Kingston DDR400 on K7VTA3 motherboard

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmdir2005
  • Start date Start date
M

mmdir2005

Does ddr400 kingston memory work on K7VTA3 motherboard?
did anyone try and has any problem or no problem?
 
Does ddr400 kingston memory work on K7VTA3 motherboard?
did anyone try and has any problem or no problem?
Click to expand...


First of all memory is typically spec'd as PC3200 not
DDR400. DDR400 is a front side bus speed, not a memory
spec.

Yes in general PC3200 memory is backwards compatible with
that KT333 chipset board. However, many of the KT333
chipset boards weren't very stable with a lot of memory
running at 166MHz/PC2700 speed, were more stable running at
133MHz/PC2100 memory bus speed. By "a lot of memory" I mean
over 512MB you may need higher spec memory, at least CAS2.5
if not CAS2.0 and maybe even slow down the timings some to
use more memory. Which bios settings your particular board
bios supports, I cannot say.
 
kony said:
First of all memory is typically spec'd as PC3200 not
DDR400. DDR400 is a front side bus speed, not a memory
spec.

Yes in general PC3200 memory is backwards compatible with
that KT333 chipset board. However, many of the KT333
chipset boards weren't very stable with a lot of memory
running at 166MHz/PC2700 speed, were more stable running at
133MHz/PC2100 memory bus speed. By "a lot of memory" I mean
over 512MB you may need higher spec memory, at least CAS2.5
if not CAS2.0 and maybe even slow down the timings some to
use more memory. Which bios settings your particular board
bios supports, I cannot say.
Click to expand...


I drop the CPU and DRAM speed to 100Mhz that work much better.
well so far my computer is not showing blue-color error screen on
windows XP.
 
kony said:
Yes in general PC3200 memory is backwards compatible with
that KT333 chipset board. However, many of the KT333
chipset boards weren't very stable with a lot of memory
running at 166MHz/PC2700 speed, were more stable running at
133MHz/PC2100 memory bus speed. By "a lot of memory" I mean
over 512MB you may need higher spec memory, at least CAS2.5
if not CAS2.0 and maybe even slow down the timings some to
use more memory.
Click to expand...

Oddly, the KT333 gave me fewer memory problems than any chipset I've
tried; it's been the nForce chipsets that have failed most of my
memory, including 8 out of 11 or 12 Kingston 512MB PC3200 modules (no
overclocking, SPD defaults used). What the heck is going on? The only
other PC3200 modules that failed on me were Muskins made with Spectek
chips and identified by their SPDs as Kingstons. Kingston said they've
never supplied Muskin, and Mushkin said they've never used Spectek
chips.
 
I drop the CPU and DRAM speed to 100Mhz that work much better.
well so far my computer is not showing blue-color error screen on
windows XP.
Click to expand...


That's a significant performance loss though, underclocking
the entire system. You might try putting both back at
133MHz, raising the bios memory timing numbers. Always test
with memtest86+ BEFORE booting windows. Running windows
without stable memory can corrupt files and the result is
the system could have errors even after the memory itself
has been made stable.
 
Oddly, the KT333 gave me fewer memory problems than any chipset I've
tried; it's been the nForce chipsets that have failed most of my
memory, including 8 out of 11 or 12 Kingston 512MB PC3200 modules (no
overclocking, SPD defaults used). What the heck is going on? The only
other PC3200 modules that failed on me were Muskins made with Spectek
chips and identified by their SPDs as Kingstons. Kingston said they've
never supplied Muskin, and Mushkin said they've never used Spectek
chips.
Click to expand...


About a year ago I bought some Muskin that looked identical
to some A-Data (from Newegg) though it wasn't Spectec chips,
I can't even recall now what they were... mainly because it
was just cheap memory and worked fine.

Don't know what to make of the platform problems, I had
KT333 boards running fine on 512MB and lower, but once the
memory bus got to 166MHz they started getting real picky.
They were Gigabyte something or other, Asus (A7V333), and
MSI (again I forget the model, think it was KT3 Ultra).

I had some quirks with nForce too, but it seemed later
nForce boards and bios, combined with later memory resolved
these issues largely while KT333 never did want to run at
stock speed with all slots populated. I didn't try premium
memory though, it seemed a bit of a waste to put high-end
memory in one of those boards since their memory performance
was already worse than nVidia's.
 
kony said:
That's a significant performance loss though, underclocking
the entire system. You might try putting both back at
133MHz, raising the bios memory timing numbers. Always test
with memtest86+ BEFORE booting windows. Running windows
without stable memory can corrupt files and the result is
the system could have errors even after the memory itself
has been made stable.
Click to expand...

I have no choice if I go back to 133Mhz, it's too unstable. With
133mhz, unable to run
Internet Explore more than 15 min, Madden 2004, Morrowind. These
programs
caused blue-screen error on Windows XP. I thought I had the graphic
card or/and and the memory error. Now it looks like CPU-133Mz and
DRAM-133Mhz what cause
the problem. So far, there is no error.
 
Back
Top