A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the difference between these two memories ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 23rd 18, 11:16 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:23:14 -0200, Shadow wrote:

https://www.kabum.com.br/produto/507...d-hx318c10fr-4
https://www.kabum.com.br/produto/507...k-hx318c10fb-4

Other than the price ?

I downloaded the Kingston specs

https://cdn.cnetcontent.com/07/e9/07...f10cf84f67.pdf

Which says:

Latency CL9-11
Voltage 1.35V, 1.5V

It does not help at all in knowing if I can add a stick or
two.

My current memory is KHX1866C10D3/4G
Number of banks 8
Nominal Voltage 1.50 Volts
(CPU-Z output)
TIA
[]'s


To Paul and others that helped, TY. Installed. According to
CPU-Z hey are exactly the same model number and voltage as the "black"
model, so it appears the "heat dissipaters" or whatever are painted
different colors, but the memories are the same. Ran two rounds of
Memtest86+ and no errors.

The only strange thing that happened is my clock sometimes
loses or gains 20-30 seconds in a day. (I use Neutron from Keir.net to
synchronize on Startup). And that never happened before I installed
the memories.The error was always a second or less.
Maybe I twisted something on the MB when I pressed the
memories in place. Weird.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #12  
Old December 24th 18, 01:18 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:23:14 -0200, Shadow wrote:

https://www.kabum.com.br/produto/507...d-hx318c10fr-4
https://www.kabum.com.br/produto/507...k-hx318c10fb-4

Other than the price ?

I downloaded the Kingston specs

https://cdn.cnetcontent.com/07/e9/07...f10cf84f67.pdf

Which says:

Latency CL9-11
Voltage 1.35V, 1.5V

It does not help at all in knowing if I can add a stick or
two.

My current memory is KHX1866C10D3/4G
Number of banks 8
Nominal Voltage 1.50 Volts
(CPU-Z output)
TIA
[]'s


To Paul and others that helped, TY. Installed. According to
CPU-Z hey are exactly the same model number and voltage as the "black"
model, so it appears the "heat dissipaters" or whatever are painted
different colors, but the memories are the same. Ran two rounds of
Memtest86+ and no errors.

The only strange thing that happened is my clock sometimes
loses or gains 20-30 seconds in a day. (I use Neutron from Keir.net to
synchronize on Startup). And that never happened before I installed
the memories.The error was always a second or less.
Maybe I twisted something on the MB when I pressed the
memories in place. Weird.
[]'s


That is 230ppm at least. That's a little high.

The computer has two time pieces. Windows time. BIOS time.

Windows runs a software clock. It depends on BCLK for traceability.

THe BIOS runs the RTC clock, which depends on the 32768Hz motherboard crystal.

The software clock can only lose time (by "missing" clock tick interrupts).

Windows time could gain or lose, based on BCLK being off.

BIOS time could gain or lose, based on 32768Hz clock.

Paul
  #13  
Old December 24th 18, 02:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 19:18:59 -0500, Paul
wrote:

The only strange thing that happened is my clock sometimes
loses or gains 20-30 seconds in a day. (I use Neutron from Keir.net to
synchronize on Startup). And that never happened before I installed
the memories.The error was always a second or less.
Maybe I twisted something on the MB when I pressed the
memories in place. Weird.
[]'s


That is 230ppm at least. That's a little high.

The computer has two time pieces. Windows time. BIOS time.

Windows runs a software clock. It depends on BCLK for traceability.

THe BIOS runs the RTC clock, which depends on the 32768Hz motherboard crystal.

The software clock can only lose time (by "missing" clock tick interrupts).

Windows time could gain or lose, based on BCLK being off.

BIOS time could gain or lose, based on 32768Hz clock.


