Can 'AMD-only' RAM really be restricted to AMD chipsets, and if so, why? Announcing the...
Rationale for describing kurtosis as "peakedness"?
Trying to understand entropy as a novice in thermodynamics
i2c bus hangs in master RPi access to MSP430G uC ~1 in 1000 accesses
Central Vacuuming: Is it worth it, and how does it compare to normal vacuuming?
How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?
Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https
Relating to the President and obstruction, were Mueller's conclusions preordained?
Weaponising the Grasp-at-a-Distance spell
One-one communication
Moving a wrapfig vertically to encroach partially on a subsection title
Tips to organize LaTeX presentations for a semester
Most effective melee weapons for arboreal combat? (pre-gunpowder technology)
What is the difference between a "ranged attack" and a "ranged weapon attack"?
Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines
How to change the tick of the color bar legend to black
White walkers, cemeteries and wights
What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思？
Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?
What is the role of と after a noun when it doesn't appear to count or list anything?
Where is the Next Backup Size entry on iOS 12?
Delete free apps from library
In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?
Is openssl rand command cryptographically secure?
What does the writing on Poe's helmet say?
Can 'AMD-only' RAM really be restricted to AMD chipsets, and if so, why?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)When did Intel start supporting “high density RAM / memory” & will the Core i7-3770 support it?Windows won't start with new 2x4GB RAM on Asus P5QWhat sucks is that this enquery is blocked from replysIs this memory compatible with this motherboard?Memory OverclockingMB not registering new RAMWhat happens if I install slower RAM than specified compatible with the motherboard?how to configure fast DDR4 SDRAM for slower DDR4 controller on CPUWhy is DDR4 latency so much higher on AMD CPUs than on Intel CPUs? How is performance affected?DDR2 800mhz VS DDR3 1066mhz compatibility & performanceWhen did Intel start supporting “high density RAM / memory” & will the Core i7-3770 support it?Why DDR3 DIMM modules have only 15 address pins?Comparing Ram : 16GB of 1600MHz DDR3 vs 16GB of 2400MHz DDR4
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I was browsing for a RAM upgrade earlier for my system, and came across 'AMD-only' RAM (aka, RAM that only works on AMD chipsets).
This RAM can easily be found on sites such as eBay, and seems to be slightly cheaper than 'normal' RAM.
The RAM prompts a question: is this RAM really restricted to AMD chipsets?
When considering RAM for a system, there are certain considerations to make such as:
- Speed (1066MHz, 1600MHz, etc);
- CAS (latency, lower is better);
- Generation (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, etc)
However there is usually no such consideration as chipset compatibility. Sure, it's possible to guarantee that a given stick of memory will work if it's within the bounds of the chipsets listed in the information given by the seller/manufacturer.
For instance if a series of chipsets supported RAM between 1600MHz and 2400MHz, with 9-12 CAS, and on DDR3, it would be possible to list a product as being fully compatible with that series of chipsets if the said RAM was 2000MHz, 10 CAS, and DDR3.
I suspect that's partially the story here. However, is it possible at all for a given stick of memory to be 'AMD-only' or 'Intel-only', and if so, how?
memory cpu motherboard chipset
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
|
show 4 more comments
I was browsing for a RAM upgrade earlier for my system, and came across 'AMD-only' RAM (aka, RAM that only works on AMD chipsets).
This RAM can easily be found on sites such as eBay, and seems to be slightly cheaper than 'normal' RAM.
The RAM prompts a question: is this RAM really restricted to AMD chipsets?
When considering RAM for a system, there are certain considerations to make such as:
- Speed (1066MHz, 1600MHz, etc);
- CAS (latency, lower is better);
- Generation (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, etc)
However there is usually no such consideration as chipset compatibility. Sure, it's possible to guarantee that a given stick of memory will work if it's within the bounds of the chipsets listed in the information given by the seller/manufacturer.
For instance if a series of chipsets supported RAM between 1600MHz and 2400MHz, with 9-12 CAS, and on DDR3, it would be possible to list a product as being fully compatible with that series of chipsets if the said RAM was 2000MHz, 10 CAS, and DDR3.
