In article <hoaqj.8966$454.6474@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
DRT@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
> krw wrote:
> > In article <tLPpj.4922$1y4.284@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > DRT@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >> I just bought some brand new 4GB (2x2GB) of DDR2 800MHz memory.
> >>
> >> G.Skill F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK
> >>
> >> Its a higher end enthusiast memory with CAS 4 latency and is about
> >> double the cost of the regular more common CAS 5 memory out there.
> >>
> >> I did my usual MemTest86+ (v1.65 and v1.70) and it re****ts an error
> >> on the memory right away! :-( It is a one bit difference from the
> >> expected value. It happens on the exact same address of memory on
> >> the several times I've run MemTest86 on it. In other words, the
> >> error is reproducible.
> >>
> >> The memory is *not* being overclocked and I've run it in both CAS4
> >> and CAS5 latency settings.
> >>
> >> I've also done about 36 hours of Stress Prime 95 (SP 2004 utility)
> >> and got no errors at all! Could MemTest86+ not be reading this
> >> larger 4GB of RAM properly?
> >>
> >> On the other hand, I believe it is possible that such a small area
> >> of memory might not be accessible by a user-mode Windows program.
> >> That is, the memory is not being used but is reserved by the
> >> Windows kernel -- a complete guess on my part and I have nothing to
> >> back up this statement.
> >
> > One bit in one location? Wouldn't that be a tad "fine-grained" for
> > memory management?
> >
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, do you mean the one bit in that one
> location isn't directly addresseable? Probably but doesn't matter.
No, I'm saying that the memory manager can't protect/map one bit so
that location *is* toast.
> My point was that a user-mode program (such as SP2004) could
> never directly see this memory cell *if* the Windows kernel has
> claimed it as kernel space memory -- hence I could run SP2004 for
> ages and it could never re****t a failure -- at least on the memory
> cell that Memtest86+ has re****ted a problem with.
Possible, but not interesting. It's more likely that SP2004 doesn't
trip upon the pattern that Memtest86+ does, or can't address all
memory. In any case, the memory is bad.
>
>
> >> I'm of the opinion that if any memory fails MemTest86+ that I
> >> should RMA it for a replacement. None of my OCZ memory has failed
> >> in MemTest86+ but they were the smaller 1GB sticks. Can anyone
> >> comment on Newegg and RMA on memory? Do they accept the Memtest86+
> >> as a valid reason for replacement?
> >
> > Send it back.
> >
>
>
> Yeah, I'm going to send this G.Skill memory back to Newegg with a
> screen shot of the Memtest86+ errors.
They shouldn't balk, as long as you're requesting a replacement.
--
Keith
|
