# Amd athlon x4 631 problem



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

I  got the same configuration amd athlon 631 and the Asrock motherboard as ive seen on some post, but the scores that my PC have seems to low, maybe there is some problem, so can anyone tell me what are your Windows experience score and the passmark score of the CPU on stock frequency

Mine PC scores are:

Passmark: 3700 CPU Mark score, the average score on passmark should be more then 4500 heh

Windows experience index: 7,2


----------



## Thefumigator (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> I  got the same configuration amd athlon 631 and the Asrock motherboard as ive seen on some post, but the scores that my PC have seems to low, maybe there is some problem, so can anyone tell me what are your Windows experience score and the passmark score of the CPU on stock frequency
> 
> Mine PC scores are:
> 
> ...



Basic questions:
Are you using "high performance" energy profile in (windows control panel) Power Options?
Are you using the same version of passmark used by the other user you are comparing to?
Are you overclocking as the other user might be doing?
Are you up to date with windows update, drivers, etc. (not that relevant most of the times)
What about power supply? is it good enough?


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Thefumigator said:


> Basic questions:
> Are you using "high performance" energy profile in (windows control panel) Power Options?
> Are you using the same version of passmark used by the other user you are comparing to?
> Are you overclocking as the other user might be doing?
> ...



- Yes it is high performance mode, its even clocked by Asrock Utility on 3ghz


- Well the score is pritty the same on all versions ive tried on other PCs too

- I clocked it a bit

- Well yeh drivers are updated

- THe power supply is the cheapest ive ever used some HANTOL supply that theoretiacly can peak up to 500 W but its hardly reachable, and i dont know but maybe thats the problem


PS: I wanted to say also that i got Geforce 9500 GT 1 GB ram i borrowed from my friend, and the same GPU had like 30k score on 3dmark 03 , while here it has only 13k score thats pritty a dissater heh


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Iam asking cos i got em like a day ago, and if theres something wrong with the parts so i can return em and get new parts


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 4, 2012)

There is a lot that goes into a benchmark score.  RAM speed makes a huge difference with these benchmarks.  Passmark is affected greatly by RAM speed and timings, so if you are using slower RAM in your setup I can see 3700 be a reasonable score, I'm seeing 4300 everywhere for the 631, so a 600 point swing isn't unreasonable.

The same thing with the 9500GT.  The 1GB variants were almost always DDR2, which killed the card's performance.  The DDR3 versions performed way better.  A highly overclocked 9500GT DDR2 scores in the 15,000 range in 3DMark03, so if your 9500GT is at stock 13,000 sounds right.

So there is nothing wrong with your parts.


----------



## Thefumigator (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> PS: I wanted to say also that i got Geforce 9500 GT 1 GB ram i borrowed from my friend, and the same GPU had like 30k score on 3dmark 03 , while here it has only 13k score thats pritty a dissater heh



The only way to reach 30k in 3dmark 03 using a 9500GT, is overclocking the card. There's no way that card would even reach 20k in 3dmark 03 without overclock.

Notice that when using 3dmark, whatever version, you have to leave the default options as is (screen resolution and others). If you decrease resolution you will get a better score. If your friend didn't change anything to 3dmark then another way that I can think to increase the score is setting the driver to "low quality"/"performance" (correct me if I'm wrong)

here you have an example of brutal overclock to reach 30k
http://be.hwbot.org/submission/834459_massman_3dmark03_geforce_9500_gt_gddr3_128_bit_29234_marks/


Then take a look at memory speed as newtekie1 suggested


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Thefumigator said:


> The only way to reach 30k in 3dmark 03 using a 9500GT, is overclocking the card. There's no way that card would even reach 20k in 3dmark 03 without overclock.
> 
> Notice that when using 3dmark, whatever version, you have to leave the default options as is (screen resolution and others). If you decrease resolution you will get a better score. If your friend didn't change anything to 3dmark then another way that I can think to increase the score is setting the driver to "low quality"/"performance" (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> ...



Well my default ram speed is 1333 MHZ, i havent tried to overclock it yet and it has 2 GBs of RAM

About the 9500GT i tested the same GPU on my friend PC , the only difference is that he had 512 memory while this one have 1 gig of memory and the both memories are the same sddr2, and his card scored way more then 20k i tested it like a month ago.

Iam gonna take adidional 2 GB ram stick too

And about the CPU score, My friend bought actually the same CPU - A6 3650, a month ago, which is actually the same CPU, but mine has disabled GPU acceleration, and his CPU scored like almost 5k score on the PASSMARK test on same RAM speeds, the only difference was that i got less RAM then him he has 4k and i have 2k RAM


About the PS, ive made a configuration on a site that shows the power ure components use and it says that, they use like 270 Wattts, while the maximum amount of power this PS can get is 230 watts - HANTOL 500w

So what should i buy first, new PS better with at least 300 watts of real power, or another memory stick

Here you are some screeenshots, detailed info for my PC:

http://postimage.org/gallery/a0253bq/99eaaac3/


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

And i would also like to say that i tested it again on passmark withhout the 3ghz overclock, but with 1900 MHZ RAM speed, the CPU was on stock frequency and its scored only 3200 thats too low for this CPU since the average score on that CPU, global rate is like 4400 points, So can anyone tell me what to do, take a PS or whateva


----------



## HossHuge (Mar 4, 2012)

Here's my AMD Athlon II X4-631 (Rig 2  - listed below)  







At stock and my ram at 1866 I was getting around 3600 cpu score


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> Here's my AMD Athlon II X4-631 (Rig 2  - listed below)
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120304/Untitled1vgh.jpg
> 
> At stock and my ram at 1866 I was getting around 3600 cpu score



How come this CPU has 4400 average on PAssmark scores, this is not possible, and btw can you tell me whats ure Windows EXPERIENCE CPU and RAM index


----------



## HossHuge (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> How come is 4400 average on PAssmark scores with 631 then, this is not possible



The problem is that you have no idea how many of the 61 samples are overclocked.






Remember, it's a benchmark listing.  People are trying to post the highest score possible.

Edit: and BTW my Windows experience index is 7.4


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> The problem is that you have no idea how many of the 61 samples are overclocked.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120304/n121510809_36985388_827.jpg
> 
> ...



Ahh well how the heck then, i got only 7,2 Windows  CPU experience index and 5,5 RAM index pff


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

And btw you can check which one is clocked and which one isnt in the program theres full detailed info about RAMS latencies freqs and everything. I was talking about STOCK clocked CPUs, all of them had amore then 4k SCORE, and the overlocked had like 6k and more score on passmark x64 bit


PS: Please take screenshot from ure windows experience index and show it


----------



## HossHuge (Mar 4, 2012)

2 things.

1. post your system spec in the user cp.  It helps everyone help you.
2. I'm getting higher Windows score cause my cpu is clocked higher than yours by about 350mhz.  BTW don't put to much stock in the windows score.  I've read that different builds give different scores.

