# Great new memory stability tester; Ram Test.



## CptKuolio

Hi,

I am not the creator of this program, nor do I work with the company releasing it. I've been and I am part of the community from where this software originates.

Been wanting to share this program with a larger crowd for long, but it has been in a semi-closed alpha until now.

Let me present you Ram Test, a simple memory testing utility that is both very effective and accurate (finds errors better then i.e. HCI Memtest) and also very very fast. About 15 times faster then HCI memtest.



The program is made by Karhusoftware, a one man project from Finland. The program was born after the creator, Mustanaamio, got frustrated with how long it took to bench his memory configs with his Ryzen build last summer. He got pissed of enough to actually write his own memory tester, and it has been quite popular in finnish overclocker/computer enthusiast scene since. Mustanaamio sold licenses to Ram Test at io-tech.fi forums when the program was in alpha/beta, and has now released it 'to the wild'.

There is a large community behind this project at https://bbs.io-tech.fi/.

I rate Ram Test as the best memory testing utlity at this time, bar from using linux-mint and google's memorybench. But out of standalone utilities/programs in windows this is by far the most accurate, thorough and FAST. I repeat; about 15 times faster then HCI memtest. And no need to launch multiple instaces of the program! I can push 703% coverage on 12288 megabyte memory-run in 10 minutes, when HCI memtest only does ~45% covera in same time. HUUUUUUGE! Check my video, I show you the two of them against each other







You can skip to 12:00 mark to see how they compare, the beginning of the video is pretty much just showing of the program, and telling some tales about it's origins.




*edit*

A friend aproaced me saying that I should have ran 12 instances of HCI memtest, one per CPU-thread available. So I did a re-test, and the result is the same as the original:




*/edit*

Get it from here, 9.99 euros / lifetime license:

https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/
Quote:


> RAM TEST README
> 
> RAM Test is a fast and reliable memory testing software with a graphical user
> interface. It can be used to test your system memory for hardware faults or an
> unstable overclock.
> 
> The software supports up to 8 TB of memory on a 64-bit machine and up to 2 GB
> of memory on a 32-bit machine. The testing algorithm scales for up to 64
> threads and has optimized code paths for AVX and AVX2 capable processors.
> 
> 1. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
> 
> Your system must meet the following requirements to be able to run RAM Test:
> 
> * Microsoft Windows 7 or later (supports both 32-bit and 64-bit versions)
> * Microsoft .NET Framework 4.5 or later
> * A CPU with full SSE2 support
> * An internet connection during activation
> 
> 2. INSTALLATION
> 
> RAM Test is a portable software and does not come with an installer. To get
> the software up and running, follow the steps below:
> 
> 1. Unzip the files to any folder in which your user account has full
> permissions
> 2. Run ramtest.exe
> 3. Activate your license with the product key
> 4. Start testing
> 
> It is possible to "install" the software on a USB flash drive.
> 
> 3. SETTINGS
> 
> Megabytes:
> 
> The amount of memory to test in megabytes.
> 
> If you have the paging file enabled and you use too large value, the test
> may progress very slowly due to the operating system having to cycle pages
> through your SSD/HDD.
> 
> Threads:
> 
> The number of threads to use for testing.
> 
> Optimal performance is achieved by specifying a value equal to the
> number of processor cores in your system.
> 
> Beep on error:
> 
> Play a beep sound when a memory error is detected.
> 
> Stop on error:
> 
> Automatically stop testing when a memory error is detected.
> 
> Telemetry:
> 
> Allow the collection of the following additional personal and/or
> anonymized data each time a test is finished:
> 
> * RAM Test version
> * RAM Test platform (x64 or x86)
> * Value of the megabytes setting
> * Value of the threads setting
> * Motherboard make and model
> * Processor make and model
> * Memory make and model
> * Test duration
> * Test coverage
> * Test error count
> 
> 4. HOW TO USE
> 
> Configure the settings to your preference in the graphical user interface and
> click the start button to begin testing. To stop testing, just click the same
> button again.
> 
> It is recommended to run the test for at least 10 minutes before drawing any
> conclusions about the stability of your system memory. To detect intermittent
> memory errors you should let the test run for at least one hour.
> 
> 5. CHANGELOG
> 
> 1.0.0.0 (20.12.2017):
> + Initial release
> 
> 6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
> 
> Unstable or faulty memory can cause your computer to crash or worse. DO NOT
> RUN THE SOFTWARE IF YOU HAVE ANY UNSAVED WORK OPEN. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


Apologies for bad grammar, I am not a native English speaker but I try to be understandable


----------



## chibi

Looks interesting, looking forward to more reviews.


----------



## Asmola

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Looks interesting, looking forward to more reviews.


I can guarantee this is currently best ramtester there is, I've been using this software almost as long as @CptKuolio and like him, i dont have affiliations with the creator.


----------



## chibi

Does this also stress the Cache similar to how HCI Memtest does?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptKuolio*
> 
> I rate Ram Test as the best memory testing utlity at this time, bar from using linux-mint and google's memorybench. But out of standalone utilities/programs in windows this is by far the most accurate, thorough and FAST. I repeat; about 15 times faster then HCI memtest. And no need to launch multiple instaces of the program! I can push 703% coverage on 12288 megabyte memory-run in 10 minutes, when HCI memtest only does ~45% covera in same time. HUUUUUUGE! Check my video, I show you the two of them against each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can skip to 12:00 mark to see how they compare, the beginning of the video is pretty much just showing of the program, and telling some tales about it's origins.


It's possible to run Stress App via BASH. So are you saying this is better than running Stress App under Windows? Also no limited freeware version to test, we're meant to take your word for it?


----------



## Silent Scone

I've just bought the tool and testing with known conditional settings that I use regularly with Stress App test. The tool is picking up errors in under 5 minutes where Stress App under BASH terminal normally takes 20 to 30 minutes. Obviously, more time is needed to see how well this isolates the memory but this tool is definitely worth a try.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've just bought the tool and testing with known conditional settings that I use regularly with Stress App test. The tool is picking up errors in under 5 minutes where Stress App under BASH terminal normally takes 20 to 30 minutes. Obviously, more time is needed to see how well this isolates the memory but this tool is definitely worth a try.


You're a trusted source of vital info on overclock.net, Scone, I'll give it s try.


----------



## GreedyMuffin

Damn. Might give this a try! Please tell me how it goes!


----------



## CptKuolio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Does this also stress the Cache similar to how HCI Memtest does?


I'm not familiar with how HCI stresses cache. RAM Test is built to test memory stability. Will ask Mustanaamio about this, though he is now aware of this thread. I dont know if he has account here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It's possible to run Stress App via BASH. So are you saying this is better than running Stress App under Windows? Also no limited freeware version to test, we're meant to take your word for it?


No, can't run it on bash. Not sure what you are referring to with Stress App under Windows. This is Tool for memory stresstesting, nothing else. Better then HCI memtest, memtest 86 etc. for sure.

Yes unfortunately you do need to take my word for it. No demo or shareware available at the moment. If 10€/$ is too much of an gamble then dont buy it yet, wait for someone you know better than me to recommend it.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptKuolio*
> 
> I'm not familiar with how HCI stresses cache. RAM Test is built to test memory stability. Will ask Mustanaamio about this, though he is now aware of this thread. I dont know if he has account here.
> No, can't run it on bash. Not sure what you are referring to with Stress App under Windows. This is Tool for memory stresstesting, nothing else. Better then HCI memtest, memtest 86 etc. for sure.
> 
> Yes unfortunately you do need to take my word for it. No demo or shareware available at the moment. If 10€/$ is too much of an gamble then dont buy it yet, wait for someone you know better than me to recommend it.


I'm referring to Google Stress App Test ran through BASH terminal.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've just bought the tool and testing with known conditional settings that I use regularly with Stress App test. The tool is picking up errors in under 5 minutes where Stress App under BASH terminal normally takes 20 to 30 minutes. Obviously, more time is needed to see how well this isolates the memory but this tool is definitely worth a try.


I did also, known good config ran 1H clean. Will test some more. But yeah, worth adding to the box of ram tools. (was $12 US - a bit pricey IMO)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'm referring to Google Stress App Test ran through BASH terminal.


^^ which works very well in isolating the ram subsystem for stability testing. I still use a puppy linux USB to run it on various rigs.


----------



## Blameless

Need to find some settings that are borderline stable to get a feel for error detection rates.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've just bought the tool and testing with known conditional settings that I use regularly with Stress App test. The tool is picking up errors in under 5 minutes where Stress App under BASH terminal normally takes 20 to 30 minutes. Obviously, more time is needed to see how well this isolates the memory but this tool is definitely worth a try.


What settings do you use with stressapptest?

On most of my systems, the default settings are not the fastest at finding memory errors.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> *Need to find some settings that are borderline stab*
> What settings do you use with stressapptest?
> 
> On most of my systems, the default settings are not the fastest at finding memory errors.


that's not a problem.







