Memory Speed question

Message

gibblr · #1 Post by **gibblr** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:40 pm

Good day

My A31 takes PC2100 ram, I am wondering if anyone has put faster ram into theirs and if it works?
In a desktop if you put mismatched speed ram in it it will run as fast as the slowest ram.
I am wondering if it is the same in ThinkPads?
thanks for your assistance
Chad

#2 Post by **schen** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:42 pm

At the very least, PC2700 should drop down to 2100 speed. It seems to be kinda hit or miss with the 333 RAM and anything above that, I'm not certain, but I doubt it.

#3 Post by **rkawakami** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:58 pm

gibblr wrote:My A31 takes PC2100 ram, I am wondering if anyone has put faster ram into theirs and if it works?

PC2100 is spec'ed to run with a front side bus (FSB) speed of 133Mhz. PC2700 is tested to run at an FSB of 166Mhz. I would say most (maybe not ALL) PC2700-rated memory modules can be run at the slower PC2100 system speed without any problems. The main issue is whether or not the faster PC2700 module is capable of running at the proper CAS latency (CL) spec required by the PC2100 system.

(Note: I say "133Mhz" and "166Mhz" as that is the frequency of the system memory clock. Some others may reference them as "266" and "333", which is the DATA RATE of DDR memories when operated at those speeds.)

My understanding is that the chipsets in the older Thinkpads (talking T30 and A31 here) are locked into using a specific CL. It is not changed depending upon what kind of memory module you are using. In other words, the laptop's chipset will not read the serial presense detect (SPD) information off of the module and re-configure the system timing. If anyone else knows otherwise, please correct me on this.

As I believe that the A31 system uses PC2100 CL2.5 memory, as long as the PC2700 module is also capable of running at CL2.5, then you shouldn't have any problems. The system will not run any faster with the PC2700 module, again, assuming that the system is always locked into a specific timing.

gibblr · #4 Post by **gibblr** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:07 pm

The only reason I am asking this is because I have searched many shops and been unable to find new PC2100 ram.
Lots of PC3200 but it is all 3.0cl, so I am very glad that I asked here before I stepped out and bought a piece that would not work in my system by the sounds of it.
Thank you!!
Does it not seem to you that PC2100 is kind of slow for a P4 1.9ghz?
I thought that the memory speed would be the same as the CPU frequency and that a P4 1.9ghz would be at least 200 or 400mhz
Is this a power saving feature to be running at such a slow bus speed?
I was thinking that I needed to reinstall my software cause it was running so painfully slow, (3min 55 seconds to load XP, and I have cleaned out the startup and defraged and everything else thought of to speed it up!) maybe it is just a factory designed dog.
maybe I should take WinXP Pro off it and put Win98 on it

thanks again for your information

#5 Post by **rkawakami** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:53 pm

gibblr wrote:Does it not seem to you that PC2100 is kind of slow for a P4 1.9ghz?

CPU speed is not really indicative of memory bus speed. The front side bus speed is used by both (CPU and memory) as the basis of operation, however the multipliers are different.

gibblr wrote:<snip>....maybe I should take WinXP Pro off it and put Win98 on it

I wouldn't go all of the way back to W98... maybe you can try Windows 2000? Yes, four minutes is an extremely long time to boot XP but the problem may be due to something else. Try downloading a program such as CPU-Z which can tell you your systems bus speeds.

gibblr · #6 Post by **gibblr** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:09 am

"Try downloading a program such as CPU-Z which can tell you your systems bus speeds."

So I did that and I am totally confused now.
Cpuz tells me that my bus speed is 99.9mhz, and it also says that the rated FSB is 399.5mhz
I checked the bios and there is no place to change the FSB (or anything else regarding fsb or multipliers or memory timing)
But that is what I was talking about before, if my rated fsb is 400mhz then should not the bus speed be 200mhz? and I have 133mhz memory? I am totally confused.

AMD stuff is so much easier to understand

Is there a flash available to get more control over the bios?

