What kind of ram did you get that it won't run a 400 stock? If it's a reasonable quality 3200 try the timing at 2.5 3 3 8 (if it's a 'value' flavor, set it at 3 3 3 8). Set ratio to 1.1. No matter what, you're better off with the 1 GB.

yeah its wierd it isnt able to run at stock no matter what the timings...the fsb of my cpu is 230mhz though so i set the divider to 333mhz instead of 400mhz and i got the speed up to 190mhz...turning off the paging file resulted in a HUGE performance gain for me (especially when loading music) so i am sticking with the 1gb, even if it is crappy

Generally you are going to be better off with the 1GB RAM no matter what.

Yeah, I fail to see why DDR400 wont run at DDR400 speed, unless you did not buy DDR400 RAM.

Are you running in dual-channel mode?

Just a tid-bit. Many games require the paging file to be on as no matter how much RAM you have, a small bit of data is sent there. Besides, the paging file wont be used if RAM is available UNLESS its requires by the application.


There is not really enough information here to answer your question though.

What make/model motherboard?
CPU?
What type and geometry RAM did you purchase, and what is the brand. (better yet, the part number)?
What do you use your PC for?

ok well first of all i did not purchase the ram, my friend gave it to me in exchange for the 512mb ddr400
my mobo is an ASUS K8N
my CPU is Athlon 64 2800+ running at 2.07GHz
the ram is built for dual channel, but my motherboard is single channel (its always better to get dual channel ram cause u know you are getting the exact ram) it is 2 x 512mb of Kingmax MPXC22D

from what i have read about the modules the inability of the ram to reach ddr400 is because of some sort of incompatibility with AMD mobos

I mostly use the PC for listening to music, i edit pictures in photoshop alot, and it is used for gaming as well (Radeon x700pro)

As for the paging file i havent encountered any game or app that gave me trouble for it (photoshop gives you a notice, but it still loads fine) It seems that winamp/wmp11 have a rather large performance benefit from turning the paging file off


*update*

it seems the ram is not the problem, as i put in just one stick and it ran at 230Mhz (DDR460) just fine, and the benchmarks were even better than my old ram...so it has something to do with my motherboard   

1GB

from what i have read about the modules the inability of the ram to reach ddr400 is because of some sort of incompatibility with AMD mobos

I found a review that uses a K8N-Sli mobo and an AMD 3500+ CPU and what I believe is your RAM. Their conclusion was:

Our tests however proved that this was not the case, as the Kingmax memory modules performed just as well as anything the competition has to offer.


Kingmax has added a lot of features in the SuperRAM series and especially the programmable read latency, which might be useful for some users who require higher timings at lower operating frequencies. There are two SPD timings offered, the default 400MHz (2.5-3-3-7) and the slower 266MHz (2-2-2-5).

The Bad:
- Slow performance at 266MHz
- Cannot operate at 400MHz with 2-2-2-5 timings

Heres the Link to the full conclusion

it seems the ram is not the problem, as i put in just one stick and it ran at 230Mhz (DDR460) just fine, and the benchmarks were even better than my old ram...so it has something to do with my motherboard

Have you tried the other module in the same slot? If you have, and it works, then both modules are probably good.

Then try placing one module in the slot that works, and the other in a slot other than the one you tried the first time. If it works well, Then you have a bad RAM slot on your MB.

For what you use your PC for, you will definitely be better off with the 1GB vs the 512GB.

Concerning the paging file, I'm not optimistic that you will gain much of any overall system performance by not employing the paging file. This is what I have found on my own tests in the past, rather it seemed to have caused just the opposite in certain instances. I would be interested to see any benchmarks you might have. I would also be interested in anything the others may have experienced in this respect.

It's my feeling, if you can find 2 RAM sockets that will function on your MB, and employ the 1GB RAM, you should have no trouble what so ever getting at least PC-3200 speeds, and you should notice quite significant overall system performance using the 1GB vs the 512MB.

