Should RAM timings have to be set manually?

Rod Speed wrote:

larry moe 'n curly wrote

Then its likely that its the bios in that one that is the problem.

especially when some modules wouldn't work with even the slowest setup timings?

See above. Bet you've just made that last one up now that your nose has
been rubbed in the fact that you dont have any evidence that its BAD RAM.

You lose your bet.

Nope, you would have said that before now it it had been true.

I had mentioned it before, about PC2100 modules that showed errors
at 266 MHz, even with the slowest timings, but not at 200 MHz.

Thats nothing like the previous claim.

Here's what I wrote on 11/21/2006:

I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at their rated
266 MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow the other timings were,
but they worked fine at 200 MHz. So by your reasoning, those
modules weren't bad?

It seems a lot like my previous claim.

That wasn't the previous claim I was referring to.

Then what did I write?

Errors disappeared when an identical model DIMM was substituted,

Irrelevant, the marking on the ram chips wasnt identical.

I'm including modules with identical chip markings..

Thats not what you said previously.

Why would I have argued about modules with non-identical chips when
your contention was that the chips were different?

The timing detail setup by the bios with the ram you claim is bad
is clearly not appropriate if the ram works fine in a different system.

That doesn't explain why manually choosing slower settings didn't help.

Yes it does, the bios presumably stuffed up with the manual settings too.

How can you presume that?

A memory failure with just one system is enough to prove that the module is bad.

What matters is if it works fine in some systems. If it does it isnt BAD RAM.

So if 9 out of 10 patients of a certain surgeon die,
that surgeon is OK because of the other patient?

Different matter entirely.

It's the same matter -- low quality standards.

MemTest86 reported errors at 3-3-3-8-1T (SPD defaults) and even
3-4-4-8-1T, but changing 1T to 2T usually cleared up the errors,

So clearly the bios isnt doing much of a job with the spd data.

Why should 1T memory have to run at 2T to be reliable?

You dont even know what the bios is doing, just what its told to do.

Then why did most of the modules fail when BIOS was told to use 1T but
not when it was told to use 2T? Isn't it likely that the BIOS is
changing the 1T/2T setting?

larry moe 'n curly wrote
Rod Speed wrote
larry moe 'n curly wrote

Then its likely that its the bios in that one that is the problem.

especially when some modules wouldn't work with even the slowest setup timings?

See above. Bet you've just made that last one up now that your nose has
been rubbed in the fact that you dont have any evidence that its BAD RAM.

You lose your bet.

Nope, you would have said that before now it it had been true.

I had mentioned it before, about PC2100 modules that showed errors
at 266 MHz, even with the slowest timings, but not at 200 MHz.

Thats nothing like the previous claim.

Here's what I wrote on 11/21/2006:

I had some PC2100 modules that always failed testing at their rated
266 MHz bus speed, regardless of how slow the other timings were,
but they worked fine at 200 MHz. So by your reasoning, those
modules weren't bad?

It seems a lot like my previous claim.

That wasn't the previous claim I was referring to.

Then what did I write?

You keep hacking back the quoting, go back and check that for yourself.

Errors disappeared when an identical model DIMM was substituted,

Irrelevant, the marking on the ram chips wasnt identical.

I'm including modules with identical chip markings..

Thats not what you said previously.

Why would I have argued about modules with non-identical chips
when your contention was that the chips were different?

It wasnt clear whether you meant identical in the sense
of identical chips or just identical in the sense of the
module specs, particularly when you used the word model.

The timing detail setup by the bios with the ram you claim is bad
is clearly not appropriate if the ram works fine in a different system.

That doesn't explain why manually choosing slower settings didn't help.

Yes it does, the bios presumably stuffed up with the manual settings too.

How can you presume that?

Because, like I said, I just dont believe that Kingston
would be shipping ram which doesnt work in any system.

I just dont believe that their quality control is that bad.

A memory failure with just one system is enough to prove that the module is bad.

What matters is if it works fine in some systems. If it does it isnt BAD RAM.

So if 9 out of 10 patients of a certain surgeon die,
that surgeon is OK because of the other patient?

Different matter entirely.

It's the same matter -- low quality standards.

Nope. You dont know that it is low quality standard with the ram.

ALL you know is that you got the result you got in a COUPLE OF SYSTEMS.

MemTest86 reported errors at 3-3-3-8-1T (SPD defaults) and even
3-4-4-8-1T, but changing 1T to 2T usually cleared up the errors,

So clearly the bios isnt doing much of a job with the spd data.

Why should 1T memory have to run at 2T to be reliable?

You dont even know what the bios is doing, just what its told to do.

Then why did most of the modules fail when BIOS was
told to use 1T but not when it was told to use 2T?

You dont know what the bios chose to do when told to do that.

Isn't it likely that the BIOS is changing the 1T/2T setting?

Likely, but since I just dont believe that Kingston is shipping ram that
gets that obscene result in all systems that are speced for that ram,
its much more likely to be a bios problem and not BAD RAM at all.