RAM (2 questions) [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

fezident

07-02-2006, 10:05 AM

I was cleaning my studio and I vaccumed the front of my  desktop computer.  (it was off) When I powered up, I got an error message and used my laptop to figure out the problem. It mentioned that I should remove the newly installed RAM.  For no particular reason, I removed the top stick (1gb) and after thart my computer started with no probs.Did I fry the RAM itself OR did I fry the slot that the RAM fits in to?  Also, I have dual-channel memory.  Has anyone REALLY seen an improvement in performance with this feature or is it a sham?

PhishHead

07-02-2006, 10:15 AM

maybe when vaccuming you jostled it lose, have you tried putting it back in and seeing if it works?

fezident

07-02-2006, 10:17 AM

Yes.I get some kinda XT300XT message.  I don't remember it exactly but, I cannot proceed beyond that black screen.  No safe mode.  Nuthin'. It works without that RAM stick but, I don't wanna risk testing that slot if it damaged from the vaccum static/shock.

PhishHead

07-02-2006, 10:19 AM

take out the other ram stick and put the other one in its place to see if it works

fezident

07-02-2006, 10:21 AM

Alrighty.That was my initial intent but, I didn't know if I could do any more damage.  I never really poke around in there.  If the SLOT was damaged...could it do damage to whatever RAM I put in there?  Sounds like it might be okay to try.  Will let you know....Thanks Phish.

PhishHead

07-02-2006, 10:23 AM

you should be okay trying the RAM in the okay slot.

PhishHead

07-02-2006, 10:28 AM

oh to answer your other question about Dual Channel...it is not a sham, its very good.  But you have to make sure you have an identical pair of sticks in the slots.  It needs to be same company, amount of ram and specs and everything, otherwise the computer wont recognize it and still let it run in single channel mode.

fezident

07-02-2006, 10:36 AM

That stick is toast.I put it in a slot that is currently working, and when I powered up...I got that same error message.  I removed it.  Put the old stick back in and VIOLA.  Here I am. Oh well. Lesson learned. Thanks Phish.

PhishHead

07-02-2006, 10:39 AM

sorry to hear that bro.  Never knew vaccuming could do that, i will have to be more careful.

PaulF

07-02-2006, 10:51 AM

You're running plastic across synthetic fibers in the carpet - static electricity.

fezident

07-02-2006, 11:16 AM

Off topic but, Is there a discernable difference between INTEL processors and an AMD processor?  Is it like Duracell and Energizer OR....is there an actual different technology applied to AMD?  What would be a reason to select one over the other?  I'm looking to cut down my digital video rendering times.

MadMatt

07-02-2006, 12:44 PM

IMO, canned air is the best for basic cleaning.  It sucks if you have allergies (which I do), but it's probably the safest.I'm sorry for your loss, but at least it is only one of your sticks and RAM isn't terribly expensive to replace.

fezident

07-02-2006, 01:22 PM

So, nobody has any thoughts or opinions about AMD processors?

SatCam

07-02-2006, 01:45 PM

fezident wrote: So, nobody has any thoughts or opinions about AMD processors? 

You get more bang for your buck. AMD can usually do more for you without the Intel prices. As far as the "technology" is concerned, both use Intel's x86 architecture (the only difference being Intel's MMX and SSE vs. AMD's 3DNow!), which is why the same software can run on both processors, but not something like a PowerPC chip.

AMD's dual core chips outperformed Intel's in every test <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html">CNET did</a>, where AMD's cheapest chips were often just as good as Intel's midrange chips.

FreshJ

07-02-2006, 08:43 PM

Amd vs Intel basically used to be CISC vs Risc processors....Amd uses a reduced instruction set to do the same job that an intel computer will use...because intel is usually a complete instruction set processor. At this point in time the major difference is the 64 bit vs 32 bit...Amd is offering affordable 64 bit processing where as intel has yet to really go there in the personal computer market.  Both are good processors, but if you are looking at getting a new machine wait until August after the price decreases will come in for both intel and amd.  This could mean a better bargin.

reeshy

07-03-2006, 02:54 AM

Technically, it was Paul and Linda McCartney, since this album was very much a collaboration between them. Some of the material was of the standard we expected ("Monkberry Moon Delight," "The Backseat of My Car," "Uncle Albert/AdmiralHalsey"), but somehow it all seemed entirely too whimsical, as if they'd spent a bit too long isolated on the farm. It was the expectations that were the problem, of course. Paul was simply making a lighthearted album, and we wanted earth-shaking pronouncements. Take Ram on its own terms (i.e., fun), and it's throughly enjoyable.