Good luck and please let me know

P.S. If you manage to get both modules working in 2 well working sockets, try using the following RAM timings:

2.5-3-3-7

3-3-3-7

3-3-3-8*

* this should work no matter what.

i tried all those timings and they dont change anything really...i tried a single piece of ram in all 3 of my modules and they were able to run @ 230mhz apiece, so i know it isnt the ram it is the lack of power to my mobo, before i had a similar problem with my 512mb (2 x 256mb) and increasing the voltage to 2.7v solved the problem...i changed the voltage to 2.8v and no luck.

btw i read the review you were talking about...which calls to beleive even more that the ram is not the problem.

i cant really do anything now anyways cause my hard drive seems to have died. !!!

*edit* and thanks to my superior PC repair skills my comp is alive again

*edit again* in terms of paging file it is program specific...my benchmarks are pretty much the same...but there is a very big performance gain when i load music in WMP11 or Winamp. I havent yet encountered any problems yet for not having a paging file, nor have i encountered any performance loss.

I'm glad everything worked out

Don't ram timings mean marginal improvment bonuses anyway? I mean can you get from the same quantity of ram, lets say two systems with a single 1GB stick of ram inside, one with the best latencies and one with average or slightly below average, what would be your performance increase with the better ram, 5%, 10%,20%? I know that adding ram, doubling the quantity of RAM gives you vastly more improvement for the same money so if the question is increasing quantity over latency times, then adding more quantity is always better for system performance then having lower latency times but less RAM. All of the data that goes into the RAM has to come from the harddrive at one time or another so it doesn't really matter how good you latency times are if the RAM is constantly loading and unloading to the Hard Drive anyway right?

latencies do not really mean much of a performance difference at all...but ram frequency sure does

Don't ram timings mean marginal improvment bonuses anyway?

Thats the point of optimizing isn't it? Every little bit counts?

All of the data that goes into the RAM has to come from the harddrive at one time or another so it doesn't really matter how good you latency times are if the RAM is constantly loading and unloading to the Hard Drive anyway right?

Dan, I believe latency is the time measured from data transfer from the CPU to RAM. Yeah, it has little to do with ones hard disk.

I understand what latency time is and how it works, but when loading programs everything starts at the harddrive which is vastly slower of an upload then anything going on between the ram and the CPU, so if you can get more of the data into RAM even slow ram, that's good, if you have less ram, meaning more harddrive access then the latency of your ram is moot. Agreed?

In the case of 512MB vs 1024MB of RAM where XP is using about 192 MB outright by itself, that mean yous have either about 300MB or 800MB of data that is indexable inside the RAM or has to be transferred up and down the harddive line from the harddrive to the ram and back down to the harddrive's pagefile/virtual ram.

If you have 1GB of low latency ram and 1GB of higher latency ram then obviously the lower latency ram is going to be a performance booster, even if marginal. My point was in the case of going with an extra 512 of ram or spending the money on lower latency ram I guess the only case where it makes sense to me to spend money on lower latency ram is if you are going to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB and decide instead to just got with a 1GB stick of lower latency ram.

I understand what latency time is and how it works, but when loading programs everything starts at the harddrive which is vastly slower of an upload then anything going on between the ram and the CPU, so if you can get more of the data into RAM even slow ram, that's good, if you have less ram, meaning more harddrive access then the latency of your ram is moot. Agreed?

Ill agree with all except the fact that latency is moot, As latency is truly the bottleneck after the app is loaded into ram.

Windows XP running under 512MB RAM using typical apps really never uses the swap. Have a look. 1GB is only a performance increase if its required. But none the less, even though it may be overkill, I recommend 1GB RAM. I wont build em any other way unless the client insists.

My point was in the case of going with an extra 512 of ram or spending the money on lower latency ram I guess the only case where it makes sense to me to spend money on lower latency ram is if you are going to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB and decide instead to just got with a 1GB stick of lower latency ram.

Definately agreed!

Really, id get a MB that supports dual channel (costs less than the RAM btw) and run (2) 512MB modules of good RAM. Thats really your best bet.

Wouldn't you say it's most likely that with the way people use their systems today, at least in the US, personal systems, not necessarily business systems, though I had open four different applications simultaneously at work yesterday all day...

That with 512MB, your odds of swapping data off the Harddrive's page file are much greater then with 1GB, simply because of the volume difference and the OS's percentage of occupation inside 512MB and inside 1BG?

And that being the case then it really wouldn't matter what the latency speed of the ram was unless it was excessively low, maybe ram types they dont even make anymore?