Has nobody thought of this?

[boles]

I have many MBs that always seem to have issues with ram due to timings or voltage. Of course that means that the mb wont boot to the bios so i can set the correct settings.

Is it just me or has no manufacturer thought of including an onboard small ram chip that could activate if there was an issue with ram inits?

THe way i think about it is that you could put a 64meg chip onboard that would allow you to boot into the bios and adjust settings for the ram. If the settings failed the mb would default to onboard ram to allow you to adjust settings. I mean when the price of a decent mb now costs so much why not add an option for something like this that allows you to get past these issues?

Am i totally missing something?

 

[ultra laser]

64MB of RAM costs more than 0MB of RAM. Once you buy the motherboard, the manufacturer doesn't care if it works with your hardware or not.

 

[sgrinavi]

Good idea OP, I have had the problem of my RAM requiring too much voltage to boot a board, I could have saved a lot of headaches if there was just enough onboard to bet you into the BIOS. They could probably oay for it with money they save in tech and loss of sales from bad press.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: boles

Am i totally missing something?

Yeah, the logic that would be needed for the BIOS to 'switch' between two different memory bus circuits. Additionally, you can't just plug any ol' RAM chip into the board. It must still form a 64-bit wide memory bus. Currently, there are no 64-bit wide DRAM chips, so it would require a minimum of two DRAM chips, possibly four.

I suppose you could avoid a special 'switch' chip by just wiring the circuits up to a manual jumper pack. But then what is the difference between that and using the CMOS jumper, or even planning ahead by manually configuring fail-safe memory settings in BIOS before plugging in your new JEDEC-bending memory?

Besides, underskilled users are already encouraged to believe that motherboards and BIOSes and all that stuff aren't really that complex. We honestly don't want them to have yet one more reason to believe that building computers requires no uncommon technical skills because the hardware is supposed to bring all of the IQ, not the user.

 

[badnewcastle]

Without directly answering your question as I have no idea. How come MB manufacturers can't start putting Ram onboard... and have slots to add... Say like a minimum amount with the ability to turn it off, so you can use your own if you don't want to add the same stuff. They should be able to make room. And I'm thinking 1 GB minumum can't take up much room. Then they could charge a little more of course...

 

[imported_ravenous]

i really can see where this would be a huge benefit...if anything they could put it on a jumper to be switched between the onboard chip and ram banks as previously stated by tcsenter.

 

[Conscript]

couldn't you just as easily buy your own cheap 64MB of RAM to keep as a backup? If they put it on the MB you'd just end up paying a premium over what you're already spending. don't see why a MB maker would bother themselves, only a small percentage of their customer base even adjust bios settings to begin with. So the extra cost in design and implementation would be unjustified if only on enthusiast boards, or passed down unnecessarily on consumer boards.

 

[iBPJohn]

It would take up more space on the board. There is already very limited space on the boards as it is with everything continuously getting bigger. Also you can't just stick something on the board, it also has to attach to the memory controller somehow.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Conscript
couldn't you just as easily buy your own cheap 64MB of RAM to keep as a backup?

Better to go 256MB or even 512MB. Most current chipsets won't accept 128MB or smaller modules.

In fact, that very reason would also mean it isn't possible to put just 64MB or 128MB on most future motherboards. It would have to be at least 256MB for most current chipsets, which means at least four DRAM chips. This 'inexpensive' little feature is shaping up to add another $50 or more to the final cost.

 

[Conscript]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Conscript
couldn't you just as easily buy your own cheap 64MB of RAM to keep as a backup?

Better to go 256MB or even 512MB. Most current chipsets won't accept 128MB or smaller modules.

it's just to boot to bios...i can't fathom why you're need 512MB to do that.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Conscript
it's just to boot to bios...i can't fathom why you're need 512MB to do that.

I already told you why...

"Most current chipsets won't accept 128MB or smaller modules."

Not to mention that DDR2 or DDR3 modules under 256MB don't exist.

 

[God Mode]

How about keeping a cheap 10 dollar stick of jedec certified ram around? More so if you're an enthusiast that frequently works and upgrades on their own pcs. It would probably be cheaper than relying on a mobo maker to charge a fair price for extra features.

Also, us enthusiasts are too small a percentage of consumers that run into quirks like these to be taken seriously. I do believe asus or another company is putting roms in their motherboards to support linux so it could be a possibility I suppose. The bread and butter for manufacturers will always be joe and jane consumer and mr corporate purchaser.