Edit: I see your new here so another thing to keep in mind is that they don't like double posting.  Try to use the edit button.  Welcome 2 TPU.....

Edit #2.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> 2 things.
> 
> 1. post your system spec in the user cp.  It helps everyone help you.
> 2. I'm getting higher Windows score cause my cpu is clocked higher than yours by about 350mhz.  BTW don't put to much stock in the windows score.  I've read that different builds give different scores.
> ...




http://postimage.org/image/vs3wiu5b3/

Sorry about the doubleposts, i was used from other forums to doublepost cos it wasnt forbidden. And about the CPU score.... prolly thats Motherboard problem since my friend with the actually same CPU A6 - 3650 had almost 5k score on stock freq. He is using an ASUSTEK MB





This is my win experience index, i also got other problems there like 4,4 score on Windows Aero with Geforce 9500GT which is not possible

http://postimage.org/image/vs3wiu5b3/


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

Didnt you have only 1 RAM stick? 
If so, that explains about all, 1 stick means only single channel memory, meaning half the bandwith, meaning a lot less performance, both in the Windows Performance Index, as in CPU benchmarks.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> How come this CPU has 4400 average on PAssmark scores, this is not possible, and btw can you tell me whats ure Windows EXPERIENCE CPU and RAM index





InternalSys said:


> This is my win experience index, i also got other problems there like 4,4 score on Windows Aero with Geforce 9500GT which is not possible
> 
> http://postimage.org/image/vs3wiu5b3/




Windows Experience isnt a respected benchmark in industry. It's actually hard to take you seriously whenever you mention it! If you want to measure two CPUs use Passmark, 3D Mark CPU score, SuperPi, WPrime, Sis Sandra etc.

Edit:

Download 3D Mark 2011 trial, that will give us a better idea of how your entire rig is performing, CPU and GPU.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dmark11/download/


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Ok guys, thank you. Ill get another ram module these days and ill test it after


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Windows Experience isnt a respected benchmark in industry. It's actually hard to take you seriously whenever you mention it! If you want to measure two CPUs use Passmark, 3D Mark CPU score, SuperPi, WPrime, Sis Sandra etc.



That is besides the point here though, also, WPI does give a rough estimate of the performance, and it is certainly able show the difference between single and dual channel memory.

Edit: 





InternalSys said:


> Ok guys, thank you. Ill get another ram module these days and ill test it after



Allrighty, awaiting the results!


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Sorries but i forgot to ask, since this first module is 2gb Transcend 1333 mhz, the second one should be same 1333 or i can take 1600 then , overclock em both in bios to work on 1600 both, it should be doable since i already overclocked this first one , up to 1800 mhz and it worked fine


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 4, 2012)

Mathragh said:


> That is besides the point here though, also, WPI does give a rough estimate of the performance, and it is certainly able show the difference between single and dual channel memory.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Allrighty, awaiting the results!



Wait wait.

The problem with Windows Experience is the score is capped at the slowest performing component.

The reason why you are only getting 5.9 overall is because thE Hard Disk is getting 5.9 - So the bechmark capped the result. 

For example, CPU  9.0, Graphics 9.0, RAM 9.0, Gaming Graphics 9.0, Hard disk 7.0 - The overall will be 7.0 because of the cap on the slowest component.

In essence as far as the Windows Experience is concerned the bottleneck is the Hard Disk, which is rediculous. This is why I say dont use Windows Experience!

If the OP's mate gets a higher score its because his HD probably isnt restricting his maximum score. The OP is getting capped at 4.4 for the same reason.


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Sorries but i forgot to ask, since this first module is 2gb Transcend 1333 mhz, the second one should be same 1333 or i can take 1600 then , overclock em both in bios to work on 1600 both, it should be doable since i already overclocked this first one , up to 1800 mhz and it worked fine



If you plan to run them both at 1600, and you know your current can do 1800, then imho the best course of action is to buy another one of the same stick you already have. This will negate any compatibility issues.



Dent1 said:


> Wait wait.
> 
> The problem with Windows Experience is the score is capped at the slowest performing component.
> 
> ...



Please read the whole thread. He was not referring to the total score, he was referring to the RAM score, also, all his CPU scores are consistently lower, with the CPU out of the question, everything seems to lead to the RAM being sub-par. The fact that he actually has one stick, makes it a 99% certainty.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 4, 2012)

I actually agree that he probably has a memory bandwidth problem. His memory score should increase once he ups to dual channel. I was just pointing out the overall will stay at 4.4 because of the video card. I hate that benchmark with a passion.


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> I actually agree that he is probably has a memory bandwidth problem. His memory score should increase once he ups to dual channel. I was just pointing out the overall will stay at 4.4 because of the video card. I hate that benchmark with a passion.



Haha, so it seems! 

And I agree, its definately not the best way of measuring system performance, as a matter of fact, it is not a benchmark at all, it is just a rough estimate of what your total system performance will be. And in this it does its job.

I actually dont really have a problem with it, as long as you remember that its not a benchmark, its just showing how your system will perform at certain tasks in a very basic way.

Edit: it can also be important to run if you want to let windows optimise some settings for the hardware, it isnt much, but for the non-techies among windows users its a nice and streamlined method of tuning windows to your hardware.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

But, how come i got 4,4 Windows Aero score and 6,5 gaming score. While on the old 7300GT 512 with lots older configuration i had higher Windows Aero score. And also i tested the same GPU at friends PC, just his version have lower memory- 512, and it performs way better on all the benchmarks. We tested it on 3dmark 03 his card had 25k or more score on default res and settings while i got 13k only, thats really weird


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> But, how come i got 4,4 Windows Aero score and 6,5 gaming score. While on the old 7300GT 512 with lots older configuration i had higher Windows Aero score. And also i tested the same GPU at friends PC, just his version have lower memory- 512, and it performs way better on all the benchmarks. We tested it on 3dmark 03 his card had 25k or more score on default res and settings while i got 13k only, thats really weird



I believe the windows aero score is greatly based on GPU ram, both in speed and amount. His 7300 with 512MB could also have "Hypermemory", it was a technology that nvidia used to increase GPU RAM, by using some of the system ram as GPU RAM(this actually doesnt really increase performance most of the times, but was a nice marketing gimmick). This artificially increased amount of ram could be fooling the Windows Performance index for the Aero part, since its greatly scaling with GPU RAM. 