I suspect that's partially the story here. However, is it possible at all for a given stick of memory to be 'AMD-only' or 'Intel-only', and if so, how?
memory cpu motherboard chipset
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
Just study any IC's data sheet and you'll notice that there are many more important details, which are usually not mentioned (or else consumers would get even more frustrated than they are). Tolerance values for voltages, power consumption, signal edge steepness, 0/1 threshold levels etc are among the parameters which are usually standardised. I don't know the details in this case but could imagine that if AMD allows for higher tolerance values, this allows vendors to sell chips which they would usually have to destroy because they're slightly out of specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:01
1
It is a "thing" in that AMD has one set of SPD extensions and intel has another, but as far as I know, they both should have the basic fallback to DDR2 jedec information. Possibly the reason they are marked AMD only is that they are presuming the end-user cannot manually set timings if the SPD info is not honored (major box vendors have poor manual BIOS configuration support). I won't make an answer though because I don't have good evidence for this.
– Yorik
Mar 3 '16 at 16:12
1
@Ramhound That's my point though, I suppose my actual question is 'is this just sellers trying to market the RAM modules, or is there another reason?'.
– AStopher
Mar 3 '16 at 16:18
1
I was wildly guessing, but if it's the case, then yes. Similar to how they introduced triple core processors -- the probability of one core being defective is high enough to consider not throwing that quad core away. But it may also be the case that the RAM was supposed to be faster or something, and that you cannot rely on its SPD or it was disabled. Which is basically a similar case -- a piece of silicon which does not fully meet its specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:44
1
I don't know how it's possible, but it did bite me. My brother bought 2x4GB sticks of DDR2 memory, because he wanted to use it on gigabyte ga-g41m-es2l motherboard, which does support 8GB DDR2 RAM. And...it didn't work because he bought one for AMD and not for intel. It posts, the RAM is detected (all 8GB of it) and then it just reboots a few seconds later, sometimes with some visual glitches. We also tried to decrease the frequency and set worse timings in BIOS still on old RAM, and try again, but that didn't change anything, that seems to exclude it being slower. And it works on P31 chipset.
– barteks2x
Apr 14 '18 at 13:43
|
show 4 more comments
I was browsing for a RAM upgrade earlier for my system, and came across 'AMD-only' RAM (aka, RAM that only works on AMD chipsets).
This RAM can easily be found on sites such as eBay, and seems to be slightly cheaper than 'normal' RAM.
The RAM prompts a question: is this RAM really restricted to AMD chipsets?
When considering RAM for a system, there are certain considerations to make such as:
- Speed (1066MHz, 1600MHz, etc);
- CAS (latency, lower is better);
- Generation (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, etc)
However there is usually no such consideration as chipset compatibility. Sure, it's possible to guarantee that a given stick of memory will work if it's within the bounds of the chipsets listed in the information given by the seller/manufacturer.
For instance if a series of chipsets supported RAM between 1600MHz and 2400MHz, with 9-12 CAS, and on DDR3, it would be possible to list a product as being fully compatible with that series of chipsets if the said RAM was 2000MHz, 10 CAS, and DDR3.
I suspect that's partially the story here. However, is it possible at all for a given stick of memory to be 'AMD-only' or 'Intel-only', and if so, how?
memory cpu motherboard chipset
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
I was browsing for a RAM upgrade earlier for my system, and came across 'AMD-only' RAM (aka, RAM that only works on AMD chipsets).
This RAM can easily be found on sites such as eBay, and seems to be slightly cheaper than 'normal' RAM.
The RAM prompts a question: is this RAM really restricted to AMD chipsets?
When considering RAM for a system, there are certain considerations to make such as:
- Speed (1066MHz, 1600MHz, etc);
- CAS (latency, lower is better);
- Generation (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, etc)
However there is usually no such consideration as chipset compatibility. Sure, it's possible to guarantee that a given stick of memory will work if it's within the bounds of the chipsets listed in the information given by the seller/manufacturer.
For instance if a series of chipsets supported RAM between 1600MHz and 2400MHz, with 9-12 CAS, and on DDR3, it would be possible to list a product as being fully compatible with that series of chipsets if the said RAM was 2000MHz, 10 CAS, and DDR3.
