System will not boot after installing second stick of DDR Ram

I think it should be fine, it needs two sticks the same to run in dual channel mode, the place i bought it from sold the memory for that specific MB

If your motherboard has slots 1,2,3,4 and you're placing memory in slots 1,2 try placing in slots 1,3

Good luck!  :-)

ptero

Are your RAM sticks indentical?  I have seen a problem with a Soltek mainboard that uses dual channel RAM.  Unless 2 indentical sticks are used, the second stick would not fire up in the dual mode.  If you remove your first stick and replace it with your second does your PC boot up?  If this is the case, then you may need to try identical sticks.

Cheers guys....I have tried moving them round before, having them in 1 and 2 gave me the blue screen of death which told me my Bios did not support something (I updated it before work this morning - so I'll try again this afternoon) 1 and 3 and 1 and four wouldn't even boot. I'm pretty sure they're identical PQI DDR400 sticks.

Does the new stick work on its own?

yeah, they both work by themselves

I've seen it happen (but in Windows 2000) that, when I upgraded memory I simply had to install the system again. Do it. It may solve your problem.

Good luck.  :-)

ptero

Your Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro nForce2 Ultra400 with Memory Type:Dual Channel DDR400/ 333/ 266- 184pin should support the memory, both in at the same time. Only suggestion i have is to try something like two 512MB Kingston DDR400Ram PC-3200 instead of two 512MB PQI DDR400 Ram PC3200 sticks. Then you will know for sure if it is fussy about specific types of RAM. Maybe a local pc shop can do a test or summin?

Hello,

If you want to install two memory modules in a dual channel configuration on the Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro then it must be in a specific order. Firstly, the slots are arranged like so: 4 slots split into two "Channels" ( II-II), the first Channel (closest to the CPU) is A, the second B. Each slot is listed 1-4: 1/2 = A, 3/4 = B. The memory must be put in Slot 1/Channel A and Slot 3/Channel B, or Slot 2/Channel A and Slot 3/Channel B, or it will not boot. If you put two modules, both in Channel A /Slot 1 and 2, then it should work but not in a Dual channel configuration. As I understand it the banks are split between the slots as: Banks 1-4, Slots 1 and 2 (2 each slot)/ Channel A and Banks 5-6 Slots 3 and 4 (shared between the two) /Channel B.

My point is that if you put the memory either in slots 1-2 or 1-3/2-3, it should work in some form. Since they work on their own, put each module in and run something like:http://www.aida32.hu/aida-download.php?bit=32 (The Personal Edition/.exe file should do it) and go to the Motherboard/SPD section. Copy and paste the info. here and do the same for the other chip. This should let us know what the SPD info. is and see how it's setup. You can also use it for other system info. as well.

The thing is that this should work, so it's probably an incompatibility issue or a faulty module, this is echoed by the POST beep from your initial post, 1 long is a memory error. Therefore going through all this stuff is a good idea. Two other things, firstly with the, both if you can manage it or individually if not, memory modules installed, check in the BIOS that the settings for the memory and the CPU FSB are correct as they are related, also don't forget to check the hidden settings are in order (Ctrl+F1). Depending on your version of the 2500XP it should be either 266 (133) or 333 (166) FSB. Secondly, I'm unsure which BSOD's you are reffering to: Windows, System ones or both?

Regards
Dalziel

Just to add you may want to run each module through a software memory tester, far from perfect but if it fails anything-it's bad.

http://www.memtest86.com/
http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp

Dalziel

Have you verified that those two DIMM memory modules are dual-channel?

Comment from dew_associates  Date: 08/21/2003 12:10PM PDT  
Have you verified that those two DIMM memory modules are dual-channel?  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether memory is "Dual Channel" is chiefly a motherboard/chipset/memory controller issue, not a memory one. That is not to say that the modules themselves do not have to have certain characteristics, they do, but that is not usually the the limiting factor as most will work.

For eyequit:

Just to add that there are more memory configurations possible, but swapping two around should get one that will work, your motherboard manual should explain all this. Anyway, that's why I suspect a memory fault or configuration problem instead, I/we really need the memory info. (SPD to start) in order to go further.

Dalziel

I'm not sure what happened but after reinstalling my o/s with a much newer version of xp pro, the memory began working as dual channel this morning! I'm not sure why this would have made any differences...now to sort out my SATA and IDE hard drive problem....thanks guys

It was probably just yet another Windows problem, I said I wasn't sure if the BSOD's were Windows or system ones, maybe a problem with the motherboard chipset drivers. Anyway glad it's working.....for now :)

Dalziel

Just wanted to add, though I'm sure you know, just didn't want to look as though I was trying to grab points, ptero mentioned the reinstallation issue.

Dalziel

Dalziel:

"Whether memory is "Dual Channel" is chiefly a motherboard/chipset/memory controller issue, not a memory one. That is not to say that the modules themselves do not have to have certain characteristics, they do, but that is not usually the the limiting factor as most will work."

That's one of the more absurd comments I have ever heard today. Dual Channel DDR will not work in a MB not designed for it, and some DCDDR will not work together in certain motherboard configurations. Lastly, some dual channel DDR, single sided will not work with double sided dual channel DDR.

