Yes, the infamous missing memory issue, as seen with Intel Socket 1366 CPUs. Curiously, most people don't see it that way, it's either the memory modules or the mother board that is the problem. Do we see this problem on other platforms? This issue remains a mystery, since if an absolute fix or identification of the problem were known, it would be posted here and everywhere.
Consider for a moment, how it is that we know we are missing memory? Usually if not always because something is telling us that. That something being either our mother board's BIOS, a hardware monitoring program, or our OS. It's not because our software is failing due to lack of memory, or something can't load due to a memory shortage. Sure, it is surprising and frustrating to see CPU-Z display 4GB when we have 6GB installed, while the BIOS displays something else, but how do we know we can trust these programs? What is the most trustworthy measure of the amount of memory installed?
I have seen on my socket 1366 CPU PC with 3 x 2GB memory modules installed (yes, G.SKILL), differing amounts of memory displayed in different monitoring programs at the same time. One shows 4GB, the other 6GB. I've seen a program display a total of 4GB of memory, and then have all three of the 2GB modules individually listed in a list that shows the details of the module. The BIOS will show 6GB, while a Windows Gadget will show 4GB right after I exited the BIOS and the PC finished booting.
I've noticed this happening when using memory in triple channel mode as I described above, and have not seen it when using 2 x 2GB modules. That has me wondering, but then that is just my experience.
My point here is that I don't feel it is fair to only blame the memory and mother board manufactures for this problem, when it could be an issue with the i7-9xx CPUs with their integrated memory controller. Windows may also be causing this as well. I wonder why everyone just blindly believes the monitoring programs, how do we know they are right? I recently compared two well known hardware monitoring programs, which showed significant differences in CPU and Core temperatures, and also relatively large differences in voltage readings. How can that be? Are they reading different things, or interpreting them differently? A third program was in agreement with one of the others, but can we trust that?
I'm surprised that given all the grief memory and mother board manufactures are experiencing with this issue, that they have not created a program to check the amount of memory installed, if it is installed correctly, if it is broken, and what value for the amount of memory is being written to the usual places. In another forum I was discussing my point, and one person replied that if one hardware monitor out of many reported missing memory, that is what they would believe. Given that, I wish G.SKILL and others, Good Luck!
Consider for a moment, how it is that we know we are missing memory? Usually if not always because something is telling us that. That something being either our mother board's BIOS, a hardware monitoring program, or our OS. It's not because our software is failing due to lack of memory, or something can't load due to a memory shortage. Sure, it is surprising and frustrating to see CPU-Z display 4GB when we have 6GB installed, while the BIOS displays something else, but how do we know we can trust these programs? What is the most trustworthy measure of the amount of memory installed?
I have seen on my socket 1366 CPU PC with 3 x 2GB memory modules installed (yes, G.SKILL), differing amounts of memory displayed in different monitoring programs at the same time. One shows 4GB, the other 6GB. I've seen a program display a total of 4GB of memory, and then have all three of the 2GB modules individually listed in a list that shows the details of the module. The BIOS will show 6GB, while a Windows Gadget will show 4GB right after I exited the BIOS and the PC finished booting.
I've noticed this happening when using memory in triple channel mode as I described above, and have not seen it when using 2 x 2GB modules. That has me wondering, but then that is just my experience.
My point here is that I don't feel it is fair to only blame the memory and mother board manufactures for this problem, when it could be an issue with the i7-9xx CPUs with their integrated memory controller. Windows may also be causing this as well. I wonder why everyone just blindly believes the monitoring programs, how do we know they are right? I recently compared two well known hardware monitoring programs, which showed significant differences in CPU and Core temperatures, and also relatively large differences in voltage readings. How can that be? Are they reading different things, or interpreting them differently? A third program was in agreement with one of the others, but can we trust that?
I'm surprised that given all the grief memory and mother board manufactures are experiencing with this issue, that they have not created a program to check the amount of memory installed, if it is installed correctly, if it is broken, and what value for the amount of memory is being written to the usual places. In another forum I was discussing my point, and one person replied that if one hardware monitor out of many reported missing memory, that is what they would believe. Given that, I wish G.SKILL and others, Good Luck!
Comment