I suspect that's partially the story here. However, is it possible at all for a given stick of memory to be 'AMD-only' or 'Intel-only', and if so, how?
memory cpu motherboard chipset
memory cpu motherboard chipset
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
edited 6 hours ago
Twisty Impersonator
18.8k1468101
18.8k1468101
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
asked Mar 3 '16 at 15:51
AStopherAStopher
1,00852561
1,00852561
Just study any IC's data sheet and you'll notice that there are many more important details, which are usually not mentioned (or else consumers would get even more frustrated than they are). Tolerance values for voltages, power consumption, signal edge steepness, 0/1 threshold levels etc are among the parameters which are usually standardised. I don't know the details in this case but could imagine that if AMD allows for higher tolerance values, this allows vendors to sell chips which they would usually have to destroy because they're slightly out of specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:01
1
It is a "thing" in that AMD has one set of SPD extensions and intel has another, but as far as I know, they both should have the basic fallback to DDR2 jedec information. Possibly the reason they are marked AMD only is that they are presuming the end-user cannot manually set timings if the SPD info is not honored (major box vendors have poor manual BIOS configuration support). I won't make an answer though because I don't have good evidence for this.
– Yorik
Mar 3 '16 at 16:12
1
@Ramhound That's my point though, I suppose my actual question is 'is this just sellers trying to market the RAM modules, or is there another reason?'.
– AStopher
Mar 3 '16 at 16:18
1
I was wildly guessing, but if it's the case, then yes. Similar to how they introduced triple core processors -- the probability of one core being defective is high enough to consider not throwing that quad core away. But it may also be the case that the RAM was supposed to be faster or something, and that you cannot rely on its SPD or it was disabled. Which is basically a similar case -- a piece of silicon which does not fully meet its specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:44
1
I don't know how it's possible, but it did bite me. My brother bought 2x4GB sticks of DDR2 memory, because he wanted to use it on gigabyte ga-g41m-es2l motherboard, which does support 8GB DDR2 RAM. And...it didn't work because he bought one for AMD and not for intel. It posts, the RAM is detected (all 8GB of it) and then it just reboots a few seconds later, sometimes with some visual glitches. We also tried to decrease the frequency and set worse timings in BIOS still on old RAM, and try again, but that didn't change anything, that seems to exclude it being slower. And it works on P31 chipset.
– barteks2x
Apr 14 '18 at 13:43
|
show 4 more comments
Just study any IC's data sheet and you'll notice that there are many more important details, which are usually not mentioned (or else consumers would get even more frustrated than they are). Tolerance values for voltages, power consumption, signal edge steepness, 0/1 threshold levels etc are among the parameters which are usually standardised. I don't know the details in this case but could imagine that if AMD allows for higher tolerance values, this allows vendors to sell chips which they would usually have to destroy because they're slightly out of specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:01
1
It is a "thing" in that AMD has one set of SPD extensions and intel has another, but as far as I know, they both should have the basic fallback to DDR2 jedec information. Possibly the reason they are marked AMD only is that they are presuming the end-user cannot manually set timings if the SPD info is not honored (major box vendors have poor manual BIOS configuration support). I won't make an answer though because I don't have good evidence for this.
– Yorik
Mar 3 '16 at 16:12
1
@Ramhound That's my point though, I suppose my actual question is 'is this just sellers trying to market the RAM modules, or is there another reason?'.
– AStopher
Mar 3 '16 at 16:18
1
I was wildly guessing, but if it's the case, then yes. Similar to how they introduced triple core processors -- the probability of one core being defective is high enough to consider not throwing that quad core away. But it may also be the case that the RAM was supposed to be faster or something, and that you cannot rely on its SPD or it was disabled. Which is basically a similar case -- a piece of silicon which does not fully meet its specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:44
1
I don't know how it's possible, but it did bite me. My brother bought 2x4GB sticks of DDR2 memory, because he wanted to use it on gigabyte ga-g41m-es2l motherboard, which does support 8GB DDR2 RAM. And...it didn't work because he bought one for AMD and not for intel. It posts, the RAM is detected (all 8GB of it) and then it just reboots a few seconds later, sometimes with some visual glitches. We also tried to decrease the frequency and set worse timings in BIOS still on old RAM, and try again, but that didn't change anything, that seems to exclude it being slower. And it works on P31 chipset.
