Jump to content
Corsair Community

Low Vista Memory Subscore


Recommended Posts

I hate to bother you guys with trivialities, but I thought I'd ask.

 

I've got an EVGA 680i SLI card with 4GB of TWIN2x2048-6400C4D. Under Vista, everything ranks a 5.9, except the memory, which falls in at a 5.4.

 

I know there is faster memory, but I'd think this would be pretty darn good. Also, I was at my friendly BestBuy today and looked at an $800 Gateway running Vista Premium and 2GB of ram with a memory subscore of 5.9.

 

Any ideas? Or should I just chalk it up to some Microsoft oddity.

 

Thanks,

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 6400c4d ram 2 sticks and also my system gets a 5.9 on everything but the ram that gets a low 5.2 I think it's because the chips on these ram have been changed to lower and slower cost chips and they used the chips for the faster ram. There was a replacement program for guys who felt ripped off but that only lasted 1 month. Now your out of luck. I bought the fan to see if you can overclock the ram like the ad says but you will still get a blue screen.Overpriced snails!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that true? If so, that really, really stinks. I mean, why spend all that money on 'high-end' memory if it isn't high-end?

 

Can anyone else confirm that? Or is it just a fun conspiracy story?

 

I'll also try it with two sticks and see what happens.

 

EDIT: Found this link indicating sticks purchased before 11/06 had slow memory chips. I suppose it's possible I have old sticks, but I just bought them. Perhaps there is a way to identify them? Or maybe it's not a problem after all.

 

EDIT 2: CPU-Z indicates manufacturing date around June, 2006.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran SiSandra over it, and it barely beats out PC2-5300 memory. It's 19%+ slower than the PC2-6400 Intel 975X.

 

I'm not real knowledgeable about memory, so this might be a 'duh' kinda thing, but I'd appreciate any enlightenment you can provide.

 

Thanks,

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tried it with 2 sticks only. I tried both sets of two, in fact.

 

Vista changed from 5.4 to 5.0.

 

XP-based Sandra Lite showed no change in bandwidth between 2 and 4 sticks.

 

I did noticed that my memory (6400C4D) is considered 'Performance' vs. 'Enthusiast'. So, I guess I can't get blazing speeds. Nevertheless, I expected more. How is an $800 Gateway with cheap memory scoring 5.9 in Vista?

 

Any other thoughts? BIOS checks? Any numbers I can report that will clue anyone in?

 

Maybe the memory is just slow, and I'm expecting too much?

 

Thanks,

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reviewing other benchmarks and reviews, the culprit may, in fact, be my QX6700 processor. Apparently, it's fairly low on the Sandra rating list.

 

So, I guess the memory is plenty fast, but the processor just can't get to it.

 

Very irritating.

 

Does anyone have similar issues?

 

Thanks,

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, case solved, sort of. Any additional comments would be appreciated, though.

 

The issue IS NOT with the memory. Sorry for casting any doubt, there. It just looked like a memory issue.

 

Apparently the quad-cores fight over the memory bus occasionally. Obviously, more cores accessing memory, the slower each one is, but I had assumed that if only one core had anything running, it wouldn't matter. Of course, I don't know if I can guarantee only one core being busy.

 

Anyhow, in the EVGA Bios, it allows me to disable specific cores. I disabled cores 3 and 4 and Vista generated the expected 5.9. Interestingly enough, it didn't detect it as a hardware change, even though it does display the correct (two in this case) number of cores in Task manager.

 

I rebooted XP (as that's where SiSandra is), and it was unable to function on any modules involving the processor. Just a big blank.

 

As a test, I ran Supreme Commander in performance mode and it reported the same numbers on two cores (with supposedly better memory performance) as on all four cores. So, it appears that the memory performance is about the same and that the low measurement is some sort of phantom. Having SiSandra working would have been nice.

 

Thanks for all your help and suggestions.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...