Also want to be sure there's no false positives (errors in this case).
for bash GSAT, I use: stressapptest -W -M 28672 -s 7200 --pause_delay 14400


----------



## becks

Will jump on the Chu-Chu train and buy it myself as well..

Always good to support new projects


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also want to be sure there's no false positives (errors in this case).
> for bash GSAT, I use: stressapptest -W -M 28672 -s 7200 --pause_delay 14400


Have you tried adjusting the thread counts and or omitting the -W? Sometimes 1.5 threads per logical CPU, or the less CPU intensive memory copy tests in combination with the inversion tests can prompt errors faster.


----------



## CptKuolio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'm referring to Google Stress App Test ran through BASH terminal.


I have 'limited' amount of experience with that, then! I began my memory OC tries and "getting into memory beyond XMP profile" stuff by reading guides on this forums, like the 'Official Intel Memory stability thread' and the 'Comprehensive Memory Overclocking Guide'. Those threads were pretty much my starting point for me about 8-9 months ago, little after Ryzen launch and little after The Stilt was hyping memory speeds on Ryzen at io-tech forums. Afterwards I closely followed ryzen overclocking and ryzen memory threads here.

I followed the procedures given in those threads, and so I also tried the Google Stress App, with linux mint on USB drive. Also used the same drive to run /kill ryzen and determined that mine was one of those that segfault, but that is another story. But also that was something I learned from this forum. Nevertheless I found it 'cumbersome' to say the least to boot into Linux and run stress-test while having all other OC-tools on windows (ryzen timing checker, at that time ryzen master because nothing else showed some values correct, hwinfo etc.) so I gave up on that and started lookin at HCI memtest. But with HCI-Memtest the whole process of testing memory was so slow and felt so 'inaccurate', that it was a total pain to hunt for the correct settings with Ryzen.

This all changed after Mustanaamio released the first iteration of this software and stilt was raving over it, because it made his workflow a lot faster with the ryzen timing things he was doing back then. RAM Tests first iteration was fast, a lot faster then other windows utilities. Mustanaamio has been updating RAM Test over the past months, and it has been getting even more faster all the time. I used to run a lot of HCI memtest after running RAM test, to verify that the RAM is 'hci-stable', and from that I noticed that many times RAM Tester showed up errors that HCI did not.

So I avoid comparing RAM Test to Google's Stress App, because I have too limited experience with it. I've only ran it a handful of times. I see that people here are testing RAM Tester and comparing it to Stress App, and it is very interesting to follow! Thanks guys







But I also think that perhaps Stress App is not the 'main competitor' here, but the windows platform programs are. Nevertheless, this was what I was expecting, to see OC guys and gals to get arms deep to testing RAM Test









My motivation to bringing this RAM Test software to this forum is simple; I've learned so much from threads here that I feel like it's only fair to give back. RAM Test revolutionized how I feel about memory overclocking. Prior to to RAM Test it was a big and slow process to OC memory, mainly because it took so long to stress test between steps. Now I can literally run RAM Test for ten minutes, get to 700% coverage, and that gives me enough info if I'm in between steps and want to go further, or finetune and continue benching with current values. With other tools it takes much longer, every step you bench between different settings, even when changing one value by 1, takes hours. With ram-test it's a lot more like OC'ing your CPU in a way, where you hit prime running for 20 minutes between steps and see if it is "stable enough", and boot to bios to up the frequency even more


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Need to find some settings that are borderline stable to get a feel for error detection rates.
> What settings do you use with stressapptest?
> 
> On most of my systems, the default settings are not the fastest at finding memory errors.


What settings are you using? There are arguments that work better with cache, I've not used any that find memory errors quicker.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I did also, known good config ran 1H clean. Will test some more. But yeah, worth adding to the box of ram tools. (was $12 US - a bit pricey IMO)
> ^^ which works very well in isolating the ram subsystem for stability testing. I still use a puppy linux USB to run it on various rigs.


It's simple here, as I know that simply dropping tRCD one clock is enough to throw 2 or 3 errors in GSAT.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What settings are you using? There are arguments that work better with cache, I've not used any that find memory errors quicker.


Depends on the platform.

My LGA-2011v3 parts seem to crap out fastest simply by mixing some inversion threads in to the test, while my Vishera parts seem to fail faster with the less intensive copy test (probably a bottleneck somewhere using -W on them).


----------



## Satsittaja

Thumbs up for this software from me as well. Very precise and fast as hell.


----------



## Cloudforever

sub for later use


----------



## NIK1

I just got this last night.Works fast in finding errors..When running this tester how much free memory should you leave running in the background so windows does not crash.


----------



## CptKuolio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NIK1*
> 
> I just got this last night.Works fast in finding errors..When running this tester how much free memory should you leave running in the background so windows does not crash.


I close all programs and then dial in the same amount of memory to be tested as the program shows to be available.


----------



## NIK1

K..Thanks for the info...


----------



## ScriptKiddie

friend i cant use paypal how can we do it ?


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NIK1*
> 
> I just got this last night.Works fast in finding errors..When running this tester how much free memory should you leave running in the background so windows does not crash.


It doesn't matter. Windows will crash if your memory is unstable enough.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ScriptKiddie*
> 
> friend i cant use paypal how can we do it ?


Unfortunately PayPal is currently the only way for international customers to buy a license for the software. It will take some time to integrate with the APIs of other PSPs.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mustanaamio*
> 
> It doesn't matter. Windows will crash if your memory is unstable enough.
> Unfortunately PayPal is currently the only way for international customers to buy a license for the software. It will take some time to integrate with the APIs of other PSPs.


It does matter. Allocating more RAM than what is available is a great way of testing the page file, but not DRAM.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It does matter. Allocating more RAM than what is available is a great way of testing the page file, but not DRAM.


Yep. Don't want to bottleneck the component you are trying to isolate by tying it to the performance of a vastly slower one.


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It does matter. Allocating more RAM than what is available is a great way of testing the page file, but not DRAM.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yep. Don't want to bottleneck the component you are trying to isolate by tying it to the performance of a vastly slower one.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *README.txt*
> If you have the paging file enabled and you use too large value, the test may progress very slowly due to the operating system having to cycle pages through your SSD/HDD.


----------



## Rezal

Could only do a few tests before leaving for vacation. Seem comparable in in picking up memory errors to HCI, albeit you need more coverage. But with it running roughly 20 times at fast, you still get your results much faster in absolute time. In terms of detecting unstable IMC settings it seems unreliable like HCI. Maybe running it longer than 1000% vill pick up up IMC instability?

I can only run it using 14500 MB unlike HCI which does up to 15000 MB before Windows starts using the page file. That is a small downside.

I will use it to test my new secondary PC the upcoming days, but I might not have time to run HCI for comparison.


----------



## d0mini

I've bought into this, been waiting for a solid windows-based modern RAM stress tester! Will be following this thread for more info, thanks for sharing Kuolio!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mustanaamio*


Yes, which is what I said.









Merry Jimbus to all


----------



## ScriptKiddie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mustanaamio*
> 
> It doesn't matter. Windows will crash if your memory is unstable enough.
> Unfortunately PayPal is currently the only way for international customers to buy a license for the software. It will take some time to integrate with the APIs of other PSPs.


So i cant buy it ? or Creator give me a gift


----------



## TUFinside

sweet


----------



## JMTH

Some things I have noticed while using this test software.

1. It seems like the calculations are checked every 7%. At least that is where errors are flagged for me. 7/14/21/etc...

2. It does not hit the cache as hard as Hci. I have passed 2500% in RamTest then failed at 40% using Hci.

Which is also what was happening using gsat in bash. I thought at first that this was a negative but now that I understand why Hci is failing turns out to be great way to identify cache issues. It also shows me that 2 hours of Aida64s cache test is inadequate. Which I was passing. It was leading me to an endless VCCSA test loop. I was failing across the range and was driving me crazy hehe.
Now that I know I can use Ram Test to dial in VCCSA and VCCIO cpu, then dial cache voltage using hci it is making my tuning go pretty quickly, well ok by quickly I mean way less test runs hehe. HCI is still pretty slow even though version 6.0 is a lot faster.

I think I came up with a "good" way to dial in VCCSA and VCCIO cpu using RamTest. From previous testing I did on the 64gb of ram I currently have installed I know, or think I know lol, the limit of the primary timings is 13 14 13 29 1. So what I did was change the 14 to a 13 in the bios and booted to windows 10. I fired up RamTest and sure enough it failed at 7% which for me takes about a min. I also fired up TurboCore by ASUS. It's a program where you can adjust voltages without going into the bios.
I set the VCCSA offset (sorry forgot to mention I'm using offset in the bios) at the lowest value I though wouldn't cause a crash 0.000v (read 0.928v in HWiNFO) hit apply and it held. So I then fired up RamTest waited for it to fail and recorded the failure %. I then bumped up the VCCSA by 0.005v and tested again. I did that all the way up to 0.250v (somewhere around 1.20 in HWiNFO). 98% of the tests failed at 7% but there were 4 offset voltages that made it to at least 21% and one that went to 28% (0.160).
Next I went into the bios and set the offset at 0.160 and booted to Windows10. Loaded up TurboCore and RamTest and did the same thing for VCCIO cpu and came away with three levels that made it to over 14%.
I went back into the bios and changed the primary timing back to 14, and the VCCSA and VCCIO cpu to the best values I found from the testing above and started up RamTest, got to 2500%. So the values looked good.
That's when I went to verify by using Hci and found my cache voltage issue.
So now I am increasing the cache offset and checking it using Hci. I have a 6850k and am using a multiple of 35 for the cache. I was passing 2 hours Aida64s cache stress test at a value of 0.125v, currently I am up to 0.190v and in hopefully my last hci test. 0.125 failed at 40%,0.135 failed at 75%,0.155 failed at 200%, and 0.175v failed at 450%. Also the cache offset is the only setting I am changing so I have pretty good correlation that it is indeed the cache offset voltage.


