Can MEMTEST86+ check memory running at faster bus speed?

[Franklin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
it is ok under the new settings.

Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
tests before Windows is launched.

Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
frequency settings?

Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?







[ crossposted. relevant groups]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100, Franklin wrote:

> I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
> by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
> it is ok under the new settings.
>
> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
> tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
> tests before Windows is launched.
>
> Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
> frequency settings?
>
> Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
> frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [ crossposted. relevant groups]

The BIOS controls the memory timing, the memory will run at whatever
speed you've set it at. Memtest86 is as good a test as ay to see if your
memory still works. Be advised that by overclocking your system you've
given up timing margins. Just because it works when the room is cool or
when you system is under light load doesn't mean it will work if the room
gets 10 degrees warmer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100, Franklin
<no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:

>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
>it is ok under the new settings.
>
>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
>tests before Windows is launched.
>
>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
>frequency settings?
>
>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
>

There is no such thing as "raw" testing that isn't dependant
on the host device setting the memory bus speed. In other
words, yes it tests "overclocked" settings, which to a
memory module means just another (any particular) speed,
it's all relative.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :

>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
>it is ok under the new settings.
>
>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
>tests before Windows is launched.
>
>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
>frequency settings?
>
>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?

No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
My 0.2




--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:20 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
>and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :
>
>>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
>>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
>>it is ok under the new settings.
>>
>>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
>>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
>>tests before Windows is launched.
>>
>>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
>>frequency settings?
>>
>>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
>>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
>
>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
>out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
>My 0.2

True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
always installed and run the OS without problems.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:
> Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly
> chosen bus frequency settings?

Yes, chipset/bus freq is set by the BIOS when the machine
boots, not by the OS.

memtest86 is a very good, extensive, memory tester.
It is not a intensive (high bandwidth) as I would like,
so I wrote some in my CPUburn package. Try `burnMMX`.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

 

[CrackerJack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 15 Oct 2004, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com>
> wrote:
>> Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly
>> chosen bus frequency settings?
>
> Yes, chipset/bus freq is set by the BIOS when the machine
> boots, not by the OS.
>
> memtest86 is a very good, extensive, memory tester.
> It is not a intensive (high bandwidth) as I would like,
> so I wrote some in my CPUburn package. Try `burnMMX`.
>
> -- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

Looks neat.

Does your CPUburn have any special points when compared to the cpu
testers discussed at Radifed?

Like Prime95, Motherboard Monitor's 'Heat Up', HotCPU Tester Pro
Lite, etc.

http://radified.com/Articles/stability_testing.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:
>
> I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
> by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
> it is ok under the new settings.
>
> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
> tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
> tests before Windows is launched.
>
> Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
> frequency settings?
>
> Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
> frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
>



Has anyone tried Metabench? It is in late beta development and is still
free.

http://www.7byte.com/index.php?page=metabench

Is it any good?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips CrackerJack <binaryblobNOTTHIS@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Does your CPUburn have any special points when compared to
> the cpu testers discussed at Radifed?

> Like Prime95, Motherboard Monitor's 'Heat Up', HotCPU Tester
> Pro Lite, etc. http://radified.com/Articles/stability_testing.htm

I really haven't had much time to look around. If I had the
time, I'd be releasing `burnRAM` [need win32 port] and `burnP7`
[needs some signals work].

It's very easy to get "100% CPU utilization" according to
the OS. `jmp $` or `while(1);` will do. The OS always has
something to run (not the idle thread), so it thinks it's busy.
If you can't get 100% (MS-Win9*), it's a priority issue.

But this is only around 70% of max power draw. Not all the
chip circuits are kept busy. I've crafted my burn* pgms in
assembly (natch!) to try to keep as much busy as possible.
Without any constraint of actually doing useful work!

Some programs can keep the CPU 100% runnable but really not
be compute-limited. Doing useful work is a bit of a limit.
I stuff useless instructions in. SETI@home was notorious for
very odd times for work unit completion (memory fetch bound).

I _don't_ claim my pgms are the hottest possible. I'm sure
that Intel and AMD use better ones as part of their CPU
manufacturing testing. But those are deep dark secrets.
Mine is Open Source.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

(email invalid, changed ISP -- you figure it out)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franklin wrote:
> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
> tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
> tests before Windows is launched.


Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:42:07 -0400 There I was minding my own business
and then George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote
:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:20 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
>>and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :
>>
>>>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
>>>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
>>>it is ok under the new settings.
>>>
>>>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
>>>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
>>>tests before Windows is launched.
>>>
>>>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
>>>frequency settings?
>>>
>>>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
>>>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
>>
>>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
>>out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
>>My 0.2
>
>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
>that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
>ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.