– barteks2x
Apr 14 '18 at 13:43
Just study any IC's data sheet and you'll notice that there are many more important details, which are usually not mentioned (or else consumers would get even more frustrated than they are). Tolerance values for voltages, power consumption, signal edge steepness, 0/1 threshold levels etc are among the parameters which are usually standardised. I don't know the details in this case but could imagine that if AMD allows for higher tolerance values, this allows vendors to sell chips which they would usually have to destroy because they're slightly out of specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:01
Just study any IC's data sheet and you'll notice that there are many more important details, which are usually not mentioned (or else consumers would get even more frustrated than they are). Tolerance values for voltages, power consumption, signal edge steepness, 0/1 threshold levels etc are among the parameters which are usually standardised. I don't know the details in this case but could imagine that if AMD allows for higher tolerance values, this allows vendors to sell chips which they would usually have to destroy because they're slightly out of specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:01
1
1
It is a "thing" in that AMD has one set of SPD extensions and intel has another, but as far as I know, they both should have the basic fallback to DDR2 jedec information. Possibly the reason they are marked AMD only is that they are presuming the end-user cannot manually set timings if the SPD info is not honored (major box vendors have poor manual BIOS configuration support). I won't make an answer though because I don't have good evidence for this.
– Yorik
Mar 3 '16 at 16:12
It is a "thing" in that AMD has one set of SPD extensions and intel has another, but as far as I know, they both should have the basic fallback to DDR2 jedec information. Possibly the reason they are marked AMD only is that they are presuming the end-user cannot manually set timings if the SPD info is not honored (major box vendors have poor manual BIOS configuration support). I won't make an answer though because I don't have good evidence for this.
– Yorik
Mar 3 '16 at 16:12
1
1
@Ramhound That's my point though, I suppose my actual question is 'is this just sellers trying to market the RAM modules, or is there another reason?'.
– AStopher
Mar 3 '16 at 16:18
@Ramhound That's my point though, I suppose my actual question is 'is this just sellers trying to market the RAM modules, or is there another reason?'.
– AStopher
Mar 3 '16 at 16:18
1
1
I was wildly guessing, but if it's the case, then yes. Similar to how they introduced triple core processors -- the probability of one core being defective is high enough to consider not throwing that quad core away. But it may also be the case that the RAM was supposed to be faster or something, and that you cannot rely on its SPD or it was disabled. Which is basically a similar case -- a piece of silicon which does not fully meet its specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:44
I was wildly guessing, but if it's the case, then yes. Similar to how they introduced triple core processors -- the probability of one core being defective is high enough to consider not throwing that quad core away. But it may also be the case that the RAM was supposed to be faster or something, and that you cannot rely on its SPD or it was disabled. Which is basically a similar case -- a piece of silicon which does not fully meet its specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:44
1
1
I don't know how it's possible, but it did bite me. My brother bought 2x4GB sticks of DDR2 memory, because he wanted to use it on gigabyte ga-g41m-es2l motherboard, which does support 8GB DDR2 RAM. And...it didn't work because he bought one for AMD and not for intel. It posts, the RAM is detected (all 8GB of it) and then it just reboots a few seconds later, sometimes with some visual glitches. We also tried to decrease the frequency and set worse timings in BIOS still on old RAM, and try again, but that didn't change anything, that seems to exclude it being slower. And it works on P31 chipset.
– barteks2x
Apr 14 '18 at 13:43
I don't know how it's possible, but it did bite me. My brother bought 2x4GB sticks of DDR2 memory, because he wanted to use it on gigabyte ga-g41m-es2l motherboard, which does support 8GB DDR2 RAM. And...it didn't work because he bought one for AMD and not for intel. It posts, the RAM is detected (all 8GB of it) and then it just reboots a few seconds later, sometimes with some visual glitches. We also tried to decrease the frequency and set worse timings in BIOS still on old RAM, and try again, but that didn't change anything, that seems to exclude it being slower. And it works on P31 chipset.
– barteks2x
Apr 14 '18 at 13:43
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It is true that for the AM2 chipset (DDR2) and early on in the AM3 (DDR3) chipset era, AMD supported higher density RAM than Intel did. Intel started supporting the higher density RAM, but I can't find the exact chipset on which it was introduced.
Essentially AMD provided an additional physical address line per RAM page (11 vs. std 10) which doubles the amount of memory that can be addressed on a RAM stick, allowing their chipsets to use the high density RAM. For example, a DDR2 stick for an Intel chipset may have had 8 memory chips, each with a capacity of 128 MB, resulting in 1 GB stick. AMD, with the additional address bit, could use a stick with 4 256 MB chips, also with a total of 1 GB.