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> Some things I have noticed while using this test software.
> 
> 1. It seems like the calculations are checked every 7%. At least that is where errors are flagged for me. 7/14/21/etc...


To be exact, the results are checked every 0.075 * 1/n * 100 %, where n is the number of threads








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> 2. It does not hit the cache as hard as Hci. I have passed 2500% in RamTest then failed at 40% using Hci.


The next version will allow the user to select from three different modes for cache usage. Something along the lines of:

"Disabled" - memory pages are marked non-cachable
"Partial" - cache is flushed frequently (default)
"Full" - cache is used without restrictions


----------



## JMTH

Nice, what mode is the current version in? 1 or 2? That will allow us to use the same tool to find the cache instability and fix it, sweet!
Well
I am using 12 threads so it should be checking at 8.3, I only had maybe 1 or 2 that failed at 8 or 16. Is there an error that can be thrown during what must be the last calculation set? And that's why it fails at 7%?


----------



## JackCY

HCI memtest what? I don't know, I saw that thing a couple times and always hated it, the bootable USB memtest is way better, free and fast (especially when you know what tests to select and not run them all by default). How does this "new" RAM tester compare to the bootable memtest version? Plus bootable also means you can test the system before installing any OS in case you can't even get to install an OS on a new machine that is not stable such as the mentioned Ryzen RAM issues.


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> Nice, what mode is the current version in? 1 or 2? That will allow us to use the same tool to find the cache instability and fix it, sweet!


The current version (1.0.0.0) uses what's marked as "default" on the list. So the fact that it's not picking up cache related errors means that it's working as intended








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> Well
> I am using 12 threads so it should be checking at 8.3, I only had maybe 1 or 2 that failed at 8 or 16. Is there an error that can be thrown during what must be the last calculation set? And that's why it fails at 7%?


Actually, I forgot the coverage also has a coefficient of 0.075







So for every ~7 % of coverage, all threads should have completed one iteration of the algorithm


----------



## doni007

Hey guys I'm having a hard time figuring out how to stabilize my OC so I have some questions regarding this tool.

I've been trying to get 4266 CL17-18-18-39 stable and my results are super weird. First, I ran RAM Test and it passed 2000% (subtimings in the last spoiler)


Spoiler: RAM Test 2000 %







Yesterday it failed at 843% (same settings). I've tried running the test a few times and sometimes it can go over 1000% with no errors and sometimes it can't break 200%.

I also tried WinGSAT and it failed after 40mins. I upped the DRAM voltage from 1.4322 (BIOS) to 1.45 (BIOS) and it passed 1hr. However, the same settings can't go past 50% on RAM Test!


Spoiler: GSAT 1hr pass







Finally I tried *HCI Memtest and here I found that it consistently fails around 45-90%*


Spoiler: HCI Memtest fail







*My questions are
*

How is RAM Test stressing the memory differently than HCI and GSAT? Settings that pass RAM Test fail in others and vice versa.
Why are the results from RAM Test so inconsistent?
Settings:
8700k 4.9/4.0 @ 1.312v
RAM: G.Skill 16GB 4266CL19 F4-4266C19D-16GTZR
ASUS Z370-I Strix

BIOS settings:

Core/Cache: 49/40
VCORE: 1.312 LLC5
DRAM: 1.4322
VCCIO: 1.21
VCCSA: 1.23


Spoiler: Last RAM Test fail


----------



## japau

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doni007*
> 
> Hey guys I'm having a hard time figuring out how to stabilize my OC so I have some questions regarding this tool.
> 
> I've been trying to get 4266 CL17-18-18-39 stable and my results are super weird. First, I ran RAM Test and it passed 2000% (subtimings in the last spoiler)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: RAM Test 2000 %
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday it failed at 843% (same settings). I've tried running the test a few times and sometimes it can go over 1000% with no errors and sometimes it can't break 200%.
> 
> I also tried WinGSAT and it failed after 40mins. I upped the DRAM voltage from 1.4322 (BIOS) to 1.45 (BIOS) and it passed 1hr. However, the same settings can't go past 50% on RAM Test!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: GSAT 1hr pass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally I tried *HCI Memtest and here I found that it consistently fails around 45-90%*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: HCI Memtest fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My questions are
> *
> 
> How is RAM Test stressing the memory differently than HCI and GSAT? Settings that pass RAM Test fail in others and vice versa.
> Why are the results from RAM Test so inconsistent?
> Settings:
> 8700k 4.9/4.0 @ 1.312v
> RAM: G.Skill 16GB 4266CL19 F4-4266C19D-16GTZR
> ASUS Z370-I Strix
> 
> BIOS settings:
> 
> Core/Cache: 49/40
> VCORE: 1.312 LLC5
> DRAM: 1.4322
> VCCIO: 1.21
> VCCSA: 1.23
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Last RAM Test fail


I don't think RAM stability can be tested so singlehandedly. Sometimes errors occur fast sometimes they take a while to pop. I've used RAMTest a lot while testing coffee lake memories with two different motherboards / processors. What i have found with RAMTest is that usually 2000%+ is a solid starting point that hardly gives problems in daily use, but latest errors on RAMTest have ocured to me at ~5000% mark. After 5000% i have never got any errors. Anything below 2000% i wouldn't even call 'semi-stable'. Maybe they can pass some benchmarking, but nothing to write home about with stability.

I usually test 24/7 for 10000% coverage just to see if i can find errors past 5000%







. Doesn't take longer than 2 - 3 hours. Depending on the speed of course.




For 24/7 operation better find the sweatspot with voltages/speed.

Ps. What i see from your settings are that the IOL's have already raised over 10+. For me thats a sign that you are asking more from the sticks that they can deliver with the current voltage. Usually when RTLs / IOLs go crazy, its a sign that they are not aligned correctly and will cause problems with stability sooner or later.


----------



## Silent Scone

The differences in the tests are due to how they load up the memory subsystem and/or other subsystems. HCI can put a notable strain on the CPU cache which can create false positives. As with any memory overclocking errors, though, the best approach is to simply back off and relax things as suggested by japau. Having tested both HCI and GSAT on multiple platforms and configurations, for most workloads both 500% coverage in HCI and 1 hour in Stress App is enough for daily stability. However, that does depend on the workload and certain memory intensive tasks may require a more relaxed approach.


----------



## doni007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> I don't think RAM stability can be tested so singlehandedly. Sometimes errors occur fast sometimes they take a while to pop. I've used RAMTest a lot while testing coffee lake memories with two different motherboards / processors. What i have found with RAMTest is that usually 2000%+ is a solid starting point that hardly gives problems in daily use, but latest errors on RAMTest have ocured to me at ~5000% mark. After 5000% i have never got any errors. Anything below 2000% i wouldn't even call 'semi-stable'. Maybe they can pass some benchmarking, but nothing to write home about with stability.
> 
> I usually test 24/7 for 10000% coverage just to see if i can find errors past 5000%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Doesn't take longer than 2 - 3 hours. Depending on the speed of course.
> 
> For 24/7 operation better find the sweatspot with voltages/speed.
> 
> Ps. What i see from your settings are that the IOL's have already raised over 10+. For me thats a sign that you are asking more from the sticks that they can deliver with the current voltage. Usually when RTLs / IOLs go crazy, its a sign that they are not aligned correctly and will cause problems with stability sooner or later.


Thanks for giving your input. I noticed that my IOLs are pretty high. This happens also at 4266 CL19 (the RAM's rated timings) Do I manually change the IOL offset?

My main point with my post here is to understand how Ram Test is different than HCI. It's being advertised as picking up errors much faster than GSAT or HCI, which is why I bought it in the first place. Sadly, it just seems to be doing more coverage but finding errors in roughly the same amount of time than HCI/GSAT.

Also, thanks for posting your timings!


----------



## doni007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The differences in the tests are due to how they load up the memory subsystem and/or other subsystems. HCI can put a notable strain on the CPU cache which can create false positives. As with any memory overclocking errors, though, the best approach is to simply back off and relax things as suggested by japau. Having tested both HCI and GSAT on multiple platforms and configurations, for most workloads both 500% coverage in HCI and 1 hour in Stress App is enough for daily stability. However, that does depend on the workload and certain memory intensive tasks may require a more relaxed approach.


