Intel DG43NB 8GB RAM?

[Shaina11]

Now I know the official documentation and specifications all say that the maximum supported RAM for this motherboard is 4 GB DDR2, but please hear me out.

According to a few different sources, on a review on NewEgg, Michael S. states the following:

Other Thoughts: I'm not sure if the board I received is a new revision but the box says that it supports 8GB of memory. I purchased the board and the 4GB of memory under the assumption that it only supports 4GB of memory. I couldn't find anything on Intel's site saying that it supports 8GB. If anyone knows anything about this Let me know

Johnathan M. also states the following:

Like another reviewer said about his board, my board also suggests it can run 8GB of RAM by way of the box. Maybe a newer revision? I don't have 2 sticks of 4GB sitting around to test with, but if it does...BONUS!

Also Jason in this forum states the following:

The release notes for BIOS rev 60 state:
Set SMBIOS type16 max memory capacity = 8GB.
AFAIK type 16 means Physical Memory Array.

All of the other documentation holds to the 4GB limit. Maybe that's an over site?

I found the release notes for BIOS version 0060 to which he referred and it mentions the following:

• Fixed 8 GB performance issue.

• Set SMBIOS type16 max memory capacity = 8GB.

• Reprogrammed CPU MTRR if 8 GB DIMM populated.

Also RAMCity specifies that the motherboard supports 8 GB max. (Though I'm more doubtful of the legitimacy of this site.)

So here's my question. Do you think it's possible that the motherboard actually does support 8 GB of RAM, and do you think it could work? Has anyone had a similar case where a BIOS update actually increased the maximum RAM?

Also please don't suggest that I shouldn't "waste" money on upgrading this board, as I am intentionally building an older rig for older games from the XP era, though it would also be neat to dual-boot XP with 7. So I want to know if the RAM situation is worth testing? I have BIOS version 0090 currently.

What are your thoughts on the situation and have you ever had or heard of a BIOS update that increased the max RAM capacity?

 

[brispuss]

The Intel motherboard DG43NB uses the G43 chipset. The integrated memory controller within this chipset supports at least 16GB.

However, the system BIOS may limit the amount of memory that is accessible to the system.

From the "official" specification at Intel here, it suggests a memory limit of 4 GB, but is "dependent on memory type" (probably memory chip density related). Intel may have only had lower density memory chip modules available at the time of testing and of publishing the limitation of 4 GB for system memory.

However, from BIOS version 0060, the notation "Set SMBIOS type16 max memory capacity = 8GB." indicates that the system memory limit has been increased to 8 GB. Later versions of BIOS do not appear to have increased memory capacity further (to 16 GB).

With the chipset supporting at least up to 16 GB, but the BIOS supporting up to 8GB only, it is expected that the Intel DG43NB motherboard should, in theory, support up to 8 GB of system memory (using 2 x 4 GB DDR2 modules).

 

[Shaina11]

Thanks for the informative response. I currently don't have any 4 GB modules to test with, but I think I'll try to pick some up at a local shop after a while to test and see if it works.

I imagine the most compatible RAM would be low-density correct? And how exactly can I be certain that a particular module is low or high density? Does density have any relation to buffered/unbuffered RAM as well?

Also, could you clarify what you meant when you said 'Intel may have only had lower density chip modules available at the time...'? Would high-density chips have made a difference, or perhaps they only had smaller capacity chips, such as 2 GB modules? I had heard that high-density chips are more geared towards servers and are supposedly compatible with 10% of the machines vs low-density.

 

[brispuss]

First, if getting 4 GB modules for testing, preferably get both modules from the same dual channel kit to ensure that the modules are compatible with each other.

Otherwise if trying individual modules (not from the same kit), then there is a possibility of incompatibility between the memory modules due to variance in module characteristics (each module has unique characteristics). In this case be prepared to spend a bit more time/money in finding inter-module compatibility.

The G43 chipset definitely supports up to 2 Gb (Giga-bit) capacity/density memory chips, but may not support higher density memory chips such as 4 Gb and higher.

For 4 GB (Giga Byte) memory modules, each module should have sixteen 2 Gb (= 256 MB) memory chips @ 8 bit data width, which is the most common data width for unbuffered memory.

So you are wanting 2 x 4 GB modules that use 16 x 256 MB memory chip per module.

Generally, most older systems with older chipsets will not support modules that use 4 Gb (or higher) density memory chips, and in some cases modules with 2 Gb (or higher) density memory chips will not work either.

Details on memory density are available from a few memory manufacturers (via their websites). Unfortunately, most memory manufacturers do not specify memory chip density on their modules so it becomes difficult to know whether the modules are likely to be compatible or not.