As for your friends' 9500GT, are you absolutely sure he has the same type(DDR2) as you? GPU-Z will report the GPU RAM type correctly most of the time. I'd suggest both you and him run GPU-Z and see what the RAM type is, and also what the Bandwith is that GPU-Z reports.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Well pritty sure, he has 512 ddr2 ram and i got 1 gb ddr2 ram thats the only difference. Iam actually not sure what was the bus width, mine is 128 bits wide


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well pritty sure, he has 512 ddr2 ram and i got 1 gb ddr2 ram thats the only difference. Iam actually not sure what was the bus width, mine is 128 bits wide



Well its a good idea to check GPU-Z for that then


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 4, 2012)

To be honest, those numbers sound correct for the CPU that is being used. The Athlon is a budget chip, and even my Phenom II 940 doesn't get much higher on the Windows scale. Also keep in mind that the CPU can be hindered by other components such as motherboard (depending on HT & NB speed,) and memory (main speed when it comes to CPU score.) Over-clocking the memory controller on my Phenom II 940 will actually increase both the CPU and memory scores in Windows 7. Just keep in mind that many components are tightly coupled together.]

Edit: As far as "HyperMemory" is concerned, I have a backup Radeon x300 SE in case something bad happens and it says "256Mb with HyperMemory" and if you take a look at the memory chips on the video card, it actually only has 32 or 64Mb of onboard video memory (I don't remember which, either way it isn't much,) so unless you have really fast memory and a CPU with a good memory controller, your memory bandwidth will make the GPU suffer, but with something like that I doubt you will be using a video card with HyperMemory.

A great example would be AMD's Llano chips and how you get reasonable performance benefits between 1333, 1600, and 1866 memory. (Not a lot, but it's a noticeable increase.)


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> To be honest, those numbers sound correct for the CPU that is being used. The Athlon is a budget chip, and even my Phenom II 940 doesn't get much higher on the Windows scale. Also keep in mind that the CPU can be hindered by other components such as motherboard (depending on HT & NB speed,) and memory (main speed when it comes to CPU score.) Over-clocking the memory controller on my Phenom II 940 will actually increase both the CPU and memory scores in Windows 7. Just keep in mind that many components are tightly coupled together.]
> 
> Edit: As far as "HyperMemory" is concerned, I have a backup Radeon x300 SE in case something bad happens and it says "256Mb with HyperMemory" and if you take a look at the memory chips on the video card, it actually only has 32 or 64Mb of onboard video memory (I don't remember which, either way it isn't much,) so unless you have really fast memory and a CPU with a good memory controller, your memory bandwidth will make the GPU suffer, but with something like that I doubt you will be using a video card with HyperMemory.
> 
> A great example would be AMD's Llano chips and how you get reasonable performance benefits between 1333, 1600, and 1866 memory. (Not a lot, but it's a noticeable increase.)



Is it bad if i overclock my RAM sticks from 1333 to 1800, is it safe or nope


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Is it bad if i overclock my RAM sticks from 1333 to 1800, is it safe or nope



I could be. It depends on how much voltage your provide it, how hot they run, and how stable your system is. I used to have a set of DDR2-533 that over-clocked to DDR-800 with a little voltage bump. Also keep in mind you should be able to adjust memory timing to accommodate an over-clock that high, but you won't get the performance because of the timings. It's a balancing act.

Keep in mind you run a risk every time your overclock and adjust voltages for hardware to fail because it is working outside of spec.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 4, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Is it bad if i overclock my RAM sticks from 1333 to 1800, is it safe or nope



Depends on your motherboard and the type of ram you've got. 

Even with the best branded memory modules and a decent motherboard going from 1333Mhz to 1800MHz isnt always easy. Might require increased voltage  and a bit of technical skill in the bios. etc. 

Going from 1333Mhz to sub 1600MHz seems more realistic on budget hardware.

OC'ing is relatively safe, but you always run the risk of damaging the hardware if you don't know what you are doing.

What do you DO with your PC exactly?  Why are you so determined to squeeze more out of it?


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Depends on your motherboard and the type of ram you've got.
> 
> Even with the best branded memory modules and a decent motherboard going from 1333Mhz to 1800MHz isnt always easy. Might require increased voltage  and a bit of technical skill in the bios. etc.
> 
> ...




Well the problem is i buy a PC really rearly , my last pc was from 2003 , and i used it till i bought this half-new PC few days ago, old PS,hdd and case and new MB,CPU,RAM and GPU.
Iam so tense about it, cos i did many benchmarks and the CPU always did like half of the scores  shown there that are on the same stock frequencies. I want to discover if thers some problem on time to return some of the parts and replace em with other to try again.I bought this pc like three days ago and iam still testing it on every single benchmarking software i can find

About the RAM i overclocked it from 1333 to 1900 MHZ and it was pritty stable and good, so it should be ok to leave it on that frequency, cos the MB manufacturer advertises that feature that the ram modules are clockable to 2400 mhz and even have ton of apps for it and even bios settings. I was amazed when i saw, how this bios looks like, its like an windows app, not like the old dos like windows iam use to see, when i was changing some settings on my old PC. So, ill prolly get another 2GB 1333mhz Transcend ram , and ill do the same tests again, to see how it will perform with dual channel ram, instead the single channel bandwith now.

Firstly i wanted to get, Phenom II x2 565 and unlock it to 4x cores , i ordered it, and few days after that, employees from the store called me and told me that CPU cannot be found anymore, i even searched the whole country for it. After , a month of looking for a PC, for almost the same PRICE i saw that this Amd athlon 631 FM1 CPU performs really good for the price, and thats why i got it and now iam just trying to get the scores from the other CPUs ranked on the benchmarks with same frequency, but something is wrong with it. Maybe its the Power supply, it doesnt have enought power, to power up all the components cos its like MAX 230 watt PS, while these components should be powere with way more power then that, or maybe its cos i got only 2 gigs of ram which runs on single channel mode. 


PS: If anyone got, the same CPU but another MB from another manufactured , please tell me your experience so i can compare it , and see is it an MB fault or it is something else


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

It would also help if you filled in your user system specs apart from that, I wonder what another stick of RAM would do for your performance.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Mathragh said:


> It would also help if you filled in your user system specs apart from that, I wonder what another stick of RAM would do for your performance.



There are links up in the 3 or 4 replay, with the full system spec , a gallery of pictures


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 4, 2012)

Mathragh said:


> It would also help if you filled in your user system specs apart from that, I wonder what another stick of RAM would do for your performance.



Like Mathragh said, unless you tell us exactly what you're running, we're going to have trouble with comparisons.

Fill out your system info in your profile and we will do our best to help you out.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Well here is the full spec http://postimage.org/gallery/a0253bq/99eaaac3/ , and about doing it on my i dont see any option for it


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

In the top of this page there is a button named "user CP", after you click on that you will see a button to your left which will lead you to your personal system specs.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Mathragh said:


> In the top of this page there is a button named "user CP", after you click on that you will see a button to your left which will lead you to your personal system specs.



Hehe done. It prolly works now 

I havent seen that option earlier there cos i was using the crappy theme


----------



## de.das.dude (Mar 4, 2012)

dude... fill your system specs here http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/profile.php?do=specs

then make sure at the top of that page itself, you made it visible bu selecting yes.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Well it was selected on visible, but there was some bug, after i realoaded the page it works


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

You stated you have a 9500GT, and the pictures you posted also shows you have a 9500GT. Why do your system specs now say you have a 7300GT?


