AN8 and dual channel...

CPU-Z says; 'Channels#: Dual'. Everest says I have 'Dual DDR400', and
Rightmark's utility thinks I have too.....yet Sandra, the fussy cow, says;
Channels: 1.

Is 'she' just being fussy? I have heard whisperings that there is only one
particular version of Sisoft Sandra to use with socket 939/AMD 64
systems....is this true? If so, anyone know which version that is exactly?

One last thing, I can't seem to see if the BIOS of the AN8 (v12) mentions if
you have successfully set up for dual channel or not. Most other brand mobos
mention it in the BIOS or the Post screen....am I missing it, or is this
info not there in Abit's AN8's case? I do have my matched pair of Geil Dual
Channel branded DDR400 512MB sticks in the first two slots (the matching
blue slots.....not in slots 1&3 or 2&4 like other mobos prefer their dual
channel RAM). My suspicions are that Sandra is wrong, not the three other
utilities....but Sandra is supposed to be the best there is. Also, bus width
is reported as 128bit in the other three - which would suggest I am in dual
channel mode. :\

Thanks for any help/replies.

My AN8 fatality says on boot screen, dual channel DDR400


"Slitheen" <> wrote in message
news:40Gde.5301$%...
> CPU-Z says; 'Channels#: Dual'. Everest says I have 'Dual DDR400', and
> Rightmark's utility thinks I have too.....yet Sandra, the fussy cow, says;
> Channels: 1.
>
> Is 'she' just being fussy? I have heard whisperings that there is only one
> particular version of Sisoft Sandra to use with socket 939/AMD 64
> systems....is this true? If so, anyone know which version that is exactly?
>
> One last thing, I can't seem to see if the BIOS of the AN8 (v12) mentions
> if you have successfully set up for dual channel or not. Most other brand
> mobos mention it in the BIOS or the Post screen....am I missing it, or is
> this info not there in Abit's AN8's case? I do have my matched pair of
> Geil Dual Channel branded DDR400 512MB sticks in the first two slots (the
> matching blue slots.....not in slots 1&3 or 2&4 like other mobos prefer
> their dual channel RAM). My suspicions are that Sandra is wrong, not the
> three other utilities....but Sandra is supposed to be the best there is.
> Also, bus width is reported as 128bit in the other three - which would
> suggest I am in dual channel mode. :\
>
> Thanks for any help/replies.
>

"Dazzer" <> wrote in message
news:Kq8ee.14512$...
> My AN8 fatality says on boot screen, dual channel DDR400
>
>

Is the boot screen the same as the post screen? If so, it goes by far too
quickly for me to read. Is there anyway I can pause on it or something?

Thanks

On Thu, 05 May 2005, "Slitheen" wrote:

>> "Dazzer" wrote
>> > My AN8 fatality says on boot screen, dual channel DDR400
>> >
>>
>> Is the boot screen the same as the post screen? If so, it goes by far too
>> quickly for me to read. Is there anyway I can pause on it or something?
>>
>> Thanks

Use the <del> or <f2> or whatever key to get into your BIOS menus, and
disable quick boot. That will cause the memory test to run a few times,
giving you the time to read the BIOS version.

Or get LOTS more memory so the quick scan takes enough time to read this
information...

"Brian Brunner" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005, "Slitheen" wrote:
>
>>> "Dazzer" wrote
>>> > My AN8 fatality says on boot screen, dual channel DDR400
>>> >
>>>
>>> Is the boot screen the same as the post screen? If so, it goes by far
>>> too
>>> quickly for me to read. Is there anyway I can pause on it or something?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>
> Use the <del> or <f2> or whatever key to get into your BIOS menus, and
> disable quick boot. That will cause the memory test to run a few times,
> giving you the time to read the BIOS version.

Cheers for the tip. I'll try it out next time I restart.

>
> Or get LOTS more memory so the quick scan takes enough time to read this
> information...
>

Lots more memory? I think 1024MB of good quality, low latency, high speed
Geil DDR400 dual channel RAM is by far and away enough...don't you?
Personally, I think that anyone who has more than that installed and is not
doing seriously demanding video editing, or working professionally with
Photoshop etc - and who is only really gaming and doing other fairly
standard stuff, is going after the bragging rights. They are certainly not
utilizing all of it anyway!

I've been told off a fair few 'techies' that the old adage of; "you can
never have too much memory" is actually a fairly big untruth. I read an
interesting thread on a forum the other week where this was discussed -
several thread contributors were comparing benchmarks, and one guy put it to
the test. Sandra gave him better results with a gig of memory than with 2
gig. He couldn't quite get his head around it...and neither could I - but
then it was pointed out by other contributors that having too much memory is
actually doing you no favours. I'm sure many will choose not to believe it
though. I personally think it makes sense. I have also witnessed a system
act poorly when 2GB was installed - the memory was tested and good quality.
This was a friend of mine who has a degree in computing and I.T - his job is
to maintain (and install where necessary) the vast network of computers for
Manchester city council...he really does know his **** (it was fairly early
days when he tried the 2GB of ram thing). He has since come to a firm
conclusion that each system, depending on what it's mainly used for, and
other hardware factors, has a 'happy level' when it comes to RAM. The
perfect amount of RAM for *a* particular system. He would surely tell you
that 2GB, or basically more than 1GB, for my own personal requirements,
would be overkill, unnecessary and waste of money. Who am I to argue with
him? He knows far, far more than I do on the subject of PC's and hardware.


Regards.

On Thu, 05 May 2005, "Slitheen" wrote:

>>
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote

>> > Use the <del> or <f2> or whatever key to get into your BIOS menus, and
>> > disable quick boot. That will cause the memory test to run a few times,
>> > giving you the time to read the BIOS version.
>>
>> Cheers for the tip. I'll try it out next time I restart.

Hope it works out.

>>
>> >
>> > Or get LOTS more memory so the quick scan takes enough time to read this
>> > information...
>> >
>>
>> Lots more memory? I think 1024MB

That was a joke... having so much RAM that the quick boot was slow
enough to read the BIOS data... that's a silly reason to get more RAM.

"Brian Brunner" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> That was a joke... having so much RAM that the quick boot was slow
> enough to read the BIOS data... that's a silly reason to get more RAM.
>
>

Derrr. My mistake, of course it was. Hangs head in shame.