Memory chip density is not related to whether the memory is buffered or not.

If there are specific 4 GB modules of interest, then advise their make and part numbers, and information on the chip density will be try to be found.

Intel in publishing their memory compatibility list (which lists compatible memory up to 2 GB only), would have tested the memory that was available at the time of testing; they may not have had 4 GB modules available at the time of testing.

 

[Shaina11]

A few sources conflict with what you're saying:

2GB module: total Module layout is 256Mx64
High density - each Chip is 256Mx16
Low density - each Chip is 256x8

4GB module: total Module layout is 512Mx64
High density - each Chip is 512Mx16
Low density - each Chip is 512Mx8

You're saying a 4GB module I need is 256M x 8 on 16 chips right? That's is only a 2 GB Module. Are you sure you didn't mean 512? Or am I just being dumb and don't know what the heck I'm asking, lol. I need a good source to learn about RAM density and chip layout.

EDIT:
Oh wait, sorry, turns out I was wrong, you're right about the 256M x8 x 16. They just don't make things very clear.

At any rate, thank you for the information, help, and advice. I will definitely be testing this out in the nearish future.

 

[brispuss]

Yes, I was going to add that the designation "512M x 64", for example could mean that the module uses either 512M (memory locations) memory chips, or 256M memory chips but in dual rank configuration (512M = 2 rank x 256M). So the designation 512M x 64 by itself is not really useful.

I have actually requested from some memory manufacturers to clarify the memory chip architecture used on their modules within their module specifications so there can be no confusion. Unfortunately the manufacturers have not as yet responded, so the confusion to actual memory architecture used still remains.

Good luck with the testing, and keep in mind what I said before about trying individual modules (inter-module compatibility may be an issue due to variance in memory characteristics).

 

[GhislainG]

G.Skill F3-10666CL9D-8GBNT should work; finding low-density modules is challenging.

 

[Shaina11]

Yes, I was going to add that the designation "512M x 64", for example could mean that the module uses either 512M (memory locations) memory chips, or 256M memory chips but in dual rank configuration (512M = 2 rank x 256M). So the designation 512M x 64 by itself is not really useful.

I have actually requested from some memory manufacturers to clarify the memory chip architecture used on their modules within their module specifications so there can be no confusion. Unfortunately the manufacturers have not as yet responded, so the confusion to actual memory architecture used still remains.

Good luck with the testing, and keep in mind what I said before about trying individual modules (inter-module compatibility may be an issue due to variance in memory characteristics).

Thanks for clarification and the advice. It would definitely be nice if they were more simplistic with the specifications. Maybe one day.

G.Skill F3-10666CL9D-8GBNT should work; finding low-density modules is challenging.

Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately it looks like that is DDR3 RAM, I need DDR2, and good luck finding 2x 4GB DDR2 modules non-ECC, Unbuffered, Low Density for less than $100, I've looked. Unless I can find some cheap at a local shop.

 

[GhislainG]

If it's DDR2, then a Crucial CT2KIT51264AA667 kit should work (presuming the motherboard supports 4 GB modules). If I were you I'd try to find a used kit locally and test it before buying. I have a G.Skill F2-6400CL5Q-16GBPQ kit in an old GA-EP45-UD3P motherboard and it works fine, but it was expensive.

 

[Shaina11]

$200 For that kit on every site I'm seeing... holy smokes DDR2 has gotten expensive as heck. I hope DDR2 price eventually comes down.... maybe with the birth of DDR5? More likely it'll become even harder to find non-ecc, unbuffered, low-density non-server RAM. Aye. Costs an arm and a leg to keep old machines running now.

Yeah, definitely going to check locally to even see if I want to attempt any upgrades on this rig. May not be worth it if 8GB is going to cost that much. I could put that and the CPU/GPU upgrades towards something much more powerful in the future. Since when has RAM been more expensive than the CPU and GPU combined?

 

[GhislainG]

I would build a new system that uses DDR3 or DDR4 since it's inexpensive.

 

[Shaina11]

Right now that's not an option, but thanks for the advice. Perhaps in the future. I wanted to build an older rig for XP-era games anyway, so should be fine with 4GB if I stick to older games.

 

[GhislainG]

4 GB is plenty for XP; a lot of systems only had 1 GB.

 

[kanidrive]

I'd like to give this thread a solid necro-bump and ask if there was ever any success from anyone upgrading the RAM for this board to have over 4GB (6 or 8GB+?) as I'm doing some recon for some clients for the Meltdown/Spectre fiasco. It sounds likely there will be a significant performance hit to older systems after the software patches and bios/microcode updates roll out (or if there will be any at all for some systems). Adding some extra RAM might make the system "feel" a bit more "peppy" to offset the likely performance hit.

