processor slows down when I add RAM ?

M

MASTON

New member
Hi

wrong bbs really but someone might know.
Ive upgraded from 64 MB Ram to both 128mb and 256mb (trying both pc100 and pc 133), but whatever kind of memory I try I get a 20-40% processor speed reduction, meaning less tracks.

jetway 530bf mobo, amd k6-2 400

anybody know anything

maston
 
That's an odd one Maston.

But, your cpu is an older one and if your running newer applications, increased ram may not be the saving grace for you.

It's possible you need to go into BIOS and tweak the ram timing etc. CAS RAS etc.. but I really don't think that will do it.

If I remember correctly most chipsets for the K6-2 at that time supported at least 256MB. ALI alladin was one of them, the other was the VIA MVP or something like that.

It may be a chipset limitation though - I've never heard of 'Jetway' motherboards, maybe it's a 3rd 3rd party chipset. I doubt that is it though.

Upgrading ram on older motherboards/chipsets can be tricky these days. The spec has not remained the same, even though it should have.

I can't think of much else. Your sure the ram you took out is standard 168pin SDRAM and not 168 pin EDO? If it's 168pin EDO the voltage will be different. I'd be surprised if it would boot but you never know. If it was 168 EDO you would need to change the voltage from 5 to 3.3V.
 
I mgiht be completely wrong with this answr and its not very technical but i think if you upgrade and have more RAM than you uses then you can have this problem. I think its because it takes longer for the computer/program to locate what ever files ect its taking from memory. Hopes that helps a bit.
 
I've got a MOBO (FIC VA-503+) that uses the VIA MVP chipset, and works with the K6II and K6III processors. I'm currently using 320 MB of RAM, and things are OK. YMMV, but I thought it might be encouraging...

Queue
 
Coldash, bits in RAM are all accessible in the same amount of time regardless of the ram size.

If you add RAM above the cacheable range of your motherboard, it is possible to experience slowdown. I have a K6-2 MVP motherboard that can only cache up to 128MB.

Are you trying individual modules here, or are you adding modules in with your existing 64MB DIMM?

Slackmaster 2000
 
probably way off mark, but it's not a proprietary RAM issue is it? I've been unable to upgrade my Packard Bell because of this.
 
Last edited:
actually, that sounds pretty likely, atwork. I'd download a benchmark program, try it both ways, and see if it's actully the memory or your software. What software are you using, and are you recording at 16 or 24 bit?
 
Thanks guys,

just to answer everyone's questions:

the modo is supposed to support up to 768 MB, yes it's definitely sdram and not edo. I'm adding individual modules. I'm recording at 24-bit.

As regards benchmarks I've done two real life tests
1. running a partiuclar track in cakewalk and watching the cpu meter. With 64 mb it runs stable at 36-39%, with extra RAM it goes unstable and at 50%+

2. rendering a 3dstudiomax file. With 64 MB Ram renders in 25s, with more at 35-40s.

OK, I went out and got two new 64mb chips to try and with both same old story, but with just one all OK, so I figure it's not the RAM, but the system just can't handle more than 64MB properly. But I've also noticed that my games don't seem to slow down, so maybe it's just something to do with Windows 98.
I've tried changing the vcache by the way. no joy

I'm ready to give up on this one and just try and make 64mb work, I mean what was supposed to be a 2 hour job has turned into a right bleedin' carry on.

the only thing left is to mess with the BIOS. Anybody know a good computer bbs site where you can get right into techie hell?

cheers
MAston
 
Does this computer use DIMMs or SIMMs?

On older Pentium / K6 systems that use 72 pin SIMMs, you need to add them in matched pairs, and if they are mismatched you can get all sorts of wacko results.

As for your BIOS, there are usually two sets of default settings, one for standard performance and one "slow" set for trouble shooting. You might want to experiment with those.
 
Possibly bad L2 cache on the processor.
Try disabling the L2 cache in the bios, and if your benchmarks even out, then what you have is a possible read-ahead prob with the CPU.

Disabling the L2 will slow the machine down, but check to see if that nullifies the difference between your benchmarks.
If they run the same or quicker with the L2 disabled, then you can just run it disabled til you get another brain.
 
Roland Saul

You are the man, I disabled the L2Cache with just one 64 mb chip in and it performs slow like when it has more than 64 mb in.
I think it's 'cos my mobo won't support L2 cache with more than 64mb RAM
do you know anything I can do to remedy the problem

cheers

Maston
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top