Is my RAM faulty, or am I at fault?

ChumpusRex · 17 May 2007 at 22:53

Geil PC6400 CL4 2GB kit
Asus P5B-D

Memtest86 (MT86) and Windows Memory Diagnostic (WMD) show a specific error when this memory is tested - it's something like:
Address: A814560 Bit-error:02000000

Regardless, both programs find the exact same error, every time they are run.

The RAM has been tested as single sticks, and the problem has been located to 1 stick (which shows the same error, except at an address value half of that when used in pairs).

The RAM has been tested at 'stock' speed PC6400 CL4, as well as 'safe' PC5400 CL4.

It has been tested at recommended voltage of 2.1V, and after discussion with Geil Tech support, I have also tested at 2.25V. Same error, every time.

I have tested the RAM in 2 motherboards (both Asus P5B-D). Same error every time.

Both motherboards have been tested with another Geil Kit (same part number) and with Crucial ballistix RAM - no errors.

The RAM has been RMAd twice. Both times it has been returned 'no fault found'.

What can I do?

Big.Wayne · 18 May 2007 at 01:08

ChumpusRex said:
Both motherboards have been tested with another Geil Kit (same part number) and with Crucial ballistix RAM - no errors

Hmmm . . . .

Are you configuring the memory manually in BIOS?

Like timings and stuff or is it on Auto or semi Auto?

Could that single stick have an incorrectly programmed SPD Value? :confused:

ChumpusRex · 18 May 2007 at 07:23

Big.Wayne said:
Hmmm . . . .

Are you configuring the memory manually in BIOS?

Like timings and stuff or is it on Auto or semi Auto?

Could that single stick have an incorrectly programmed SPD Value?

I've tried both auto and manual configuration.

I'm aware of the SPD issues. However, CPUZ suggests that the SPD is correctly programmed.

WJA96 · 18 May 2007 at 08:10

OK - the first thing to do is avoid mentioning the names of any particular retailers. That way we're not breaking any forum rules and advice can be given freely without fear of getting banned or the thread deleted.

Sensibly, I think you might have to chalk it up to experience. You say the stick is faulty - the retailer says it's not. I'm going to throw out a wild assumption here and say that you've now paid out twice for your RAM to be tested and returned to you? That's probably approaching 50% the cost of the RAM. If you were charged for a test report then send the retailer a communication (something like the OcUK webnote system) and insist on copies of both test reports. If no test reports exist, then ask for a list of tests carried out and for the name of the technician who carried them out, what his or her qualifications are and whether the possibility of an intermittent fault was investigated. You need this in writing because this is what you're going to hang the retailer with subsequently.

The next thing to do is to call Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06 and chat it through with them. Make sure you tell them that you have sent it back twice. If you have been charged for testing make sure you point out that you have not received any evidence a test was carried out. They will basically hold your hand through writing a legalese letter to get the retailer to respond a bit more positively.

If the retailer doesn't respond better at this stage then you could go for bust and get an independent report done on the RAM by a University IT department then start proceedings against the retailer in the small claims court for the costs of the RAM, the testing, the postage, your time and any other costs incurred.

Sadly, many retailers now just seem to want your cash and they appear to believe that once the stuff is out the door their job is done.

ChumpusRex · 19 May 2007 at 15:49

Thanks.

It's not really what I wanted to hear, but I think the pragmatic approach is just to chalk it up to experience.

The problem is that I don't really know whether the RAM is faulty or not. Every test that I can run suggests that it is - but if it somehow passes when tested by the retailer (and I do have full test reports, with names of tester and description of the tests performed) then maybe it's a compatability problem, not a true fault. (I'm not the only one having similar problems with similar equipment)

Of course, if it is a compatability problem, then that opens a whole new can of worms - as I bought the RAM and Mobos together as kits.

I suppose I could try contacting Geil again, and asking if they'd RMA direct to the factory - after all, it was Geil who actually told me to RMA it back to the retailer.

However, my financial loss is only about £150 - however, I've spent so long supervising tests and had several weeks without my PC due to it either being without RAM or running tests - that I really don't want to spend any more time or money on this issue.

I'd like to ditch the RAM on ebay - but i can't honstly say that it works, so there goes that idea.

WJA96 · 19 May 2007 at 16:11

Stick it on MM on a sale or return basis. If it works for the buyer, then they pay - if it doesn't then you split the shipping charges. Someone will take it, I'm certain.

Gethzemane · 21 May 2007 at 07:29

ChumpusRex said:
What can I do?

reads to me like you've unfortunately got faulty/unstable ram, its crashing your machine and both memtest and wmd show errors. After two unsatisfactory attempts at trying to resolve your issue via returns, my advice would be to pen a recorded delivery letter to the ocuk MD (give your local trading standards a call they will help you with the structure of the letter and advise you on your legal rights)

best of luck

WJA96 · 26 May 2007 at 22:30

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9402110&postcount=4

Gethzemane · 27 May 2007 at 19:03

like i said, contact your local trading standards, pays to know and understand The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) 11 weeks would seem to fall outside of the amended 3) Repair or replacement section with regards to reasonable time unless your happy to wait that long of course.

WJA96 · 27 May 2007 at 19:15

Gethzemane said:
like i said contact your local trading standards, pays to know and understand The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) 11 weeks falls outside of the amended 3) Repair or replacement section

No-one was ever disputing that his legal rights were infringed - rather, your Weslian tales clearly implied that the retailer would do the right thing. Lots of retailers don't do the right thing and they generally seem to get away with it.

Certainly, you can file a suit in the Small Claims Court after your letter is ignored, but you have still been without your RAM/Graphics Card/Motherboard/Insert component here for 8 weeks plus and the chances are you've just gone out and bought a new one, so the replacement still results in a loss because you can never sell the RMA replacement for what you paid for the replacement you bought.

What you say is quite clearly correct legally, however too many retailers would rather exploit the weakness of the consumer protection act and the only real recourse we have as consumers is to take our business elsewhere.

As for being added to Gethzemane ignore list, I'm sorry that he feels that way, and nothing I say now will be visible to him anyway. I'm very sorry if I offended you, it wasn't intentional.

Gethzemane · 29 May 2007 at 20:34

you've still got your nose (ego) bent out of place because i had something positive to say about ocuk returns department i see, or is it just because someone dared to disagree with your point of view!? either way your continued childish behaviour has found its way to my ignore list (the first person in 5 years) congratulations to you.

ignored.