Overclock.net banner

Can AMD 1055T take 8 Gb sticks ?

10K views 37 replies 12 participants last post by  sumitlian 
#1 ·
Simple question to which I did not spot an answer after short googling - can AMD Phenom II CPU in AM3 socket work with 32 Gb of RAM (4x 8 Gb).

The CPU and Mobo are at the sig rig. I have 16 Gb (and do stuff that uses that RAM actually) and are wondering if I can extend the life of my current setup for a little while more my upgrading RAM or its not an option on AM3/AM3+ platform and I would need to go either Opteron or Intel for more RAM ? I'm not particulaly keen on either bcos of the cost and Opteron does not overclock (bcos the motherboards lack the OC features).

As far as I understand the RAM is directly connected to memory controller which is part of CPU so I guess the question is if AMD current gen CPU memory controllers can handle non ECC non registered 8 Gb RAM sticks.

The RAM sticks in question are Corsair DDR3 PC-12800 1600MHz 8GB CL10 (10-10-10-27) Vengeance 1x8Gb.
 
#2 ·
Memory - Maximum Memory:
16 GB 1866 MHz Dual Channel DDR3

That is the max for your sig rig board.

Easiest way to determine maximum slot size is take Max and divide by number of slots.

So 16GB Divided by 4 Slots = Max slot size of 4GB sticks.

If you wanted more ram you need a new Rig Mobo (terrible Typo sorry).

sorry
-Nitro
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Carniflex
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNarcosis View Post

Memory - Maximum Memory:
16 GB 1866 MHz Dual Channel DDR3
That is the max for your sig rig board.
It should not depend on board but on AMD CPU memory controller. Or is there some chips between the DIMM sockets and the CPU ? There are none on block diagrams but these are ofc very simplified.

Has anyone tried to use 8 Gb sticks with AMD CPU ? Surely someone must have at least attempted to use such configuration?
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNarcosis View Post

Memory - Maximum Memory:
16 GB 1866 MHz Dual Channel DDR3
That is the max for your sig rig board.
This.
The CPU controls the RAM, but the Motherboard has to be able to recognize it first.

Yes, the 1055 can handle 8GB sticks, but you will max out your motherboard at 2 8GB sticks.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Carniflex
#6 ·
It seems that 4x 8Gb requires 900 series chip-set now that I digged through gigabyte offerings for AM3+ socket.

So if I want 32 Gb I would have to upgrade my motherboard. Will have to think about it. If I have to replace the motherboard anyway then might as well go all the way to LGA2011 now that there is "cheap" 4 core available for that. Would be able to get all the way to 64 Gb with relatively cheap non-ECC non-registered RAM. Would lose 2 cores tho against 4 "virtual" cores.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniflex View Post

It seems that 4x 8Gb requires 900 series chip-set now that I digged through gigabyte offerings for AM3+ socket.
So if I want 32 Gb I would have to upgrade my motherboard. Will have to think about it. If I have to replace the motherboard anyway then might as well go all the way to LGA2011 now that there is "cheap" 4 core available for that. Would be able to get all the way to 64 Gb with relatively cheap non-ECC non-registered RAM. Would lose 2 cores tho against 4 "virtual" cores.
Well, why do you need that much memory?
6-8GB is ideal for gaming right now.
I run a few VMs, do heavy programming, and multitask like mad on my 8GB and have room to spare.
16GB is basically only usable if you run VMs or other VERY heavy use tasks..

Going to 2011 is worth it from AM3.
The performance increase would be MASSIVE, and even though the second thread on a Hyper Threaded core is only about .5 cores in actual performance, the die shrink, and the fact that its Intel will give you a huge win over any AMD offering.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilWrir View Post

