which ram would you use

i looked at the fans speed of gpu on hwmonitor and say more or less the same, is that bad to leave that way

Robhalfordfan wrote:

which ram would you use

i looked at the fans speed of gpu on hwmonitor and say more or less the same, is that bad to leave that way

I would try and get a matched pair of 2 x 2GB PC2-6400 or PC2-8500 for a sensible price. For now I would use the 3 x 5DHX DIMMs.

I suspect hwmonitor uses the same NVAPI calls to read the GPU fan speed as SIV does which is why it also gets the impossible value. Without knowing the root cause of the reading I am unsure what to recommend and I am wondering, do all GTX 580s report strange fan speeds on XP with the 368.81 driver? I don't have a GTX 580 so I can't check, but when I checked with GTX 680s all the fan speeds were as expected.

It may be worth starting a new thread asking about what others get reported for a GTX 580 with the 368.81 drivers on Windows XP. I would include screen shots at least three utilities reporting the impossible speed.

Robhalfordfan wrote:

which ram would you use

I would use the 1.8v cas5 dimms for now and look for same to upgrade to 4GB later, paying particular attention to the exact model, volts and timing.

i thought that and have found a couple more, where label on each stick says exactly the same as the 1.8v cas5 sticks

red-ray wrote:

I would try and get a matched pair of 2 x 2GB PC2-6400 or PC2-8500 for a sensible price. For now I would use the 3 x 5DHX DIMMs. […]
Show full quote

Robhalfordfan wrote:

which ram would you use

i looked at the fans speed of gpu on hwmonitor and say more or less the same, is that bad to leave that way

I would try and get a matched pair of 2 x 2GB PC2-6400 or PC2-8500 for a sensible price. For now I would use the 3 x 5DHX DIMMs.

I suspect hwmonitor uses the same NVAPI calls to read the GPU fan speed as SIV does which is why it also gets the impossible value. Without knowing the root cause of the reading I am unsure what to recommend and I am wondering, do all GTX 580s report strange fan speeds on XP with the 368.81 driver? I don't have a GTX 580 so I can't check, but when I checked with GTX 680s all the fan speeds were as expected.

It may be worth starting a new thread asking about what others get reported for a GTX 580 with the 368.81 drivers on Windows XP. I would include screen shots at least three utilities reporting the impossible speed.

i can use screenshots from hwmonitor and SIV but what other good program is there

i can see once i get vista up and running and see if it reports the same gpu fan speed and see if just xp etc

Robhalfordfan wrote:

i can use screenshots from hwmonitor and SIV but what other good program is there

i can see once i get vista up and running and see if it reports the same gpu fan speed and see if just xp etc

I would use HWiNFO as I know it should correctly interlock access to the motherboard sensors with both HWM + SIV.

Which Vista, x32 or x64? Vista x64 does not support SHA2 signed drivers so is best avoided and I would suggest either Vista x32 or W7 x64. I have W7 x64 on my Intel DX48BT2 + Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Yorkfield) system and it works well, I suspect probably better than either Vista would. Given it was released on 22-Jul-2009 it's quite retro and will go EOL on 31-Jan-2020.

red-ray wrote:

Robhalfordfan wrote:

i can use screenshots from hwmonitor and SIV but what other good program is there

i can see once i get vista up and running and see if it reports the same gpu fan speed and see if just xp etc

I would use HWiNFO as I know it should correctly interlock access to the motherboard sensors with both HWM + SIV.

Which Vista, x32 or x64? Vista x64 does not support SHA2 signed drivers so is best avoided and I would suggest either Vista x32 or W7 x64. I have W7 x64 on my Intel DX48BT2 + Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Yorkfield) system and it works well, I suspect probably better than either Vista would. Given it was released on 22-Jul-2009 it's quite retro and will go EOL on 31-Jan-2020.

vista x32 and will be triple booting with win 7 x64 at a later date before end of jan 2020 hopefully

red-ray wrote:

Which Vista, x32 or x64? Vista x64 does not support SHA2 signed drivers so is best avoided and I would suggest either Vista x32 or W7 x64. I have W7 x64 on my Intel DX48BT2 + Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Yorkfield) system and it works well, I suspect probably better than either Vista would.

I think it supports it after you install this patch, but what on earth would one need SHA2 drivers for on a 11-year old Core 2 system?

I wouldn't expect any differences in performance of hardware compatibility between Vista x64 and Win7 x64 on this hardware, but Win7 has much better software support at this point.

dr_st wrote:

I think it supports it after you install this patch, but what on earth would one need SHA2 drivers for on a 11-year old Core 2 system?

I wouldn't expect any differences in performance of hardware compatibility between Vista x64 and Win7 x64 on this hardware, but Win7 has much better software support at this point.

Thank you, it does not actually list Vista as supported and thought it would not install. Given Vista and 2008 R1 Server use the same kernel I felt I would try it and as you should see below it worked 😅

All the utilities such as AIDA64 + CPUZ + HWiNFO + SIV + … have had to have SHA2 signed drivers for at least 4 years and as by default Enforcement of kernel mode Code Integrity is enabled they can't use their latest drivers so it should be pretty obvious why SHA2 driver support is needed, especially so given this is the General Old Hardware forum.

When I updated my 4GB Core 2 laptop in 2009 to W7 x64 from Vista x64 I recall it being faster. I also can't find a GTX 1050 driver for Vista x64 or 2008 R1 x64 Server which I suspect colours my views about Vista x64.

found these ram to match the ones i am using at moment - information is the same timings,voltage and version numbers expect for the numbers at the end under the bar code - would that matter

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RAM-DDR2-2x1Gb-2Gb … op/173843326862

i also found others from europe (which would cheaper overall for me) with same timings and voltage but the version number and again number the end under the bar code are different - not sure of the version number makes any different

attached image of what i have

Version is the most crucial point for compatibility (even before frequency/timings/voltage I would say).

It indicates what memory chips were used during assembly of the DIMM (in Corsair's case).
Why it's important ?
Because sometimes, memory IC supplier changes, which usually involves changing memory parameters along with it. In extreme cases, newer versions of the same DIMM may not work with older ones (on default settings they won't be stable, after setting everything manually it should work).

In Your case : End of the barcode stuff is basicly date/month of manufacture (sometimes with place/factory), along with some specific number to ID this exact module/kit.
Nothing to worry about.

PS. You can check GPU's Fan speed in MSI Afterburner or GPU-z as well.

agent_x007 wrote:

Version is the most crucial point for compatibility (even before frequency/timings/voltage I would say). […]
Show full quote

Version is the most crucial point for compatibility (even before frequency/timings/voltage I would say).

It indicates what memory chips were used during assembly of the DIMM (in Corsair's case).
Why it's important ?
Because sometimes, memory IC supplier changes, which usually involves changing memory parameters along with it. In extreme cases, newer versions of the same DIMM may not work with older ones.

End of the barcode stuff is basicly date/month of manufacture (sometimes with place/factory), along with some specific number to ID this exact module/kit.

ok so as along as the model, timings, voltage and version number are the same the rest doesn't matter

In Your case, Yes.

ok thank you wasn't sure as finding more sticks with exactly the same numbers etc on the label isn't easy as i thought