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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug 2
sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks). Thanks! -- SC Tom |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
SC Tom wrote:
Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks). Thanks! I haven't seen anything like that. Intel doesn't generally rate their desktop stuff for four ranks (four rank DIMMs on servers, hide behind buffers on control/address). So the address loading is too much. It's true though, that on an microATX where they only put two DIMMs, there might be sufficient drive for four DIMMs. Only a few of the signals (perhaps CS chip select) might be overloaded. And you also need a solution for clock signals. Conceptually, you have offerings like this. UDIMM no buffers (your 8GB stick) RDIMM buffers on control/address, 32 or 36 chips, four ranks FBDIMM buffers on control/address/data, with design differences with respect to the RDIMM (continuity requirement?) Another small issue, is the mechanical spacing. A two-DIMM board could use a "left" and a "right" dual module, and not bang together. A four-DIMM board, you might be able to go from four DIMMs to six DIMMs, but maybe a config to make eight work would be too hard. As a general trend, you might notice that companies no longer "invest" in stupid stuff. I see fewer of the exotic offerings, and I expect this is because the companies that do those, take a "bath" on the NRE. If it was just a PCB and a few piece parts, I could see someone taking a chance. If it was custom silicon, definitely not. You might need some tricky pad driver work, and from what I've seen of the skill set of pad driver designers, there aren't enough of the right people to do stuff like that. And then there's the issue of patents. You would be surprised what items "don't exist" because of patents. Sucks, when no one can serve a potential market because of them. If you made custom silicon to make something like that work, then a patent vulture would eat your lunch. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
SC Tom wrote:
Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks). Each mem slot is rated for a maximum capacity based on several factors, one of which is the number of address lines. Rarely are mobos overbuilt, and if they were then they would support bigger capacity modules. You'd have to look at the specs for the mobo where you want to try this gimmick to see what is its rated max capacity for a module. If the mobo was designed for 8GB sticks, it doesn't have another address line to support 16GB sticks. You never mentioned the brand and model of your mobo, or which CPU is installed. Go check their specs to see what is the max size of memory module is supported. Sticking an adapter card into a slot won't make another address line magically appear or the controller support larger sticks. The extra address lines may be physically present, but that doesn't mean they are logically enabled. Limiting the size of memory is how makers can lure consumers to spend more on mobos with larger memory capacity. They can even use the same controller and traces to build multiple mobo models with differing memory capacities, and just use the firmware to decide how much gets supported. They economize on the tooling and parts needed to build the various models, but target different pricing points for consumers that want to shave a little bit by not paying for the max capacity. You also never mentioned which OS you are running on your computer. Besides limitations (real or throttled) in the hardware, there are enforced restrictions in max memory capacity that vary by the version of Windows. Windows XP Home: 4 GB Windows XP Professional: 128 GB Windows Vista/7 Home Basic: 8 GB Windows Vista/7 Home Premium: 16 GB Windows Vista Business/Ultimate/Enterprise: 192 GB https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ndows-releases Shows more Windows versions and their artifical throttle on their supported maximum memory size. Like a flooring or least() function, you get the minimum of the maximum memory capacity between the hardware and the OS. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
*** = replies in-line
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... SC Tom wrote: Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks). Each mem slot is rated for a maximum capacity based on several factors, one of which is the number of address lines. Rarely are mobos overbuilt, and if they were then they would support bigger capacity modules. You'd have to look at the specs for the mobo where you want to try this gimmick to see what is its rated max capacity for a module. If the mobo was designed for 8GB sticks, it doesn't have another address line to support 16GB sticks. *** The MB is a BioStar A68-MD Pro with an AMD Athlon(tm) X4 845 Quad Core Processor (3.5GHz) From the manual: "Supports Dual Channel DDR3 800/ 1066/ 1333/ 1600/ 1866/ 2133/ 2400(OC)/ 2600(OC) 2 x DDR3 DIMM Memory Slot, Max. Supports up to 32 GB Memory Each DIMM