leaving the rest of the system running. Serious SAM and 3DMark2001 would not run because of insufficient memory. When it was working there very little performance increase. Web pages were a little snappier and that's about it. Disk utilities (defrag and scandisk) were extremely fast. Benchmarks and games (those that would run) were the same.

You will probably do a lot better with 1.5GB. Try it then try it with Cacheman 5.

Read about Cacheman 5 <A HREF="http://www.outertech.com/product.php?product=3&PHPSESSID=c2b31140a53e90939b1838680e0baca8" target="_new">here</A>.

Read a review of Cacheman (3.8) <A HREF="http://home.cnet.com/software/0-429667-7-1863611.html?tag=st.sw.3745-8-4303070-1.txt.429667-7-1863611" target="_new">here</A>.

Download Cacheman 5 <A HREF="http://www.outertech.com/downloads.php?product=3&PHPSESSID=8b51c1d496f8165f5aecda173d17c049" target="_new">here</A>.


<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[chaotictech]

Right now i have the vmem at 0 min and 100mb max and its running fine. will try disableing it next and post results.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[phsstpok]

I forgot to mention. You can just use Cacheman to set Conservative Swap file usage. This means your system will use up nearly all of real memory before it even starts to swap to disk. Kind of the best of both worlds. (Maybe XP can already do this without any registry or System.ini hacks).



<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[chaotictech]

Nope xp is the same as the former versions in that area. With vmem set to auto it uses about the same vram as it uses sdram so far the bigest load was bout 560mb, half was ram the other was vram. Also will cache man work with xp.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[mbetea]

funny, but i think windows actually does need it regardless of how much physical memory there is. i went and set mine down to 20mb-50mb, after that i wasn't even able to run adobe's acrobat reader installer (which is like 9mb) after a clean boot. and that i might add is with 1gb of ram. so there are things that are going to go to disk no matter the physical ram. like adobe for one. i don't care if you have 3 gigs of ram, adobe apps will eventually turn on you without any use of a swap file.

well if luck is a lady, it explains why i have no luck :frown:

 

[phsstpok]

Cacheman will work with Win9x, ME, XP, NT4 and 2000. It's most notable feature is that it allows Windows 9x users to utilize all of their memory when they have more than 512MB, getting around the Vcache limitations. It also definitely improves performance.

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[phsstpok]

In that case, I wonder if RAMdisk would work for a swap file. Know any freeware/shareware RAMdisk programs?

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[Take_Out]

Thanks, Crashman, that is one of the best tidbits of knowledge that I have heard on this forum in months, I am not being sarcastic, either.
Take care, Take-Out

"We killed OUR Hitler" - attributed to Paul McCartney (If so, then well done, sir)

 

[chaotictech]

Disabling it wasnt a good idea= crashes, lockups and reboots, It wasnt pretty.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!

 

[phsstpok]

Are you going to try it with Cacheman 5?

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[chaotictech]

i will tomarrow, i fried my processor finaly after nine months of abuse. getting a new one tomarrow.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!