>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
>tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
>horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
>couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
>which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
>always installed and run the OS without problems.

Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.It will balk if
there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry" fault.
Why some people defend a piece of software that they get for free I'll
never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into the thousands.Go
figure.
PS
Best RAM test if the user suspects a fault is to swap with a known
good stick ;-)




--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:23:31 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.

Oddly enough I seem to recall a Shep from the K7S5A boards, where
Memtest86 was the recommended tool to identify motherboards that had
"issues" with the higher speed Athlon T-birds. Maybe a different guy...

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Shep? <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
> Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory. It
> will balk if there's anything wrong usually throwing up
> a,"Registry" fault.

Defective software, drivers, and other MS-Windows
cruft can also throw lockups, BSoD & Reg.errs

When these happen, you don't know if it's hardware
or software. Best to have some simple testers that
can rule out hardware. Testers can usually be more
intense than apps or OSes.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:20 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
>>and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :
>>
>>
>>>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
>>>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
>>>it is ok under the new settings.
>>>
>>>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
>>>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
>>>tests before Windows is launched.
>>>
>>>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
>>>frequency settings?
>>>
>>>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
>>>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
>>
>>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
>>out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
>>My 0.2
>
>
> True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
> that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
> ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

Yes. Memtest86 performs a series of read writes to the memory and
doesn't ah heck about with clock speed as a 'problem detection' feature.
If all the read/writes work, then it gets a pass, if not errors are
reported. It doesn't say 'try lowering your clock speed and see if these
errors go away'. You'll have to figure that yourself

>
> Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
> tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
> horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
> couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
> which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
> always installed and run the OS without problems.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.

I had unstable system. I ran a Linux based memory tester which booted off a
cdrw or 3.5" disk, and guess what? One of the Dual Channel modules was
malfunctioning, I went to the shop (computeria.fi, mind you) and got
replacement stick no questions asked. It worked flawlessly. Solved the
problem for me.

> Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.It will balk if

Yeah. So good. The system was unstable with defective ram, and guess what?
The machine just froze completely randomly, after 2 minutes, 7 minutes.. but
only if using a specific graphics intensive application. Initial reaction
was that maybe the driver is faulty, since that is not unfamiliar thing to
me after using ATI and nVidia products for years. So I switch driver. I
switch card. I switch vendor. Still keeps crashing. For some reason after
hours of tinkering, I somehow just know it is the ram, I download the
tester, burn it to cdrw.. boot with hands trembling.. and what the hell,
defective ram! After getting the sticks (dual channel kit!) replaced,
everything works like charm and has ever since (posting from that very same
system, A64 3000+ K8V DLX).

Latest problem was SP2 upgrade, Windows XP kept bluescreening but MS KB had
article about that, apparently the DEP / NX was broken in Windows XP SP2..
now SP2 works well too thanks for asking. I wonder what breaks next. ;-)

> Best RAM test if the user suspects a fault is to swap with a known
> good stick ;-)

Good idea. Next time I buy a new computer I will buy two dual channel 1GB
memory kits, just in case. No damn, what am I saying.. I didn't listen to
you at all, what I should do is to buy a spare "known good stick", how the
hell I know a stick is a known good stick anyway until I test it? I would
ASSUME that when I pay hundreds of bucks for a known Brand Name stick the
manufacturer would have somekind of quality assurance and testing procedure,
right? I don't know if they do, but sure as hell a defective sticks slipped
through.

So.. how you propose we know what stick is a good one and what isn't? Oh, by
testing? A marvelous idea.. howcome we didn't think of that.. *slaps
forehead* ..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:23:31 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:42:07 -0400 There I was minding my own business
>and then George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote
>:

>>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
>>that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
>>ill-informed. Have you even tried it?
>
>Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.

You do it your way - I'll do it mine and advise others accordingly.<shrug>

>>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
>>tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
>>horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
>>couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
>>which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
>>always installed and run the OS without problems.
>
>Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.

Rubbish.

>It will balk if
>there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry" fault.

A registry fault is a memory problem?<guffaw> There's a helluva lot of
other things in both software and hardware which can cause instability in
Windows... or any other OS for that matter.

>Why some people defend a piece of software that they get for free I'll
>never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into the thousands.Go
>figure.

Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.

>PS
>Best RAM test if the user suspects a fault is to swap with a known
>good stick ;-)

With a memory tester, even a software one, you'll be closer to *knowing*
that it's the memory. A couple of hours of intensive memory testing,
*before* loading the OS, can save you a lot of grief and time.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[CrackerJack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 15 Oct 2004, S.Heenan wrote:

> Franklin wrote:
>> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good
>> memory tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the
>> floppy. So it tests before Windows is launched.
>
>
> Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.