Thanks for your knowledge and patience Ray

#7 Post by **rkawakami** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:53 am

"Core speed" should be the speed at which the CPU is operating. This will tell you if your system is running as fast as you think it should be. For example, the T23 I'm using right now has a 1.2Ghz processor, but since I'm running on battery, CPU-Z is reporting that the core speed is 800Mhz. The "bus speed" is as it should be (133Mhz). My "rated FSB" is greyed-out as that is probably a DDR or DDR2 spec.

The A31 should be using a 133Mhz bus speed and a multiplier of some factor to adjust the CPU speed. That you are seeing 100Mhz means something is not right. What is the CPU "specification" that CPU-Z is reporting?

I do not think you will find any settings in BIOS or be able to re-flash the BIOS to get your hands on tweaking the memory/system timing. If there is an un-documented way of doing this, I am not aware of it.

(edit: I use an A31 at work. If nobody else drops by with the information, I'll see what CPU-Z reports as the speeds and CPU data tomorrow.)

gibblr · #8 Post by **gibblr** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:16 am

I knew something was not right here!! it is a P4 1.9 and it is running like a P166mhz!!
here is the CPUz text file
Processors Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor 1 (ID = 0)
Number of cores 1
Number of threads 1 (max 1)
Name Intel Pentium 4
Codename Northwood
Specification Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 1.90GHz
Package Socket 478 mPGA (platform ID = 3h)
CPUID F.2.7
Extended CPUID F.2
Brand ID 14
Core Stepping C1
Technology 0.13 um
Core Speed 1198.0 MHz (12.0 x 99.8 MHz)
Rated Bus speed 399.3 MHz
Stock frequency 1900 MHz
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 Data cache 8 KBytes, 4-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Trace cache 12 Kuops, 8-way set associative
L2 cache 512 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
FID/VID Control no

If there is anyhting else you would like please let me know!
It must have been in sleep mode when cause when I first looked at it it was at 19 for the multiplier, I am rebooting it right now and I will run CPUZ again, be back in 4 minutes for a reboot!!

#9 Post by **rkawakami** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:25 am

By any chance are you running Windows 2000? If so, I have run into a problem with that OS on my 600X systems. It seems like Win2K will adjust the bus speed depending upon the power setting in effect.

Even if you are running Windows XP then try this: Open up the "Power Options Properties" window and change/verify the power scheme as "High System Performance". Also, I'm assuming that you are using an AC adapter. If you are using Windows 2000, then make sure that the adapter is plugged in BEFORE you power up the laptop. On my 600X systems, W2K throttles down the system speed when running off of the battery alone and does NOT speed up if the AC adapter is plugged in while the OS is running. It seems like when W2K is booted, it checks the power status and remains at that condition until booted again. Note, that I've only verified this with my 600X. As far as I remember, I have NOT checked this with my A31 at work which is running Windows 2000 Pro. Something I will do tomorrow and report back here.

(edit: I'm not having a good night... My memory is going... I just re-read your earlier posts about dumping Windows XP. Please ignore my ramblings earlier in this post about Windows 2000. But still try the High System Performance setting and see if that helps.)

gibblr · #10 Post by **gibblr** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:35 am

I am running WinXP Pro

When I make the system work then this is what CPUz says
Core Speed 1897.0 MHz (19.0 x 99.8 MHz)

And when I go to Power options I had that set to "always on" when it was/is on AC power. I have changed that to high performance now

In the bios I had also set it to performance setttings there.

I will see if that makes a differance to how it runs.

Any other tips greatly appreciated!

#11 Post by **rkawakami** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:55 am

So your CPU speed is reporting what it should be (1.9Ghz). With a bus speed of 100Mhz, times the multiplier of 19. That makes perfect sense. Doing the math for a 133Mhz bus speed, the multiplier would have to be 14.285714, which I don't believe is possible (integer values only). So it appears that the 100Mhz is correct for your system. Which begs the question, "why is the memory spec'ed for PC2100 modules" (133Mhz)?

