Too much RAM

[Geek4Life]

A mate was telling me that if you're going to have 512MB or more of DDR RAM in an AMD based system. That it should be registered RAM because other wise too many errors occur and it is too slow.

Does that sound right.

[SilverPriest]

Erm, no.
It is not right.
ECC ram is really for large amounts (over a gig) that are in system critical places, like web servers etc, that NEED uber uptime.
It will make next to zero difference for you and me.
Unless you want to have your pc on for several weeks @ a time, or something.
It just isnt needed, but the extra reliability, and boast factor *cough*KJ*cough* are nice.
It is slower tho...
Unless u plan on getting a gig or more of ram, dont bother with ECC (registered) ram.

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

One of these would be nice though, especially in a nice dual cpu system.

1024MB stick of Corsair PC2100 Registered CAS2.5 DRAM (http://www.stylespc.com/)

*drools* :D

or maybe 4. Pity 'bout the $1900 each price tag. :(

[thabass]

The AMD based chipsets recamended that you use Registered DIMMs if you have more than 1/2gig or had more than 2 dimms in a system. Not sure where i read that tho.

[Deviant]

I've read that it's due to the extra capacitence in the systems now with all this memory. DDR is still a fairly new technology, and there have been many mobo makers that have had problems getting more than two sticks of RAM going in a motherboard. We all want faster memory, so the specifications give it to us but in return we get slower CAS latencies to make it happen. Stability and errors also seems to be a problem. Are there any/many PC333 CAS 2 chips out there? And when DDR400 comes to the masses, it will all be CAS 3 for a while. Aparently it's largly due to new higher speeds base on old SDRAM technology. Maybe we will all be RAMBUS users in a few years.

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by SilverPriest
Erm, no.
It is not right.
ECC ram is really for large amounts (over a gig) that are in system critical places, like web servers etc, that NEED uber uptime.
It will make next to zero difference for you and me.
Unless you want to have your pc on for several weeks @ a time, or something.
It just isnt needed, but the extra reliability, and boast factor *cough*KJ*cough* are nice.
It is slower tho...
Unless u plan on getting a gig or more of ram, dont bother with ECC (registered) ram.

Did I mention I've got Reg. ECC DDR?? :eek: :p :cool:

/me.isClown();

Heh, I'm working on a RAM article ( was gonna be a RAM FAQ ) ATM - it should answer that, and many more questions..... :D :p

[Deviant]

I look forward to it KJ.

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

Originally posted by KingJackal


Heh, I'm working on a RAM article ( was gonna be a RAM FAQ ) ATM - it should answer that, and many more questions..... :D :p

Will you be touching on future techs at all QDR for example?

[GooGlo]

Registered and ECC are different....

Which do you mean?

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Gh0s7 L3mUr
Will you be touching on future techs at all QDR for example?

Nope. I could <RANT> on for 10's of thousands ( or more ) of words if I did everything. EDRAM, QDR, Solid state as a memory alternative, bla, bla, bla - it would never end. I could then get all nostalgic explaining EDO and fastpage, and bla, bla, bla...


Basically, for the sake of brevity and the amount of time it takes to write articles ( and everyone's concentration span ;) ) the aricle will focus mainly on SD-RAM ( DDR and SDR ), with the odd RAMBUS bit.

And no, it doesn't give any mathematical models for memory or cache simulation, and no, it doesn't explain caching/paging algorithms, and no it doesn't bla, bla, bla.....

:D :D
I think you get the point.... ;)

Registered and ECC are different....

Which do you mean?

True. My article already explains that.... :D :p

But either will help when using large amounts of memory. Registration helps with DIMM syncronisation ( when you have lots of sticks of RAM ), while ECC helps with memory errors ( which are an issue for servers and other boxes for whom uptime = life ).

[2 much thinking]

Originally posted by Geek4Life
A mate was telling me that if you're going to have 512MB or more of DDR RAM in an AMD based system. That it should be registered RAM because other wise too many errors occur and it is too slow.

Does that sound right.

what about using different OS's. would it be fair to say anything over 512m ddr or sd in 98 would be pointless?

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by 2 much thinking
what about using different OS's. would it be fair to say anything over 512m ddr or sd in 98 would be pointless?

You CAN'T use more than 512MB of RAM in a Win9x system. Not only will it not work, it will actually crash giving 'out of memory' errors!

Trust me, I've tried.... :D

[Humantuckshop]

I once had 512MB of DDR in my comp, running Windows ME - and yeah, what KJ said. You can't even open a MSDOS window. ROFL.

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Humantuckshop
I once had 512MB of DDR in my comp, running Windows ME - and yeah, what KJ said. You can't even open a MSDOS window. ROFL.

:confused: :confused:

ME runs fine with 512MB..... or do you mean you ( like me :D ) tried another stick of RAM just to see what would happen? :D

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by KingJackal

or do you mean you ( like me :D ) tried another stick of RAM just to see what would happen? :D


Yeah whoops, sorry I had 512 and tried another 128 - that is what I meant.

[Solid Snake]

Was wondeirng ay ... cos I was running 512 MB of DDR since DDR came out on Win98SE