11-17-2017 08:16 PM - edited 05-12-2018 09:23 AM
I'm pretty sure you need 1.5v
Also, I see little point in replacing the memory you already have, as the gains are negligible, including, surprisingly for most cases, dual channel. It could be a case of real world vs. theoretical, I can't say.
My alternate suggestion is to add oem equivalent 4 GB dimm(s) from Crucial or Kingston to what you have, then put the rest towards a SSD (like a 250 GB Samsung 850 Evo) for a much better performance bang for the buck.
11-18-2017 12:18 AM - edited 11-18-2017 12:20 AM
As said in your response: 1.35V recommended ram and the ram im interested says its 1.5V. Does that matter? Will it end up working?
As I mentioned previously, as is shown on the Crucial Memory site for the M92p tower as well as for the M92p SFF, both 1.35v and 1.5v memory sticks appear to be 100% guaranteed compatible. So either will work, including the 1.5v Corsair memory you'decided to buy.
Also, while you currently have 2 sticks of DDR3-1333 memory installed, the Crucial memory offerings show that faster DDR3-1600 and DDR3-1866 memory is also usable. In fact Crucial doesn't sell DDR3-1333 for the M92p, probably because nobody who is investing in a memory upgrade wants the slower memory any more.
What is important is that the "timings" of however many memory sticks you have installed should be the same. Ideally, optimally you use "matched pairs" (i.e. same size and same timings/speed) in the correct pairs of DIMM sockets: 2/4, and 1/3. Anything else will be less than optimal performance.
If you do the wrong thing and use a mix of slower and faster memory at the same time, the BIOS will just slow down the faster memory to match the speed of the slower memory. So there's obviously no point in buying selected pieces of additional faster memory and put them in your currently unused DIMM slots if you're also going to just leave your existing slower memory sticks also installed.
Honestly, if it were my machine, given the very good sale prices you found for the Corsair memory at Best Buy, I would do what we last discussed and I thought agreed to: remove your existing 1x4GB and 1x2GB = 6GB of DDR3-1333 memory, and replace it with those two matched sticks of Corsair DDR3-1600 memory: 2x8GB=16GB, installed in DIMM slots 2/4, to provide 16GB of dual-channel memory performance at DDR3-1600 speed.
05-11-2018 05:07 AM - edited 05-11-2018 05:08 AM
Just upgraded my RAM in my M92P SFF (3218). I used 2X8GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24 modules exactly like these (no advertising intended, just stating what I used) -> http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/bls8g3d1609ds1s00 in slots 2 & 4.
They worked absolutely fine @ 1600 Mhz from the first startup without any mods or issues, which kinda surprised me, in a most positive way, especially since the BIOS is the factory-stock version and actually a bit basic, not allowing for any sort of "tuning".
I have also moved to Slots 1 & 3 the "stock" 2X4GB 11-11-11-28 modules (RAM total = 24GB). My question is this: Do I leave them in, or are they slowing down the faster Crucial modules (they have slower CL times, 11 vs 9)? Currently I am running all 24 GB as described above.
Any help / advice would be most welcome
05-11-2018 02:09 PM
I'm quite sure the BIOS should slow down faster memory to match the slowest speed memory you have installed. So investing in faster memory for the final two slots doesn't buy you any performance gain if the original two slots hold slower memory.
And if you look at memory (say using CPUZ) it should show that your memory is running in dual-channel mode (slightly faster) vs. single-channel mode (slightly slower). You should investigate each "pair" of memory slots to see if they are running in dual-channel mode, which they will if those two are an equal pair of size/timings.
05-11-2018 02:43 PM
There is one pair of 9-9-9-24 memory (the brand new 2x8GB Crucial memory modules) and one pair of 11-11-11-28 memory (the "old" 2x4GB memory modules the PC was ftted with from the manufacturer).
So you are telling me in essence to take out the slower memory so as to gain the maximum possible speed advantage from the newer and faster memory, correct?
05-11-2018 06:37 PM
The M92p memory speed is rated as PC3-12800 1600Mhz DDR3. That's what the BIOS supports, and these business-oriented machines do not support overclocking.
Your Ballistix memory does match the PC3-12800 1600Mhz "speed" rating, but has somewhat superior latency as compared to the original Lenovo memory. So technically I don't think the older memory is actually "slower" so that the new memory will be "slowed down" to match the speed of the original memory. To be honest I don't know if the faster latency of the new memory will be slowed down to match the slower latency of the older memory.
Faster vs. slower is more typically referring to a situation say where you had DDR4-2133 vs. DDR4-2400, which genuinely is a speed mismatch. The machine will accept both, but if both are present the 2400 will be slowed down to 2133.
Also, if the BIOS is built to run at 2133 speeds, then even if you install only 2400 memory it will still not run at 2400 speed but will in fact run the 2400 memory at 2133 speed... which is all the BIOS can support if overclocking is not supported, which it isn't in theM92p.
Bottom online: I don't think you need to do anything. Just leave the 24GB as you have it.
05-12-2018 12:07 AM
Very interesting information you've provided me with, always love learning new stuff
Before I had a chance to read your message, I took out the older memory modules on my own, left only the new memory modules in, and guess what, it does indeed help with performance.
I did a number of tests - video rendering is noticeably faster (for a given video I needed 4:47 minutes with the 24GB setup, now it is complete in less than 4:22 minutes), so are defragmentation times, program opening / closing times, boot / restart times - everything is better. So I will be leaving my PC with the new memory only, since apparently it is better in every way.
Judging from the above, I deduce the BIOS does manage to fully utilise the 9-9-9-24 timings somehow, and it seems you were right in your pre-last message when saying the new memory timings were actually slowed down to match the timings of the older & slower memory.
Many thanks for all the information and help you have provided me with, I appreciate it a lot!