What's your opinion if they fail beyond that? I'm only using this system for benchmarking and gaming.

I don't want to derail this thread, but which timings would you relax first?


----------



## japau

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doni007*
> 
> Thanks for giving your input. I noticed that my IOLs are pretty high. This happens also at 4266 CL19 (the RAM's rated timings) Do I manually change the IOL offset?
> 
> My main point with my post here is to understand how Ram Test is different than HCI. It's being advertised as picking up errors much faster than GSAT or HCI, which is why I bought it in the first place. Sadly, it just seems to be doing more coverage but finding errors in roughly the same amount of time than HCI/GSAT.
> 
> Also, thanks for posting your timings!


You could try to raise DRAM Voltage / VCCIO / VCCSA and see if RTLs / IOLs Align better. Allso play with tWTR_L / tWTR_S + tWRRD_sg / tWRRD_dg (they are all connected together) And see if they start to align better.

Talking about picking errors faster i don't know, but it has been really pleasant application that finds basic errors almost as fast as HyperPi 32m high. That was my goto fast test before to see if memory is unstable. Alltho errors that are in the 2000% mark (somewhat stable and doesn't possibly occur unless the moons align) those i don't think there is a quick way to find. Better to leave test on background and surf on web or watch movie.









Throw a tell if you can find error after 5000% as i haven't. So i would say around 1h - 1.5h / 5000% mark is pretty solid and stable as far as i can tell.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doni007*
> 
> What's your opinion if they fail beyond that? I'm only using this system for benchmarking and gaming.
> 
> I don't want to derail this thread, but which timings would you relax first?


Just use the system. Personally, use two hours of Stress App. If you can pass that, then the memory is stable enough if not unconditional. Depends on the timings used, but raising tRCD one clock higher than tRP can help when on the edge of stability.


----------



## japau

Heres one more running in the background. Still havent managed to break the ~150MB/s barrier.



According to my tests it dont give errors anymore, but for the testing i let it run to 10000%.

The voltages are not what i find comfortable for 24/7 usage, but OC is OK.


----------



## japau

Working as predicted. After 5000% i would say its tested as stable. Intrested to hear if someone gets error after 5000%.


----------



## JMTH

If you are not getting errors in RamTest, then getting errors in HCI then it's most likely your cache voltage. I posted about it a page or so ago.


----------



## japau

Left it run overnight. Got me an error after 20000% mark. might be from tREFI 65535? Still its pretty nice OC for voltages i'm comfortable to leave 24/7.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> 
> 
> Left it run overnight. Got me an error after 20000% mark. might be from tREFI 65535? Still its pretty nice OC for voltages i'm comfortable to leave 24/7.


Who knows. It's a possibility given the coverage time, as the recharge can be affected by DIMM temperature. It's better to concentrate on thirds then push this too far, anyway.


----------



## doni007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> You could try to raise DRAM Voltage / VCCIO / VCCSA and see if RTLs / IOLs Align better. Allso play with tWTR_L / tWTR_S + tWRRD_sg / tWRRD_dg (they are all connected together) And see if they start to align better.
> 
> Talking about picking errors faster i don't know, but it has been really pleasant application that finds basic errors almost as fast as HyperPi 32m high. That was my goto fast test before to see if memory is unstable. Alltho errors that are in the 2000% mark (somewhat stable and doesn't possibly occur unless the moons align) those i don't think there is a quick way to find. Better to leave test on background and surf on web or watch movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throw a tell if you can find error after 5000% as i haven't. So i would say around 1h - 1.5h / 5000% mark is pretty solid and stable as far as i can tell.


Okay so I did some testing with IOLs with XMP timings (subtimings on Auto) and it seems they are always above 10+ unless my frequency is below 3600MHz. I tried more DRAM voltage,VCCIO, VCCSA but nothing helped really. Might be a limitation of my board (after all it's only an ITX Strix mobo). I'm slightly mad that there's no Maximus Impact for Z370









I guess I'll just reset everything and work my way up again


----------



## japau

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doni007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> You could try to raise DRAM Voltage / VCCIO / VCCSA and see if RTLs / IOLs Align better. Allso play with tWTR_L / tWTR_S + tWRRD_sg / tWRRD_dg (they are all connected together) And see if they start to align better.
> 
> Talking about picking errors faster i don't know, but it has been really pleasant application that finds basic errors almost as fast as HyperPi 32m high. That was my goto fast test before to see if memory is unstable. Alltho errors that are in the 2000% mark (somewhat stable and doesn't possibly occur unless the moons align) those i don't think there is a quick way to find. Better to leave test on background and surf on web or watch movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throw a tell if you can find error after 5000% as i haven't. So i would say around 1h - 1.5h / 5000% mark is pretty solid and stable as far as i can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so I did some testing with IOLs with XMP timings (subtimings on Auto) and it seems they are always above 10+ unless my frequency is below 3600MHz. I tried more DRAM voltage,VCCIO, VCCSA but nothing helped really. Might be a limitation of my board (after all it's only an ITX Strix mobo). I'm slightly mad that there's no Maximus Impact for Z370
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'll just reset everything and work my way up again
Click to expand...

Are those memories samsung b-die? You could perhaps download Typhoon burner and check. Sounds not like typical b-die behavior. Think we meed someone smarter to crack whats going on.


----------



## japau

Cracked the 150MB/s barrier. I lay rested.


----------



## doni007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> Are those memories samsung b-die? You could perhaps download Typhoon burner and check. Sounds not like typical b-die behavior. Think we meed someone smarter to crack whats going on.


Yeah it's B-die.










Spoiler: Thaiphoon







I reset the timings to auto and so far I got 5000% with no errors on RAM Test, but almost insta-fails on GSAT











Spoiler: RAM Test 5000%









Spoiler: GSAT


----------



## japau

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doni007*
> 
> Yeah it's B-die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Thaiphoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reset the timings to auto and so far I got 5000% with no errors on RAM Test, but almost insta-fails on GSAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: RAM Test 5000%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: GSAT


I would go down with the Frequency until your RTL's start to go under 70 and IOLS lock under 10. From there on, start tightening latencies and work your way up with Frequency. Need to find the right Voltages for the RGB kit. More is not allways the answer for DRAM / VCCIO / VCCSA.

It can totally be IMC specific and it just cant follow those speeds. I know mine don't want to even boot at 4266.


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doni007*
> 
> Yeah it's B-die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Thaiphoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reset the timings to auto and so far I got 5000% with no errors on RAM Test, but almost insta-fails on GSAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: RAM Test 5000%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: GSAT


tWR is 25 in RAM Test screenshot and 24 in GSAT screenshot


----------



## doni007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mustanaamio*
> 
> tWR is 25 in RAM Test screenshot and 24 in GSAT screenshot


I dont trust the Asrock program. Here's a screenshot of them side by side showing the difference.


----------



## doni007

Update:

I finally got my memory to be stable for 2 hours of GSAT + 800+% HCI + 2000% Ram Test.

My obervation is that Ram Test is pretty good for figuring out VCCIO and VCCSA voltages. But it doesn't seem to do a good job for VDIMM. Like I said before my 5000% successful RAM Test setttings failed instantly in GSAT. I had to slightly increase VDIMM two notches to be stable.


Spoiler: RAM Test 2000%









Spoiler: GSAT 2 hours successful









Spoiler: HCI 800% pass


----------



## CptKuolio

RAM Test has just updated to version 1.1. bringin some new features. RAM Test can now test your cache better, and also has some beginning functions of CPU stress-testing.

This is a quote from the updated readme.txt:
Quote:


> CPU cache:
> 
> The CPU cache mode to use during the test.
> 
> - Disabled:
> 
> The memory pages are marked non-cachable and the CPU cache is not
> used during the test. The test will progress very slowly, but it
> will not pick up any CPU cache instability related errors.
> 
> - Write-combine:
> 
> The memory pages are marked write-combined and the CPU cache is
> used only for buffering writes. This is a little faster mode, but
> might pick up CPU cache instability related write errors.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The CPU cache is used, but flushed frequently. The test will
> progress very quickly, but it might pick up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors.
> 
> - Enabled:
> 
> The CPU cache is used without restriction. This is the fastest
> mode, but the probability of picking up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors is also the highest.
> 
> RNG:
> 
> The random number generator to use during the test.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The RtlGenRandom function is used to generate random numbers.
> 
> - XORWOW:
> 
> The XORWOW function is used to generate random numbers. This might
> improve performance, especially on Windows 7.
> 
> Stress FPU:
> 
> Stress the floating point unit of the CPU to generate more heat.


Just a heads up for everyone involved with the program!

