Problems with RAM

[thorpj]

Hi there,

 

So i checked Task Manager -> peformance and it says that thee speed of the RAM is 800mhz

Now i'm aware that basically, the 2x4gb dual channel kit splits the frequency, so that each runs at 800mhz.

 

But i can't help but wonder... My system is more unstable and slow than it should be for a fairly new, and powerful PC. Maybe the speed is showing the collective speed?

 

See the image below, hopefully you guys can clear this up for me... remove the doubt from my mind!

 

thanks in advance!

 

[ionbasa]

That's because: 800 Mhz x 2 = 1600Mhz

[TheRunningOtaku]

what are the parts you used in your system? 

Usually the parts should show 1600mhz

[MegaDave91]

I want to say it makes sense since it IS DDR (data double rate - sends and receives signals twice per clock cycle) after all. 

 

What does your uefi show?

[Lays]

It should say the actual frequency in windows performance thing, and half of the frequency in CPU-Z.

 

[thorpj]

That's because: 800 Mhz x 2 = 1600Mhz

Hi, did you read my post? i said i was aware of that, but wanted to make sure it wasn't the cause of my system being unstable.

[thorpj]

It should say the actual frequency in windows performance thing, and half of the frequency in CPU-Z.

 

Hmm that's what i was thinking, windows shows 2133mhz, which i assume would is the speed of the whole kit.

[thorpj]

what are the parts you used in your system? 

Usually the parts should show 1600mhz

Specs are in the siggy

 

The RAM is Avexir 2x4gb 1600mhz  9-9-9-24 (AFAIK)

[thorpj]

Ok if the pictures ever load in my email... This is what happens when you have an Ipad as your only method of taking pictures...

 

Ok, so it appears normal in the BIOS, although the timings are a little dubious. I've tried setting them to what they should be (9-9-9-24) but i don't know if they're all right. Maybe you guys might spot something that i've set wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lays]

Hmm that's what i was thinking, windows shows 2133mhz, which i assume would is the speed of the whole kit.

 

 

What do you mean? CPU-Z displays 1/2 of the frequency because DDR = double data rate, therefore you take the frequency CPU-Z gives you, and multiply by 2 to get the actual speed the RAM is running at. That's PER stick, not both sticks combined.  Both sticks run at 1600 if CPU-Z says the ram is at 800 mhz (not both sticks running at 800 mhz x2 sticks = 1600).  (and in my case, 1066mhz in CPU-Z = 2133 for both sticks, not both sticks added together, that's not how it works)

 

The windows performance manager automatically does the multiplying for you, to make it more "dummy proof."

 

I'm confused as to why Windows performance manager for you was displaying "800 mhz" when CPU-Z is telling you 800 as well.  I would assume it's running at 1600 if the bios says it is.

 

 

I'll read your BIOS pictures and see if I notice anything

[thorpj]

What do you mean? CPU-Z displays 1/2 of the frequency because DDR = double data rate, therefore you take the frequency CPU-Z gives you, and multiply by 2 to get the actual speed the RAM is running at. That's PER stick, not both sticks combined.  Both sticks run at 1600 if CPU-Z says the ram is at 800 mhz (not both sticks running at 800 mhz x2 sticks = 1600).  (and in my case, 1066mhz in CPU-Z = 2133 for both sticks, not both sticks added together, that's not how it works)

 

The windows performance manager automatically does the multiplying for you, to make it more "dummy proof."

 

I'm confused as to why Windows performance manager for you was displaying "800 mhz" when CPU-Z is telling you 800 as well.  I would assume it's running at 1600 if the bios says it is.

 

 

I'll read your BIOS pictures and see if I notice anything

Yes i'm talking about the Windows "dummy proof" number. Now i think it's safe to assume that the RAM is at the correct speed, and i can live with Task Manager displaying the number in a different method.

 

Thanks for looking through the BIOS pics, i appreciate it!

[Lays]

Yes i'm talking about the Windows "dummy proof" number. Now i think it's safe to assume that the RAM is at the correct speed, and i can live with Task Manager displaying the number in a different method.

 

Thanks for looking through the BIOS pics, i appreciate it!

 

 

If the bios says it's at 1600 I think you're alright, but if the timings should be 9 9 9 24, they look as if they're 9 9 9 28.  I don't think it'll make any noticeable performance difference, nor do I know where to change that number in your bios.

 

At this point I'd say if you can't figure it out, it should be perfectly fine, as 99924 should be negligible in performance to 99928

[thorpj]

If the bios says it's at 1600 I think you're alright, but if the timings should be 9 9 9 24, they look as if they're 9 9 9 28.  I don't think it'll make any noticeable performance difference, nor do I know where to change that number in your bios.

 

At this point I'd say if you can't figure it out, it should be perfectly fine, as 99924 should be negligible in performance to 99928

Hi again,

 

thanks for having a look. I agree that it's unlikely that a small timing difference to manufacturer is causing the delays, a clean install of Windows 10 when it comes around should do the trick. 

 

thanks again.