supports non-ECC 512MB/ 1/ 2/ 4/ 8/ 16 GB DDR3 module" The RAM I have is all 800MHz (PC3-12800). You never mentioned the brand and model of your mobo, or which CPU is installed. Go check their specs to see what is the max size of memory module is supported. Sticking an adapter card into a slot won't make another address line magically appear or the controller support larger sticks. The extra address lines may be physically present, but that doesn't mean they are logically enabled. Limiting the size of memory is how makers can lure consumers to spend more on mobos with larger memory capacity. They can even use the same controller and traces to build multiple mobo models with differing memory capacities, and just use the firmware to decide how much gets supported. They economize on the tooling and parts needed to build the various models, but target different pricing points for consumers that want to shave a little bit by not paying for the max capacity. You also never mentioned which OS you are running on your computer. Besides limitations (real or throttled) in the hardware, there are enforced restrictions in max memory capacity that vary by the version of Windows. *** I'm running Windows 10 Pro x64. Windows XP Home: 4 GB Windows XP Professional: 128 GB Windows Vista/7 Home Basic: 8 GB Windows Vista/7 Home Premium: 16 GB Windows Vista Business/Ultimate/Enterprise: 192 GB https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ndows-releases Shows more Windows versions and their artifical throttle on their supported maximum memory size. Like a flooring or least() function, you get the minimum of the maximum memory capacity between the hardware and the OS. Thanks for your reply! -- SC Tom |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
I don't see how multiplexing is going to work in a DIMM slot. How is
SPD going to work when there are 2 modules accessed in the same mobo slot? I think those old slot doubler adapter cards you remember were for SIMMs, not for DIMMs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMM "Since Intel's Pentium, many processors have a 64-bit bus width, requiring SIMMs installed in matched pairs in order to populate the data bus. The processor would then access the two SIMMs in parallel. DIMMs were introduced to eliminate this disadvantage." I'd say to sell off the old memory (after testing with memtest86) to offset part of the cost of getting bigger memory modules in your current mobo. As old technology gets more sparse, like DDR3 (240-pin slot), it commands a price premium (becomes more rare, longer shelf storage). DDR4 (288-pin slot) is the currently saleable product, and is cheaper at the same capacity. https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00 32 GB (2 X 16 GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3L 12800) $271 (sold by Newegg, not some 3rd party using a storefront there) https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4 $144 - $169 (did not include the CyberMonday deals) For the price difference of $102 to $127, you could get a new mobo. The problem is whether the old CPU works in the new mobo. I think the old AMD Athlon x4 845 Quad CPU used an FM2+ socket, but I found one using the AM4 socket. https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%20600474773 Those have FM2+ CPU sockets. However, Newegg only has models with 2 DIMM slots, and they're DDR3, so you wouldn't be improving your situation. https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...&Order=PRI CE If your CPU uses an AM4 socket, lots more choices, and some at less than the cost in the difference between the old DDR3 and new DDR4 price (and some mobos also have 4 DIMM slots giving you later expandability). You'll have to surrender to continue using your old computer for longer until you can afford a better one (like when you get your tax refund), or commit to surgery on your old box by replacing DDR3 with DDR4 which means a new mobo, too. However, you'll probably want to bite the bullet and get a better CPU, too. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
SC Tom wrote:
*** = replies in-line "VanguardLH" wrote in message ... SC Tom wrote: Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks). Each mem slot is rated for a maximum capacity based on several factors, one of which is the number of address lines. Rarely are mobos overbuilt, and if they were then they would support bigger capacity modules. You'd have to look at the specs for the mobo where you want to try this gimmick to see what is its rated max capacity for a module. If the mobo was designed for 8GB sticks, it doesn't have another address line to support 16GB sticks. *** The MB is a BioStar A68-MD Pro with an AMD Athlon(tm) X4 845 Quad Core Processor (3.5GHz) From the manual: "Supports Dual Channel DDR3 800/ 1066/ 1333/ 1600/ 1866/ 2133/ 2400(OC)/ 2600(OC) 2 x DDR3 DIMM Memory Slot, Max. Supports up to 32 GB Memory Each DIMM supports non-ECC 512MB/ 1/ 2/ 4/ 8/ 16 GB DDR3 module" The RAM I have is all 800MHz (PC3-12800). You never mentioned the brand and model of your mobo, or