Edit:

RNG: XORWOW is supposed be used with Windows 7 and fixes low performance with Windows 7. It can also raise performance with later windows versions when you are using "write-combine" mode with CPU-Cache options.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptKuolio*
> 
> RAM Test has just updated to version 1.1. bringin some new features. RAM Test can now test your cache better, and also has some beginning functions of CPU stress-testing.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> This is a quote from the updated readme.txt:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> CPU cache:
> 
> The CPU cache mode to use during the test.
> 
> - Disabled:
> 
> The memory pages are marked non-cachable and the CPU cache is not
> used during the test. The test will progress very slowly, but it
> will not pick up any CPU cache instability related errors.
> 
> - Write-combine:
> 
> The memory pages are marked write-combined and the CPU cache is
> used only for buffering writes. This is a little faster mode, but
> might pick up CPU cache instability related write errors.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The CPU cache is used, but flushed frequently. The test will
> progress very quickly, but it might pick up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors.
> 
> - Enabled:
> 
> The CPU cache is used without restriction. This is the fastest
> mode, but the probability of picking up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors is also the highest.
> 
> RNG:
> 
> The random number generator to use during the test.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The RtlGenRandom function is used to generate random numbers.
> 
> - XORWOW:
> 
> The XORWOW function is used to generate random numbers. This might
> improve performance, especially on Windows 7.
> 
> Stress FPU:
> 
> Stress the floating point unit of the CPU to generate more heat.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a heads up for everyone involved with the program!
> 
> Edit:
> 
> RNG: XORWOW is supposed be used with Windows 7 and fixes low performance with Windows 7. It can also raise performance with later windows versions when you are using "write-combine" mode with CPU-Cache options.
Click to expand...

Will our existing download links download the new version?


----------



## CptKuolio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Will our existing download links download the new version?


Just launch the program and it should notify you that an update is available. If you press OK to update, then it will download the update.zip to your ram-test folder. Then unpack, and run the new version. You need your activation key, so might aswell look that up before starting the update.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptKuolio*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Will our existing download links download the new version?
> 
> 
> 
> Just launch the program and it should notify you that an update is available. If you press OK to update, then it will download the update.zip to your ram-test folder. Then unpack, and run the new version. You need your activation key, so might aswell look that up before starting the update.
Click to expand...

Thank you.









Have to do +1's when I get home, Chrome on phone don't play nice with overclock.net


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Will our existing download links download the new version?


Yes.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptKuolio*
> 
> RAM Test has just updated to version 1.1. bringin some new features. RAM Test can now test your cache better, and also has some beginning functions of CPU stress-testing.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> This is a quote from the updated readme.txt:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> CPU cache:
> 
> The CPU cache mode to use during the test.
> 
> - Disabled:
> 
> The memory pages are marked non-cachable and the CPU cache is not
> used during the test. The test will progress very slowly, but it
> will not pick up any CPU cache instability related errors.
> 
> - Write-combine:
> 
> The memory pages are marked write-combined and the CPU cache is
> used only for buffering writes. This is a little faster mode, but
> might pick up CPU cache instability related write errors.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The CPU cache is used, but flushed frequently. The test will
> progress very quickly, but it might pick up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors.
> 
> - Enabled:
> 
> The CPU cache is used without restriction. This is the fastest
> mode, but the probability of picking up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors is also the highest.
> 
> RNG:
> 
> The random number generator to use during the test.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The RtlGenRandom function is used to generate random numbers.
> 
> - XORWOW:
> 
> The XORWOW function is used to generate random numbers. This might
> improve performance, especially on Windows 7.
> 
> Stress FPU:
> 
> Stress the floating point unit of the CPU to generate more heat.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a heads up for everyone involved with the program!
> 
> Edit:
> 
> RNG: XORWOW is supposed be used with Windows 7 and fixes low performance with Windows 7. It can also raise performance with later windows versions when you are using "write-combine" mode with CPU-Cache options.
Click to expand...

If I enable telemetry how exactly is it used?

I'd do so if it'll help you debug the program etc.


----------



## CptKuolio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> If I enable telemetry how exactly is it used?
> 
> I'd do so if it'll help you debug the program etc.


Telemetry sends anonymous data of your Ram test runs/errors/usage to karhusoftware (Mustanaamio). We had that always on during the "alphatest",that data was used to develop the program and it is still used for that. Mustanaamio can elaborate on the details if needed.


----------



## Mustanaamio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> If I enable telemetry how exactly is it used?
> 
> I'd do so if it'll help you debug the program etc.


At the moment the data just sits in the database and I'm the only one with access to it. I occasionally view the data to see how the program is performing on different setups









The information that is collected is described in the README.txt and any personally identifiable information (such as your IP address) is used only for the purpose of preventing abuse. If you enable telemetry and later regret doing so; no worries, just send an e-mail to the address shown in the GUI at the bottom of the "About" tab and I'll delete the telemetry collected from you (along with any e-mails you sent)









DISCLAIMER: This information may be subject to change. An up-to-date Privacy Policy can be found here.


----------



## coreykill99

just Purchased, Lets see what it can do


----------



## Darkomax

Man I wish I discovered this program earlier, this is such a life (and time) saver for memory overclocking.


----------



## Acoma_Andy

Has anyone else tested the new MemTest64 1.0? It's also a quick memory stability test much like this program. Not saying I'm an expert on memory testing apps but I have used this to test a few memory overclocks and so far so good.

https://www.techpowerup.com/memtest64/

And it's not $10 but completely free.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Awesome software, i bought it yesterday, v1.1
Do i need to run it with cache enabled, cache default? Or both? 
Means cache enable will focus on cache?
Because with cache enabled, it is very fast


----------



## CptKuolio

ELIAS-EH said:


> Awesome software, i bought it yesterday, v1.1
> Do i need to run it with cache enabled, cache default? Or both?
> Means cache enable will focus on cache?
> Because with cache enabled, it is very fast


Read the readme-file with some thought, every function is explained there 

Feedback from v.1.0 was such that RAM Test was lacking in the cache-testing department. Obviously, because it had pretty much none cache stressing capability. For this Mustanaamio added "cache testing" option, basically it just adds more calculations targeting CPU-cache. 

With cache-testing option it's now possible to use RAM-Test and differentiate when you are having RAM problems from when you are having Cache problems. If you run with cache-mode enabled, and get an error, you can disable cache-testing to determine if you still get the error. If no, then you cache is likely unstable. If you still get errors (with no cache testing), then it is your memory.

The need for you to run it with cache enabled.. Well, do you want to test cache stability? Have you overclocked your cache? Can you differentiate that if you get errors where are you getting them, cache or ram?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

CptKuolio said:


> Read the readme-file with some thought, every function is explained there
> 
> Feedback from v.1.0 was such that RAM Test was lacking in the cache-testing department. Obviously, because it had pretty much none cache stressing capability. For this Mustanaamio added "cache testing" option, basically it just adds more calculations targeting CPU-cache.
> 
> With cache-testing option it's now possible to use RAM-Test and differentiate when you are having RAM problems from when you are having Cache problems. If you run with cache-mode enabled, and get an error, you can disable cache-testing to determine if you still get the error. If no, then you cache is likely unstable. If you still get errors (with no cache testing), then it is your memory.
> 
> The need for you to run it with cache enabled.. Well, do you want to test cache stability? Have you overclocked your cache? Can you differentiate that if you get errors where are you getting them, cache or ram?


My system :
Strix x99
i7 6900K 4.3 1.34V
DDR4 2933Mhz C14 1.35 V
VCCSA: Offset +0.12 V
VCCIO: 1.1 V
Cache OC 37 offset: +0.23 (1.216V reading in windows)

with Ram Test 1.1: I passed 7000% with cache enabled then I stop it without error, and I passed 10000% with cache at default then I stop it without error
Passed 1000% HCI memtest, and GSAT 2 hours.

When my RAM was at 3200 C16, I got error within 5 min, where I can passed HCI memtest and GSAT.
I think this software is amazing and I am happy that I bought it.


----------



## gupsterg

Acoma_Andy said:


> Has anyone else tested the new MemTest64 1.0? It's also a quick memory stability test much like this program. Not saying I'm an expert on memory testing apps but I have used this to test a few memory overclocks and so far so good.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/memtest64/
> 
> And it's not $10 but completely free.


Revisited TPU MemTest64 yesterday or so, as I couldn't recall why I stopped using it. With the Maximum setting it failed to grab anything more than 12GB out of 32GB. I then went back to GSAT/HCI. This app does seem like something I may purchase soon.


----------



## neur0cide

@gupsterg
You should. This tool is better than HCI in every aspect.


----------



## Brko

I gave it a go yesterday. Memtestx64 from TPU is similar but this one is far more faster and better. It works like a charm so one XXL pizza less this month and no regrets for spending 10 EUR.

Managed some tests yesterday with CPU cache default. Did couple coverages od 3000% and on some settings passed, on some settings finds errors. Will do further more testing with it when Pinnacle Ridge arrives. For now on, it is good.  glad to bump into this thread.