Comment from dew_associates  Date: 08/21/2003 08:45PM PDT  
That's one of the more absurd comments I have ever heard today. Dual Channel DDR will not work in a MB not designed for it, and some DCDDR will not work together in certain motherboard configurations. Lastly, some dual channel DDR, single sided will not work with double sided dual channel DDR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dew_associates:

Interesting phrasing aside, I'm afraid you are deeply confused. Firstly, my comments were specific to the board which, as demonstrated by eyequit, works perfectly well in a Dual Channel configuration with standard DDR memory. Secondly, There is in fact NO such thing as Dual Channel DDR memory. Dual channel memory is a chipset and memory controller issue, specifically when two memory controllers act as one, so of course "Dual Channel DDR will not work in a MB not designed for it". When memory is sold as DCDDR it is two identical modules certified to work as one and optimized for a Dual Channel board, but it is still standard DDR memory. On the single/double sided issue, this again comes back to the chipset support and how the motherboard manufacturer has arranged the slots. I can only assume that you are referring to certain motherboard compatibility issues regarding memory or simply lack the required information.

Dalziel

Dalziel, I'm not about to argue the point with you, but I lack for nothing, as we are partners with Intel and certify memory for their boards, Samsung, Mushkin, Buffalo, Crucial/Micron etc, just to name a few. That aside, DCDDR is not sold in matched pairs, nor is it certified to work as one.

Sorry, I missed a portion of your comment. Dual channel DDR is different from SDRAM and other forms of DDR in that it is usually 128-bit as opposed to 64-bit, althought 64-bit dual channel DDR is available. Furthermore, qualified Dual Channel DDR uses tighter chip timings as opposed to its predecessor, and the bit handling in the SPD is much more critical than on other forms of DDR, hence the reason it is good practice to purchase them in pairs from the same lot with the same specs.

For dew_associates:

I equally have no desire to argue and it occurs to me that it is more a case of crossed wires and the use of different terminology rather than a fundamental disagreement as ultimately the technology works a specific way and you either understand it or you do not. However, I maintain, using my particular definition of dual channel, that for general consumers, that is to say end users of motherboards that use chipsets like the nforce2 or the Intel 875 which are designed for standard DDR memory and does require a minimum of 2 modules for "Dual Channel" operation, there is no such thing as a specific, single, Dual Channel DDR module as it is the job of the motherboard and it's components to manage the Dual Channel aspect, not the module itself as it only provides the features, the motherboard has to utilize them correctly. Of course if you refer to "Dual Channel" differently or or look at the technology itself rather than the options available within such a system, then the answer is very different.

While you may believe that you "lack for nothing" I share no such beliefs in respect to myself. I am confident that there are a great many things I do not, and indeed will never, know. If you can provide the links and references to these products, whether in the consumer arena or in the more professional one, I would enjoy looking through them and should I find out that I am wrong I have no objection to admitting so, indeed I would thank you for bringing this information to my attention as I enjoy learning about such things.

Also as you mentioned the Crucial division of Micron, this is a quote from their site, which I hasten to add is not one of my sources of reference.

"What's dual-channel DDR?
To add to the confusion, enter dual-channel DDR. The terminology "dual-channel DDR" is being misused by some in the memory industry, which can mislead the consumer. The fact is there's no such thing as dual-channel DDR memory. There are, however, dual-channel platforms.

When properly used, the term "dual channel" refers to the DDR chipset on certain motherboards designed with two memory channels instead of one. The two channels handle memory-processing more efficiently by utilizing the theoretical bandwidth of the two modules, thus reducing system latencies, the timing delays that inherently occur with one memory module. For example, one controller reads and writes data while the second controller prepares for the next access, hence, eliminating the reset and setup delays that occur before one memory module can begin the read/write process all over again. Think of it like two relay runners. The first runner runs one leg while the second runner sets up and prepares to receive the baton smoothly and carry on the task at hand without delay. While performance gains from dual-channel chipsets aren't huge, they can increase bandwidth by as much as 10 percent. To those seeking to push the performance envelope, that 10 percent can be very important.

So the next time you come across a product that's touted and sold as dual-channel DDR, know this: It's simply two DDR memory modules, packaged and marketed as a specialty product or a must-have "kit." If indeed you have a dual-channel platform and you want to take advantage of the performance gain it offers, our advice is to opt for high quality and service over expensive packaging, and simply purchase your DDR memory in pairs. However, be very careful to order two modules with the exact same specifications; the modules must be identical to each other to perform correctly."

And yes I recognize that this explanation is imperfect.

Dalziel

PS: While I frequently make typos, errors and use wrong or unfamiliar terminology I would appreciate it if you could read all my comments in this, or indeed any section, before commenting, preferably filling in the gaps where I have made the mistake of assuming that something was implied.      

For dew_associates:

I'm glad you haven't responded to this yet as something just occured to me. This may have been a misunderstanding. Were you referring to multiple channels within the same device in relation to memory banks and the CPU data bus?