Last night I synched my time, turned off my network, closed
windows. When I started up today I opened Wireshark, turned the
network back on and time was spot-on (nothing showed on Wireshark
other than the usual ARP stuff and the Neutron query).
After it was on for 3 hours I checked the time and it was 4
seconds off. I disconnected the network again, etc et al, and when I
had rebooted the time was exact, no delay. I did NOT correct the time
before rebooting.
IOW the BIOS time seems to be working fine.
I always assumed Windows used the BIOS hardware clock and not
some "internal software clock".
I read somewhere that BCLK is used for overclocking. My BIOS
settings are set to default. What could be altering the BCLK time by
so much ? And could adding memory have affected it somehow ?
TIA
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #14  
Old December 24th 18, 03:25 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

Shadow wrote:


Last night I synched my time, turned off my network, closed
windows. When I started up today I opened Wireshark, turned the
network back on and time was spot-on (nothing showed on Wireshark
other than the usual ARP stuff and the Neutron query).
After it was on for 3 hours I checked the time and it was 4
seconds off. I disconnected the network again, etc et al, and when I
had rebooted the time was exact, no delay. I did NOT correct the time
before rebooting.
IOW the BIOS time seems to be working fine.
I always assumed Windows used the BIOS hardware clock and not
some "internal software clock".
I read somewhere that BCLK is used for overclocking. My BIOS
settings are set to default. What could be altering the BCLK time by
so much ? And could adding memory have affected it somehow ?
TIA
[]'s


Well, it's either the absolute frequency of BCLK which
is off, or, something is preventing clock tick interrupts
from being serviced.

The best references I've seen on the various clocks in a
computer, is on the VM hosting software company web sites.
They usually explain what clocks are inside a real PC,
and how the virtualized environment provides those same
clocks as "fakes". But it also teaches you about how
clocks work on the host itself.

If you have a modern multi-core Intel processor, you
can try locking the cores together temporarily as a test.
The machine can save power if the cores operate
independently on frequency, but it also causes some
complications when handing clock information from
one core to another. My other machine, the core clocks
are locked, and turbo is disabled (to prevent overheat).

Paul
  #15  
Old December 24th 18, 06:49 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 09:25:13 -0500, Paul
wrote:

Shadow wrote:


Last night I synched my time, turned off my network, closed
windows. When I started up today I opened Wireshark, turned the
network back on and time was spot-on (nothing showed on Wireshark
other than the usual ARP stuff and the Neutron query).
After it was on for 3 hours I checked the time and it was 4
seconds off. I disconnected the network again, etc et al, and when I
had rebooted the time was exact, no delay. I did NOT correct the time
before rebooting.
IOW the BIOS time seems to be working fine.
I always assumed Windows used the BIOS hardware clock and not
some "internal software clock".
I read somewhere that BCLK is used for overclocking. My BIOS
settings are set to default. What could be altering the BCLK time by
so much ? And could adding memory have affected it somehow ?
TIA
[]'s


Well, it's either the absolute frequency of BCLK which
is off, or, something is preventing clock tick interrupts
from being serviced.

The best references I've seen on the various clocks in a
computer, is on the VM hosting software company web sites.
They usually explain what clocks are inside a real PC,
and how the virtualized environment provides those same
clocks as "fakes". But it also teaches you about how
clocks work on the host itself.

If you have a modern multi-core Intel processor, you
can try locking the cores together temporarily as a test.
The machine can save power if the cores operate
independently on frequency, but it also causes some
complications when handing clock information from
one core to another. My other machine, the core clocks
are locked, and turbo is disabled (to prevent overheat).


Well, you seem to on to something. My computer was on for
nearly 3 hours running simple "one thread" programs and didn't lose a
second.
So I put it to convert a video with Wondefox Video Converter,
which uses all cores on my AMD-FX8300 (it says it's using 7 cores).
The conversion took under 5 minutes and my clock is now 12 seconds
behind.
So it has something to do with using more than one core, AND
it never happened before I added memory to the second memory bank (I
can't remember clock ever being so late but I never actually tested
it).