Well, why do you need that much memory?
6-8GB is ideal for gaming right now.
I run a few VMs, do heavy programming, and multitask like mad on my 8GB and have room to spare.
16GB is basically only usable if you run VMs or other VERY heavy use tasks..
Going to 2011 is worth it from AM3.
The performance increase would be MASSIVE, and even though the second thread on a Hyper Threaded core is only about .5 cores in actual performance, the die shrink, and the fact that its Intel will give you a huge win over any AMD offering.
I run numerical simulations (basically just systems of nonlinear partial differential equations describing some solid materials with micro-structure) on the same machine as its basically a work machine as well. It's in LAN chassis so I carry it with me to work daily (not a big problem with car). My employer has provided me a pretty reasonably specced laptop as well for work stuff but as my own machine (being a desktop and all that) is more powerful then I prefer to use this. Unfortunately, as my employer is on public funding, the budget is not particularly flexible as far as upgrades go. At least for the current year until exonomy starts recovering more and more taxpayer money is funneled this way
wink.gif
Have access also to Linux cluster but as its several years old the nodes (2xxx series Opterons) have only 4 Gb of RAM. Some of the stuff I do is pretty RAM heavy and when I run out of RAM the stuff gets rather slow. Even when the page-file is on SSD.

So its basically Python, MatLAB (just for making pretty pictures and some data analysys) and Mathematica that are capable from time to time to run out of RAM with 16 Gb. TBH I get by with 16 Gb as well - its just the more RAM I have the bigger (or more accurately) I can calculate.

For gaming - yeah - 8 Gb would be plenty for now and 16 Gb should be fine for at least few years into future even if 64 bit games start to emerge.

The LGA2011 looks tempting, but its also pretty expensive. I have also looked into G34 socket opterons as G34 platform is approx the same price as LGA2011 and has even higher RAM capability but it has some other downsides for me - like SSE EEB size motherboards (making carrying one with me more inconvenient as I would need poratble full tower, like CM Cosmos 2) and general lack of overclocking options (being the server platform). Parts of my code are easy to make parallel (FFT mostly) but some chunks are very much single threaded.

So in a nutshell I'll have to consider it from bang-for buck perspective. A 900 series motherboard would be approx 75 euros (+ approx 250 for 32 Gb RAM) around here while, LGA 2011 upgrade is approx 500 (mobo, CPU, cooler + 4 more 4 Gb sticks for total of 32 Gb of RAM) and a lot better single threaded performance.
 
#9 ·
A very good reason, in deed!
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniflex View Post

I run numerical simulations (basically just systems of nonlinear partial differential equations describing some solid materials with micro-structure) on the same machine as its basically a work machine as well. It's in LAN chassis so I carry it with me to work daily (not a big problem with car). My employer has provided me a pretty reasonably specced laptop as well for work stuff but as my own machine (being a desktop and all that) is more powerful then I prefer to use this. Unfortunately, as my employer is on public funding, the budget is not particularly flexible as far as upgrades go. At least for the current year until exonomy starts recovering more and more taxpayer money is funneled this way
wink.gif
Have access also to Linux cluster but as its several years old the nodes (2xxx series Opterons) have only 4 Gb of RAM. Some of the stuff I do is pretty RAM heavy and when I run out of RAM the stuff gets rather slow. Even when the page-file is on SSD.
So its basically Python, MatLAB (just for making pretty pictures and some data analysys) and Mathematica that are capable from time to time to run out of RAM with 16 Gb. TBH I get by with 16 Gb as well - its just the more RAM I have the bigger (or more accurately) I can calculate.
For gaming - yeah - 8 Gb would be plenty for now and 16 Gb should be fine for at least few years into future even if 64 bit games start to emerge.
The LGA2011 looks tempting, but its also pretty expensive. I have also looked into G34 socket opterons as G34 platform is approx the same price as LGA2011 and has even higher RAM capability but it has some other downsides for me - like SSE EEB size motherboards (making carrying one with me more inconvenient as I would need poratble full tower, like CM Cosmos 2) and general lack of overclocking options (being the server platform). Parts of my code are easy to make parallel (FFT mostly) but some chunks are very much single threaded.
So in a nutshell I'll have to consider it from bang-for buck perspective. A 900 series motherboard would be approx 75 euros (+ approx 250 for 32 Gb RAM) around here while, LGA 2011 upgrade is approx 500 (mobo, CPU, cooler + 4 more 4 Gb sticks for total of 32 Gb of RAM) and a lot better single threaded performance.
I just finished up some work for the local university astronomy department revising the code and formulas for some AstroPhysics simulators, and I wish I had more memory in my rig for testing it.
8GB was pitifully choppy.
When you have to treat empty space as a high density fluid with a viscosity of 0, and have stupid amounts of particles to make sure the sim operates properly, RAM gets eaten up fast.