The net benefit for AMD users was a slightly lower cost per GB of RAM and a higher max capacity per chip as compared to Intel.
I would bet that this high density memory would have worked fine in an intel motherboard (all other parameters assumed to be compatible), but it would only see half the capacity.
The best write up I could find on this was buried at OCZ Technologies website and was only available from archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100210134333/http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_5400_am2_special_high_density_kit-eol
With 11 column address bit support by the AM2 memory controller, the
number of addresses in each row or page can be as high as 2048
individual entries for a page size of 16kbit. Unlike modules based on
standard 10-bit column address chips with an "8k" page size, the new
Titanium AM2 Special modules take advantage of the AM2 controller's
feature set and provide a single rank solution with 2GB density using
16k pages. This allows the controller to stay in page twice as long
compared to standard memory architectures, thereby achieving
unparalleled performance.
That was a good question.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
add a comment |
What is happening in most of them is that they are based on x4 chips instead of the x8 chips normally used, which was never officially supported by JEDEC on unbuffered DIMMs and don't work on Intel.
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
2
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
add a comment |
I had the misfortune of reading the above information as well as other sites that say it should NOT make a difference on AMD vs. Intel processors. However, it really does make a difference. An AMD only 8GB DDR3 1600 stick was placed in an HP 800 G1 with I5-4570 and it was not recognized at all. When placed in an AMD FX-8320 computer it worked perfectly.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1048215%2fcan-amd-only-ram-really-be-restricted-to-amd-chipsets-and-if-so-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It is true that for the AM2 chipset (DDR2) and early on in the AM3 (DDR3) chipset era, AMD supported higher density RAM than Intel did. Intel started supporting the higher density RAM, but I can't find the exact chipset on which it was introduced.
Essentially AMD provided an additional physical address line per RAM page (11 vs. std 10) which doubles the amount of memory that can be addressed on a RAM stick, allowing their chipsets to use the high density RAM. For example, a DDR2 stick for an Intel chipset may have had 8 memory chips, each with a capacity of 128 MB, resulting in 1 GB stick. AMD, with the additional address bit, could use a stick with 4 256 MB chips, also with a total of 1 GB.
The net benefit for AMD users was a slightly lower cost per GB of RAM and a higher max capacity per chip as compared to Intel.
I would bet that this high density memory would have worked fine in an intel motherboard (all other parameters assumed to be compatible), but it would only see half the capacity.
The best write up I could find on this was buried at OCZ Technologies website and was only available from archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100210134333/http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_5400_am2_special_high_density_kit-eol
With 11 column address bit support by the AM2 memory controller, the
number of addresses in each row or page can be as high as 2048
individual entries for a page size of 16kbit. Unlike modules based on
standard 10-bit column address chips with an "8k" page size, the new
Titanium AM2 Special modules take advantage of the AM2 controller's
feature set and provide a single rank solution with 2GB density using
16k pages. This allows the controller to stay in page twice as long
compared to standard memory architectures, thereby achieving
unparalleled performance.
That was a good question.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
add a comment |
It is true that for the AM2 chipset (DDR2) and early on in the AM3 (DDR3) chipset era, AMD supported higher density RAM than Intel did. Intel started supporting the higher density RAM, but I can't find the exact chipset on which it was introduced.
Essentially AMD provided an additional physical address line per RAM page (11 vs. std 10) which doubles the amount of memory that can be addressed on a RAM stick, allowing their chipsets to use the high density RAM. For example, a DDR2 stick for an Intel chipset may have had 8 memory chips, each with a capacity of 128 MB, resulting in 1 GB stick. AMD, with the additional address bit, could use a stick with 4 256 MB chips, also with a total of 1 GB.
The net benefit for AMD users was a slightly lower cost per GB of RAM and a higher max capacity per chip as compared to Intel.
I would bet that this high density memory would have worked fine in an intel motherboard (all other parameters assumed to be compatible), but it would only see half the capacity.