DDR modules started out at PC1600 (100Mhz). The Intel 845MP chipset is designed to run with PC1600 (DDR200) or PC2100 (DR266) memory via a bit setting in a configuration register. It's possible that with all of the different CPU options that were available with the A31 (1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0), IBM settled on using 100Mhz as the bus speed while still recommending 133Mhz memory.

(ref: Intel 845 Family Chipset document)

gibblr · #12 Post by **gibblr** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:22 am

Seems very strange to me that when you have the potential of a decent machine/CPU that they would choose to choke it off so badly.
the numbers are all here for a very nice machine when you look at the specifications.
But yet my AMD 2500+ (1800mhz actual) desktop runs circles around it.
My desktop boots up totally in less than 20seconds with WinXP Pro on it, and it is loaded with software big time.

Well thanks for your help Ray

Chad

rebel25 · #13 Post by **rebel25** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:12 pm

will ddr2 533 step down to ddr400?

#14 Post by **rkawakami** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:20 pm

Well, I checked the A31 here in the office...

CPU-Z reports that there's an Intel Pentium 4 Mobile 1.60Ghz with an FSB of 100Mhz and a bus speed of 400Mhz (just like your system). However, clicking on the Memory tab I see that the DRAM frequency is 133Mhz and the FSB:DRAM ratio is 3:4. That makes sense. The DRAM is running 1/3 faster than the FSB. 1/3 of 100Mhz is 33Mhz, so the memory is indeed running at 133Mhz (266Mhz data rate for DDR).

I haven't played around with the A31 too much (it's the company's machine!), nor do I have much experience with P4 systems (yet) so this was unexpected to me.

As far as speeding up your system, it sounds like you've done everything that's "free" (trim the Startup folder, defragged, turned off all of XP's 'eye candy'?).

What about changing to a faster disk drive?

gibblr · #15 Post by **gibblr** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:12 pm

Yes I am saving money right now to get a better drive, I could afford a 5400rpm drive right now but I think this thing needs at least 7200rpm.

As well as the reason for this original post, more better ram.

I am just nervous that if I dump this money into this thing to find out that after it all I now have a machine running like a 800mhz rather than a 1.9ghz.
I mean the bus speed does not really give me much hope of ever getting it to run like a 1.9ghz machine should.
What are your thoughts?

Are there any A31 owners here who have put a 7200rpm drive and 1 gb of ram in and what kind of performance do they get?

Or am I just wrong to be comparing my desktop to my laptop?

I am going to re-format this thing and see if that makes a differance, I bought this with the OS installed and I have no idea what has been on this thing for software, maybe the registry is just jammed up, but I have run several registry cleaners on it to no avail.
We will see... the quest for more better continues

pianowizard · #16 Post by **pianowizard** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:25 pm

gibblr wrote:Are there any A31 owners here who have put a 7200rpm drive and 1 gb of ram in and what kind of performance do they get?

For your info, your A31 can have up to 2GB of RAM.

asadniazi · #17 Post by **asadniazi** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:33 am

Try Newegg.com - They still stock pc2100 SODIMMS

gibblr · #18 Post by **gibblr** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:09 am

Thanks for the info pianowizard, I was under the impression it was only 1gb so that is good to hear!

asadniazi, thanks but I am from Canada and they will not ship up here

gibblr · #19 Post by **gibblr** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:09 am

While setting up Win98 on my speed demon, it all of a sudden stopped and told me there were some bad sectors, bad enough that Win98 would not continue.

Would that have made WinXP slow down trying to cope with those bad sectors while booting?

