tehfade Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I just built a new system and I think I got way more memory than I need. I picked an AMD FX8350 and a Gigabyte GA-990FX-UD7 to go with it. Then, because the board supported DDR3-1866 and I wanted 16 GB, I got the CMP16GX3M4X1866C9 memory. I was surprised to find that CPU-Z said I was running the memory at DDR3-1333 speed, and shocked when, after setting the correct speed and timing in the BIOS, I couldn't even get it to POST. After reading the knowledge base sticky, it seems that despite all of Gigabyte's advertising of being capable of 1866 speed, the speed you can get actually has nothing to do with the motherboard at all, and is instead determined by your CPU. Furthermore, it seems that you could probably get higher speeds with a 2x8 configuration than a 4x4. Is this all correct? Right now, I'm livid. I did my homework before building this system, or so I thought. I wonder how many others have fallen into this trap. Regardless though, is there anything I can do to get the most out of the memory I have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutz94 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I was surprised to find that CPU-Z said I was running the memory at DDR3-1333 speed, and shocked when, after setting the correct speed and timing in the BIOS, I couldn't even get it to POST. After reading the knowledge base sticky, it seems that despite all of Gigabyte's advertising of being capable of 1866 speed, the speed you can get actually has nothing to do with the motherboard at all, and is instead determined by your CPU. Furthermore, it seems that you could probably get higher speeds with a 2x8 configuration than a 4x4. Is this all correct? Yes, you have all this correct!. What gigabyte advertizes it what the board would potentially support based or be achieved based on what CPU you choose and what configuration is chosen for memory. And yes actual speeds are determined by the CPU. But this is true no matter what system you are building, AMD and Intel both have their limits based on CPU's. And,yes again 2x8gigs is better than 4x4 gigs because with just two slots populated is less stress on the memory controller in your CPU. Right now, I'm livid. I did my homework before building this system, or so I thought. I wonder how many others have fallen into this trap. Regardless though, is there anything I can do to get the most out of the memory I have? Is this a first build? It's possible that you may be able to boost certain system voltages but it's not a guarantee. This chart is from AMD's own website. So it's something that is not just posted here. http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showthread.php?t=110428 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehfade Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 Wow, that was quick, thanks! No, it's not a first build, but the last time I really put together a decent system was back around 2005 or so, so I guess things have changed, lol. IIRC, back then, the memory controller was on the board and this wouldn't have been the kind of issue it is now. I did see the chart after like an hour of reading forum posts elsewhere, and that was when the light went on, so thanks for making it a sticky! I'm still confused though, because I tried several things I think probably should work, and still no dice. First, I looked at that chart, and I get that the max rated speed I should be able to get is 1600. So I set the memory speed to 1600, timings to SDP, and voltage to Auto. I couldn't even POST. Then I tried inching up the voltages, from 1.5 to 1.670, and still nothing. Setting the timings to the 9-10-9-27-2T didn't help either. Last, I found a thread on Tom's Hardware which seemed to suggest you needed to set not just the 9-10-9-27 timings, but ALL the ones available. There are like 8 more, and I don't even know what any of those are, but I copied what one guy used for his 1866 MHz Vengeance sticks. With that, I got the system to POST at 1866 MHz, but it wasn't stable enough to enter Windows, and I get stuck in a boot loop. So, now I'm even more confused than before. I would settle for just running this memory at the 1600 MHz everything is rated for. So why the heck can't I get it to post at that speed? And why, if I couldn't post at 1600 with SDP timing, did it work at 1866 with tighter timings? And for the love of Pete, what are all these timings I've never heard of before, and how do I even guess at what I should use when I can't find the specs on Corsair's product page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synthohol Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 the timings on the stick or the spd tab are the ones you can set manually, the other 8 or so get set automatically. your best bet is to update the BIOS to the latest, reset the bios to defaults and set the 5 timings and leave the rest to auto. on the MB page it even says "To enable AM3+ AMD FX-Series CPU support, please update your motherboard with the most current BIOS found in your motherboard’s download section." so please try that and let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehfade Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 It looks like I already have the latest BIOS. I have version F10, which is, according to Gigabyte's product page the latest one that isn't a beta, which I'm a bit leery of. You think it's still worth updating? I also looked at their memory compatibility PDF. It does list compatibility with 1866 MHz Vengeance sticks, for whatever that's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutz94 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 It looks like I already have the latest BIOS. I have version F10, which is, according to Gigabyte's product page the latest one that isn't a beta, which I'm a bit leery of. You think it's still worth updating? Absolutly! You can always flash back to the the F10 if it doesn't do you any good. I also looked at their memory compatibility PDF. It does list compatibility with 1866 MHz Vengeance sticks, for whatever that's worth. The only kit they have listed is a 2x4 gig kit which would be less of a load on the memory controller vs the 4x4 gig kit your trying to run. I really have no idea why these FX series CPU's have such a hard time with memory. We see these kinds of posts pretty often. For what ever reason they are REALLY sensitive with memory. Just so you cover all bases I would also contact Gigabyte and even AMD too to see if they can offer any other insight to this issue. I would also test the memory with memtest too , one stick at a time just to be sure you do not have a failing module. There is a link to memtest in the left sidebar if you need the download. Test each stick at default settings for about three passes or until you get an error. If one stick errors then that may be the problem, if multiple or all of them error then it's more than likely CPU or Mb related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MykSilentShadow Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Quick question, in the DRAM.Timing config page, did you set the Read to Read at 5? this is a setting I use on my Crosshair V Formula, but, it should transfer to your GB board too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehfade Posted March 1, 2013 Author Share Posted March 1, 2013 Quick question, in the DRAM.Timing config page, did you set the Read to Read at 5? this is a setting I use on my Crosshair V Formula, but, it should transfer to your GB board too Yes, I did! I actually remember that one, it was last in the list I copied. Do you mind telling me what other settings you've got, and how you figured them out? I got a couple minutes late last night to fiddle with things, and I attempted updating the BIOS. Gigabyte's update tool didn't even attempt to work, saying something about how it had to be run under 32 bit Windows. So I skipped that, until I have a couple more minutes to figure it out, and instead I tried overclocking. I was thinking that if the memory controller is on the CPU, and that's what can't keep up with the memory, I might as well try overclocking the CPU and see what happens. So I raised the multiplier by 2 for the CPU and NB, raised all the voltages a hair, and actually got into Windows with the memory set at 1600! 1866 didn't work, but still, this is better than what I had. Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything else. My network was down for some reason, and I couldn't get memtest86+. Plus, I needed sleep, so that was where I gave up for the night. Is it a sensible approach to overclock the CPU to achieve higher memory speeds? Since everything is rated at 1600, I still don't understand why it's not working at that speed without an overclock. Tonight or tomorrow when I have some more time, I will test the memory and update the BIOS as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutz94 Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Is it a sensible approach to overclock the CPU to achieve higher memory speeds? Since everything is rated at 1600, I still don't understand why it's not working at that speed without an overclock. Every CPU is slightly different than the other even given the same part number. You may have one with a particularly weaker IMC than others. Or it could be a hundred other reasons. But having to overclock your CPU to achieve higher memory speeds is pretty normal. Especially with AMD CPU's. Just keep an eye on your CPU temps. Higher overclocks will raise them some. Maybe not at all in your case but it's still something you would want to keep an eye on. Intel uses XMP to "auto overclock" the memory to it's rated speeds depending on the CPU. But even that overclocks some CPU's a little to get the memory to run faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmanico Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 hrmm I'm using 4x4 sticks @ 2133.. go figure /shrug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.