can SE440BX motherboard run 512MB DIMMs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timothy Daniels
  • Start date Start date
Timothy Daniels said:
Intel says their SE440BX and SE440BX-2 motherboards support 256MB DIMMs
"at this time" - which was in May, 2004. See:
http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/se440bx/sb/cs-011844.htm

Is there any reason why they couldn't support 512MB or 1GB DIMMs now?
Click to expand...
Hi,

According to Crucial.com memory advisor, those boards can only accept a
maximum of 768MB RAM anyway (3x 256MB) so probably no.

Further research reveals that the Intel BX chipset supports a maximum of 1GB
RAM in total but since the largest DIMM size allowed is 256MB and most
boards of that time only had 3 slots, they were limited to 768MB.

Cheers!
 
fwibbler said:
Hi,

According to Crucial.com memory advisor, those boards can only accept a
maximum of 768MB RAM anyway (3x 256MB) so probably no.

Further research reveals that the Intel BX chipset supports a maximum of
1GB RAM in total but since the largest DIMM size allowed is 256MB and
most boards of that time only had 3 slots, they were limited to 768MB.
Click to expand...


Yup, I've done that checking, too. I've also checked the Dell specs
on their Dimension model which used that motherboard. Dell says the
max is (3) 128MB DIMMs. The manufacturers and OEMs specify
only what they have tested. But 256MB DIMMs weren't available
at the time of Dells testing - thus the stated limitations. And 512MB
DIMMs weren't available at the time of Intel's testing. I know that the
Dell model can support 256MB DIMMs, contrary to Dell's limitation,
and now I wonder about the 512MB limitation stated by Intel. Recall
that they stated "at this time" in May, 2004. If there is no 256MB
limitation, and given that the Intel motherboard specs say that the
DIMMs need not be of the same size or speed, 2 or 3 DIMMs could
still amount to 1GB of RAM, the max spec'd for the chipset.

*TimDaniels*
 
Intel says their SE440BX and SE440BX-2 motherboards support
256MB DIMMs "at this time" - which was in May, 2004.
See:
http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/se440bx/sb/cs-011844.htm

Is there any reason why they couldn't support 512MB or 1GB DIMMs now?

*TimDaniels*
Click to expand...

They can't use high density PC133 memory, so you're left
with 16 chips for 256MB. Supposedly Intel even spec'd
registered memory for configurations above 512MB, though
this might have only been on earlier boards, not the entire
chipset family.

If you had some spare 512MB modules and no other use you
might try them, the board may see half capacity of each and
use that much fine. I mean rather than letting them go to
waste and buying more memory instead if that were the other
alternative.

The max is 256MB per slot though, so anything more shouldn't
work at full capacity.
 
Yes, there is a reason why it will NOT work. 512 MB and 1 GB RAM sticks are
constructed of chips that the chipset on that old motherboard cannot
recognize.
 
kony said:
Yes, and this won't work either:

http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT32M64S4D7E
Click to expand...


OK... Why won't the 256MB module you cite work?

Here's the CT32M64S4D7E module you reference above:

CT32M64S4D7E - 256MB, 168-pin DIMM, SDRAM, PC133 memory module
Module Size: 256MB
Package: 168-pin DIMM
Feature: SDRAM, PC133
Specs: SDRAM, PC133 . CL=2 . Unbuffered . Non-parity . 133MHz . 3.3V
. 32Meg x 64

And Crucial says that the following WILL work for the SE440BX board:

http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=05D9F85FA5CA7304
CT32M64S4D75 - 256MB, 168-pin DIMM, SDRAM, PC133 memory module
Module Size: 256MB
Package: 168-pin DIMM
Feature: SDRAM, PC133
Specs: SDRAM, PC133 . CL=3 . Unbuffered . Non-parity . 133MHz . 3.3V
. 32Meg x 64

You can verify this at:
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=SE440BX

And the only difference between the two modules is that
the -7E is a CL-2 and the -75 is a CL-3.

As a matter of fact, in a scan of my system, Crucial says BOTH modules
would work for me. Is Crucial wrong?