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Mathragh said:


> You stated you have a 9500GT, and the pictures you posted also shows you have a 9500GT. Why do your system specs now say you have a 7300GT?



Iam sorry dude, it was a typo i havent seen it. Thank you


PS: Lulz my Laptop TUrion p540 just managed to score more then the Athlon CPU score in 3dmark 03 heh


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

Not trying to be a pain in the ass(or bottom), but it still is wrong i think


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Woot, but i fixed it


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 4, 2012)

So you DO have a 7500GT, and not a 9500GT?


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 4, 2012)

Ahh lol it should be fixed now, i dont see what do i type hehe


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 4, 2012)

How is that running for you? You must barely be able to play games with 2gb of ram. 4Gb really is the standard you see with Windows 7, even more so since you're running 64-bit.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 5, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> How is that running for you? You must barely be able to play games with 2gb of ram. 4Gb really is the standard you see with Windows 7, even more so since you're running 64-bit.



Well, its runing well all the possible games, even tried Crysis on highest settings and its goin good. And also tried games like World of Warcraft and some other games on Ultra High


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 5, 2012)

You probably have high loading times though, since windows has to write alot to your pagefile, and about nothing can get prefetched. However, fps, once loaded, should be fine. If you want games like WoW to feel alot more snappy, more RAM will amaze you


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 5, 2012)

Mathragh said:


> You probably have high loading times though, since windows has to write alot to your pagefile, and about nothing can get prefetched. However, fps, once loaded, should be fine. If you want games like WoW to feel alot more snappy, more RAM will amaze you



Very true story. Also if you have Windows 7 with SuperFetch and PreFetching enabled, more ram will enable the OS to cache more files so loading anything will feel more snappy as the computer figures out what you like to use a lot. I couldn't use 2gb of ram, after I start my computer and VMs I'm instantly at 4gb usage. Open a browser and a game and that will easily be 6gb.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 5, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well, its runing well all the possible games, even tried Crysis on highest settings and its goin good. And also tried games like World of Warcraft and some other games on Ultra High



There is no way you can run crysis at high with 2GBs of ram and a 9500GT. You'd probably be getting sub <15-20 FPS average, one day load up fraps as you play. I only get around 45-60 FPS at highest which is just about OK and this is with crossfire 5850s, Athlon II X4 @ 3.5GHz, 16 GB of DDR3 @ 1440Mhz 9-9-9-15-11-1T, NB + HT link @ 2700Mhz!

Yh but as the guy above said, 4GBs is considered the minimum for running Vista and windows 7. Todays' games will eat up just over that, so your HD is most definitely borrowing memory as virtual memory which is like over 1,000 times slower.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 5, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> There is no way you can run crysis at high with 2GBs of ram and a 9500GT. You'd probably be getting sub <15-20 FPS average, one day load up fraps as you play. I only get around 45-60 FPS at highest which is just about OK and this is with crossfire 5850s, Athlon II X4 @ 3.5GHz, 16 GB of DDR3 @ 1440Mhz 9-9-9-15-11-1T, NB + HT link @ 2700Mhz!
> 
> Yh but as the guy above said, 4GBs is considered the minimum for running Vista and windows 7. Todays' games will eat up just over that, so your HD is most definitely borrowing memory as virtual memory which is like over 1,000 times slower.



Well it was runnin on Highest settings and it was playable, i didnt said it was great but it was playable at least. And i havent seen that my windows tried to pass the 2gb limit with the adidional hdd memory, cos there wasnt any game that was using alot of ram memory


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 5, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well it was runnin on Highest settings and it was playable, i didnt said it was great but it was playable at least. And i havent seen that my windows tried to pass the 2gb limit with the *adidional hdd memory*, cos there wasnt any game that was using alot of ram memory



WHAT?

windows will not allow resources to use more memory than your system has installed. If you install 4GB, windows will allow more programs to take up as much ram as they need until it gets to 4GB


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 5, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> WHAT?
> 
> windows will not allow resources to use more memory than your system has installed. If you install 4GB, windows will allow more programs to take up as much ram as they need until it gets to 4GB



Well since i got 4 gigs available RAM memory , and only 2 gig memory stick it is possible to use more memory then 2 gigs

But on the XP pc, havent tried if it works on Win 7

And about games, i dont play any games iam not a gamer, was used to play WOW in the past, but not anymore i just tried how Cata runs on Ultra high


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 5, 2012)

Windows 7 home X64 is what you should run to utilize all 4GB of ram


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 5, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Windows 7 home X64 is what you should run to utilize all 4GB of ram



You need to use x64 cos u cant utilize more then 3,79 ram with x32 bit Windows. But i was talking about that, your windows can use a part of the hardrive as a RAM Memory, i was doing it many times on my old pc cos i havent got enought RAM, i had only 512 ram stick, i was allocating aditional memory from the hardisk and had for example instead 512 available, like 1500 or more megs avilable memory. That was what i was talking you about, thats a windows feature


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 5, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> You need to use x64 cos u cant utilize more then 3,79 ram with x32 bit Windows. But i was talking about that, your windows can use a part of the hardrive as a RAM Memory, i was doing it many times on my old pc cos i havent got enought RAM, i had only 512 ram stick, i was allocating aditional memory from the hardisk and had for example instead 512 available, like 1500 or more megs avilable memory. That was what i was talking you about, thats a windows feature



32-bit = 4gb max for memory mapping.
Lets say you have 4gb of ram and 32-bit OS with a 512mb video card. Assuming no other devices use memory-mapped I/O, you're going to be stuck with 3.5gb to use because 32-bit can only address up to 4gb of memory. Additionally, that 4gb is split up in two 2gb chunks, one for application space and the other for OS space. Installing a 64-bit OS eliminates this restriction.

Yes, you can address more than 4gb using PAE on 32-bit machines, but I've heard horror stories of how unstable PAE is on Windows. You're better off using 64-bit on any modern day computer.

What InteralSys is describing sounds like a video cache in system memory because 32-bit wouldn't reduce the memory available if you only have 2gb.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 5, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well it was runnin on Highest settings and it was playable, i didnt said it was great but it was playable at least. And i havent seen that my windows tried to pass the 2gb limit with the adidional hdd memory, cos there wasnt any game that was using alot of ram memory



Windows Vista/7 at maximum efficiency  will idle at 2-2.5GB, because you've got low ram, Windows restricts the visual effects on 2D desktop level, general OS features and caching of files is reduced an attempt to scale things down for efficiency. Running any modern game, even a semi old one like Crysis will push it past the 2GB threshold into the 4GB+.

Run Crysis for 10mins in window mode, and then bring up Task Manager and see for yourself. Do a screenshot too for us.

Edit:



Aquinus said:


> I bet you also have a hell of a time trying to minimize Crysis 2 from full screen mode too. Next time you do it watch your hard drive LED indicator, I bet it stays brightly light for the entire time it is minimizing.



lol.