The best write up I could find on this was buried at OCZ Technologies website and was only available from archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100210134333/http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_5400_am2_special_high_density_kit-eol
With 11 column address bit support by the AM2 memory controller, the
number of addresses in each row or page can be as high as 2048
individual entries for a page size of 16kbit. Unlike modules based on
standard 10-bit column address chips with an "8k" page size, the new
Titanium AM2 Special modules take advantage of the AM2 controller's
feature set and provide a single rank solution with 2GB density using
16k pages. This allows the controller to stay in page twice as long
compared to standard memory architectures, thereby achieving
unparalleled performance.
That was a good question.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
add a comment |
It is true that for the AM2 chipset (DDR2) and early on in the AM3 (DDR3) chipset era, AMD supported higher density RAM than Intel did. Intel started supporting the higher density RAM, but I can't find the exact chipset on which it was introduced.
Essentially AMD provided an additional physical address line per RAM page (11 vs. std 10) which doubles the amount of memory that can be addressed on a RAM stick, allowing their chipsets to use the high density RAM. For example, a DDR2 stick for an Intel chipset may have had 8 memory chips, each with a capacity of 128 MB, resulting in 1 GB stick. AMD, with the additional address bit, could use a stick with 4 256 MB chips, also with a total of 1 GB.
The net benefit for AMD users was a slightly lower cost per GB of RAM and a higher max capacity per chip as compared to Intel.
I would bet that this high density memory would have worked fine in an intel motherboard (all other parameters assumed to be compatible), but it would only see half the capacity.
The best write up I could find on this was buried at OCZ Technologies website and was only available from archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100210134333/http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_5400_am2_special_high_density_kit-eol
With 11 column address bit support by the AM2 memory controller, the
number of addresses in each row or page can be as high as 2048
individual entries for a page size of 16kbit. Unlike modules based on
standard 10-bit column address chips with an "8k" page size, the new
Titanium AM2 Special modules take advantage of the AM2 controller's
feature set and provide a single rank solution with 2GB density using
16k pages. This allows the controller to stay in page twice as long
compared to standard memory architectures, thereby achieving
unparalleled performance.
That was a good question.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
It is true that for the AM2 chipset (DDR2) and early on in the AM3 (DDR3) chipset era, AMD supported higher density RAM than Intel did. Intel started supporting the higher density RAM, but I can't find the exact chipset on which it was introduced.
Essentially AMD provided an additional physical address line per RAM page (11 vs. std 10) which doubles the amount of memory that can be addressed on a RAM stick, allowing their chipsets to use the high density RAM. For example, a DDR2 stick for an Intel chipset may have had 8 memory chips, each with a capacity of 128 MB, resulting in 1 GB stick. AMD, with the additional address bit, could use a stick with 4 256 MB chips, also with a total of 1 GB.
The net benefit for AMD users was a slightly lower cost per GB of RAM and a higher max capacity per chip as compared to Intel.
I would bet that this high density memory would have worked fine in an intel motherboard (all other parameters assumed to be compatible), but it would only see half the capacity.
The best write up I could find on this was buried at OCZ Technologies website and was only available from archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100210134333/http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_5400_am2_special_high_density_kit-eol
With 11 column address bit support by the AM2 memory controller, the
number of addresses in each row or page can be as high as 2048
individual entries for a page size of 16kbit. Unlike modules based on
standard 10-bit column address chips with an "8k" page size, the new
Titanium AM2 Special modules take advantage of the AM2 controller's
feature set and provide a single rank solution with 2GB density using
16k pages. This allows the controller to stay in page twice as long
compared to standard memory architectures, thereby achieving
unparalleled performance.
That was a good question.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
answered Apr 29 '16 at 8:26
ArgonautsArgonauts
3,8651122
3,8651122
add a comment |
add a comment |
What is happening in most of them is that they are based on x4 chips instead of the x8 chips normally used, which was never officially supported by JEDEC on unbuffered DIMMs and don't work on Intel.
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
2
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
add a comment |
What is happening in most of them is that they are based on x4 chips instead of the x8 chips normally used, which was never officially supported by JEDEC on unbuffered DIMMs and don't work on Intel.
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
2
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
add a comment |
What is happening in most of them is that they are based on x4 chips instead of the x8 chips normally used, which was never officially supported by JEDEC on unbuffered DIMMs and don't work on Intel.
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
What is happening in most of them is that they are based on x4 chips instead of the x8 chips normally used, which was never officially supported by JEDEC on unbuffered DIMMs and don't work on Intel.