*TimDaniels*
 
OK... Why won't the 256MB module you cite work?
Click to expand...


I was under that impression (which as you point out, may be
wrong) because it wasn't listed when an OEM system using
that board was used to search for memory (memory advisor
tool, search by manufacturer method). It appears there is a
serious flaw in their database when it returns results with
one search method but not the other.
 
Timothy said:
Thanks for the link. But it still confuses me. Are you saying
you don't think the 512MB or 1GB DIMMs could be used,
or are you saying you don't think they couldn't be used?
Click to expand...

No, they can't be used. I misread your actual question.
 
"kony" weaseled out:
I was under that impression (which as you point out, may be
wrong) because it wasn't listed when an OEM system using
that board was used to search for memory (memory advisor
tool, search by manufacturer method). It appears there is a
serious flaw in their database when it returns results with
one search method but not the other.
Click to expand...


The "serious flaw" is that Crucial's OEM search parrots what the
OEM specified at the time of manufacture - which in my system's
case was 8 years ago when the largest DIMM size was 128MB.
But when Crucial does a System Scan search, it parrots what the
manufacturer of the motherboard said at the time that the manufacturer
published its test results - which in the case of Intel's SE440BX was
3.5 years ago when the largest available DIMM size was 256MB.
In other words, Crucial will only use published specs, not engineering
knowledge or practical experience in advising customers.

That's the reason for my posting - to find someone with the engineering
knowledge or the practical experience to say if 512MB modules would
work today (at least while keeping the total RAM size to 1GB or less).
It's too bad that neither Crucial nor Intel would venture a guess, but
that seems to be the nature of corporate liability nowadays.

*TimDaniels*
 
Fishface said:
No, they can't be used. I misread your actual question.
Click to expand...


<sigh> I guess I'll have to spend more $$. I had hoped to
use (1) 512MB DIMM and (2) of my current 128MB DIMMs
to expand the RAM to 768MB. But it seems now that I'll have
to get (3) new 256MB DIMMs instead. Fortunately, I think a
guy in the local computer club said he had some for sale.
Thanks again for the link.

*TimDaniels*
 
"kony" weaseled out:


The "serious flaw" is that Crucial's OEM search parrots what the
OEM specified at the time of manufacture - which in my system's
case was 8 years ago when the largest DIMM size was 128MB.
Click to expand...

The serious flaw is that they're not keeping track of which
board was in which system and no basing the recommendation
upon that. A database for system X should include that it
uses board Y, returning the same search results as if you'd
searched for board Y in the first place.

But when Crucial does a System Scan search, it parrots what the
manufacturer of the motherboard said at the time that the manufacturer
published its test results - which in the case of Intel's SE440BX was
3.5 years ago when the largest available DIMM size was 256MB.
Click to expand...

Your timeline is a bit off, 3.5 years ago the largest DIMM
was larger than 256MB. We'd mentioned this, that it's not a
matter of what was available, that it's the actual limit.
Remember that while this may be the first time you're trying
to do this, 440BX boards were common as dirt a few years
ago. Once motherboards began supporting higher density
memory (for example i815 or Via 694 chipsets), 512MB modules
became fairly common.

Roughly speaking, we can get a timeline from an Anandtech
Apollo Pro (Via 694) Motherboard Roundup in Feb. '00, and
I'm sure I was buying them (512MB per) in '01 as I still
have receipts for systems originally equipped with 512MB
modules.


In other words, Crucial will only use published specs, not engineering
knowledge or practical experience in advising customers.
Click to expand...

If you mean published specs in the strictest terms, yes.
Quite a few systems did use the SE440BX though, that too was
a "spec" that would've been applicable in their database and
could've yielded better search results.
That's the reason for my posting - to find someone with the engineering
knowledge or the practical experience to say if 512MB modules would
work today (at least while keeping the total RAM size to 1GB or less).
It's too bad that neither Crucial nor Intel would venture a guess, but
that seems to be the nature of corporate liability nowadays.
Click to expand...

It is not supported in the real, "won't work" sense, not in
the "we didn't bother to try or mention it", sense like it
was with 256MB in some instances. While it is sometimes
true that modules simply weren't available at the time, that
is not the situation in this case with 512MB and above.