I'm using XP, if that matters.
I'll now boot into Linux and see if the same thing happens
there.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #16  
Old December 24th 18, 07:53 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 15:49:49 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 09:25:13 -0500, Paul
wrote:

Shadow wrote:


Last night I synched my time, turned off my network, closed
windows. When I started up today I opened Wireshark, turned the
network back on and time was spot-on (nothing showed on Wireshark
other than the usual ARP stuff and the Neutron query).
After it was on for 3 hours I checked the time and it was 4
seconds off. I disconnected the network again, etc et al, and when I
had rebooted the time was exact, no delay. I did NOT correct the time
before rebooting.
IOW the BIOS time seems to be working fine.
I always assumed Windows used the BIOS hardware clock and not
some "internal software clock".
I read somewhere that BCLK is used for overclocking. My BIOS
settings are set to default. What could be altering the BCLK time by
so much ? And could adding memory have affected it somehow ?
TIA
[]'s


Well, it's either the absolute frequency of BCLK which
is off, or, something is preventing clock tick interrupts
from being serviced.

The best references I've seen on the various clocks in a
computer, is on the VM hosting software company web sites.
They usually explain what clocks are inside a real PC,
and how the virtualized environment provides those same
clocks as "fakes". But it also teaches you about how
clocks work on the host itself.

If you have a modern multi-core Intel processor, you
can try locking the cores together temporarily as a test.
The machine can save power if the cores operate
independently on frequency, but it also causes some
complications when handing clock information from
one core to another. My other machine, the core clocks
are locked, and turbo is disabled (to prevent overheat).


Well, you seem to on to something. My computer was on for
nearly 3 hours running simple "one thread" programs and didn't lose a
second.
So I put it to convert a video with Wondefox Video Converter,
which uses all cores on my AMD-FX8300 (it says it's using 7 cores).
The conversion took under 5 minutes and my clock is now 12 seconds
behind.
So it has something to do with using more than one core, AND
it never happened before I added memory to the second memory bank (I
can't remember clock ever being so late but I never actually tested
it).

I'm using XP, if that matters.
I'll now boot into Linux and see if the same thing happens
there.


No. In Linux even using all 8 cores at near max there is no
slowdown of the clock. I converted 3 videos using ffmpeg. The CPU
ventilator sounded like a helicopter taking off. So it must be an OS
thing.
Funny thing, I tried ffmpeg in XP and the clock went FORWARD 8
seconds.
I suppose I'll just have to carry on using Neutron at Startup,
since the time is never off by more than a minute, it won't affect me
as a user.
[]'s

I just checked with system monitor, and although it does use
core 1 most of the time, there are occasional small spikes in all the
other cores. I thought it would only use the other cores when under
stress ....
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #17  
Old December 27th 18, 12:15 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 16:53:54 -0200, Shadow wrote:

Funny thing, I tried ffmpeg in XP and the clock went FORWARD 8
seconds.
I suppose I'll just have to carry on using Neutron at Startup,
since the time is never off by more than a minute, it won't affect me
as a user.
[]'s

I just checked with system monitor, and although it does use
core 1 most of the time, there are occasional small spikes in all the
other cores. I thought it would only use the other cores when under
stress ....


Always on the second, that's not an option with the nature of a
computer that isn't intended for a chronometer. As with my watches,
with a built-in radio receiver, their mechanical limits are
overridden, once daily, for a percentage correction within an
individual second of accuracy. The same function is a definable
connection event, to an national atomic clock standard interface, as
provided software.

Although I'm not sure how older my Dimension 4 software version is, it
does allows definition of that event. I may have mine polling every
few minutes or less. All my primary, one wall and two wrist watches,
are equipped with transmission radio receivers. And my computer is
always to the second within sync to them for the same degree of
accuracy.

That's not to say that computer accuracy couldn't in itself be changed
time to be incorrect, a possible software occurrence that affects the
clock as an adverse situation, at least until Dimension 4 re-polls to
an atomic clock to perform a correct reset.

http://www.thinkman.com/dimension4/

From a practical standpoint, sounds to me as easy as it is possible to
approach substituting a computer at some less than a higher accuracy
than true chronographic precision.
  #18  
Old December 27th 18, 11:42 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:15:30 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 16:53:54 -0200, Shadow wrote:

Funny thing, I tried ffmpeg in XP and the clock went FORWARD 8
seconds.
I suppose I'll just have to carry on using Neutron at Startup,
since the time is never off by more than a minute, it won't affect me
as a user.
[]'s

I just checked with system monitor, and although it does use
core 1 most of the time, there are occasional small spikes in all the
other cores. I thought it would only use the other cores when under
stress ....