 

[GhislainG]

Do they run Windows 7 or newer? Adding a SSD would be a much better improvement.

 

[kanidrive]

Do they run Windows 7 or newer? Adding a SSD would be a much better improvement.

Yes, there is already a modern SSD in the rig, but its not exactly the fastest machine. There was a significant investment in keeping it alive for as long as possible and they are not ready (or willing) to upgrade. Especially considering that all virtually the current CPUs on the market (as well as the next generations) have these security flaws.

I realize upgrading to a new system after the patch has been applied would effectively nullify the notice-ability of any slowdowns, but they are pretty proud of this machine and the work it does. I'm guessing they are going to hold out for at least another year or three (at least...) before retiring it, if they can.

 

[GhislainG]

Unless the systems are swapping with 4 GB, upgrading to 8 GB (probably not possible with that motherboard, but you can test it and charge them for your time and parts) won't help. If they run Windows 32-bit, then they need to install Windows 64-bit (an upgrade is not possible, but that's another revenue opportunity).

 

[kanidrive]

Yes that is true. The weird Irony is that its running 64 bit Vista Pro but is limited to 4GB of RAM. In an interesting twist, it turns out one of the RAM sockets appears to be bad, which is probably why its running slower than we'd hoped. Seeing that only 2GB was showing, I looked inside to discover it actually already has 8GB (2x4GB) installed, lol. So unless there was some kind of BIOS hack floating around out there like in the olden days, I don't think this machine is going to remain useful for much longer. I have seen a few popping up online over the years, particularly the insanely cheap asking prices on ebay auctions that come already "fully loaded" with RAM. It's cool this board has at least one PCIe x16 slot for a little upgradability but I can't see any good reason to put any more money or time into this particular machine unless to strip it for parts. I have to give it props though, it's not half bad for what it is. I did some performance tweaks and its still usable for tasks like older versions of Word, surfing the web with 3-4 tabs open and email, which is mostly what its always been used for.

I've seen a lot of these newer lower-end Ryzen CPUs come with heatsinks around $100 and boards to drop them in for $60-$100 also, but its the DDR4 RAM pricing that is driving up the cost of these newer systems. It's getting ridiculous. The same kit I bought 3 years ago is now actually nearly $100 more today. If anything, maybe by the time the "alleged DDR4 RAM shortage" starts dwindling down they will be ready to upgrade. Especially with the bad RAM slot and the security risk from Meltdown + Spectre.

Has anyone tried the latest Security patch on one of these boards? I don't think there will be a patch made for XP, but it may be possible to patch Vista with the Windows Server 2008 patches if you download them manually from MS Updates and install them that way.

Curious if anyone with the board noticed a big hit to performance...

 

[GhislainG]

Microsoft won't release patches for an OS that no loger is supported. Applying a kernel patch for a different OS version probably won't work.

 

[kanidrive]

MS almost definitely won't release an explicit patch for Vista since its EOL however...
They DID apparently release an update for XP in 2017 over the WannaCry issue - https://betanews.com/2017/06/27/get-regular-free-security-updates-for-windows-xp-and-vista/

Odd thing too is the Bing cached description summary result for the Spectre and Meltdown support page explicitly states Vista will NOT be getting the update, but on the actual page it doesn't state that anywhere at all (albiet no mention of Vista, whatsoever) - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4073757/protect-your-windows-devices-against-spectre-meltdown

I was surprised to find a few of these kinds of articles popping up on the radar - https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/24/windows-vista-server-2008-updates/

I'm pretty sketchy of the idea too, but its worth a shot considering the security implications now that the Speculative Branching flaws are widely known.

I'm waiting for the dust to settle a bit on these updates though. There have been a lot of articles about the fallout ranging from systems no longer booting to needing to reinstall Windows completely. The "big fix" seems to be from the combination of BIOS CPU Microcode updates and OS patching though. And since there doesn't seem to be a BIOS update for this board since 2011, I doubt that will happen. The options seem to be "stay exposed" or take a serious performance hit from a dodgy way to get a patch for an OS that is no longer supported with updates. I'd rather not be "the first" to try any of this stuff, so I'm hoping the community is verbose about individual successes and failures first before I try any of it. I'm hoping someone in this thread might be even crazier than I am to try it out and let me know what the performance hit is like if it does actually get patched. Good ole BleepingComputer has an excellent article on how to test if your machine is vulnerable, and if it is patched or not through some regedit and powershell jiggery-pokery: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/how-to-check-and-update-windows-systems-for-the-meltdown-and-spectre-cpu-flaws/