If funding is an issue for the time being, I would say if you can get a 990 Board and transfer everything over to that platform so you can add more memory by all means do so.
G34 is an option, but like you said, while it offers stability and huge multi threading performance, you lose Overclocking and single thread compared to 2011.
 
#11 ·
I stumbled upon 700 chip-set motherboard that seems to claim memory support on AM3 socket for up to 32 Gb of RAM (with asterix how they have not tested it) http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?DetailID=957&CategoryID=1&MenuID=19&LanID=0

So if this is true then apparently one might not need 900 series chip set for 32 Gb RAM support. I guess I could just order myself pair of 8 Gb modules and test it on my existing motherboard. To see if the 4 Gb sticks are still accessible once I plug in the pair of 8 Gb sticks or there is a problem with the setup due to BIOS going nuts with that amount of RAM plugged in.

Considering that exactly the same CPU can support 32 Gb RAM on 900 series motherboards then the memory controller should be capable of supporting such amount. I'll think about it for a bit and if I decide to go for it I'll let you guys know how it went.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD4ME View Post

Your mobo maker should be able to confirm if the mobo can use an 8 GB. DIMM. It may not support 8 GB. DIMMs or require a BIOS update.
I have tried getting answer to that question for Gigabyte for two different 8xx chipset motherboards I have but they keep answering in a very generic way how they are not tested it and I should test the modules before buying them. However they do not come out and outright say it does not work either.

As my disposable income was tied up for now in other stuff (got custom loop that drained me to zero for couple of months and then needed to upgrade GFX card) I did not get around to poke at this larger than 16Gb on 1055T for a while. However, I ordered today 4x 8gb sticks and I guess we will see if they work. If not then I will need to upgrade the motherboard, I guess.
 
#14 ·
GIGABYTE rated the RAM size specification on the board before 8GB DIMMs existed in the consumer memory market. This is a slightly older board they do not manufacture anymore so I'm not surprised they're having you test it and not themselves. With the actual memory controller on the CPU and the board having little or nothing to do with memory support in today's computer platforms, I doubt you will have any actual trouble with 8GB DIMMs regardless of your board specific. AMD has never stated a limit to amount of RAM you can install. At worst, the board BIOS might not be able to address (i.e. recognize) more than 16GB of RAM.

Good luck!
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomfix View Post

Why didn't you just built a Opteron system instead?
Mainly cost. Opterons dont support 8 Gb UDIMM's and RDIMM's cost arm n leg. As most people in the world I'm on limited budget so I have to make the best use of what I have. The mobo+CPU's alone are not that much over the desktop system price but the other components kinda add up. Also I kinda need the single threaded performance as well and Opterons dont OC more than +10% without BIOS hacks so getting an Opteron with sufficiently high base frequency would get very expensive to the point it might even make more sense to just beeline straight to LGA2011 platform.

ATM I'm just mainly trying to extend the life of stuff of what I have atm. I can get by with 1055T @ 4 GHz for a while more I just really would like to have some more RAM. Perhaps next year the budget is better and I can get something stronger.
 
#21 ·
If your main concern is to have more ram, Just sell your current board and RAMs and buy Gigabyte 970A UD3. It is only $107 in amazon. As It officially supports up to 32GB. And buy a pair of any low latency CL7 or CL8 1600MHz RAM. Reviews have shown most newer boards with Thuban CPU are able to run memory at 1600-1900Mhz with all four slots filled. It would be great if you could do 1600MHz at 6-8-6-20-1T with CPU-NB frequency at 3000MHz.. Then I believe you can say you are making the best use of what you have.
 
#22 ·
1055T can take 8 Gb sticks (for total of 32 Gb of RAM) even on 800 series motherboards. In this particular case Gigabyte GA-870A-USB3 (which, technically is an AM3+ board with black socket and UEFI, however max officially supported memory amount is 16 Gb).

As I just plugged em in then atm everything is on stock settings but I will see soon if I'm able to push the CPU back to 4 GHz and NB to 2.8 GHz with the new sticks. The modules in question are 4x A-Data 8Gb PC-10600 ones.