Dalziel

Well Dalziel, I'm not sure that I understand what you are referring to with respect to this statement, "Were you referring to multiple channels within the same device in relation to memory banks and the CPU data bus?", but I think some clarification is necessary.

First, I have no need to point you to any references to prove my point, as I do hold a degree in computer science, and with it a degree in electronics. That having been said, I've written a numer of papers on the subject that date back to the days of FPM, through to today's Rambus and DDR. Some of this information, in a form easily understood by most experienced computer users, can be found here:http://www.dewassoc.com/performance/memory/intro.htm.

Second, as a partner of Micron and Intel, I am quite familiar with what appears on Crucial's web site. The purpose of the information posted was not to explain the intricate elements of SDRAM or DDR, or even the differences between the two, but rather to alleviate the bogus commentary by those selling gray-market modules to consumers under the false auspice that DDR memory has some form of mystical properties that will make the users computer faster by merely installing it. Moreover, some unscrupulous retailers have even advertised that DDR (dual channel) memory doubles the throughput of memory because there are two channels, which is merely another retailer lie.

Third, I do read yours (as well as anyone else's) comments completely before commenting. It is not up to me to fill in the blanks, nor is it up to me to try and discern whether or not you are familiar with terminology, memory related or otherwise. It is my responsibility here as a long term expert, to ensure that questioners receive accurate information, or as accurate as reasonably possible given the circumstances and information at hand.

Now, as for dual channel DDR, while it is true that on its own, dual channel DDR has no real benefit over other forms of DDR without an accompanying chipset, such as the Intel 875, SiS 655 and the VIA 880, for example, it does have certain properties that are unique to dual channel DDR. As an example, all DDR, unlike normal SDRAM, enables allows the activation of output operations to occur on both the rising and falling edges of the clock cycle. While this improved on latency issues, it didn't do much (if anything) to improve bandwidth. In normal SDRAM, only the rising edge could signal an event to occur, therefore the DDR SDRAM design should effectively double the speed of operation up to at least 200 MHz. Unfortunately, this drive for reduced latency required the use of a controlling chip, an SPD. In an effort to increase the bus again, module manufacturers would need two things to occur, one, that motherboards be enabled with a manner in which two instruction sets could be sent outside of the CPU cache to the memory modules, and two, memory modules that could handle two sets of instructions (or data paths) without conflict. Hence, the development of the 875, 655 and 880 chipsets and Dual Channel DDR. So, in contrast to all that you have written, there is a specific difference between the original JEDEC DDR, which is single channeled and only capable of a single data path, and Dual Channel DRR, which is designed for two data paths, which occurs at two levels, the chipset (875 etc) and at the SPD on the dual channeled module. Furthermore, Dual Channel DDR does not need be purchased in pairs in order for a system to function. It is recommended that if you intend to purchase 1GB of memory, consisting of two 512MB modules, that THEY be purchased in matched pairs to ensure performance. This is for no other reason that the chips in use today, including the programmable SPD chips, vary widely in quality as none yet meet the JEDEC standard.

For dew_associates:

I think I owe you an apology, not because of overwhelming ignorance on my part but because of my erroneous use of language. In hindsight it does appear as though I am making such sweeping statements as " There is in fact NO such thing as Dual Channel DDR memory", period. That is entirely my fault, though you have made similarly sweeping statements. It is true that as someone simply with an interest in computing technology and not involved in the development of such technology there are many areas in which I am lacking, but it is also true that I'm aware of many of the features and modes of operation regarding various memory types and often read technical documentation, also I have indeed, in the past, read your site. The problem appears to be that we were approaching this from different angles; a good example would be an argument over 3200 memory, each party forgetting that it can, like many terms, be applied to both DDR and RDRAM thus assuming the other was deeply in the wrong. Unless I am mistaken you were approaching this directly from the memory technology perspective, whilst I was coming more from the general consumer in regards to buying memory/motherboard one. I do not, despite evidence to the contrary, dispute the points and information you have provided regarding memory architecture.

On your other point:

The reason I added the comment reading part was in direct response to your "Sorry, I missed a portion of your comment" post. On the issue of assumption, all I meant was that often when quickly writing things, particularly relevant in forums, things are often assumed or left out; e.g. not including "remember to turn the computer off at the wall" or assuming knowledge that those with more experience take for granted.

Finally, as I indicated earlier, I admit that I was the one who initiated this argument and that I have been sloppy in my use of terms. Possible explanations for this and a certain degree of hostility on my part are that I have been quite busy and am guilty of not viewing my comments objectively and that in another thread you asked why I was repeating various questions and appeared to accept an explanation that this was about taking points before I had a chance to respond. I admit this irritated me.

Therefore, since none of this was really relevant as eyequit has long since resolved the issue and it is just taking up EE's space and our time. I would like to suggest that we got off on the wrong foot, apologize, and say that there are no hard feelings my end, hoping that this is shared by you,

Dalziel

   

           

Not a problem for me Dalziel, and of course there are no hard feelings. As you gain time here, you will often see confusing comments about technology, more because of a lack of knowledge of underlying technology as well as manufacturers who try to over simplify terms.

eyequit, post a comment in Community Support and request that this question be PAQ'd and the points refunded.