256 MB single side SDRAM isn't fully recognized on P2B-F Mainboard

[Stefan Pryka]

Can anybody tell me why my ASUS P2B-F Mainboard recognizes only 128 MB
of my new 256 MB PC100-Modul (PQI singlesided 8*32)? I already tried
updating the BIOS and changing the memory timings but its no use. Before
this I tried another 256 MB Modul (but doublesided PC-133) and it also
didn't work (same symptoms: recognizing only 128 MB). Is there a general
problem with 256MB Moduls?

Steff

[Egil Solberg]

more than 16 chips per stick can lead to your problem.
Try a 16X16 chip, if you can find one.

"Stefan Pryka" <turbo...@cityweb.de> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3AD87DB2...@cityweb.de...

[Stefan Pryka]

thank you but this can't be the problem because the chip has only 8 chips on
one side of the stick. another idea?

Stefan

Egil Solberg schrieb:

[Egil Solberg]

Just came to think about it myself....that you had 8 chips instead of 32.
If it is of any help, my friend here with a BX chipset bought a 128MB
module, that was recognized as 64.
On my VIA 694Z (CUV4X) it is recognized as 128 MB.

I've never heard a qualified answer to this except, that one should have
less than or equal to 16 chips per module, and that mixing single and
doublesided DIMMs is not good.
This does not explain all the trouble people have, and as this concerns many
users, one should get official statements from chipset/ RAM-manufacturers.
I'd really like to hear an answer.......
Sorry

"Stefan Pryka" <turbo...@cityweb.de> skrev i en meddelelse

news:3AD881D9...@cityweb.de...

[snootvision]

I don't have a technical answer for this, unfortunately - however I had a
similar problem.
I accquired 2 modules of 256MB PC133 manufactured by Infineon, and 2
modules of 256MB PC133 manfactured bu Hyundai. The Hyundai sticks work fine
in and are report as 256MB in CUBX, P3B-F, and a Soyo 6BA+. The Infineon
sticks on the other hand, report as 128MB in the same boards - they were
tried at 66, 100, and 133MHz in the CUBX.

Not having run into this particular weirdness before, I contacted the
vendor I received the RAM from, and they informed me that some of the
"older" boards don't properly recognize some "newer" RAM. Obviously not,
since it doesn't work in any of 3 "older" boards.

Since you're running just one stick, the mysterious ASUS problem with
running one stick of 256MB seems to apply.

I'll attempt to locate a more technically adept explanation.

Cheers,
snoot

[Darren Greenwald]

Sounds like it is "high-density" memory; unfortunately the memory
organization is incompatible with Intel chipsets (sees only 128MBs).

"Stefan Pryka" <turbo...@cityweb.de> wrote in message
news:3AD881D9...@cityweb.de...

[s...@west.com]

That's the problem. for a 256Meg stick, it needs to be double sided, 8
chips per side. Higher density individual ram chips (yours) came out after
BX chipset. The double sided 256M sticks work fine.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:59:05 +0200, Stefan Pryka <turbo...@cityweb.de>
wrote:

[gordy gale]

I have a double sided 8 chips per side 256MB 133mhz dimm that I just
bought, popped it onto my asus CUSL2-C board, and I only get 128MB
reports as well, no matter what I change in the bios, or when jumoer
free is disabled, no dip switch settings affect it either. I think the
problem is with the Intel 815e chipset and the high density RAM issue.
--
Gordy Gale

Darren Greenwald wrote:
>
> Sounds like it is "high-density" memory; unfortunately the memory
> organization is incompatible with Intel chipsets (sees only 128MBs).
>
> "Stefan Pryka" <turbo...@cityweb.de> wrote in message
> news:3AD881D9...@cityweb.de...

[alan smith]

"soupy" <BLOCKs...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38fhdto9768huek40hn7toj3hg4feesau3@Home...

> As I recall, the BX supports up to 128mb chip density, so you'll need
> DIMMS with 16 chips on them.
>
> 256MB x 8bits / 128mb density = 16 chips per DIMM
>
Fits. I have an Abit BX board with a 16 chip 256Mb DIMM (Crucial) that works
correctly.

[alan smith]

I have 2 x Crucial 256Mb double sided DIMMs in my CUSL2-C and they work
fine.

"gordy gale" <gord...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD9385A...@home.com...

[gordy gale]

Just out of curiousity, is your Asus board a version one? (dont even
know if there is a higher version), but mine is a version one, and I had
to flash the bios to 1006a to get it to work right with my ATI rage all
in wonder 128 pro. Maybe I just bought CHEAP ram?
--
Gordy Gale

[alan smith]

yes. v 1.02
I havent upgraded to 1006 yet, still using 1003 with no problems. Having
followed the BIOS threads I'm still not sure whether to bother until the
next version.

And, out of co-incidence I'm using an ATI all in wonder with Rage chipset.
No problems here either!

(finally- I've also got it overclocked too!)

The only thing is I bought Crucial RAM- It's cheap too just now- but as in
doesn't cost a lot!

"gordy gale" <gord...@home.com> wrote in message

news:3AD9721D...@home.com...

[Slash]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 05:58:57 GMT, gordy gale <gord...@home.com>
scribbled:

>I have a double sided 8 chips per side 256MB 133mhz dimm that I just
>bought, popped it onto my asus CUSL2-C board, and I only get 128MB
>reports as well, no matter what I change in the bios, or when jumoer
>free is disabled, no dip switch settings affect it either. I think the
>problem is with the Intel 815e chipset and the high density RAM issue.