PaulF

07-03-2006, 08:11 AM

fezident wrote: Off topic but, Is there a discernable difference between INTEL processors and an AMD processor?  Is it like Duracell and Energizer OR....is there an actual different technology applied to AMD?  What would be a reason to select one over the other?  I'm looking to cut down my digital video rendering times.  As of right now, the AMD dual core has the advantage - lower cost, more power per watt (runs cooler and uses less electricity) and in some tests I've seen, will render video in some cases (depends on program and codec) in 2/3 of the time.This might change when the Core Duo (this is the chip used in the new Macs and is different from the Intel Dual Core chips) desktop systems come out shortly without some of the restrictions necessarily put on them for use in the current generation of mobile versions.The processors used in this comparison run in the $300+ range. At slightly lower cost, the Intels might have an advantage - strictly on video rendering, while the AMD will be the better all around performer.Prices are going to change soon though.

fezident

07-03-2006, 08:43 AM

So, the intel chips that are currently in MACs have a different architecture than the ones that, say, DELL is using??What was the motivation behind MAC suddenly switching to the Intel chips anyway? Was it a cost issue or a performance issue?

SatCam

07-03-2006, 10:53 AM

fezident wrote: So, the intel chips that are currently in MACs have a different architecture than the ones that, say, DELL is using??What was the motivation behind MAC suddenly switching to the Intel chips anyway? Was it a cost issue or a performance issue?

They are running the same architecture that Windows computers are running, which is why the Mac OS had to be re-programmed, and why Windows can now be run on an Intel Mac.

FreshJ

07-03-2006, 11:05 AM

fezident wrote: So, the intel chips that are currently in MACs have a different architecture than the ones that, say, DELL is using??What was the motivation behind MAC suddenly switching to the Intel chips anyway? Was it a cost issue or a performance issue?   The main reason for the change is the power issues that Ibm and motorola were not taking care of with the G5 and G4 power pc chips.  It may have also been a slight push buy intel to try and move into a new market.  After all if intel chips are on apple computers, then they can sell more units.

PaulF

07-03-2006, 01:57 PM

FreshJ wrote:  fezident wrote: So, the intel chips that are currently in MACs have a different architecture than the ones that, say, DELL is using??What was the motivation behind MAC suddenly switching to the Intel chips anyway? Was it a cost issue or a performance issue?   The main reason for the change is the power issues that Ibm and motorola were not taking care of with the G5 and G4 power pc chips.  It may have also been a slight push buy intel to try and move into a new market.  After all if intel chips are on apple computers, then they can sell more units. Basically, the new macs are running the same chip that is in the lastest Windows-based laptops. Windows-based desktops running these processors are hitting the market soon.Steve Jobs wanted to go to Intel chips when Apple was looking to replace the G4 processor, so to that end he had programmers working to make their OS work on Intel for all this time. But at that time, Motorola /IBM realizing they were going to lose the market, rushed the G5, which Apple went with.  As far as replacing the G5, neither seemed too interested in pursuing a replacement, which left Apple with no choice but to go to the x86 (referring to Intel/Amd processors) platform.Macs are only about 3% of the market, a situation caused by Apple's refusal to let other manufacturers make compatible machines. There were a few clones, but Apple shut them down quickly. If the ability to run Windows were the only factor, Apple probably wouldn't see much growth, but the success of the Ipod and everyone's experience/exposure to them added in should at minumum double their market share quickly if they can handle the demand.

fezident

07-07-2006, 12:46 PM

What are some of the differences in RAM of the same speed? I've seen a 1gb stick of RAM vary in price by as much as 100 bucks?  The specs are the same so...how different could the expensive stuff really be?  What makes some RAM cheap and another companies' version so much better?

zentraed

07-07-2006, 01:29 PM

fezident wrote: 
What are some of the differences in RAM of the same speed?
 
I've seen a 1gb stick of RAM vary in price by as much as 100 bucks? The specs are the same so...how different could the expensive stuff really be? What makes some RAM cheap and another companies' version so much better?

 
There are a couple of major RAM specs. First is type, DDR, DDR2 and many others. Next is speed (DDR-400, DDR2-667, etc.). And the last is CAS-Latency, which is an integer value that specifies how many clock cycles it takes to retrieve a block (or something like that). Your motherboard determines the type and speeds supported, but CL level varies. The best RAM chips have low CL values at their rated speeds and can be stably overclocked. Since you want dual-channel, get one of those programs (like CPU-Z) that tells you your memory specifications and get one that's similar to your existing chip.
 <img width="600" height="353" border="0" src="http://www.zentraed.com/ronfez/cpuz.jpg" /> 

This message was edited by zentraed on 7-7-06 @ 5:50 PM

PaulF

07-07-2006, 02:56 PM

For RAM of identical specs, the price difference may come down to quality control. The more expensive having undergone more rigorous post-manufacturing testing by the manufacturer, and usually with an appropriate better warranty. The cheapest stuff is usually basic commodity stuff that has been cranked out and given a quick spec check. There are also some differences in the materials, aside from the memory chips themselves, such as the circuit boards and other components.For the average user, get the best bargin. But for servers, critical systems, and over-clockers better RAM can make for a more reliable system.