 I disable virtual memory completely. I run the CMD "fsutil behavior set memoryusage 2" hack to further increase the file system cache size that get paged into my physical ram (not HD). So my Full 16GBs is utilised. No LED indicator for me (much) lol


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 5, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Windows Vista/7 at maximum efficiency  will idle at near 2GBs, because you've got low ram, windows restricts the visual effects, features and caches less files into ram in an attempt to  scale things down for efficiency. Running any modern game, even a semi old one like Crysis will push it past the 2GB threshold into the 4GB+.
> 
> Run Crysis for 10mins in window mode, and then bring up Task Manager and see for yourself. Do a screenshot too for us.



I bet you also have a hell of a time trying to minimize Crysis 2 from full screen mode too. Next time you do it watch your hard drive LED indicator, I bet it stays brightly light for the entire time it is minimizing.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 5, 2012)

Iam using 64 bit windows btw, none mentioned 32 bit windows hehe. And would also like to say that, the memory i was talking about is not a video memory , its a virtual memory


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 5, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Iam using 64 bit windows btw, none mentioned 32 bit windows hehe. And would also like to say that, the memory i was talking about is not a video memory , its a virtual memory



Virtual memory is slow. Keep in mind that DDR3 is measured in gigabytes per second where rotational media hard drives are typically measured in megabytes per second. When push comes to shove, you want to avoid virtual memory when ever possible.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 5, 2012)

InternalSys,

Also, to help illustrate my point. Here is a screenshot of Task Manager. Everything is idle at desktop, relatively low process count of 58 (I  disabled everything non essential).  Notice that Windows 7 has ate up 2.3 GBs of ram doing NOTHING.  Also notice that windows has cached an additional 5949MBs of data into my 16GB total for optimal efficiency.

My point is, if windows can use 2.3GBs doing absolutely nothing taxing. Your rig must be atleast 300MBs down and handicapped at desktop before you load any games, as you have 2GB total. Your virtual memory is coming into play and pissing on your performance.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> InternalSys,
> 
> Also, to help illustrate my point. Here is a screenshot of Task Manager. Everything is idle at desktop, relatively low process count of 58 (I  disabled everything non essential).  Notice that Windows 7 has ate up 2.3 GBs of ram doing NOTHING.  Also notice that windows has cached an additional 5949MBs of data into my 16GB total for optimal efficiency.
> 
> ...



Just to play devils advocate, if you boot Windows 7 with 2gb of ram, it will actually scale back how much gets loaded up. I have a friend who I built a computer for with spare parts and it won't use more than 1gb on boot after a clean install.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> InternalSys,
> 
> Also, to help illustrate my point. Here is a screenshot of Task Manager. Everything is idle at desktop, relatively low process count of 58 (I  disabled everything non essential).  Notice that Windows 7 has ate up 2.3 GBs of ram doing NOTHING.  Also notice that windows has cached an additional 5949MBs of data into my 16GB total for optimal efficiency.
> 
> ...




How the... ure Windows uses 2,8 gigs of RAM lol, and for example i got 6 gigs of ram on my laptop and it uses only  1,5 gigs of ram with alot of apps on heh


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

And, can few of you who has powerfull AMD based PCs to test it , with this TOOL named maxPIFLOPS and post the screenshots here, i just wana see how the new AMD 32 nm CPUs compare with the older ones

http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/downloads/maxxflopssup2---preview.php


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> And, can few of you who has powerfull AMD based PCs to test it , with this TOOL named maxPIFLOPS and post the screenshots here, i just wana see how the new AMD 32 nm CPUs compare with the older ones
> 
> http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/downloads/maxxflopssup2---preview.php



This is relevant to the discussion how? I am a little curious though. When I jump on my tower maybe I'll run it.

Back to the topic at hand, the more memory you have the more willing Windows 7 will be to load more of itself into memory. You will find that if you have 8gb of ram (like my current rig,) Windows 7 will use 2gb on boot. It scales to how much memory you have available. Now with that said, someone with 8gb of ram will notice better results because less needs to be loaded as most of it is already in memory.

Keep in mind, performance is relative and not everyone is willing to spend heaps of money on their computer (unlike me and a number of people here).


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> This is relevant to the discussion how? I am a little curious though. When I jump on my tower maybe I'll run it.
> 
> Back to the topic at hand, the more memory you have the more willing Windows 7 will be to load more of itself into memory. You will find that if you have 8gb of ram (like my current rig,) Windows 7 will use 2gb on boot. It scales to how much memory you have available. Now with that said, someone with 8gb of ram will notice better results because less needs to be loaded as most of it is already in memory.
> 
> Keep in mind, performance is relative and not everyone is willing to spend heaps of money on their computer (unlike me and a number of people here).



Hehe i just saw on a Microsoft forum that feature about the caching thingie is new, and it was introduced with Windows 7 or Vista, before it wasnt workin like that


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

I tried the tool on my tower and it caused my system to BSOD with a System Service exception immediately. Maybe another tool is in order. :-/


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I tried the tool on my tower and it caused my system to BSOD with a System Service exception immediately. Maybe another tool is in order. :-/



Tried it again without an overclock at stock speeds and voltages. I still get a System Service BSOD. It's crap.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Tried it again without an overclock at stock speeds and voltages. I still get a System Service BSOD. It's crap.



Think you got some problem if u ged BSOD, i runned it on all of my PCs, and i never had any bsod



There is mine

http://postimage.org/image/6axuuvdc1/


It would be good if the dude with, Athlon 631 post his Flops too i just wonder how much it will be like


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> How the... ure Windows uses 2,8 gigs of RAM lol, and for example i got 6 gigs of ram on my laptop and it uses only  1,5 gigs of ram with alot of apps on heh



As I explained earlier, the more RAM you have the more windows wants to cache, the amount cached is a percentage of your RAM total. - Your laptop still has less RAM than my desktop hence why windows wants to cache a small amount upto 1.5GB.

Also I use a CMD hack to let Windows cache more.

Edit: 

Maxxpi, got stopped by my Antivirus and got quarantined lol


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Thenk you got some problem if u ged BSOD, i runned it on all of my PCs, and i never had any bsod
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A machine that can run Furmark with elevated priority and WPrime on 4 threads at the same time doesn't BSOD, I'm inclined to think it is the software, not the hardware. Under regular conditions my system will BSOD with *only this software*, and I was able to reproduce it percectly. That's not hardware.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> A machine that can run Furmark with elevated priority and WPrime on 4 threads at the same time doesn't BSOD, I'm inclined to think it is the software, not the hardware. Under regular conditions my system will BSOD with *only this software*, and I was able to reproduce it percectly. That's not hardware.