which CPU is installed. Go check their specs to see what is the max size of memory module is supported. Sticking an adapter card into a slot won't make another address line magically appear or the controller support larger sticks. The extra address lines may be physically present, but that doesn't mean they are logically enabled. Limiting the size of memory is how makers can lure consumers to spend more on mobos with larger memory capacity. They can even use the same controller and traces to build multiple mobo models with differing memory capacities, and just use the firmware to decide how much gets supported. They economize on the tooling and parts needed to build the various models, but target different pricing points for consumers that want to shave a little bit by not paying for the max capacity. You also never mentioned which OS you are running on your computer. Besides limitations (real or throttled) in the hardware, there are enforced restrictions in max memory capacity that vary by the version of Windows. *** I'm running Windows 10 Pro x64. Windows XP Home: 4 GB Windows XP Professional: 128 GB Windows Vista/7 Home Basic: 8 GB Windows Vista/7 Home Premium: 16 GB Windows Vista Business/Ultimate/Enterprise: 192 GB https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ndows-releases Shows more Windows versions and their artifical throttle on their supported maximum memory size. Like a flooring or least() function, you get the minimum of the maximum memory capacity between the hardware and the OS. Thanks for your reply! https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compa...star/a68md-pro Crucial 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR3L-1600 UDIMM $291.99 CT2K204864BD160B Some other people, using 16GB sticks on AMD, claimed to have had problems. A four slot person could get three 16GB sticks working but not the fourth. Hard to say if that was an address decode problem or what exactly the problem was there. You could make a DIMM with a single rank of x4 chips. A company making DIMMs like that, would use server chips. Whereas Crucial is less likely to pull a stunt like that. They would hopefully be x8 chips. But there's no datasheet. Kingston is the company that provides datasheets with theirs. And Kingston doesn't list a 16GB DIMM for it. So we can't use their datasheet and see what is technically on offer. https://www.kingston.com/us/memory/s...ne=A68MD +Pro ******* As for combining SPD readouts on the DIMMs, you could do that with a microcontroller. The PC side SMBUS uses the low speed option, and a microcontroller could provide register readout in real time, to cook up a composite SPD value. It's the details of registered delay (if you use a registered design), that isn't going to work on a desktop board. Your hypothetical RAM doubler adapter would be a better fit in a server case, as it would "tolerate" an exotic design. I can't see how you would code a UDIMM table, and have the result work in an RDIMM way. (The Northbridge CAS delay, has to take into account the one cycle delay through the register chip. And that's only going to happen if the BIOS is aware it's an RDIMM. And the keying on the slots would prevent insertion of an RDIMM as such. In other words, somebody has to tell the motherboard designer and the BIOS designer, what the plan is, for the exotic adapter to work. We couldn't do this on the sly.) If you didn't use a registered adapter design, then you would probably overload some of the signals by placing two DIMMs in one slot. ******* This crazy idea here works, because it's just an extender and the wiring is a passive thing. There's got to be some signal degradation by doing this. Hard to say when the **** will hit the fan (like, using four of them). https://linustechtips.com/main/topic...o-yes-you-can/ But the company making that adapter, didn't risk much by doing it. Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... I don't see how multiplexing is going to work in a DIMM slot. How is SPD going to work when there are 2 modules accessed in the same mobo slot? I think those old slot doubler adapter cards you remember were for SIMMs, not for DIMMs. *** You're absolutely right. I forgot that part :-( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMM "Since Intel's Pentium, many processors have a 64-bit bus width, requiring SIMMs installed in matched pairs in order to populate the data bus. The processor would then access the two SIMMs in parallel. DIMMs were introduced to eliminate this disadvantage." I'd say to sell off the old memory (after testing with memtest86) to offset part of the cost of getting bigger memory modules in your current mobo. As old technology gets more sparse, like DDR3 (240-pin slot), it commands a price premium (becomes more rare, longer shelf storage). DDR4 (288-pin slot) is the currently saleable product, and is cheaper at the same capacity. https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00 32 GB (2 X 16 GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3L 12800) $271 (sold by Newegg, not some 3rd party using a storefront there) https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4 $144 - $169 (did not include the CyberMonday deals) For the price difference of $102 to $127, you could get a new mobo. The problem is whether the old CPU works in the new mobo. I think the old AMD Athlon x4 845 Quad CPU used an FM2+ socket, but I found one using the AM4 socket. https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%20600474773 Those have FM2+ CPU sockets. However, Newegg only has models with 2 DIMM slots, and they're DDR3, so you wouldn't be improving your situation. https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...