 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilWrir View Post

This.
The CPU controls the RAM, but the Motherboard has to be able to recognize it first.
Yes, the 1055 can handle 8GB sticks, but you will max out your motherboard at 2 8GB sticks.
The majority of boards I've used are limited by the platform's memory controller with regards to memory density, irrespective of manufacturer's claims.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

The majority of boards I've used are limited by the platform's memory controller with regards to memory density, irrespective of manufacturer's claims.
Yes that would be the logical thing, unless MB maker goes out of its way and bothers to add some kind of stuff between CPU mem controller and MB mem socket that hinders the ability. However, when I googled for it it seemed I'm the only one in the internet who is wondering if a 1055T + older MB can take 32 Gb of RAM so that's why I asked it. The sticks are still expensive enough to not just want to buy couple and find out it does not work like that for some reason.

The 8Gb stiks themselves are relatively picky it seems. I get overclock failed message even at stock settings although the windows boots up fine after a "resetting back to stock settings" and pushing em even a little bit over SPD results in same even at 1.6V. With some additional volts on CPU-NB and RAM, however, these modules behave a bit more reasonably. Atm it seems that twice the RAM amount cost me approx 85 MHz in CPU OC and about 80 MHz in NB OC with stable values of approx 3.92 GHz for CPU and 2.8 GHz for HT link. A sacrifice I'm willing to do as the extra 16 Gb of RAM will do for me more than 85 MHz of CPU speed under my usage patterns
smile.gif



Nothing stellar even for AMD platform, but it gets the job done.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniflex View Post

Yes that would be the logical thing, unless MB maker goes out of its way and bothers to add some kind of stuff between CPU mem controller and MB mem socket that hinders the ability. However, when I googled for it it seemed I'm the only one in the internet who is wondering if a 1055T + older MB can take 32 Gb of RAM so that's why I asked it. The sticks are still expensive enough to not just want to buy couple and find out it does not work like that for some reason.
The 8Gb stiks themselves are relatively picky it seems. I get overclock failed message even at stock settings although the windows boots up fine after a "resetting back to stock settings" and pushing em even a little bit over SPD results in same even at 1.6V. With some additional volts on CPU-NB and RAM, however, these modules behave a bit more reasonably. Atm it seems that twice the RAM amount cost me approx 85 MHz in CPU OC and about 80 MHz in NB OC with stable values of approx 3.92 GHz for CPU and 2.8 GHz for HT link. A sacrifice I'm willing to do as the extra 16 Gb of RAM will do for me more than 85 MHz of CPU speed under my usage patterns
smile.gif


Nothing stellar even for AMD platform, but it gets the job done.
Good Job
smile.gif
Usually most boards do not support more memory than what their BIOS(official support) don't allow. Did you try 1492MHz (280 x 5.33) instead of 1120. I think you would be able to make it stable at those timings. I have ADATA 2x4GB DDR3 1333 CL9 and they remain perfectly stable at 1492MHz at 8-8-8-24-1T at 1.655v. This may give you some extra bandwidth.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitlian View Post

Good Job
smile.gif
Usually most boards do not support more memory than what their BIOS(official support) don't allow. Did you try 1492MHz (280 x 5.33) instead of 1120. I think you would be able to make it stable at those timings. I have ADATA 2x4GB DDR3 1333 CL9 and they remain perfectly stable at 1492MHz at 8-8-8-24-1T at 1.655v. This may give you some extra bandwidth.
Thanx. I have not tried higher frequencies yet (well other than stock settings ofc) but I will see about that a bit later. I'm mainly aiming at as low latency as I can get although extra bandwidth will not hurt either certainly so if the sticks end up being capable of doing that then that's certainly good to have.

This particular set of memory modules I currently have is so far the most moody one I have encountered (mostly 2 gb and 4gb sticks in my past as this is the first 8 gb module set I have) with quite high sensitivity stability wise towards minor changes in the timings. Perhaps its normal for 8 Gb modules - if so then getting higher grade kit would be actually sensible investment (not planning to start switching out mine atm ofc, but in general). In the past I have usually just beelined straight to some valueRAM set and overclocked these to some sort of sensible numbers.

RAM overclocking is in my experience usually even more time consuming that getting CPU to some good spot (and gains in application performance, to be honest, are somewhat modest usually). I usually get CPU to somewhere reasonable in a day or so but RAM tends to take several days for me (and I'm atm a bit tight on time) as its a bit harder in my opinion to control stability when you are getting close to limits, i.e., it does not outright crash on windows entry but is still capable of causing blue screens every once in a while.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top