What are the other DIMMs that you have in your motherboard? The i815
chipset can only address four DIMM 'sides' in total (essentially). If
you have two other double sided DIMMs, or one double sided and one
single sided DIMM in addition to the double sided DIMM you're adding,
it would help explain the problem. If this isn't the case, what brand
is the memory in your system? Many i815 owners (CUSL2 or otherwise)
have reported that the boards are rather picky about memory - maybe a
different brand would function better.

-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious" - The Onion

[Stefan Pryka]

thank you all for your help. it all focuses on the supposition, that the
256MB modul I bought has simply a too high density for the chipset used in
the P2B-F..
i think i will stay at the 256MB RAM that I already have, for I am not
sure whether an upgrade to 512MB would make such a great difference for
accepting all the trouble and expenditure trying to find solutions to get
it working. Somebody to tell me that the difference in performance would
justify upgrading? I do much work on image processing rather big files (>
100 MB)?

Steff

[gordy gale]

Thanks,I will look into that.
--
Gordy Gale

[+KaRkUs+]

Tons of ram for image processing means having to hit your virtual
memory less and less. It speeds up your work tremendously unless you
have Raid arrays comprised of SCSI X-15 drives :) That would cost
thousands. Ram is cheaper :)

Hell I would go with as much the memory as the motherboard could
handle for graphics processing. PS6 with 512 is nice and snappy but I
would like to have 1 gig for large high res images. ( I do have Raid
ATA100 to soften the VM hit and resulting lag )
512 is a good start for graphics processing IMO. 256 just ins't enough
unless your O/S foot print is tiny ( under 20 megs ).

What O/S are you using ? Win98 can't handle more than 512. NT can
handle any amount your motherboard can. I use W2K Pro.

2 cents,

KaRkUs.

[Stefan Pryka]

I'm using Win98 (first edition). So this can only handle 512 MB? And my
motherboard is very choosy in accepting RAM. Difficulties, difficulties. Must
see, if I can find a reliable source to get some compatible RAM.

[Egil Solberg]

"+KaRkUs+" <bb...@newsguy.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:k30mdtgctns3p4n3h...@4ax.com...

> What O/S are you using ? Win98 can't handle more than 512. NT can
> handle any amount your motherboard can. I use W2K Pro.

And for the 52. time I have to say:

When using more than 512MB RAM in Win98/Win98SE you will have to edit
system.ini.
Under [vcache] add this line:

MaxFileCache=524288

This value could also be set to less than this, f.ex 65536.

That Win98 cannot handle more than 512MB RAM is A LIE. Forward this message
whenever you hear this statement.

[+KaRkUs+]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:07:29 +0200, "Egil Solberg"
<eg...@nospam.mail.trillegaarden.dk> wrote:

>That Win98 cannot handle more than 512MB RAM is A LIE. Forward this message
>whenever you hear this statement.

Why does M$ itself insist Win9x can't address more than 512 ?

I guess they lied to us.( !? ) Sorry if that is incorrect info. Your
the first to say otherwise. If it's as easy as you say, why isn't it a
hotfix and if so please post the link.

KaRkUs.

[torque]

regardless of what amount of ram win98 or win9x can handle, it's a
piece of garbage for running intensive programs that need a great deal
of memory.

pro-e
lightwave
autocad
photoshop (editing 300-1000mb files)
lightscape

or running multiple programs at once e.g.

running photoshop, fireworks, outlook, dreamweaver, flash
simultaneously with a machine with win98 (win9x, including WinMe) and
512 ram is like putting a high performance transmission on a pinto.

great hardware, good amount of ram, good applications....crappy os.

all this being said...98 still has it's place...i boot it for games
and audio apps.

otherwise i use NT4.0...

win2000 is becoming viable, and XP should basically combine the best
of both worlds. (98/me's friendliness, and NT kernel robustness)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:07:29 +0200, "Egil Solberg"
<eg...@nospam.mail.trillegaarden.dk> wrote:

[Rick Baker]

FALSE

[alan smith]

"torque" <tor...@dslkdjf0.net> wrote in message
news:7fjodtk8nq00t2kgi...@4ax.com...

>
> win2000 is becoming viable, and XP should basically combine the best
> of both worlds. (98/me's friendliness, and NT kernel robustness)
>
>

On past experience that's a strong possibility ;-)

[alan smith]

"torque" <tor...@dslkdjf0.net> wrote in message
news:7fjodtk8nq00t2kgi...@4ax.com...
>

> win2000 is becoming viable, and XP should basically combine the best
> of both worlds. (98/me's friendliness, and NT kernel robustness)
>
>

[Slash]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:59:27 -0400, +KaRkUs+ <bb...@newsguy.com>
scribbled:

http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/list_news.php?category=SOFTWARE#N15000413

The fix was outlined already by someone, just involves setting a few
vcache lines in the system.ini file to keep the disk caching from
going nuts.

[+KaRkUs+]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:07:00 -0500, Rick Baker <rb...@ti.com> wrote:

>> What O/S are you using ? Win98 can't handle more than 512.
>
>
>FALSE

Yeah okay. Whatever :)

KaRkUs.

[alan smith]

"Egil Solberg" <eg...@nospam.mail.trillegaarden.dk> wrote in message
news:3adb34c3$0$5727$4d4e...@news.dk.uu.net...

In essence this is correct, but please read the Microsoft knowledgebase
document. Windows *may* suffer out of memory errors over 512Mb, in which
case you limit the vcache to 512Mb, or less. I run 768Mb with *no* problems
(98SE). I have used 1Gb and got no out of memory errors either.
The problem shows, for example, as not sufficient memory error when starting
s DOS box.