&Order=PRI CE If your CPU uses an AM4 socket, lots more choices, and some at less than the cost in the difference between the old DDR3 and new DDR4 price (and some mobos also have 4 DIMM slots giving you later expandability). You'll have to surrender to continue using your old computer for longer until you can afford a better one (like when you get your tax refund), or commit to surgery on your old box by replacing DDR3 with DDR4 which means a new mobo, too. However, you'll probably want to bite the bullet and get a better CPU, too. I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Since retiring back in '08, I don't feel the need (well, not as much anyhow) to be on the bleeding edge of technology. If it wasn't for some of the necessities that smart phones provide, I'd probably still be using my old Motorola flip phone, LOL! Maybe someday, though . . . -- SC Tom |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
SC Tom wrote:
I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Since retiring back in '08, I don't feel the need (well, not as much anyhow) to be on the bleeding edge of technology. If it wasn't for some of the necessities that smart phones provide, I'd probably still be using my old Motorola flip phone, LOL! Maybe someday, though . . . My prior computer was a salvaged setup (Intel Core 2 Duo quad core). A buddy's brother gave it to my buddy to get it fixed. My buddy never got around to it, his brother bought a new computer, and I got the broken computer for free. The salvaged unit needed a new PSU, a new video card, and definitely an HDD replacement (which later got updated to an SSD, and the HDD became a data drive). There was a problem with CPU fan speed control, but Speedfan fixed that (instead of having the fan always spin at max speed and make noise). That computer was built in 2009, and salvaged by me in 2013, and I used it up until spring of this year. That's a decade of use. I kept looking at newer stuff, but there just wasn't much bang for the buck. I didn't want an incremental upgrade, but something significant, and why I waited so long before building a new computer (and all peripherals, too). I didn't quite go bleeding edge, but the new setup was damn expensive. I try to build for an 8-year lifespan. I still have the salvaged/repaired computer which will go to my aunt to replace her even much older computer. The only reason why I had to give up my old Motorola RAZR flip-phone was because the carriers dropped 2G service. I'd still be using a new smartphone, but I liked to occasionally have the flip-phone that fits easily in a pocket to tote around when I don't want to risk my smartphone and just want to make/receive calls, like when helping out to build a new garage, house, or do anything physical. The smartphone is way too expensive to expose to those hazards. I see the RAZR is back but with a foldable screen (instead of a keypad hinged to a screen panel). At an obscene $1500, it's nothing I will ever consider buying (https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a2...hone-details/). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
SC Tom wrote:
I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Have you considered buying use RAM sticks instead of paying new prices? If that is still too expensive, start reviewing Task Manager to see what processes are running after you boot into Windows. Could be you could eliminate lots of startup programs, or disable services (e.g., AMD keeps wanting to lots their hotkey service, but I don't need hotkeys to change video settings). In Task Manager, how much physical memory is there and how much is committed? While unused memory is wasted memory, you still want enough free memory to run another program without having it paged out to the much slower pagefile on the hard disk. One of the upgrades I did with my 10-year old salvaged computer was to move an SSD in place of an HDD as the OS+app drive. Got some zippy improvement with that. Without all the data files, check how much of your HDD is consumed by Windows and the apps. That'll give an idea of how big an SSD you should get. All the data files will get moved with the HDD (actually they'll just stay on the HDD and all the OS and app files get deleted, but I find formatting the drive and restoring the data from backups is cleaner). I used a 256GB SSD for many years, and still only consumed a little over half of it with Windows 7 and apps. Games got