Well i tested it on more then 13 PCs and never get bsod, so there might be some software problem


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well i tested it on more then 13 PCs and never get bsod, so there might be some software problem



Who knows, maybe its my bios settings or something. It's really not that important considering by the end of the day, my rig is going to be upgraded with completely different hardware. Maybe the i7 3820 will handle it better.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Ahh lol, well i wanted someone with AMD pcs hehe that CPU is just too powerfull for this CPU and to compare it with any other AMD Cpu

And that Benchmark pritty shows the computing power of the CPU, for example an PS3 CPU has 3 Tera Flops powah, so you can imagine what a crap of arhitecture does Itel and Amd use  if you compare it to PowerPC


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Ahh lol, well i wanted someone with AMD pcs hehe that CPU is just too powerfull for this CPU and to compare it with any other AMD Cpu
> 
> And that Benchmark pritty shows the computing power of the CPU, for example an PS3 CPU has 3 Tera Flops powah, so you can imagine what a crap of arhitecture does Itel and Amd use  if you compare it to PowerPC



You should confirm that, because last I checked that is an untrue statement. Please back up that claim with some sources.

Edit: My source: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cellperf/


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> You should confirm that, because last I checked that is an untrue statement. Please back up that claim with some sources.
> 
> Edit: My source: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cellperf/



Thats what ive heard about PowerPC, and about the PS2 CPU ive just seen some tests compared to I7 cores thats it.


I wanted to ask another question since you all told me much about, windows caching and everything about it. I got a question, since i got 2 memory slots only and the first is already taken with the 2gb 1333mhz Transcend ram, what should i take about the second slot, can it be 4gb 1333 mhz ram from another manufacturer, and will i be able to overclock em like i can do it with the single stick ram to 1800 mhz. I ask cos they are different sizes 2 gb and 4gb stick and also would be from different manufacturer, and will that cause some problems or its ok just to get that 4gb 1333 ram from Syncron , and then just overclock them into the bios since it says the MB supports up to 2400 mhz RAM speeds


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> And that Benchmark pritty shows the computing power of the CPU, for example an PS3 CPU has 3 Tera Flops powah, so you can imagine what a crap of arhitecture does Itel and Amd use  if you compare it to PowerPC



I'm confused at what you are getting at? PS3's cell processor was revolutionary back in 2006 because of its architecture, from a performance point of view it was never spectacular. And from a developers point of view it was a nightmare getting average performance out of it. 

You couldn't really compare the instructions per clock (IPC) of the cheapest modern PC processor with PS3s cell without laughing hysterically.




InternalSys said:


> I wanted to ask another question since you all told me much about, windows caching and everything about it. I got a question, since i got 2 memory slots only and the first is already taken with the 2gb 1333mhz Transcend ram, what should i take about the second slot, can it be 4gb 1333 mhz ram from another manufacturer, and will i be able to overclock em like i can do it with the single stick ram to 1800 mhz. I ask cos they are different sizes 2 gb and 4gb stick and also would be from different manufacturer, and will that cause some problems or its ok just to get that 4gb 1333 ram from Syncron , and then just overclock them into the bios since it says the MB supports up to 2400 mhz RAM speeds



Yes you can mix and match ram brands, bus and sizes. Although there is an increase risk of incompatibility.

Whether you can overclock the sticks to 1800MHz is dependant on your memory quality (brand), motherboards features and your skill level.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Well i saw a 3 tera flops on PS2 CPU and 20k flops on i7 extreme thats it



And about the overclock u said its dependant on the memory quality. What that means , i mean will it be able to be overclocked or how much time it will work and if we already talk about RAM memories is Transcend ram good... since this was one of the most expencive sticks i got , the other sticks were like 3 euros cheaper then mine stick at sam freq and same capacity


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 6, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> And about the overclock u said its dependant on the memory quality. What that means , i mean will it be able to be overclocked or how much time it will work and if we already talk about RAM memories is Transcend ram good... since this was one of the most expencive sticks i got , the other sticks were like 3 euros cheaper then mine stick at sam freq and same capacity



Expensive doesnt mean good. Transcend I haven't heard of, which isnt great as I've been in the computing business for about 10 years. I'm sure Transcend memory is good and stable for running at stock, maybe with a mild OC (100-300MHz) above the base.

For high and stable overclocks ideally you need enthusiast grade memory. OCZ, Crucial Ballistix, G.Skills, Kingston Hyper series etc. Now that is not to say you cant overclock on Transcend.

Overclocking the memory bus is great, but your bottleneck is really the capacity. Moving upto 6GBs should be enough regardless of OC.

PS. Never heard of Syncron either.

Edit: What do you do on your PC exactly? Besides the RAM, the 9500GT screams upgrade me.



InternalSys said:


> Well iam not gaming for real, mostly using it for compiling, rendering and converting. And there is Kingston Hyperx RAM here... but it runs on 1600 mhz cant find on 1333mhz and put it with the Transcend ram



Like I said, the bus speeds dont have to match up. 1600Mhz will downclock automatically, or manually in the bios to 1333MHz to match the slower ram.



InternalSys said:


> This is what i can choose between
> 
> http://webshop.ddcom.com.mk/search/category/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0/cid/242#/category/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0/cid/242/sortby/priceAsc/pricelistid/0/resultsperpage/108/inStockProducts//finit/83/pf/0/pt/0/fv/179%2C780/ajax_sender/fv_777
> 
> Ah sheez iam editin my post too much. I wanted to say that also my HDD decrease my PC gaming power, since it has alot of bad sectors and it stucks alot



The Kingston Hyper X series is the best. 

I thought you didn't game? Bad sectors are unlikely to decrease your gaming performance. Its more likely your HDD is getting slow because its becoming full. With mechanical HDD the performance decrease as the data fills up, and with only 80GB it will fill up fast!

Ultimately your gaming performance is poor because you run a 9500GT.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 6, 2012)

Well iam not gaming for real, mostly using it for compiling, rendering and converting. And there is Kingston Hyperx RAM here in the store ... but it runs on 1600 mhz, cant find on 1333mhz and put it with the Transcend ram

Forgot to say, and this Hyperx 1600 mhz is only 1 euro more expencive and my ram is 1333 

This is what i can choose between

http://webshop.ddcom.com.mk/search/category/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0/cid/242#/category/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0/cid/242/sortby/priceAsc/pricelistid/0/resultsperpage/108/inStockProducts//finit/83/pf/0/pt/0/fv/179%2C780/ajax_sender/fv_777

Ah sheez iam editin my post too much. I wanted to say that also my HDD decrease my PC gaming power, since it has alot of bad sectors and it stucks alot


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 7, 2012)

So, can anyone post the Passmark x64 CPU scores of Amd Athlon 631 or A6 3650 CPU at stock frequencies


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 7, 2012)

Sorry, cant OC my mobile llano to those fequencies, it'll overheat


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 7, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> So, can anyone post the Passmark x64 CPU scores of Amd Athlon 631 or A6 3650 CPU at stock frequencies



Google does wonders,

Athlon X4 631 scores 4323 in Passmark.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Edit:



InternalSys said:


> Well i know about the 4323 average CPU score... but none knows what are the frequencies they are tested at... cos i looked at the test and it says they are all tested at stock. And when i test mine at stock it has only 3200 CPU score which is way lower then the average, thats why i asked if i have some problem



All reviews are tested at stock, unless it says otherwise.