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
edited Jul 9 '17 at 1:01
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
answered May 28 '17 at 1:50
Yuhong BaoYuhong Bao
40539
40539
2
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
add a comment |
2
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
2
2
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@cybermonkey Why is this downvoted? AMD-only DDR2 RAM is usually 2Rx4 instead of 2Rx8. It has 16 chips on each side/rank for a total of 32 chips. While from experience and spec, Intel DDR2-era boards only supported 1Rx8/2Rx8/1Rx16 RAM (8/16/4 total chips respectively).
– guest-vm
Apr 6 '18 at 22:11
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
@guest Probably because it doesn't add anything new to the Q&A.
– AStopher
Apr 7 '18 at 8:45
add a comment |
I had the misfortune of reading the above information as well as other sites that say it should NOT make a difference on AMD vs. Intel processors. However, it really does make a difference. An AMD only 8GB DDR3 1600 stick was placed in an HP 800 G1 with I5-4570 and it was not recognized at all. When placed in an AMD FX-8320 computer it worked perfectly.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I had the misfortune of reading the above information as well as other sites that say it should NOT make a difference on AMD vs. Intel processors. However, it really does make a difference. An AMD only 8GB DDR3 1600 stick was placed in an HP 800 G1 with I5-4570 and it was not recognized at all. When placed in an AMD FX-8320 computer it worked perfectly.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I had the misfortune of reading the above information as well as other sites that say it should NOT make a difference on AMD vs. Intel processors. However, it really does make a difference. An AMD only 8GB DDR3 1600 stick was placed in an HP 800 G1 with I5-4570 and it was not recognized at all. When placed in an AMD FX-8320 computer it worked perfectly.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I had the misfortune of reading the above information as well as other sites that say it should NOT make a difference on AMD vs. Intel processors. However, it really does make a difference. An AMD only 8GB DDR3 1600 stick was placed in an HP 800 G1 with I5-4570 and it was not recognized at all. When placed in an AMD FX-8320 computer it worked perfectly.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
answered 3 hours ago
Retired TechRetired Tech
1
1
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Retired Tech is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
add a comment |
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
– Ramhound
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1048215%2fcan-amd-only-ram-really-be-restricted-to-amd-chipsets-and-if-so-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Just study any IC's data sheet and you'll notice that there are many more important details, which are usually not mentioned (or else consumers would get even more frustrated than they are). Tolerance values for voltages, power consumption, signal edge steepness, 0/1 threshold levels etc are among the parameters which are usually standardised. I don't know the details in this case but could imagine that if AMD allows for higher tolerance values, this allows vendors to sell chips which they would usually have to destroy because they're slightly out of specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:01
1
It is a "thing" in that AMD has one set of SPD extensions and intel has another, but as far as I know, they both should have the basic fallback to DDR2 jedec information. Possibly the reason they are marked AMD only is that they are presuming the end-user cannot manually set timings if the SPD info is not honored (major box vendors have poor manual BIOS configuration support). I won't make an answer though because I don't have good evidence for this.
– Yorik
Mar 3 '16 at 16:12
1
@Ramhound That's my point though, I suppose my actual question is 'is this just sellers trying to market the RAM modules, or is there another reason?'.
– AStopher
Mar 3 '16 at 16:18
1
I was wildly guessing, but if it's the case, then yes. Similar to how they introduced triple core processors -- the probability of one core being defective is high enough to consider not throwing that quad core away. But it may also be the case that the RAM was supposed to be faster or something, and that you cannot rely on its SPD or it was disabled. Which is basically a similar case -- a piece of silicon which does not fully meet its specification.
– Run CMD
Mar 3 '16 at 16:44
1
I don't know how it's possible, but it did bite me. My brother bought 2x4GB sticks of DDR2 memory, because he wanted to use it on gigabyte ga-g41m-es2l motherboard, which does support 8GB DDR2 RAM. And...it didn't work because he bought one for AMD and not for intel. It posts, the RAM is detected (all 8GB of it) and then it just reboots a few seconds later, sometimes with some visual glitches. We also tried to decrease the frequency and set worse timings in BIOS still on old RAM, and try again, but that didn't change anything, that seems to exclude it being slower. And it works on P31 chipset.
– barteks2x
Apr 14 '18 at 13:43