moved (installed anew) on the HDD, because video games don't speed up much on SSDs. They may load a couple seconds faster, but they won't play faster. Game developers have long realized they needed to buffer the textures and objects in memory to improve gaming response. The salvaged computer only had 8GB which was also the max it could handle, but that and the SSD were more than sufficient to keep using the old computer for many more years. SSDs are a lot cheaper now. $32 from Newegg for a Crucial 240GB SSD (https://www.newegg.com/crucial-bx500...2E16820156187). I didn't check its specs to see if it is a fast SSD (i.e., write speed). With the pagefile on the SSD, even paged out processes will reload their memory blocks faster. Reduce how many programs and services are loaded on Windows startup. Change to using an SSD for the OS+app drive. A bit of manual labor and an SSD would probably make your old computer more zippy. You're at 16GB now for system RAM. That should be far more than you need for how you use your computer. More likely you have to eliminate the superfluous leech processes that consume memory and CPU cycles. You'll get more noticeable speed/responsiveness from your computer by going to an SSD than adding more memory of which most remains unused. In my new box that has 64GB NVMe m.2 memory, right now (without any video games running) it is using only 5.4 GB, so 58.4 GB is unused. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
2-in-1 RAM adapter
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... SC Tom wrote: I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Since retiring back in '08, I don't feel the need (well, not as much anyhow) to be on the bleeding edge of technology. If it wasn't for some of the necessities that smart phones provide, I'd probably still be using my old Motorola flip phone, LOL! Maybe someday, though . . . My prior computer was a salvaged setup (Intel Core 2 Duo quad core). A buddy's brother gave it to my buddy to get it fixed. My buddy never got around to it, his brother bought a new computer, and I got the broken computer for free. The salvaged unit needed a new PSU, a new video card, and definitely an HDD replacement (which later got updated to an SSD, and the HDD became a data drive). There was a problem with CPU fan speed control, but Speedfan fixed that (instead of having the fan always spin at max speed and make noise). That computer was built in 2009, and salvaged by me in 2013, and I used it up until spring of this year. That's a decade of use. I kept looking at newer stuff, but there just wasn't much bang for the buck. I didn't want an incremental upgrade, but something significant, and why I waited so long before building a new computer (and all peripherals, too). I didn't quite go bleeding edge, but the new setup was damn expensive. I try to build for an 8-year lifespan. I still have the salvaged/repaired computer which will go to my aunt to replace her even much older computer. The only reason why I had to give up my old Motorola RAZR flip-phone was because the carriers dropped 2G service. I'd still be using a new smartphone, but I liked to occasionally have the flip-phone that fits easily in a pocket to tote around when I don't want to risk my smartphone and just want to make/receive calls, like when helping out to build a new garage, house, or do anything physical. The smartphone is way too expensive to expose to those hazards. I see the RAZR is back but with a foldable screen (instead of a keypad hinged to a screen panel). At an obscene $1500, it's nothing I will ever consider buying (https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a2...hone-details/). I've done the same with a couple of my older PC's. The one I had before I built this one was a Lenovo H50-55 with an AMD A10-7800. It was ok, but not really what I wanted. I put a video card in it to get away from the onboard GPU and maxed out the RAM, and still wasn't happy. I willed it to my spouse- all she needs a PC for is email and some Excel spreadsheets for her tennis teams. Everything else is done on her tablet and phone. I agree, phone prices have gone way over the top. I bought an unlocked Moto g6 Play for $150 off Amazon (and balked at that price), and it works great for everything I need from a phone. I find it amazing that people are begging for food but have enough money to own a new $1000+ iPhone. There's just something wrong with that picture. But I guess that's another discussion for a different news group :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PS/2 to USB Adapter ? | [email protected] | General | 3 | July 3rd 09 02:20 AM |
usb wireless adapter and internal wireless adapter in one computer | Klaus Kassner | General Hardware | 1 | September 26th 08 05:47 PM |
Where to get a USB adapter | J. Yazel | General | 5 | November 18th 05 08:02 PM |
Modification of Nikon SA-21 strip film adapter to work like SA-30 roll adapter? | Rosch | Scanners | 0 | January 3rd 05 03:00 PM |
USB 2.0/1.1 to IDE adapter | Ray | Storage (alternative) | 0 | December 24th 04 01:24 AM |