You can Google search for others who have tried it and
failed if you like.
 
"kornball" continues his weaseling:
The serious flaw is that they're not keeping track of which
board was in which system and no basing the recommendation
upon that. A database for system X should include that it
uses board Y, returning the same search results as if you'd
searched for board Y in the first place.
Click to expand...


So how is Crucial supposed to keep track of which board
is in which OEM system? For all Crucial knows, several
boards may have been used, and each of them may have
been customized. All it can go by is what the various OEMs
publish. Your assumption is just plain stupid.

*TimDaniels*
 
"kornball" continues his weaseling:


So how is Crucial supposed to keep track of which board
is in which OEM system?
Click to expand...

I suppose they'd have to get one of their *2* employees on
that, eh?


For all Crucial knows, several
boards may have been used, and each of them may have
been customized.
Click to expand...

Sure Tim, what would they know about selling memory for
systems they supposedly support. It is certainly possible
that on occasion a board or two slips past them, but SE440BX
is among the most common boards ever made.

All it can go by is what the various OEMs
publish.
Click to expand...

No, by that same token, all _you_ could go by is that these
boards support a max of 128 or 256MB, or did you think there
might be more info available? Tim can't find info and
therefore someone else can't find different info? Seems
like they've done quite a bit of info gathering already,
they did build that database, and in case you weren't aware,
OEMs do often publish what board they used.

They could accumulate information actively and/or passively.
It makes a lot of sense to do it when you're (they're)
marketing products to the majority of PC owners (who have an
OEM, not self-built, system) with aging systems - those who
would be in the market for this (PC100/133) memory Crucial
sells.

Had it ever occured to you that other memory sellers manage
to list 256MB modules for OEM 'BX based systems? Apparently
not, since that would tend to suggest there's more "it can
go by".
Your assumption is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

As stupid as asking about memory today as if you have some
grand new insight instead of doing a basic usenet search for
the information? As stupid as opening a post with the line
"kornball continues his weaseling" which shows us how
immature and easily rattled you are right off the bat?

Since there was no reason for this thread to exist at all,
I'm done with it... whine away if you like.
 
"kornyball" continues to blame Crucial.com:
Had it ever occured to you that other memory sellers manage
to list 256MB modules for OEM 'BX based systems? Apparently
not, since that would tend to suggest there's more "it can
go by".
Click to expand...


Given your low regard for Crucial.com, I wonder why you spew
information taken from their website.

*TimDaniels*
 
"kornyball" continues to blame Crucial.com:


Given your low regard for Crucial.com, I wonder why you spew
information taken from their website.

*TimDaniels*
Click to expand...

I will add just a bit more to clarify what was previosly
written since it seems you are again misunderstanding.

My regard for Crucial memory is reasonably high, though they
often charge a bit more than market value at any given point
in time. My regard for their search feature on the website
is a bit lower, particularly for the reason I already
mentioned- that most people have OEM systems and can't
access all information available for what is really
compatible with their system. In that regard it would have
been better if they'd scattered asteriks everywhere with a
note and link to a table of chipsets and module technology
so a user can find more information on-site.

By failing to do this, they have done just as you
demonstrated, left a prospective buyer wondering if what
they listed was really all a board can support or not.
 
"kornball" dodged and weaved and equivocated and hemmed and hawed:
I will add just a bit more to clarify what was previosly
written since it seems you are again misunderstanding.

My regard for Crucial memory is reasonably high, though they
often charge a bit more than market value at any given point
in time. My regard for their search feature on the website
is a bit lower, particularly for the reason I already
mentioned- that most people have OEM systems and can't
access all information available for what is really
compatible with their system. In that regard it would have
been better if they'd scattered asteriks everywhere with a
note and link to a table of chipsets and module technology
so a user can find more information on-site.

By failing to do this, they have done just as you
demonstrated, left a prospective buyer wondering if what
they listed was really all a board can support or not.
Click to expand...


Stop yer whining. If they had asterisks you'd be spewing asterisks.

*TimDaniels*
 
Back
Top