Always on the second, that's not an option with the nature of a
computer that isn't intended for a chronometer. As with my watches,
with a built-in radio receiver, their mechanical limits are
overridden, once daily, for a percentage correction within an
individual second of accuracy. The same function is a definable
connection event, to an national atomic clock standard interface, as
provided software.

Although I'm not sure how older my Dimension 4 software version is, it
does allows definition of that event. I may have mine polling every
few minutes or less. All my primary, one wall and two wrist watches,
are equipped with transmission radio receivers. And my computer is
always to the second within sync to them for the same degree of
accuracy.

That's not to say that computer accuracy couldn't in itself be changed
time to be incorrect, a possible software occurrence that affects the
clock as an adverse situation, at least until Dimension 4 re-polls to
an atomic clock to perform a correct reset.

http://www.thinkman.com/dimension4/

From a practical standpoint, sounds to me as easy as it is possible to
approach substituting a computer at some less than a higher accuracy
than true chronographic precision.


Sorry Flasherly, I got lost after the first phrase.
I sync to an atomic clock on startup, so it should be within
half a second of "real" time at the end of the day. But I can live
with 30 seconds off.
I was worried it might be hardware failure, but since Linux
does not have the glitch, I'm pretty sure it's just XP having fits
with the amount of CPU and memory at its disposal.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #19  
Old December 27th 18, 08:51 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 08:42:23 -0200, Shadow wrote:

Sorry Flasherly, I got lost after the first phrase.
I sync to an atomic clock on startup, so it should be within
half a second of "real" time at the end of the day. But I can live
with 30 seconds off.
I was worried it might be hardware failure, but since Linux
does not have the glitch, I'm pretty sure it's just XP having fits
with the amount of CPU and memory at its disposal.


The first written phrase, I provided, corresponds to after your
startup, and that is specific to Dimension 4, in the user settings,
for defining how often Dimension 4 performs an Atomic Clock
synchronization.

The Dimension 4 polling interval, I checked, just after the prior
post, and I've determined that my computer is about 8 seconds faster
than a standalone La Crosse radio receiver atomic clock, on the wall,
behind this monitor.

But the whole point is that if you can go beyond an OS start-up
synchronization event, a more frequent interval timed synchronization
may improve your computer's chronographic accuracy.

OK...checking with the second hand to the Casio. This is my watch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C...ave_Ceptor.jpg

I'm about 4 seconds fast on the computer, thus my computer is not as
accurate as the Casio. (I've checked the Casio to other standards,
such as a short-wave band radio receiver and England's "Big Ben" timed
broadcast. So my computer is not within 4 seconds near to a
chronograph, nor is Windows or, apparently, Dimension 4.) Checking
the BIOS clock may also be an indicated course to account;- as might
running Linux shed further light on narrowing in on a cause of the
discrepancy for accurate time keeping.

Between a computer crystal-derived signal reference and a WEB software
interface to poll a reference Atomic Clock server, there's no excuse
for this behavior. I believe it would be safe to assume, that you not
build such as a rocket-ship to blast off to the moon, not if you're
designing that trajectory based on a computer's ability to keep timed
accuracy.
  #20  
Old December 27th 18, 09:05 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 14:51:48 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

standalone La Crosse radio receiver atomic clock,

-

La Crosse Atomic Clocks are better than a plain crystal movement: the
one-dollar modules from China I use when I build my own wall clocks.
Just not as good as a WaveCeptor, and its reviews may tend to reflect
that, somewhat on the spotty side.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
8x8, 16x16, 1M x 36 P -ram memories Majki Majk General 2 November 28th 08 06:53 AM
RLP memories Guillaume Dargaud General 0 September 23rd 08 07:47 PM
Using different types of DDR memories together Hamza General 1 August 25th 07 06:56 AM
2 memories 256 MB and 512 MB thewhitebsd General 2 January 28th 05 02:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.