Passmark BurnIn test Vs memtest Pro

[KapilSoni]

Hello There,
Seasons Greetings!

I have a situation where I am not able to come up with a conclusion and need advice on the same...

Situation 1: I've few memory modules that PASS multiple loops in memtest Pro 6/6.3/7.1, but fails in RAM test in BurnIn (RAM).
Situation 2: vice-versa of situation 1: Memory Module PASS in BurnIn but fails in Memtest.

Which module should I consider as a PASS? As there is a possibility that BurnIn Pass Memory Module may be subjected to other OS, where it may come up with some issue (or) maybe on different platform some other issue comes up.

Situation 3: Blue Screens
Modules Pass in Memtest 5/6/6.3/7.1, but generates a Blue Screen of Death on a few modules.

Situation 4: Module PASS on multiple platform (Motherboard+Processor) in Memtest 6.3, but RE-STARTS as soon as BurnIn test is started.

Any clue / suggestion / resolution most welcome!

Thanks!

Kapil

P.S:
1. Modules inserted as 1-UP.
2. Passmark BurnIn done for up to 1hr, 1-UP.

[David (PassMark)]

What type of RAM is this with?
What era of machine are you testing? (UEFI or older BIOS based machine)?
How much RAM are you testing at a time. (e.g. 2GB, 4GB, 8GB...)
In BurnInTest what tests are you running? Just the RAM test, or maybe RAM and CPU, etc...?

It is certainly possible to get different results inside and outside of Windows. When you boot into Windows, at lot of RAM is used by the operating system, services and the disk cache. So less RAM is available for testing in Windows.

This doesn't explain the reverse situation however. MemTest86 should in theory find more RAM errors that BurnInTest. Maybe there is some issue around having the additional load (temperature, EMI) in BurnInTest.

There is also the possibility of a BIOS/UEFI bug. From time to time we see systems that don't allocate the memory map correctly in either or both of UEFI or BIOS (so RAM gets tested that should be ignored) causing false errors.

In some cases we might be interested in getting the bad RAM stick to test here, if that was possible.