Trouble with RAM

[Saucey]

I just recently bought more ram for my PC and I am having problems running it at 2400MHz. I had 16GB running at 2400MHz just fine and when I put in all four, 32GB at 2400MHz, I kept getting a boot failure.

I tested each stick of ram individually at 2400MHz and they all worked fine.

 

 

MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H (rev 1.0 running F9 Bios)

CPU: Intel Core i7-4770k 3.5GHz Quad-Core 

RAM: Kingston Beast 32GB DDR3-2400 (4x8GB)

[RedWulf]

Linus actually did a video about ram and packs. I can't say I've ever had the issue, but RAM bought separately isn't guaranteed to work together even if its the same. Packs sold together are tested(should have been) to work together.  

Can you boot to a live OS to test/tweak it?

[Saucey]

I am running them all at 2133MHz just fine right now, but if I go any higher it causes boot failure.

[SkepticKrab]

8 minutes ago, RedWulf said:

Linus actually did a video about ram and packs. I can't say I've ever had the issue, but RAM bought separately isn't guaranteed to work together even if its the same. Packs sold together are tested(should have been) to work together.  

Can you boot to a live OS to test/tweak it?

Yes definitely I agree that the performance is not guaranteed in separate packs

6 minutes ago, Saucey said:

I am running them all at 2133MHz just fine right now, but if I go any higher it causes boot failure.

You would have to run them at a lower speed.

 

If your CPU is overclocked you could return the CPU to stock and then try they RAM at 2400MHz, then increase the overclock until you hit instability again.

[Saucey]

9 minutes ago, RedWulf said:

Can you boot to a live OS to test/tweak it?

What do you mean exactly?

 

1 minute ago, SkepticKrab said:

Yes definitely

You would have to run them at a lower speed.

 

If your CPU is overclocked you could return the CPU to stock and then try they RAM at 2400MHz, then increase the overclock until you hit instability again.

Nothing in my rig is overclocked, just running stock settings. My board is a dual memory channel architecture, so I am not sure if that makes a difference on anything.

[SkepticKrab]

1 minute ago, Saucey said:

Nothing in my rig is overclocked, just running stock settings. My board is a dual memory channel architecture, so I am not sure if that makes a difference on anything.

Yea, most boards are dual channel, the reason I suggested it was for your CPU, the memory controller is on the CPU so if you had a big overclock on the CPU the memory controller might be unstable....

 

But since you aren't overclocked, maybe try switching the memory in different slots and see if it makes a difference.

[Saucey]

1 minute ago, SkepticKrab said:

Yea, most boards are dual channel, the reason I suggested it was for your CPU, the memory controller is on the CPU so if you had a big overclock on the CPU the memory controller might be unstable....

 

But since you aren't overclocked, maybe try switching the memory in different slots and see if it makes a difference.

I actually have swapped the ram around, probably not in all possibilities, but I have swapped them around.

[SkepticKrab]

1 minute ago, Saucey said:

I actually have swapped the ram around, probably not in all possibilities, but I have swapped them around.

I see, well 2133 isn't bad though, shouldn't be affected much

[Saucey]

20 minutes ago, SkepticKrab said:

2133 isn't bad though

Yeah, I suppose so, I can just hear Shia Labeouf in the back of my mind screaming "DON'T LET YOUR RAM SPEEDS BE DREAMS!".

 

:'(

 

 

[SkepticKrab]

10 minutes ago, Saucey said:

Yeah, I suppose so, I can just hear Shia Labeouf in the back of my mind screaming "DON'T LET YOUR RAM SPEEDS BE DREAMS!".

 

:'(

lol, I feel your pain

[Saucey]

2 minutes ago, SkepticKrab said:

lol, I feel your pain

It could be worse. It could be running at 1600MHz.

[SkepticKrab]

3 minutes ago, Saucey said:

It could be worse. It could be running at 1600MHz.

Ha yea, that would be way worse........I'm running 1600MHz but oh well, I usually obey speed limits 

[Saucey]

Well come to find out, my RAM is 1.65V. That exceeds my Intel Haswell CPU recommended maximum of 1.5V unfortunately. I guess I am going to have to buy a different processor or something.

[MageTank]

6 hours ago, Saucey said:

I just recently bought more ram for my PC and I am having problems running it at 2400MHz. I had 16GB running at 2400MHz just fine and when I put in all four, 32GB at 2400MHz, I kept getting a boot failure.

I tested each stick of ram individually at 2400MHz and they all worked fine.

 

 

MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H (rev 1.0 running F9 Bios)

CPU: Intel Core i7-4770k 3.5GHz Quad-Core 

RAM: Kingston Beast 32GB DDR3-2400 (4x8GB)

Your memory is not on the QVL list for 2400mhz on that board, but I can explain why its not working. First of all, running 8GB DIMMS at 2400mhz x 4 is rough on the IMC. Not only that, the board needs high quality traces to handle that speed on all four DIMMS. The reason 2 work just fine, but 4 do not, is most likely because of the way the board is trying to train the tertiary timings associated with 2 DIMMS Per Channel, normally associated with the _DD nomenclature at the end of the timing. This timing had no impact at all, until you added multiple dimms per channel. Now that they are required, the board is having issues trying to properly train those values.

 

Chances are, you could throw a little more VCCIO(A+D)/VCCSA voltage at it, and get it to post, but I would be very careful. Default VCCIO/SA voltages for Haswell is 0.850-0.950. Try not to go beyond 1.15v for those values if you intend on adjusting them.

 

Alternatively, you could loosen some tertiary timings (Again, ones that end in _DD, or whatever gigabytes alternative is) which will relieve stress on the IMC, potentially allowing the system to post.

 

If it were me personally, would settle with 2133, and work on tertiary timings + RTL/IO-L to get more bandwidth that way. Tighter 2133 > XMP 2400.