Keep up the good work guys 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## datspike

Just found out about this new tool, works like a charm. It is for sure detecting errors better than HCI, however I'm still not sure how it compares to TestMem 5. 
At which coverage you guys find errors with this tool? My configuration seems to either fail before 5 minutes mark or be "stable" (only tested up to 3000%, not much time to play with hardware recently)


----------



## GeneO

Meant to drop a thanks here. I have been using this in conjunction with other stability checks and it works great, catches instabilities quickly.👍


----------



## KedarWolf

Am I going crazy or does the MB/sec you get in RamTest increase with faster drives.

Seems to be much faster since moving it from a traditional hard disk to a 960 Pro M.2.

I'm now getting a sustained 180MB/sec.


----------



## gammagoat

How are you guys getting the MB/sec to show, when I mouse over the coverage section nothing shows?


----------



## Rusakova

Oh my ... paid for this today. I thought my memory was stable. Turned out it wasn't according to this program. So I have spent a few hours tweaking and currently it's at 1200% and still running. Before tweaking it almost always stopped with an error before 100%.
Ram being tested is 2 x 16 GB G.Skill F43200c14D-32gtz ... 1353% now


----------



## CJMitsuki

As far as testing within the OS I like this a lot and is better than HCI memtest in that aspect but HCI memtest can also test outside of OS with their "Deluxe" version. Testing outside of an Operating System is what you should do first and foremost before ever booting into your OS with memory that could possibly be unstable. It can corrupt many files that can lead to having to do a clean install of Windows. I would love to see this developed into a bootable memtest since you are limited on choices for those. Not only can it save you the pain of corrupt system files, you can only fully test RAM outside of the OS since there is some RAM always in use by the OS and possibly have an error.


----------



## neur0cide

datspike said:


> Just found out about this new tool, works like a charm. It is for sure detecting errors better than HCI, however I'm still not sure how it compares to TestMem 5.
> At which coverage you guys find errors with this tool? My configuration seems to either fail before 5 minutes mark or be "stable" (only tested up to 3000%, not much time to play with hardware recently)


In my experience RAM Test can force errors even beyond 7000% coverage. I'm testing with CPU cache = enabled since I'm also interested in IMC stability.
RAM Test truly is a godsend as it speeds up my workflow considerably when ocing RAM while still being more reliable than HCI.


----------



## inedenimadam

Interesting. 



Glad to see a couple trusted names jumping in and giving it a go. Sounds like there is some potential in this program. 



I am pretty satisfied with the current state of my RAM and its overclock, but should the need arise, I will take another look at this program.


----------



## B3MMi

I bought the test and I wasn't disappointed. This is THE best RAM test as far as I know.


----------



## MNMadman

I bought it and I like it. It's a great program, but it can't be called the best. The reason is simple: you can't test all of your RAM with it. There is always the possibility that the RAM used by Windows (or the free RAM that you're not testing) is generating errors. The bootable programs run from a CD or USB test more of the RAM.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

KedarWolf said:


> Am I going crazy or does the MB/sec you get in RamTest increase with faster drives.
> 
> Seems to be much faster since moving it from a traditional hard disk to a 960 Pro M.2.
> 
> I'm now getting a sustained 180MB/sec.


Interesting, I'm running this on a 970 Pro and only getting ~90MB/s. Running with cache enabled and XORWOW. What are your RAM speed / timings?

EDIT: Bumping up speed/timings, now getting 145MB/sec


----------



## mikochu

I ran RAM Test while I was at work today. It ran for almost 8 hours before encountering an error at 10652%. Should I be concerned with the error or should I be okay?


----------



## MNMadman

mikochu said:


> I ran RAM Test while I was at work today. It ran for almost 8 hours before encountering an error at 10652%. Should I be concerned with the error or should I be okay?


One error is too many. Remember that this program doesn't test all of the RAM anyway, because it can't test what Windows is already using and there has to be some free RAM. So that 10,000%+ is still only part of the RAM.

That's why I test two runs of RAMTest to 10,000% now as part of my stability testing suite. Run one, reboot, run two. If it can do two 10,000% runs error-free, I consider the RAM stable. The other programs I use for stability testing also test the RAM at least somewhat, so if it passes them all the system as a whole is stable.


----------



## Huzzaa

Err. Are you so sure though?

Doesn't the Kernel reserve the same portion/area from the end of the available memory pool anyway?

That's what I know at least, correct me if I'm wrong. But by that logic, between reboots it's also useless. EDIT: To use a milder word, not useless but, producing the same result.

Just bought the thing as well, going to test later when I get home tonight, as the work PC is running Ubuntu MATE.

PS. @Mustanaamio Does the License actually mean 5 total machines or 5 concurrent machines? As in, if I happen to waste my license on a VM then I have used up 1 of my 5 allowable machines that I can register with or does it track 5 simultaneous machines? I'm asking just to be sure. Personally I'd believe it's the first one.


----------



## MNMadman

Huzzaa said:


> Err. Are you so sure though?
> 
> Doesn't the Kernel reserve the same portion/area from the end of the available memory pool anyway?
> 
> That's what I know at least, correct me if I'm wrong. But by that logic, between reboots it's also useless. EDIT: To use a milder word, not useless but, producing the same result.
> 
> Just bought the thing as well, going to test later when I get home tonight, as the work PC is running Ubuntu MATE.


This is not the only program I use for memory testing -- it is simply the fastest.

I always do reboots between my stress test programs. One time I passed a 15,000% run, rebooted and started RAMTest again and it errored out within 200%. That's why I always do two 10,000%+ passes of RAMTest. And the other stress test programs I run also test the RAM to varying degrees, so RAMTest isn't the only thing I rely on for RAM testing. If it doesn't pass all stress tests, it's not stable.


----------



## KedarWolf

hokeyplyr48 said:


> Interesting, I'm running this on a 970 Pro and only getting ~90MB/s. Running with cache enabled and XORWOW. What are your RAM speed / timings?
> 
> EDIT: Bumping up speed/timings, now getting 145MB/sec


I get 180MB/sec+ with my 8700k at 5.1GHZ, cache at 5.0, memory at 4300MHZ, 18-18-18-32 2T. longer it runs, higher it goes.


----------



## dspx

I am wondering if I test with CPU cache disabled and it turns out there are no errors, but with cache enabled there are - is there a way to test only the cache, or there are some guidelines how it can be stabilized?


----------



## JMTH

dspx said:


> I am wondering if I test with CPU cache disabled and it turns out there are no errors, but with cache enabled there are - is there a way to test only the cache, or there are some guidelines how it can be stabilized?


Increase cash voltage until it doesn't fail with the cache option on.


----------



## dspx

JMTH said:


> Increase cash voltage until it doesn't fail with the cache option on.


I think I don't have that option in my BIOS, could you point me in the right direction?


----------



## MNMadman

dspx said:


> I think I don't have that option in my BIOS, could you point me in the right direction?


The AMD equivalent is SOC voltage.


----------



## dspx

MNMadman said:


> The AMD equivalent is SOC voltage.


Ok, thanks. It's at 1.1V currently but I think I should not go higher than that.


----------



## MNMadman

​


dspx said:


> Ok, thanks. It's at 1.1V currently but I think I should not go higher than that.


The maximum recommended SOC for everyday usage is 1.2v so there is a bit of room there, but it's up to you.


----------



## dspx

MNMadman said:


> The maximum recommended SOC for everyday usage is 1.2v so there is a bit of room there, but it's up to you.


Thank you, I will give it a shot and see if it helps.


----------



## Killer344

MNMadman said:


> One error is too many. Remember that this program doesn't test all of the RAM anyway, because it can't test what Windows is already using and there has to be some free RAM. So that 10,000%+ is still only part of the RAM.
> 
> That's why I test two runs of RAMTest to 10,000% now as part of my stability testing suite. Run one, reboot, run two. If it can do two 10,000% runs error-free, I consider the RAM stable. The other programs I use for stability testing also test the RAM at least somewhat, so if it passes them all the system as a whole is stable.


Did that, then 2 runs of 4 hour GSAT from a bootable pendrive, then did it again on RAMTest and got an error at 10888%.... Did it again up to 20000% and got no errors, so I guess that one time was just a fluke?


Or we are getting kinda paranoid and it's acceptable to see some error from time to time...


----------



## JMTH

Killer344 said:


> MNMadman said:
> 
> 
> 
> One error is too many. Remember that this program doesn't test all of the RAM anyway, because it can't test what Windows is already using and there has to be some free RAM. So that 10,000%+ is still only part of the RAM.
> 
> That's why I test two runs of RAMTest to 10,000% now as part of my stability testing suite. Run one, reboot, run two. If it can do two 10,000% runs error-free, I consider the RAM stable. The other programs I use for stability testing also test the RAM at least somewhat, so if it passes them all the system as a whole is stable.
> 
> 
> 
> Did that, then 2 runs of 4 hour GSAT from a bootable pendrive, then did it again on RAMTest and got an error at 10888%.... Did it again up to 20000% and got no errors, so I guess that one time was just a fluke?
> 
> 
> Or we are getting kinda paranoid and it's acceptable to see some error from time to time...
Click to expand...

How are your RAM temps? If your >40 or 50 deg C, you can get random errors on long test runs.