 

[Zap]

All the manufacturer of the board has to do is to make their board BIOS read the SPD of the chip and default to the LOWEST available setting after a CMOS jumper reset.

All the manufacturer of the memory has to do is to program their SPD properly.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: God Mode
How about keeping a cheap 10 dollar stick of jedec certified ram around?

You = winnar! Any cheap OEM module from the major DRAM companies is guaranteed to 'just work' in 98% of motherboards. Micron (Crucial/Spectek), Samsung, Qmonda, Elixir, or rebranders of said OEM modules like Super Talent. e.g.

DDR2

DDR3

 

[Conscript]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Conscript
it's just to boot to bios...i can't fathom why you're need 512MB to do that.

I already told you why...

"Most current chipsets won't accept 128MB or smaller modules."

Not to mention that DDR2 or DDR3 modules under 256MB don't exist.

Can you point me in a direction as to where in the Intel or AMD white papers there's a minimum referenced memory allotment to boot, short of them just not offering support for them since they're really not in circulation anymore? I'm not a tech genius, but I can't think of any reason why any chipset wouldn't be able to boot with a minimal amount of ram, that wouldn't be bios based.

 

[boles]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: God Mode
How about keeping a cheap 10 dollar stick of jedec certified ram around?

You = winnar! Any cheap OEM module from the major DRAM companies is guaranteed to 'just work' in 98% of motherboards. Micron (Crucial/Spectek), Samsung, Qmonda, Elixir, or rebranders of said OEM modules like Super Talent. e.g.

DDR2

DDR3

I am using high quality memory in the board and am still having issues. i am using:

Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800

In a EVGA 780i board. Problem is (i think) the voltage is 2.2 and not the 1.8 default. It isnt till i up the voltage that the bios reads the proper settings. My point was simply that if there was a jumper onboard or something that allowed you to at least get into the bios to update settings you would be able to do it!

I havent done many builds lately, maybe 3 in the past year but seems i have had ram issues each time. In the early days when i did system builds i could buy any speed rated ram (pc100) or whatever and i NEVER had an issue. I know things have come a long way since them but you think that manufacturers would have thought of something like this.

Hell if it added 10 bucks to a $275 board but i knew i could then not have to worry about a non-post i would pay for it!

 

[boles]

Now the other side to this would be a processor type thing also. I have purchased a board once the supported my CPU but only with bios upgrade. I got the board and of course it wouldnt work cause the bios revision was not up to date. HOW nice it would have been to be able to update the bios without getting a CPU to only update.

WHen spending close to 300 on a MB it would be nice to have these sorts of things

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Conscript
Can you point me in a direction as to where in the Intel or AMD white papers there's a minimum referenced memory allotment to boot, short of them just not offering support for them since they're really not in circulation anymore? I'm not a tech genius, but I can't think of any reason why any chipset wouldn't be able to boot with a minimal amount of ram, that wouldn't be bios based.

Well again, since 64MB DDR2/DDR3 modules do not and have never existed, nor do the chips to make them, that alone settles the matter definitively, don't you think?

But if you really want proof that a chipset can't support modules that do not exist, supposing for a moment we found ourselves in a parallel universe where they did exist:

Intel P965

The (G)MCH has a minimum total memory requirement of 256 MB.

The following configurations are not valid with the Intel 965 Express chipset family:
? 64-Mb and 128-Mb Memory Technologies for DDR2


Intel P35

System Memory Technology Supported
? Device Technology: 512 Mb and 1 Gb

 

[Conscript]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Conscript
Can you point me in a direction as to where in the Intel or AMD white papers there's a minimum referenced memory allotment to boot, short of them just not offering support for them since they're really not in circulation anymore? I'm not a tech genius, but I can't think of any reason why any chipset wouldn't be able to boot with a minimal amount of ram, that wouldn't be bios based.

Well again, since 64MB DDR2/DDR3 modules do not and have never existed, nor do the chips to make them, that alone settles the matter definitively, don't you think?

But if you really want proof that a chipset can't support modules that do not exist, supposing for a moment we found ourselves in a parallel universe where they did exist:

Intel P965

The (G)MCH has a minimum total memory requirement of 256 MB.

