Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAM fails multi-channel only; what tests before motherboard RMA?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RAM fails multi-channel only; what tests before motherboard RMA?

    Hi folks,

    Firstly, thanks so much for memtest86 - such a great utility for when times get rough, hardware-wise!

    I've been having intermittent hangs, crashes and oddness for ages, and increasingly suspect the memory or motherboard. I've RMA'd 2 sets of RAM sticks but the problems persist.
    I have 4 identical sticks of 8gb DDR4 3200 and have been trying various permutations of memtesting. The both pairs (A&B and C&D) both pass in the first slots (1 & 3), C&D passed in the second slot (2 & 4); I've not tried A&B in 2&4. I've tried a few single stick runs, all have passed. 4 stick runs fail in ACBD (pair 1 & 2 in order) and CADB (reverse order).

    Per https://www.memtest86.com/troubleshooting.htm :

    Why do I get errors only when testing RAM modules together, and not when individually tested?

    Most memory systems nowadays operate in multiple channel mode in order to increase the transfer rate between the RAM modules and the memory controller. It is recommended that modules with identical specifications (ie. "matching modules") when running in multi-channel mode. Some motherboards also have compatibility issues with certain brand/models of RAM when running in multi-channel mode.

    When you see errors while running MemTest86 with multiple RAM modules installed, but not when they are tested individually, it is likely that the multi-channel configuration is the culprit. This could be due to mismatched RAM specifications, or simply using brands/models of RAM that is incompatible with the motherboard. Most motherboard vendors release a list of known compatible RAM models that have been tested to work with your motherboard. Replace the modules with a matching set of known good ones and see if you get better results.
    These sticks are matching, and supported on the motherboard manufacturer's list. They (Gigabyte) are being super slow replying (understandable right now) and I suspect a RMA will mean I lose my machine for a few weeks minimum, and that's presuming the board really is faulty. So before I send it back, please could someone let me know whether they think I should do any more tests? I basically get to do one per night, and while I could do:
    - All sticks in all slots (16 runs)
    - All 2 stick combos (12 runs, have done 3)
    - All 3 stick combos (24 runs?)
    I don't know how likely this strategy is to reveal any more information than I already have (https://photos.app.goo.gl/93752Pvdhc6p7X4TA), at the cost of potentially 2 months of nightly runs?

    Thanks in advance for any tips!

    Oh hey, along these lines, is there scope (/any point) in adding a queuing / permutation feature which would allow users to put all 4 sticks in and have memtest86 cycle through all sticks individually, then all 2 sticks combos, etc, collating the info & maybe saving results as it goes in case it crashes, so users could fire & forget for overnight runs?
    Another feature request: any chance of a total progress bar at the bottom, nice & big, ideally with a time remaining thing? The progress bars are useful but don't account for the number of passes which leaves the user to guesstimate which is hardly the end of the world but it'd be a nice thing to have if possible.

    Thanks again!

  • #2
    If you have already tried 3 sets of RAM and they all fail, then it probably isn't a RAM problem.

    > which would allow users to put all 4 sticks in and have memtest86 cycle through all sticks individually

    No. Isn't technically possible. At least not for a wide range of systems.

    > any chance of a total progress bar at the bottom

    Screen space is limited & there are already 3 process indicators. Also it is hard to get a good estimate of time remaining until the 1st two passes are done.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good enough for me. Cheers mate!

      Comment

      Working...
      X