I think my G.Skill HZ's are Bad!

[reclaimer122]

When I first got my 2GBHZ sticks I just used memtest in Windows to see if they were stable. They seemed so, so I never bothered to test again. Tonight I decided to try a bootable memtest CD (The Witcher crashes a lot, so I wanted to test memory again), and I'm getting loads of errors in test #2 with just one of the sticks. The RAM is at recommended voltage (2.1v) and at less than stock speeds with stock timings. I'd always thought my sticks performed poorly compared to others (wouldn't go past ~945Mhz with 2.3v at loose timings) but I just figured that's the way it was. Didn't know one was actually bad :( Anyway, I'm posting cause memtest said that the errors showed up all the way to the 4GB mark, but I only have 2GB of memory? Am I missing something?

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/664/pict0004ko8.jpg

[meionm]

Do you get any errors in test #5

[reclaimer122]

I haven't run it past test #2. It freezes at 19% and the errors just start racking up. The test doesn't advance at all, even hitting ESC does nothing.

[jonspd]

Contact them here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=185

[reclaimer122]

I still have time to RMA to newegg (the sticks are like 6 months old), which I would honestly rather do as I don't know how long it would take G.Skill to ship back to me.

[Reefa_Madness]

Anyway, I'm posting cause memtest said that the errors showed up all the way to the 4GB mark, but I only have 2GB of memory? Am I missing something?



In your question quoted above, are you referring to the Memtest screenshot that you posted?

If so, the highest memory error address in that screenie is showing at just over 4MB, not 4GB.


Also, just noticed that you are using Memtest86 and not Memtest86+, which is probably the version to use. It is linked below:

http://www.memtest.org/



Run Memtest86+ again, but Test #5 only for memory. Tests #1-4 are more more cpu FSB and vcore related.

Quoted from eva2000's Memtes thread at i4Memory:

My experiences and testing methods

test #1 - 4
are cpu fsb speed and or vcore related (meaning lowering fsb or increasing vcore saw errors in these tests disappear)

test #5
prior to 865/875 boards - memory speed, timings and vdimm related (meaning altering mem speed, timings and/or vdimm saw errors in this test disappear).

test#6
with 865/875 boards bigtoe has said related to cycle time (tras) in cpuz which i sort of confirmed with my current testing

note: prior to 865/875 boards, i've never had memory errors in test #6 only since these new boards have i experienced test #6 errors

test #7
not sure very rarely have i experienced errors on P4 865PE/875P platform. However, on AMD64 sometimes errors can so if mem vdimm isn't enough.


test #8 is a more intensive version of test #5 for memtest86+ versions below v1.40 - v1.40 and higher test routine changed. AMD64 s939 test #8 also should be looped for memory/timing/vdimm related stability. Try also messing with chipset or LDT voltage to get memory to pass this test.


See attached link.

http://i4memory.com/showthread.php?p=6#post6


From the source...FAQ

http://forum.x86-secret.com/showthread.php?t=2807

[reclaimer122]

I tried 86+ and I got a lot less errors in test #2 (only 8 this time) but I did get errors in test #5 also. And that picture definitely says 4095.9MB as the highest error address?

[Reefa_Madness]

Yes, the pic shows 4095.9 MB and I misread it as 4.095 MB, but either way, I actually believe that we both errored, as I suspect that in this case the "MB" represents megabits, and not Mega Bytes. I base that on the descriptions of the tests that I've copied below...references are to "mb" (lower case), which is megabits. I suspect the screen image should probably be in lower case, as well.

I'm not 100% positive, but it is the only explanation that would make sense to me, and regardless of what it really is, it still doesn't solve your problem with the ram.

From eva2000's thread:

Individual Test Descriptions for v1.40 onwards


Quote:
Test 0 [Address test, walking ones, no cache]

Tests all address bits in all memory banks by using a walking ones address pattern.

Test 1 [Address test, own address]

Each address is written with its own address and then is checked for consistency. In theory previous tests should have caught any memory addressing problems. This test should catch any addressing errors that somehow were not previously detected.

Test 2 [Moving inversions, ones&zeros]

This test uses the moving inversions algorithm with patterns of all ones and zeros. Cache is enabled even though it interferes to some degree with the test algorithm. With cache enabled this test does not take long and should quickly find all "hard" errors and some more subtle errors. This test is only a quick check.

Test 3 [Moving inversions, 8 bit pat]

This is the same as test one but uses a 8 bit wide pattern of "walking" ones and zeros. This test will better detect subtle errors in "wide" memory chips. A total of 20 data patterns are used.

Test 4 [Moving inversions, random pattern]

Test 4 uses the same algorithm as test 1 but the data pattern is a random number and it's complement. This test is particularly effective in finding difficult to detect data sensitive errors. A total of 60 patterns are used. The random number sequence is different with each pass so multiple passes increase effectiveness.

Test 5 [Block move, 64 moves]

This test stresses memory by using block move (movsl) instructions and is based on Robert Redelmeier's burnBX test. Memory is initialized with shifting patterns that are inverted every 8 bytes. Then 4mb blocks of memory are moved around using the movsl instruction. After the moves are completed the data patterns are checked. Because the data is checked only after the memory moves are completed it is not possible to know where the error occurred. The addresses reported are only for where the bad pattern was found. Since the moves are constrained to a 8mb segment of memory the failing address will always be less than 8mb away from the reported address. Errors from this test are not used to calculate BadRAM patterns.

Test 6 [Moving inversions, 32 bit pat]

This is a variation of the moving inversions algorithm that shifts the data pattern left one bit for each successive address. The starting bit position is shifted left for each pass. To use all possible data patterns 32 passes are required. This test is quite effective at detecting data sensitive errors but the execution time is long.

Test 7 [Random number sequence]

This test writes a series of random numbers into memory. By resetting the seed for the random number the same sequence of number can be created for a reference. The initial pattern is checked and then complemented and checked again on the next pass. However, unlike the moving inversions test writing and checking can only be done in the forward direction.

Test 8 [Modulo 20, ones&zeros]

Using the Modulo-X algorithm should uncover errors that are not detected by moving inversions due to cache and buffering interference with the the algorithm. As with test one only ones and zeros are used for data patterns.

Test 9 [Bit fade test, 90 min, 2 patterns]

The bit fade test initializes all of memory with a pattern and then sleeps for 90 minutes. Then memory is examined to see if any memory bits have changed. All ones and all zero patterns are used. This test takes 3 hours to complete. The Bit Fade test is not included in the normal test sequence and must be run manually via the runtime configuration menu.

[meionm]

You could try different memtest.

Also run cpu at default speed and adjust mem speed through multiplier.

[Evilsizer]

something seems off, i thought the HZ's were still the micron D9GMH ic's or others for ocing.. if they arent that explains the not so good ocing with 2.3volts and loose timings.. if they are infact the high speed D9's and it being 6months. thats about the time alot of the reports show the high speed D9's dieing at,oced or not..

[reclaimer122]

I would check, but I don't want to pull off the heat spreader when I'm probably gonna be RMA'ing them. As for my CPU, I'm pretty sure this thing is rock solid. It was mostly stable at 1.31v, but ORTHOS would fail periodically. Now this things is at 1.34-1.36v, I would think it's stable?