Your score might be low for many reasons. CPU scores tend to isolate RAM and GPU bottlenecks, so your issue could be a conflict on a software or driver level, if you haven't done so already, it might be worth formatting your HDD and reinstalling windows.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 7, 2012)

Well i know about the 4323 average CPU score... but none knows what are the frequencies they are tested at... cos i looked at the test and it says they are all tested at stock. And when i test mine at stock it has only 3200 CPU score which is way lower then the average, thats why i asked if i have some problem


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 8, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well i saw a 3 tera flops on PS2 CPU and 20k flops on i7 extreme thats it



A: That number isn't unrealistic, but it is for 8 years ago. If you read the page I brought up you will see that the chip in the PS3 only does something like 200gflops on all 8 processing "elements" but keep in mind that this CPU is much more like a GPU than anything else. When you try to use it as a regular CPU, it is actually *very* slow.

Also keep in mind that the processor was designed to be scalable in parallel workloads, something that is pretty rare.

You can mix memory but keep in mind that your system will downclock (and time) to the slowest stick in your system. There are also added complications that might prevent you from fully utilizing the power of your memory. It's wise to stick with the same type of memory but it will work without it.

My only warning is you could run into stability issues, even more so if they're designed for different voltages and timings.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 8, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> A: That number isn't unrealistic, but it is for 8 years ago. If you read the page I brought up you will see that the chip in the PS3 only does something like 200gflops on all 8 processing "elements" but keep in mind that this CPU is much more like a GPU than anything else. When you try to use it as a regular CPU, it is actually *very* slow.
> 
> Also keep in mind that the processor was designed to be scalable in parallel workloads, something that is pretty rare.
> 
> ...




But, arent they supposted to run on the same timings and voltage,cos only the capacity is different


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 8, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> But, arent they supposted to run on the same timings and voltage,cos only the capacity is different



It really depends on your motherboard. I know that my M4N72-E never gets the timings right for my OCZ Gold DDR2-800. I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying that keeping the same type of memory is always a good idea. Also memory ( @1333 and 1600) is pretty cheap nowadays, so why not just upgrade all of your memory together?

Edit: This Corsair DDR3-1600 of 2x2gb (4gb) for 33 USD (or 8gb of 66 USD) is a great example: CORSAIR Vengeance 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM...


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 8, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> It really depends on your motherboard. I know that my M4N72-E never gets the timings right for my OCZ Gold DDR2-800. I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying that keeping the same type of memory is always a good idea. Also memory ( @1333 and 1600) is pretty cheap nowadays, so why not just upgrade all of your memory together?
> 
> Edit: This Corsair DDR3-1600 of 2x2gb (4gb) for 33 USD (or 8gb of 66 USD) is a great example: CORSAIR Vengeance 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM...



Well thats an pritty expencive ram cant get that ram now, cause i already got the 2gb 1333 Transcend so ill prolly get another Transcend ram on 1333 so it wil be 4 gigs of RAM, and that should be enought. But theres some weird thing, that when it is set into the BIOS to AUTO it works on 1066 mhz i need to manually set it to 1333 mode to work at that freq, and also my MB eats some of the RAM and it shows that i have vailable 1,79 gigs of RAM instead of 2 GB when the GPU memory is set to AUTO, now i set it to 32 mb and i got 2 gigs of memory, there isnt an option to be disabled at all


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 8, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well thats an pritty expencive ram cant get that ram now, cause i already got the 2gb 1333 Transcend so ill prolly get another Transcend ram on 1333 so it wil be 4 gigs of RAM, and that should be enought. But theres some weird thing, that when it is set into the BIOS to AUTO it works on 1066 mhz i need to manually set it to 1333 mode to work at that freq, and also my MB eats some of the RAM and it shows that i have vailable 1,79 gigs of RAM instead of 2 GB when the GPU memory is set to AUTO, now i set it to 32 mb and i got 2 gigs of memory, there isnt an option to be disabled at all



33 USD ram is *not* relatively expensive. In fact it is one of the most reasonable prices for memory I've seen. Please make the distinction between what you can afford and what is expensive.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 8, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> 33 USD ram is *not* relatively expensive. In fact it is one of the most reasonable prices for memory I've seen. Please make the distinction between what you can afford and what is expensive.



But there is, 2x2GB Kingston Hyperx RAM for 20 euros, which is good as that Corsair ram


http://www.kingston.com/en/memory/hyperx/blu

And about is it expencive or not... well there is 6 euro 2gb 1333 ram sticks, i was talking about that


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 8, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> But there is, 2x2GB Kingston Hyperx RAM for 20 euros, which is good as that Corsair ram
> 
> 
> http://www.kingston.com/en/memory/hyperx/blu



It's up to you, the Corsair is only 5 euros more, keep in mind that just because it runs at the same frequency doesn't necessarily mean the same voltages or timings. I've had great luck with OCZ, Corsair, and G.Skill memory.

In the end, the upgrade is up to you, but I can't emphasize enough how important it can be to run the same memory together. Mixing and matching is really a game of chance.

Edit: Also, just to make a comment (not to be insulting), you might want to check your spelling and grammar.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 8, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> It's up to you, the Corsair is only 5 euros more, keep in mind that just because it runs at the same frequency doesn't necessarily mean the same voltages or timings. I've had great luck with OCZ, Corsair, and G.Skill memory.
> 
> In the end, the upgrade is up to you, but I can't emphasize enough how important it can be to run the same memory together. Mixing and matching is really a game of chance.



Well, i gotta ask what if i put for example 2x2gb Transcend and 2x2gb Corsair RAM same freq and let say different voltage, when i pair em they gonna have same score rite ? 
I mean the higher or lower voltage doesnt mean they gonna have higher or lower score
And whats with the CPU and RAM voltage at all, is that important it will run for example or 1,3v or 1,4


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 8, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Well, i gotta ask what if i put for example 2x2gb Transcend and 2x2gb Corsair RAM same freq and let say different voltage, when i pair em they gonna have same score rite ?
> I mean the higher or lower voltage doesnt mean they gonna have higher or lower score
> And whats with the CPU and RAM voltage at all, is that important it will run for example or 1,3v or 1,4



Running memory that has different voltages could cause problems. If the lower voltage is used it will cause stability issues, and if the higher one is used, it could cause heat issues depending on the build quality of the sticks that use the lower voltage. This is why it is important to run the same memory, because the system can't satisfy the requirements for each stick of memory. Some high-end boards will let you set individual timings for each stick, but generally speaking you don't have this ability and the difference in voltages could cause stability issues.

