Old moherboard RAM upgrade.

[John Jordan]

Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than
half the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4?
AFAICT the manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66)
required, but the Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not
list pc100/133.

Older SDRAM sticks didn't have SPD support, or at least motherboards
didn't use it. This makes compatibility straightforward, as the chips
are all easily fast enough for CL2 @ PC66. I've never had a problem
using PC100 or PC133 sticks in old boards.

The main problem is that the 430TX may not have 128mbit support (Intel
site just says "64mbit support: Yes"), so you'd need to use 16-chip
128MB sticks. Crucial's cheaper sticks are probably 8-chip, although you
can find a lot of 16-chip 128MB sticks for next to nothing on eBay.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Ok, so I understand the issue with the lack of caching. But don't want to go to the added expense
of a new motherboard, the PC is after all just a glorified jukebox.

Yeah, a new motherboard makes no sense. The lack of full caching
shouldnt matter at all with a glorified jukebox, the speed is entirely
determined by the rate at which the music is played and even with
no caching at all, that should be perfectly adequate.

I can get the memory from Crucial...

"168-pin DIMM 128MB SDRAM, PC66 • CL=2 • Unbuffered • Non-parity • 66MHz • 3.3V • 16Meg x 64"

..but 2 x 128MB will cost £50 (~US$100)

Yeah, doesnt make a lot of sense for an old dinosaur like that.

and I can't find it anywhere else except on EBay where I can only get 1 x 128MB module instead of
the 2 as I originally planned.

I'd personally put simms in that system not dimms. simms are
a lot more bulletproof in those old socket 7 systems which dont
bother to read the spd on the dimms and attempt to guess the
specs of the ram instead of getting those from the spds. Its a lot
easier to guess the specs of the simms, they vary a lot less.

And they are plentiful and cheap on ebay too.

My questions is that given the lack of cache beyond 64MB, would I be as well off with 128MB as I
would with 256MB?

No, the more ram the better even without cache beyond 64MB.

Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much cheaper than the pc66, what
are the chances of it running on my motherboard?

The problem with those old socket 7 systems is that they generally
cant handle the higher density dimms. Thats a separate issue to the
speed, the PC100/133, except that you normally see the higher
densitys with the better speeds.

Like I said, I'd personally use simms instead, just because they
are much more likely to just work fine and they are cheaper again.

 

[paulmd]

Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4?

Good odds. I cannot guarentee, though. It's RARELY been an issue. Just
make sure that the company will let you return them if they're
incompatable before you buy.


AFAICT the

 

[Guest]

(e-mail address removed) emailed this:

Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my motherboard?

Many thanks. May I ask how you know for sure?

I tested 64M - 256M DIMMs in 2 different 430TX motherboards, one by
ECS, another by a company that no longer exists. I found they accepted
DIMMs that did not work with motherboards based on VIA brand VP2 or MVP
chip sets.

 

[paulmd]

jaster emailed this:

Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.

ftp://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/sock7/430tx/txp4/txp4-200.pdf

Any advise would be welcome. Thanks.

They're not saying much, but there's a few important points from the
manual.

"WARNING! Do not install both SIMMs and DIMMs at the same time or else
you
will burn your memory. "

"Do not use memory modules with more than 18 chips per module. Modules
with more than 18 chips exceed the design specifications of the memory
subsystem and will be unstable."

You CAN use 64mb simms, non parity only.

You can use EDO Dimms. Or SDRAM (vauge, but pc somenting).

Indiviual dimms can be up to 256MB, but the max ram on the board will
still be 256MB.


Also, you might want to consider a BIOS upgrade before you get new RAM
for his thing, as it will improve your odds of it working right. You
may as well get the Beta bios (it's been in beta since 1999 )

 

[MS]

Rod Speed emailed this:

Yeah, a new motherboard makes no sense. The lack of full caching
shouldnt matter at all with a glorified jukebox, the speed is entirely
determined by the rate at which the music is played and even with
no caching at all, that should be perfectly adequate.




Yeah, doesnt make a lot of sense for an old dinosaur like that.


I'd personally put simms in that system not dimms. simms are
a lot more bulletproof in those old socket 7 systems which dont
bother to read the spd on the dimms and attempt to guess the
specs of the ram instead of getting those from the spds. Its a lot
easier to guess the specs of the simms, they vary a lot less.

And they are plentiful and cheap on ebay too.


No, the more ram the better even without cache beyond 64MB.


The problem with those old socket 7 systems is that they generally
cant handle the higher density dimms. Thats a separate issue to the
speed, the PC100/133, except that you normally see the higher
densitys with the better speeds.

Like I said, I'd personally use simms instead, just because they
are much more likely to just work fine and they are cheaper again.

Many thanks Rod.

Sorry to be cheeky but can you have a look at this ebay page, I think this
is the right memory but I'm not sure and would like to have an expert
confirm it for me. Many thanks and regards.

http://tinyurl.com/hujja

Cheers.

 

[kony]

Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.

ftp://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/sock7/430tx/txp4/txp4-200.pdf

Any advise would be welcome. Thanks.

Considering the cachable memory limit you might also seek 2
or 4 pieces of EDO 32MB SIMMs on ebay for 2 x 32 = 64MB or 4
x 32 = 128MB total memory. With those you are probably less
dependant on the seller knowing what it is.

PC133 is not likely to work, practically all is too high a
density and at best your board would see half of the
installed capacity. Rarely even PC100 is high density but
the odds of high density PC100 are low unless you buy from
one of the bottom feeders on Pricewatch (or on ebay, the
risk is highly variable based on the seller).