The following configurations are not valid with the Intel 965 Express chipset family:
? 64-Mb and 128-Mb Memory Technologies for DDR2


Intel P35

System Memory Technology Supported
? Device Technology: 512 Mb and 1 Gb

Ok great, but since this is all hypothetical on an idea that came up from the OP... I don't know of any technical reason hardware wise why any chipset would need more than a very minimal amount of RAM to boot. Those listed limitations, in my limited opinion, are either to run in windows, or just a supported limit because of the non existence of 64MB modules as you have pointed out. If you know of some hardware limitation on why it would be impossible to run less than that just to boot, then feel free to explain, I'm always open to being educated on technical areas that I am not an expert in. Otherwise, it's ok to just say "i don't know"...i won't think less of you.

 

[boles]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Conscript
Can you point me in a direction as to where in the Intel or AMD white papers there's a minimum referenced memory allotment to boot, short of them just not offering support for them since they're really not in circulation anymore? I'm not a tech genius, but I can't think of any reason why any chipset wouldn't be able to boot with a minimal amount of ram, that wouldn't be bios based.

Well again, since 64MB DDR2/DDR3 modules do not and have never existed, nor do the chips to make them, that alone settles the matter definitively, don't you think?

But if you really want proof that a chipset can't support modules that do not exist, supposing for a moment we found ourselves in a parallel universe where they did exist:

Intel P965

The (G)MCH has a minimum total memory requirement of 256 MB.

The following configurations are not valid with the Intel 965 Express chipset family:
? 64-Mb and 128-Mb Memory Technologies for DDR2


Intel P35

System Memory Technology Supported
? Device Technology: 512 Mb and 1 Gb

sorry to say that i have to think that a MB manufacture could find a way to allow the memory controller to accept a smaller memory size than what current RAM manufacturers produce.

 

[SolMiester]

64k is more than enough.....!...LOL

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Conscript
Ok great, but since this is all hypothetical on an idea that came up from the OP... I don't know of any technical reason hardware wise why any chipset would need more than a very minimal amount of RAM to boot. Those listed limitations, in my limited opinion, are either to run in windows, or just a supported limit because of the non existence of 64MB modules as you have pointed out.

OK, let's back up:

"couldn't you just as easily buy your own cheap 64MB of RAM to keep as a backup?"

The chips don't even exist to create a 64MB DDR2/DDR3 module. Since you suggested purchasing a module size that doesn't exist, I suggested the next largest module that is both in existence and supported by most current chipsets.

What is your dealio with that, again?

Although the chips to create a 128MB DDR2 (but not DDR3) module do exist, I am not aware of any manufacturer producing 128MB DDR2 modules. And probably for good reason, since most current chipsets don't support them. This is a limitation designed into the memory controller logic for reasons of economy (i.e. unloading logic for obsolete technology). As newer chipsets are introduced with support for newer DRAM technologies, it is common practice to drop the logic required for the oldest-supported DRAM technology. e.g.

If one chipset generation supports 64Mb, 128Mb, 256Mb DRAM devices, the next chipset might add support for 512Mb while dropping support for 64Mb. So on and so forth. A higher rung is added while the bottom rung is removed.

When Intel says "not support" 128Mb or 256Mb DRAM devices, it doesn't mean "we don't think this is an adequate amount of memory so we're just going to tell you it isn't supported." It means "we done removed those transistors."

More better now?

 

[Conscript]

lol relax tcsenter, you're going to have an aneurysm. I already conceded it was foolish for me to say 64M module, I'm still living in the SDRAM days...but you poked on something that I was intrigued by, and that was the idea of a minimum amoutn of memory supported by a chipset. Alwasy the questions is how much...i never thought about it. And now that it came up, I was looking for an honest to goodness answer, and you seem to be taking it personal. So it's transistors in the chipset that dictate how much memory a chipset requires? I did not know that when it came it to a minimum amount. I would have just thought it was a motherboard limitation based on the bios instruction. Now i know...and knowing is half the battle. Now crack open a beer and relax...i didn't mean to get your panties in a ruffle.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Conscript
So it's transistors in the chipset that dictate how much memory a chipset requires? I did not know that when it came it to a minimum amount.

Better stated, the memory controller defines the upper and lower limits for supported memory configurations.

 

[boles]

tcsenter:

Question... if this cost 10 bucks for a 250+ board would you buy it for the idea that you wouldnt have issues?