I can't emphasize enough, that you're taking a huge chance by mixing and matching and if you don't want to have these kinds of issues, you should keep like with like. I wouldn't be saying the same thing over and over if I didn't think it was important.

A great example is when I used to run old DDR-533 and DDR-667 together. I ended up frying the DDR-533 because it uses the higher voltage setting for the 667, and without the higher voltage the system would become unstable, even at 533.

Edit: I'm a system administrator, and I can tell you right now that I *never* mix and match on any of our workstations or laptops, and for servers, I make sure the same exact memory is used if I'm getting more. Following this rule eliminates a lot of problems and headaches down the road. Trust me.


----------



## InternalSys (Mar 8, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Running memory that has different voltages could cause problems. If the lower voltage is used it will cause stability issues, and if the higher one is used, it could cause heat issues depending on the build quality of the sticks that use the lower voltage. This is why it is important to run the same memory, because the system can't satisfy the requirements for each stick of memory. Some high-end boards will let you set individual timings for each stick, but generally speaking you don't have this ability and the difference in voltages could cause stability issues.
> 
> I can't emphasize enough, that you're taking a huge chance by mixing and matching and if you don't want to have these kinds of issues, you should keep like with like. I wouldn't be saying the same thing over and over if I didn't think it was important.
> 
> ...




Well ok, then as i mentioned the score of the both will be same, and as u said u can burn em up, thats why is bad... Then ill buy another Transcend 4gig or 2gig stick and it should be fine for both, gonna put em to work on 1600 mhz, but i have to check the temperature somehow so they dont fry thats gonna be bad

And thank you about trying to explain


----------



## InternalSys (Apr 20, 2012)

Hey dudes, i just got 2x2GB 1333 sticks and i got some problem with the Asrock A55-HVM, can anyone tell me why it says they run on single channel even if theres too slots only and they are both the same, but it still runs on Single Channel, how can i set it to dual channel cos i dont see any freakin option for it in the bios meny, I ask cos i saw someone with the same MB here


----------



## HossHuge (Apr 20, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Hey dudes, i just got 2x2GB 1333 sticks and i got some problem with the Asrock A55-HVM, can anyone tell me why it says they run on single channel even if theres too slots only and they are both the same, but it still runs on Single Channel, how can i set it to dual channel cos i dont see any freakin option for it in the bios meny, I ask cos i saw someone with the same MB here



I ran dual-channel on my Asrock A55-HVM.  

I'm also having trouble with my motherboard.  One day my computer just stopped working.  It would turn on but then nothing.  So I tried different ram, video card, power, and hard drive and it still wouldn't work.  
So the guy at my local shop sent it in to ASRock but they said it was fine.  So he sent it to AMD to have the cpu checked.  They said there was a problem with the cpu and gave me a new one.  But the computer still wouldn't post.  So now the guy is sending it back to ASRock again.  It's been gone over 2 weeks now.....

I won't buy ASRock anymore.  I've had three now and my friend has one and they have all had problems.


----------



## InternalSys (Apr 20, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> I ran dual-channel on my Asrock A55-HVM.
> 
> I'm also having trouble with my motherboard.  One day my computer just stopped working.  It would turn on but then nothing.  So I tried different ram, video card, power, and hard drive and it still wouldn't work.
> So the guy at my local shop sent it in to ASRock but they said it was fine.  So he sent it to AMD to have the cpu checked.  They said there was a problem with the cpu and gave me a new one.  But the computer still wouldn't post.  So now the guy is sending it back to ASRock again.  It's been gone over 2 weeks now.....
> ...



Is there some settings i should do set so it can work on dual channel or whats wrong iam really pissed off cos i even changed the RAM module i first got so i can get both same moduls so they can run properly in dual channel


----------



## HossHuge (Apr 20, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> Is there some settings i should do set so it can work on dual channel or whats wrong iam really pissed off cos i even changed the RAM module i first got so i can get both same moduls so they can run properly in dual channel



I wish I had mine here so I could check for you.  

Does it say anything about Ganged or Unganged modes?  I know it should be in Unganged mode.


----------



## InternalSys (Apr 20, 2012)

Ahh i just unpluged em and put em again and now they work, but the problem is the performance didnt increased at all, Can you tell me whats your windows Experience Index at CPU and RAM , and maybe ur scores on Super Pi 1M or MAx pi FLops and Passmark


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 20, 2012)

it won't really increase the index much. the more ram just lets more programs load into it so they can be launched/ran faster, etc. the only thing that would boost that would be the speed of the ram.


----------



## HossHuge (Apr 24, 2012)

I got my computer back today.  It turns out that the motherboard was fine and it was the cpu that had the problem.  The max O/C I could get before was 3350 Mhz but with the new 631 I can reach 3570 mhz.  I could get more but my mobo has a max on the bus speed of 136.  

@InternalSys - Does your mobo have the same max?


----------



## InternalSys (Apr 24, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> I got my computer back today.  It turns out that the motherboard was fine and it was the cpu that had the problem.  The max O/C I could get before was 3350 Mhz but with the new 631 I can reach 3570 mhz.  I could get more but my mobo has a max on the bus speed of 136.
> 
> @InternalSys - Does your mobo have the same max?



As i tried on my motherboard it can go max to 135 or 125 not sure i forgot... do ya wana say that my CPU isnt working properly too... and yeh does the performances increased at least if the old one was broken can u post some max pi, super pi and some passmark results


----------



## HossHuge (Apr 24, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> As i tried on my motherboard it can go max to 135 or 125 not sure i forgot... do ya wana say that my CPU isnt working properly too... and yeh does the performances increased at least if the old one was broken can u post some max pi, super pi and some passmark results



I'll get you those numbers soon.  I'm going to try AMD Overdrive to see if I can't O/C even further.

 Do you want those numbers at stock?


----------



## InternalSys (Apr 24, 2012)

yeh i want stock too cos its the best way to compare... and btw check does the MULTIPLIERS work properly now. I mean can you use some of the mutiplier like x30 x40 or sth like that cos before it wasnt working at all when u try to use more then x26 multi


----------



## HossHuge (Apr 24, 2012)

InternalSys said:


> and btw check does the MULTIPLIERS work properly now. I mean can you use some of the mutiplier like x30 x40 or sth like that cos before it wasnt working at all when u try to use more then x26 multi



No.  That still isn't working.


----------



## InternalSys (Apr 24, 2012)

Ahh i wanted to try to ask on AMd forums but i cant register there, i dont recieve the emai li need to activate the account so i can logon and post it.There must be some solution and it should work if they are already available


----------



## HossHuge (Apr 24, 2012)

Some SuperPI scores for you.

Stock






O/Ced







InternalSys said:


> Ahh i wanted to try to ask on AMd forums but i cant register there, i dont recieve the emai li need to activate the account so i can logon and post it.There must be some solution and it should work if they are already available



There is a bug that causes that.  AMD annouced that awhile back


----------