----------



## Killer344

Got a G.Skill Trident kit running at 4133mhz 1.4v with the cpu cooler blowing air to it so I don't think temperature can be an issue. Besides, right after it failed at 10,888% I did another run to 20,000% with no problems...


----------



## JMTH

Killer344 said:


> Got a G.Skill Trident kit running at 4133mhz 1.4v with the cpu cooler blowing air to it so I don't think temperature can be an issue. Besides, right after it failed at 10,888% I did another run to 20,000% with no problems...


You should log your ram Temps next time you run just to make sure.


----------



## Trender

Hey guys, I finally ran my RAMs(xd) at 3600! I hope its stable but im asking you, Karhu says 1h, my memories were stable up to 1h 36 mins, what do you think?


----------



## elbubi

Trender said:


> Hey guys, I finally ran my RAMs(xd) at 3600! I hope its stable but im asking you, Karhu says 1h, my memories were stable up to 1h 36 mins, what do you think?


God, how the hell have you accomplished that? I have a CH VII Hero combined with F4-3600C17D-16GTZR and I can't even reach 3466 stable even at cl18, only 3200. Tried everything at my (limited) knowledge to no success...


Regards!


----------



## Trender

elbubi said:


> God, how the hell have you accomplished that? I have a CH VII Hero combined with F4-3600C17D-16GTZR and I can't even reach 3466 stable even at cl18, only 3200. Tried everything at my (limited) knowledge to no success...
> 
> 
> Regards!


Ive got 2 set of rams, both b-die, my g skills gt rgb at 3533 and my kfa2 galax at 3600. both are rrated 3600.
I got it by tinkering with procodt and rttpark on my kfa2, my g skills didnt needed that as default was the good settings, couldnt get them to 3600


----------



## elbubi

I might be doing something wrong cause I just can't make them run at anything beyond 3200, total unstable and/or memory errors all over the way.

Thanks for the input.

Regards!


----------



## The Pook

RAM OCing is finicky. 

My RAM is stable @ 3733 16-17-17-36 1T on the most recent BIOS, but when I run an older BIOS to allow BCLK OCing non-K CPUs I'm limited to ~3400 CL17 despite it being an XMP 3600 kit.


----------



## toncij

Where is that WinGSAT from? Link?


----------



## BLUuuE

toncij said:


> Where is that WinGSAT from? Link?


https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html


----------



## gupsterg

gupsterg said:


> Revisited TPU MemTest64 yesterday or so, as I couldn't recall why I stopped using it. With the Maximum setting it failed to grab anything more than 12GB out of 32GB. I then went back to GSAT/HCI. This app does seem like something I may purchase soon.
> 
> 
> 
> neur0cide said:
> 
> 
> 
> @gupsterg
> You should. This tool is better than HCI in every aspect.
Click to expand...

Having now spent a day or two usage with RAM Test I concur a valid and worthwhile purchase :thumb: .



neur0cide said:


> In my experience RAM Test can force errors even beyond 7000% coverage. I'm testing with CPU cache = enabled since I'm also interested in IMC stability.
> RAM Test truly is a godsend as it speeds up my workflow considerably when ocing RAM while still being more reliable than HCI.


Will try that setup as well and agree it has speeded up my profile testing by a great deal  .


----------



## hojnikb

I bought the software, as it seems to be much faster than HCI. Now my question is; is the license any way transferable ? I'm probably gonna use it on multiple systems.


----------



## BLUuuE

hojnikb said:


> I bought the software, as it seems to be much faster than HCI. Now my question is; is the license any way transferable ? I'm probably gonna use it on multiple systems.


"A single license allows personal use of the software on up to five computers at a time."


----------



## hojnikb

BLUuuE said:


> "A single license allows personal use of the software on up to five computers at a time."


Oh, so i can register this key to 5 computers. Lets say i need a 6th computer, is it possible to unregister one computer and register that slot to the 6th ?


----------



## os2wiz

CptKuolio said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am not the creator of this program, nor do I work with the company releasing it. I've been and I am part of the community from where this software originates.
> 
> Been wanting to share this program with a larger crowd for long, but it has been in a semi-closed alpha until now.
> 
> Let me present you Ram Test, a simple memory testing utility that is both very effective and accurate (finds errors better then i.e. HCI Memtest) and also very very fast. About 15 times faster then HCI memtest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The program is made by Karhusoftware, a one man project from Finland. The program was born after the creator, Mustanaamio, got frustrated with how long it took to bench his memory configs with his Ryzen build last summer. He got pissed of enough to actually write his own memory tester, and it has been quite popular in finnish overclocker/computer enthusiast scene since. Mustanaamio sold licenses to Ram Test at io-tech.fi forums when the program was in alpha/beta, and has now released it 'to the wild'.
> 
> There is a large community behind this project at https://bbs.io-tech.fi/.
> 
> I rate Ram Test as the best memory testing utlity at this time, bar from using linux-mint and google's memorybench. But out of standalone utilities/programs in windows this is by far the most accurate, thorough and FAST. I repeat; about 15 times faster then HCI memtest. And no need to launch multiple instaces of the program! I can push 703% coverage on 12288 megabyte memory-run in 10 minutes, when HCI memtest only does ~45% covera in same time. HUUUUUUGE! Check my video, I show you the two of them against each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can skip to 12:00 mark to see how they compare, the beginning of the video is pretty much just showing of the program, and telling some tales about it's origins.
> 
> *edit*
> 
> A friend aproaced me saying that I should have ran 12 instances of HCI memtest, one per CPU-thread available. So I did a re-test, and the result is the same as the original:
> 
> */edit*
> 
> Get it from here, 9.99 euros / lifetime license:
> 
> https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/
> Quote:RAM TEST README
> 
> RAM Test is a fast and reliable memory testing software with a graphical user
> interface. It can be used to test your system memory for hardware faults or an
> unstable overclock.
> 
> The software supports up to 8 TB of memory on a 64-bit machine and up to 2 GB
> of memory on a 32-bit machine. The testing algorithm scales for up to 64
> threads and has optimized code paths for AVX and AVX2 capable processors.
> 
> 1. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
> 
> Your system must meet the following requirements to be able to run RAM Test:
> 
> * Microsoft Windows 7 or later (supports both 32-bit and 64-bit versions)
> * Microsoft .NET Framework 4.5 or later
> * A CPU with full SSE2 support
> * An internet connection during activation
> 
> 2. INSTALLATION
> 
> RAM Test is a portable software and does not come with an installer. To get
> the software up and running, follow the steps below:
> 
> 1. Unzip the files to any folder in which your user account has full
> permissions
> 2. Run ramtest.exe
> 3. Activate your license with the product key
> 4. Start testing
> 
> It is possible to "install" the software on a USB flash drive.
> 
> 3. SETTINGS
> 
> Megabytes:
> 
> The amount of memory to test in megabytes.
> 
> If you have the paging file enabled and you use too large value, the test
> may progress very slowly due to the operating system having to cycle pages
> through your SSD/HDD.
> 
> Threads:
> 
> The number of threads to use for testing.
> 
> Optimal performance is achieved by specifying a value equal to the
> number of processor cores in your system.
> 
> Beep on error:
> 
> Play a beep sound when a memory error is detected.
> 
> Stop on error:
> 
> Automatically stop testing when a memory error is detected.
> 
> Telemetry:
> 
> Allow the collection of the following additional personal and/or
> anonymized data each time a test is finished:
> 
> * RAM Test version
> * RAM Test platform (x64 or x86)
> * Value of the megabytes setting
> * Value of the threads setting
> * Motherboard make and model
> * Processor make and model
> * Memory make and model
> * Test duration
> * Test coverage
> * Test error count
> 
> 4. HOW TO USE
> 
> Configure the settings to your preference in the graphical user interface and
> click the start button to begin testing. To stop testing, just click the same
> button again.
> 
> It is recommended to run the test for at least 10 minutes before drawing any
> conclusions about the stability of your system memory. To detect intermittent
> memory errors you should let the test run for at least one hour.
> 
> 5. CHANGELOG
> 
> 1.0.0.0 (20.12.2017):
> + Initial release
> 
> 6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
> 
> Unstable or faulty memory can cause your computer to crash or worse. DO NOT
> RUN THE SOFTWARE IF YOU HAVE ANY UNSAVED WORK OPEN. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
> 
> 
> Apologies for bad grammar, I am not a native English speaker but I try to be understandable


 You and a bunch other here are overrating this utility. There many instances where your loyal users claim it is the greatest, yet it has failed in real-time gaming scenarios to detect instability. You have a cult following. I do NOT believe in cults, only in cold-hard science. Karhu has a long way to go before it is even half as accurate as Y Cruncher.


----------



## BLUuuE

hojnikb said:


> Oh, so i can register this key to 5 computers. Lets say i need a 6th computer, is it possible to unregister one computer and register that slot to the 6th ?


Not too sure how it works, but it's worth a shot.