PC66 memory is often not termed as "PC(nn)" at all, might be
called 10ns or just 66MHz.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Many thanks Rod.

Sorry to be cheeky

Dont worry about that, that's what these technical newsgroups are for.

but can you have a look at this ebay page, I think this is the right memory but I'm not sure and
would like to have an expert confirm it for me.

http://tinyurl.com/hujja

Yes, those are suitable, except that you havent
said what the existing simms are, FP or EDO.

Better not to mix them, so you should get the new ones the
same as the existing ones or get 4 new ones of the same type.

Everest should be able to tell you what the current ones are, tho
I havent actually tried it with those older socket 7 motherboards.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181

 

[jaster]

jaster emailed this:

Ironically the pc100 or 133 are much cheaper than the pc66, less than half
the price. What are the chances of it working on the ASUS TXP4? AFAICT the
manual (URL below) doesn't even mention the speed (PC66) required, but the
Crucial website points firmly to the pc66 and does not list pc100/133.

ftp://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/sock7/430tx/txp4/txp4-200.pdf

Any advise would be welcome. Thanks.

Honestly, I would go with PC100 over PC133 but in your case you
have to make sure the memory is using less than 18 chips per module. I
think that means your memory should have 8 chips on it (16M x 8)?

If you buy memory from a vendor who will exchange or refund without hassle
or postage try it.

 

[paulmd]

Honestly, I would go with PC100 over PC133 but in your case you
have to make sure the memory is using less than 18 chips per module. I
think that means your memory should have 8 chips on it (16M x 8)?

No. It means 18 chips, two rows of 9. Some of the largest modules when
this was made had 36 chips on it. Some ECC EDO dimms had 36 chips. The
module was very tall.

 

[MS]

Rod Speed emailed this:

Dont worry about that, that's what these technical newsgroups are for.



Yes, those are suitable, except that you havent
said what the existing simms are, FP or EDO.

Better not to mix them, so you should get the new ones the
same as the existing ones or get 4 new ones of the same type.

Everest should be able to tell you what the current ones are, tho
I havent actually tried it with those older socket 7 motherboards.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181

Okay, I'll check it out in the morning (it's 23.10 in my TZ).

Many thanks again. If I replace them all will I be ok getting 4 of the
modules on the ebay page?

Sorry to be dimm !!

Thanks.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed emailed this:

Okay, I'll check it out in the morning (it's 23.10 in my TZ).

Many thanks again. If I replace them all will I be ok getting 4 of the
modules on the ebay page?

Yes, that is what I meant, sorry, should have said that more carefully.

Sorry to be dimm !!

Stoppit at once |-)

 

[johannes]

(e-mail address removed) wrote


That's overstating it. Even uncached system ram will be a
hell of a lot faster than the virtual memory on the hard drive.

Unfortunately, the Windows OS loads at top of memory, this means that
frequent OS calls will go from cached to un-cached memory.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Unfortunately, the Windows OS loads at top of memory, this means
that frequent OS calls will go from cached to un-cached memory.

Sure, but its still a hell of a lot better than using virtual memory/the hard drive.

 

[kony]

Unfortunately, the Windows OS loads at top of memory, this means that
frequent OS calls will go from cached to un-cached memory.

This has been a popular idea but it seems to be an urban
myth, that windows does not actually load at the top but
rather many segments all over.

 

[Mitch Crane]

Sure, but its still a hell of a lot better than using virtual
memory/the hard drive.

Not necessarily.

 

[jaster]

No. It means 18 chips, two rows of 9. Some of the largest modules when
this was made had 36 chips on it. Some ECC EDO dimms had 36 chips. The
module was very tall.

Thanks for the information, only for his motherboard he has to have less
than 18 so 2 row2 of 8 or less.

I recommend to use 2 rows of 8 because 1 row of 4 may be too densely
packed for his chipset. I don't know for sure but the OP should look for
the most compatible and from someone he can get refunded without extra
charges in case it doesn't work.

 

[meow2222]

Rod Speed emailed this:

Ok, so I understand the issue with the lack of caching. But don't want to
go to the added expense of a new motherboard, the PC is after all just a
glorified jukebox.

I can get the memory from Crucial...

"168-pin DIMM 128MB SDRAM, PC66 · CL=2 · Unbuffered · Non-parity · 66MHz ·
3.3V · 16Meg x 64"

..but 2 x 128MB will cost £50 (~US$100) and I can't find it anywhere else

thats a bit steep. I've got a couple of 128s in the junkbox, so plenty
other folk will too.

except on EBay where I can only get 1 x 128MB module instead of the 2 as I
originally planned.

My questions is that given the lack of cache beyond 64MB, would I be as
well off with 128MB as I would with 256MB?

Also another poster wrote that pc100 or 133 might work. This is much
cheaper than the pc66, what are the chances of it running on my motherboard?

Many thanks.

I have to wonder whether any of this is necessary. What are you going
to run? For music apps you may fine 98lite on existing hardware answers
all your needs. 98lite is 98 stripped down, it runs on 4M RAM and is
more stable and faster than standard 98.


NT

 

[Rod Speed]

Not necessarily.

Fraid so, uncached system ram will ALWAYS be a
hell of a lot faster than virtual memory/the hard drive.

The only time that more than 64M would be worse than 64M
is when there is no use of virtual memory at all, and that wont
be the case in the OP's case and its just a virtual jukebox
anyway, so the speed will be invisible even if it does manage
to not use any virtual memory with 64M.

 

[Rod Speed]

This has been a popular idea but it seems to be an urban
myth, that windows does not actually load at the top but
rather many segments all over.

The bulk of what does matter does end up at the top.