new to the forum, question

[ginahoy]

I'm troubleshooting an old old PC (A8V mobo, Athlon X2-4200 CPU, three 1GB OCZ Platinum DDR400 RAM modules). Given the system's age, I'm using Memtest-86 v3.4 on a floppy and I have a couple of questions.

a) With either 1 or 3 sticks installed, the reported memory speed is ~1370 MB/s, but with 2 sticks installed, it reports 1830 MB/s. Is this normal?

b) With 3 sticks installed, test 5 (Block move, 64 moves) starts logging errors when the progress bar reaches 99%... so many errors that I terminated test 5 and continue the remaining tests with no additional errors. However, when I test any 1 stick or combination of 2 sticks, the full test completes multiple passes without any errors. Does this make any sense?

[David (PassMark)]

a) With an even number of sticks in the correct slots, it probably goes into dual channel mode, which is higher bandwidth.

b) Why are you using V3.4? Where did you even get V3.4 from? it is at least 14 years old and we don't support it. At least use V4.3.7
V4.3.7 is know to be stable and pretty much bug free. If you still get errors with V4.3.7, then the RAM (or motherboard) is bad. Might be electrical issues with 3 sticks, that don't occur with 2 sticks.

[ginahoy]

Why are you using V3.4? Where did you even get V3.4 from?

Thanks for reply! I had v3.4 on a floppy from back when it was current. My XP machine doesn't have UEFI, can't boot from a USB stick, and I don't currently have a way to burn an iso image. I'll re-run the test with v4.3.7. I didn't notice the links to v4 yesterday.

With an even number of sticks in the correct slots, it probably goes into dual channel mode, which is higher bandwidth.

The XP machine originally had four 1 GB sticks, which of course yields less than 4 GB (32 bit OS, AGP aperture mapping, etc). However, my A8V mobo has issues with 4GB (USB overcurrent error, IIRC) that necessitated removing one stick. Now I'm wondering if I shot myself in the foot. Based on your comment, I would have been better off with just two sticks, no?

[David (PassMark)]

Based on your comment, I would have been better off with just two sticks, no?

We'll actually, you might be better off with a new computer.

Generally repairing machines this old doesn't make sense, as even if you get them working and stable, they still can't run any modern software. In the last year we have seen a lot of reports from people complaining that Win10 & 11 aren't stable with 4GB of RAM. It just isn't enough anymore. On my machine just Chrome and Microsoft Teams use 1.5GB of RAM by themselves. Windows defender and associated security is another 500MB and Windows itself uses 2 to 3GB.

[ginahoy]

Not helpful. I have a modern Linux Machine with 32GB of RAM and a Win10 laptop. BUT, I have software on the XP machine that can't be ported to anything newer. It is what it is, and I haven't had any issues replacing parts. Also, the XP machine isn't connected to the internet.

[David (PassMark)]

Image the hard drive of the XP machine and convert it to a VM, run it on new hardware and never look back.

[ginahoy]

That's actually what I was working on when a (apparently) h/w issue led me to check the RAM modules with memtest-86.

As it turns out, 'hot cloning' an existing OS into a VM (as opposed to a fresh OS install in the VM) is far from straightforward. As I have learned, not all VM software support this. In particular, the VM software must be able to deal with non-standard drivers on the guest machine. VMware Converter can ostensibly do this with XP, but it relies on Sysprep files, which are included with XP Pro but not XP Home, which is what I have. I'm looking into other options.

[David (PassMark)]

Yes, VM conversion can be tricky. But we've done it a few times. So at least in most cases it should be possible.

[ginahoy]

Yes, hot-cloning is indeed possible. The issue is which of many paths will end up working for a given guest & host OS, and from experience I can say that it's definitely not for the timid or faint of heart )