I am running Hitachi's drive fitness test right now, the advanced test that wipes the hard drive and trys to recover the bad sectors.
If this does not work I will see if I can find a low level format program on Hitachi's web site

gibblr · #20 Post by **gibblr** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:12 am

I ran the Hitachi Drive Fitness Test, first I did the quick test, my HDD passed with flying colors.
So then I ran the advanced test and I had bad sectors. I ran the low level format. It gave me the error code 0x75, which was a failed HDD error message
Then I ran Partition Magic on it and gave it a Partition 540mb less than the full size of the drive.
Right now it is running like I have never seen or heard it run!
Before the HDD was always making a rattling nose like it was constantly accessing the drive. But yet the HDD access light never flickered and when I left the task manager running the CPU usage was at zero, but yet the HDD would rattle.
No more

I then put Win98 on it
Now I would say that I am running a Pentium 4 1.9ghz.
I do not even notice the slow drive.
So I put Win XP Pro on it again. Before with Win XP on it, it took three minutes and fifty five seconds to boot up, right now thirty two seconds to start WinXP Pro.

Personally right now I believe that the failed HDD was causing this machine to run slow. Now that I have partitioned out the bad sectors it runs like a champ!

Thanks to everyone who made me more knowledgeable about my ThinkPad
I appreciate it much

#21 Post by **rkawakami** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:21 am

By any chance is the partitioned-off area at the beginning of the drive? If so, then your file allocation table was probably getting over-exercised and/or confused (there should be two copies of the FAT, main and backup).

540MB loss of hard drive space is really nothing these days, is it

? Glad to hear your system is running at "full speed" again.

gibblr · #22 Post by **gibblr** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:54 am

To be honest with you Ray I have no idea where the loss came from.
Partition magic asks how big you want the partition and I wrote the number in and that was it.
I cannot see there being any allocation tables left after I low level formatted it 5 times!! There was also a utility for wiping out the MBR in the Hitachi software, I had scrubbed that drive big time!
how would I find out where the loss came from?

#23 Post by **rkawakami** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:03 am

Not sure with Partition Magic as I've never used the program, but since you are running XP...

Start/Settings/Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Computer Management then click the Disk Management line. That should show you a pictorial diagram on how your disk is partitioned. I believe that the left side is the beginning of the drive and the right, the end. If you see an area marked/named "unallocated" (or some such notation), then that's your unused area.

(edit: And when I was talking about the FAT, I meant before you low-leveled formatted the drive. When XP was performing disk operations on your files, if the bad sectors were located in the FAT, then I can see how it could have been confused. A bad sector read would have made the OS read the 'backup' FAT entry and may have caused your slowdown.)

gibblr · #24 Post by **gibblr** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:23 am

The loss came from the back of the drive according to your left/right logic

But a thought, when I was low level formatting, at first it seemed like the bad sectors were in the middle of the drive, then after a couple formats it seemed like they were towards then end of the drive.
then the last format it piled up about an eighth of the way into the format.

That was when I partitioned the drive

I have done a full install on this thing and it is nice and quiet and running just awesome.

I can't figure out what happened, but i sure am pleased with the results!!

I guess that even if the drive is still turning there is hope of getting some more use out of it.

pianowizard · #25 Post by **pianowizard** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:28 am

gibblr wrote:So I put Win XP Pro on it again. Before with Win XP on it, it took three minutes and fifty five seconds to boot up, right now thirty two seconds to start WinXP Pro.

Personally right now I believe that the failed HDD was causing this machine to run slow.

Perhaps the last time WinXP was installed, the "quick format" option was used and so WinXP didn't look for bad sectors to avoid. One should quick format only when the HDD is known to be 100% free of errors.

#26 Post by **rkawakami** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:29 am

Well, I'm not an expert in the formatting and partitioning of drives but I would say, 'be prepared' to eventually replace the drive. Where one string of bad sectors is found, more will probably be found sooner or later. Good luck!

gibblr · #27 Post by **gibblr** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:36 am

yes I am quite sure that I will have to replace it as well, but I am just going to keep the spare on hand and see how long this one will last.

thanks again Ray

Chad

Memory Speed question

Memory Speed question

Re: RAM Speed

Re: Memory Speed question

Who is online