ISTR there are now 12 tests. Right?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

CrackerJack wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2004, S.Heenan wrote:
>
>> Franklin wrote:
>>> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good
>>> memory tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the
>>> floppy. So it tests before Windows is launched.
>>
>>
>> Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.
>
> ISTR there are now 12 tests. Right?



That may well be the case. I can not remember trying extended tests in the
newest version.
I imagine the same keystrokes apply.
http://www.memtest.org/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.

I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
this one location in a tight loop.

The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
> composed:
>
>
>>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
>>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
>>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.
>
>
> I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
> minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
> diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
> so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
> for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
> for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
> and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
> error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
> not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
> DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
> to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
> faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
> this one location in a tight loop.
>
> The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
> appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
> logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
> test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
>
>
> - Franc Zabkar

I can recount a few stories about diagnostic software that missed a
particular type of fault too but that doesn't mean they were useless.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

My MEMTEST (http://home/earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm) allows to
check for refresh, by inserting a delay between memory fill and pattern
check runs. The delay can be specified in the command line. For every other
pass it's 2 seconds default, every 63th pass it's 60 seconds by default.

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:ji64n0djrsu9st324c42sgmekga51g7ktm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
> composed:
>
>
> The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
> appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
> logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
> test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
>
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franklin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 15 Oct 2004, George Macdonald wrote:

>>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't
>>point out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them
>>will. My 0.2
>
> True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but
> to say that none will "point out anything of relevance" is
> absurd and ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

>
> Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
> memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
> that nothing is horribly awry and I consider it standard
> practice to run Memtest86+ for a couple of hours before
> attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system which has
> passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
> always installed and run the OS without problems.

It certainly surprised me by how long it seemed to take to do a
check. In fact I had to terminate it as I needed the machine back!

I later tried WinMemTest but it seems very simple by comparision to
Memtest86+.

I want to know if my memory is going into error after I raised the
bus speed.

>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>

 

[Franklin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 15 Oct 2004, Shep© wrote:

>>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but
>>to say that none will "point out anything of relevance" is
>>absurd and ill-informed. Have you even tried it?
>
> Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone
> running.

I had heard it was one of the best testers.

>>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
>>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
>>that nothing is horribly awry and I consider it standard
>>practice to run Memtest86+ for a couple of hours before
>>attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system which has
>>passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
>>always installed and run the OS without problems.
>
> Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.

But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
you mention.



> It will balk
> if there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry"
> fault. Why some people defend a piece of software that they get
> for free I'll never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into
> the thousands.Go figure.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check


false sense of security

But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
> you mention.


if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
long before you test with SW testers.

BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
only....

the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other things
indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
reason.



"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9585B3DB2DE6F71F3M4@130.133.1.4...
> On 15 Oct 2004, Shep© wrote:
>
> >>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but
> >>to say that none will "point out anything of relevance" is
> >>absurd and ill-informed. Have you even tried it?
> >
> > Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone
> > running.
>
> I had heard it was one of the best testers.
>
> >>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
> >>that nothing is horribly awry and I consider it standard
> >>practice to run Memtest86+ for a couple of hours before
> >>attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system which has
> >>passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
> >>always installed and run the OS without problems.
> >
> > Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.
>
> But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
> you mention.
>
>
>
> > It will balk
> > if there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry"
> > fault. Why some people defend a piece of software that they get
> > for free I'll never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into
> > the thousands.Go figure.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:22:09 -0700, "JAD"
<Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
>> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
>
>
>false sense of security
>
>But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
>> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
>> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
>> you mention.
>
>
>if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
>long before you test with SW testers.

Not if you are wise. Wise tech never boots windows if the
memory stability is in question. One single boot is enough
to trash a windows install from memory errors.

>
>BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
>the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

Nope, often registers are mentioned with no physical memory
error... just had one the other day related to MS
Messenger, which user had left enabled.

>
>if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
>only....

.... and then there's the better-than-nothing approach, to at
least make sure the box in front of you, as configured, has
no errors before corrupting any data. "Best" is always nice
but you wouldn't want to ignore testing the memory if it
were ECC either.


>the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
>a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other things
>indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
>software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
>that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
>reason.

True, but it doesn't necessarily matter. Memory module "X"
won't work in board "Y", then it has to come out regardless
of what's to blame. Within the expensive hardware tester
another module is tried instead... It's pointless to even
mention hardware memory testers since less than 0.1% of the
techs out there have access to one.