View Full Version : Corsair XMS not compatible with P4P800?
I just put my new system together and the only problem I have is that Windows is unstable with the Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR ram that I have in it. Its two 256 sticks in Dual DDR mode. i had to put my old Crucial 512 PC2100 DDR in it just to install windows because I kept getting the blue screen of death. After I installed WinXP I put the Corsair back in but It restart everytime i tried to install and drivers for video, sound, LAN, etc. Does anyone know if there is a way to fix this?
Working with Asus P4P800 Deluxe
P4 2.8 800FSB HT
Corsair Twin Sticks of 256 PC3200 DDR
are your memory settings in the BIOS set to SPD or manual?
um i guess SPD because I didnt change it. Now that you mention it I remember someone doing a review and saying that they had to change the settings. I never had to do that before. Now i have to try and find that review.
I know of only one confirmed Corsair issue with these boards. Specifically, Corsair TWINX sticks. They will NOT work right in the P4C800 specifically. So my guess is it's the same issues with P4P800. ASUS confirmed this to my local PC store. The TWINX stuff are ones Corsair certifies to be identical twins and are certified only for the KT400 chipset and do some timing things that the 875P chipset does not like in dual channel mode.
I bought non Twinx (standard XMS PC3200) 256MB sticks and run in dual channel mode without any issues that I am aware of. The RAM is running at 400Mhz according to Sandra and is scoring around 4,485 mb/s in Sandra.
I have a call in to ASUS about this and other memory related questions and I am trying to get to the bottom of this myself as my scores should be a little faster. More like 4900-5100 mb/s and I want to know if this is because of timing problems with Corsair on this chipset.
BTW - Corsair is not listed as an approved memory for this board. Also, Intel created a new JDEC spec for DDR400 for these dual channel boards specifically and are using timings slightly different than the current collection of DDR400 on the streets. Wont know more until I talk to them.
Charles.
On hold for over an hour today only to get thier voice mail for a return call and no one called back. Bastards!
I'll keep trying!
Charles.
Intel Dual DDR boards do not like agressive settings run it at 2.5/3/3/6.
I read somewhere that Asus has a beta Bios that was supposed to address this problem. You might want to check this out....
BTW, I'm running my Intel Canterwood board w/ Corsair XMS3200 @ 2.5-2-3-6. That's as aggressive as I can go stable.
Later.....
I have everyhting set to AUTO or by SPD and I have no idea what the timings are set at. I am getting 4,450 mb/s in Sandra. Not bad but reviewers were getting 4900 give or take. I have not been able to get ahold of ASUS yet. 3 Tries so far.
Charles.
I talked to Asus last week and they said they had never heard of the problem and to contact the ramguy. Today i downloaded the 1007.1 beta BIOS and it is working better, i can't overclock that high though. I'm probably going to RMA this and get the Kingston HyperX. Does anyone know if there is a problem with this memory and the board?
I spoke to someone called the GOOG and this was what went down...
Well I set out and set my timings to 2-3-3-6 which is what my memory is rated for. And the 5th setting I set to 8 as per his comments. Things went well with the first few tests. REmember. For me this is not about getting 1 more frame per second. I just want to run the memory at it's factory defaults as is intended. The tests were only to see if there was any effect at all.
Before changing the memory timings, I left them at "BySPD". I ran CPU Z utility as the GOOG recommended. It said I was set to 2.5-3-3-8. Hmm... considerably slower than the rated timings for this memory. I then went manual and set to 2-3-3-6 and tested away....
3DMARK2001SE went up about 70 points. 3DMARK03 went up 12 points. OK, so far so good. Ran Sandra memory and went from 4483 to 5002. Hmmm... Lookin good. BUT!!!!
Ran CPU arithmatic test and blam! I lost about 10-15%. YES I said LOST 15% in CPU performance. How is that? With the settings at the default "By SPD" the processor tests in Sandra were showing my 2.6C a little faster than a P4B-2.8 (533 FSB). After I applied the tighter timings, I was just a little slower than the 2.8Ghz. Wierd. While these tests are synthetic, I decided to ignore the last test. But then I noticed something. My comps reaction time seemed a second to two seconds slower than normal when starting applications. For example, in the standard "By SPD" settings, there was almost no delay from the time I clicked on IE and it popping up on the screen. Same with Word or Excel or even the Sandra main screen. My computer was always just jumping to attention at my every click. With the faster timings (2-3-3-6 8) there was now a noticable second and a half to two second lag in application startups. I can only attribute this to the memory controller running dual channel at 400 Mhz and having PAT by default. The timings are perhaps just a little too tight and it actually hurt performance in key areas due perhaps to excessive error correction between memory controller and RAM. I repeated this test twice and the results were the same each time.
I guess I'll leave it in "By SPD" mode. It still rocks any way.
One thing I might consider is that at 2.5-3-3-8 when left to "By SPD", this RAM can take a slightly higher clock speed. Given that even Intels new board officially supports a 5% smart overclock simular to ASUS, I will look at doing that. With a 5% AI overclock, I should see better performance across the board especially in the memory bandwidth department.
I have learned that memory timings are much harder on stability than small overclocking of the FSB.
Charles.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.