----------



## bmgjet

Been working on my ram overclock over my holiday break, My ram kit really is rubbish tho.
Factory 3200 16/18/18 2T @ 1.3V
Overclocked I can get 3400 16/18/18 2T @ 1.42V
Or 
Overclocked 3200 14/14/14 1T @ 1.38V
Found those two settings with a short run a Y-cruncher

Settled on the lower ram timings since it took less voltage and aida mem benchmark was slightly faster.
Then finally tested with memtest86 and was stable 24 hours but Iv been having DPC watch dog blue screen errors randomly.

Gave this software a run and 10mins in found a error at 1.38v.
Bumped voltage up to 1.4V found a error again 1 hour 7mins in.
I guess ill give the voltage another little bump and see what happens before looking else where in my overclock.

BTW is it ment to draw more power with FPU load then prime does with AVX.
Im getting 450-500W CPU draw. (7900X @ 5ghz)

---
5 hours in no error, I guess this is good enough for me, 1.405v.
Time to test some games and benchmarks.


----------



## pyromaniac1

*Any way to purchase this without PayPal?*

I live in Bangladesh and I have visa / Mastercard credit cards. Sadly there's no way to get PayPal here. How can I purchase?


----------



## umeng2002

Found errors in minutes even after a 30 minute pass in Memtest86 (usb booted) didn't find any errors.


----------



## CubanB

pyromaniac1 said:


> I live in Bangladesh and I have visa / Mastercard credit cards. Sadly there's no way to get PayPal here. How can I purchase?


Did you end up getting it? You should email support and ask if you can do a bank transfer. You might have a wait a few days for the payment to clear, but I'd imagine they would accept payment in this way. You could always ask and see what they say. Or you could buy an Amazon gift card (for example) and have it shipped to them. My point is.. there's ways to get payments to people, even if it's more hassle and takes longer.

I just bought this program and my initial impressions are that it's very fast/efficient. Will take weeks/months until I can talk about it's ability to pick up errors but on first glance it looks like a very useful streamlined program for those that don't want a lot of wait time or hassle. With 64GB of RAM this is much appreciated.


----------



## FedericoUY

Is there a way to test this software without purchasing, kinda memtest does?


----------



## umeng2002

I don't think so, you buy it and get emailed a link to download it.


----------



## Mappi75

Karhu RAM Test is good - but for me HCI Memtest Pro v6.30 works better.

I had strange CRC Error with Macrium Reflect Home (my favorite tool for backup a system since years),
during the verify it stops because it found crc errors.

I set higher voltages and:

- RealBench runs 8hours 32GB perfect stable
- Karhu RAM Test 1.1.0.0 runs 12 hours stable

- BUT HCI MemTest Pro 6.3 found still errors.

Then i have to make 3x times a full backup - and i got still crc errors. HCI was the one and only which show me that something is wrong.

BTW RealBench was very good too to finding errors(in the first steps) like macrium reflect has.

For me RealBench/Karhu RAM Test/HCI MemTest/Prime95 i would use all (and passmark memtest).

In my opinion - using only one program does not mean your system is perfect stable.

I think Karhu is good to find fast first "harder" errors. If i want to go deeper i would use hci - i wrote a batch (thanks to @CJMitsuki),
so it runs 16 instances with 1875MB each and in win 10 you can sort the 16 windows via Taskbar option.

BTW: i replaced the system because ist was used hardware and i think CPU/Mobo/Mem something was fishy there.

Edit: and for me it was a shock that my 7980xe 128GB 3200 CL14 system was'nt stable - thats shows me hci too (and i thought all was ok..)


----------



## Darkomax

Not sure if it's only me but it doesn't work anymore since the last W10 update, the culprit is the new version of d3d9.dll that came with the update, and uninstalling that update fix the issue but I don't want to keep updates off forever.


----------



## Darkomax

So it was a conflict between Rivatuner and RAM Test, closing it fixes this issue.


----------



## NIK1

Anyone know how I can get another copy of RAM TEST.I bought it back in Dec/2017 and can not find the USB stick I had it on and my e-mails don't go back to DEC/2017 to re-download it with my registration codes.Does anyone have their e-mail address so I could ask them to resend me the download link and codes..Any help appreciated..I guess no one has their e-mail address.The site where you buy it does not show it either.Midas well re-buy it.Its cheap.


----------



## eBombzor

[email protected]


----------



## NIK1

Thanks


----------



## Cidious

Just bought Karhu. 

I normally use 1usmus his TestMem 5 v0.12 during tweaking and it will run for a bit over half an hour and mostly fish out the common errors. But I was tinkering with tWR a few days ago and HCI would only find those single errors after a few hours of running. HCI is still most thorough.

I'll include Karhu in the mix. But TBT I think TestMem and HCI (Pro) together are more than enough. I'll lower my tWR again just for testing and see if Karhu can get those errors sooner than HCI. Would be fun to see. TestMem 5 wouldn't find them in that short duration.


----------



## eBombzor

Cidious said:


> Just bought Karhu.
> 
> I normally use 1usmus his TestMem 5 v0.12 during tweaking and it will run for a bit over half an hour and mostly fish out the common errors. But I was tinkering with tWR a few days ago and HCI would only find those single errors after a few hours of running. HCI is still most thorough.
> 
> I'll include Karhu in the mix. But TBT I think TestMem and HCI (Pro) together are more than enough. I'll lower my tWR again just for testing and see if Karhu can get those errors sooner than HCI. Would be fun to see. TestMem 5 wouldn't find them in that short duration.


I found the opposite to be true. I had my tWR on 10 and it ran up to 100% on HCI but when I used Kahru it caught the error within minutes. However both failed to catch a too low tRFC while BF4 caught it instantly.


----------



## NIK1

How is it best to use this program to test Cpu Ring Cache voltage stability.Do you use write-combined or just enabled and run.Also how long should it run for to test the ring cache.


----------



## BUFUMAN

Good questions anyone here to share the knowledge???

Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## umeng2002

I'm not familiar with intel OC'ing. But I just use this for RAM stability in the default mode.

I use Linpack Extreme to test RAM and cache stability with the CPU execution units under load.

Just because your RAM is stable under a RAM stability test, doesn't mean it's stable when the other parts of the CPU are working 100%.


----------



## BUFUMAN

umeng2002 said:


> I'm not familiar with intel OC'ing. But I just use this for RAM stability in the default mode.
> 
> 
> 
> I use Linpack Extreme to test RAM and cache stability with the CPU execution units under load.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because your RAM is stable under a RAM stability test, doesn't mean it's stable when the other parts of the CPU are working 100%.


for that I use Realbench on my Ryzen.

Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Dannyz

Ended up buying the software. I believe I finally have gotten my ram to be stable. 



Ran Prime 95 Blend for 13 Hours
HCI for about 12
now Karhu for almost 14 and no errors detected.


----------



## Ronski

I've just built a new Ryzen 3900X system, and came across this program, so bought a copy.

I haven't overclocked anything really since I built my 5830K system 4 years, and this app has been a great help, so thanks.

I'd like to make some suggestions if I may.

1. In the early days of overclocking my memory/IF I would get a complete crash and reboot, but there appears to be no way to know how long Ram test ran before the crash, perhaps update a log file at each full pass. Though I suspect if the overclock is this unstable it will crash pretty quickly.
2. There is no pause button, this would be useful for when someone wanted to pause testing, say rather than leave the machine on overnight - I'd only want to do that if I knew I already had a fairly stable overclock.
3. Given the above, I put the computer to sleep when I went to bed last night. Ram test carried on working this morning when I woke it up, but the elapsed time included the time the PC had been sleeping.
4. Actually a CSV file of results would be pretty useful.

PS. Got my ram stable at 3800Mhz, just need to coax my IF up from a stable 1867 to 1900, it will bench at 1900 but it's not ram test stable at 1900


----------



## happyluckbox

How can I get karhu ram test to work for a 3990x? It says it only supports 64 threads. Can I run 2 instances?


----------



## boombastik

I bought Karhu with pay pal and i didn't receive anything in my email after 3 hours.
I also email the support and i didn't hear anything.
How much time i must wait?


----------



## Ronski

Just checked and mine came through instantly, perhaps try sending a PM to the OP of this thread, they may be able to contact the author.


----------



## boombastik

I waited 24 hours and i also contacted them with a second email. I didn't received an answer. Probably the company is only one man and maybe he has a problem.
I think i will ask for a dispute.


----------



## Ronski

Did you check your spam folder just in case it's in there?


----------



## boombastik

Yes. I open a dispute before 11 hours. He didn't answer to paypal untill now.


----------



## Ronski

Hope you get it sorted it's a great piece of software.


----------



## boombastik

Today he answer to my email and i received the download link and the key.
I closed the case in PayPal of course.


----------



## KedarWolf

I lost my email for the licence and download for Karhu Mem Test. I emailed their tech support, nada.

Someone I can contact here or PM?


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> I lost my email for the licence and download for Karhu Mem Test. I emailed their tech support, nada.
> 
> Someone I can contact here or PM?


Never mind. I emailed them again and they sent me my licence.


----------

