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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
8x8, 16x16, 1M x 36 P -ram memories | Majki Majk | General | 2 | November 28th 08 05:53 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 01:40 PM |