Correction:
The date for the new mother board is 08/03/98 and not 09/03/98! Looks like
I'm doing time travel!
Richard.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Richard Ekpat, M.D.
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 8:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCBUILD] HARDWARE: How Critical Are RAM Chips?
>
>
> I've just finished putting together a system based on the EPOX
> EP-51MVP3E-M
> Super 7 motherboard, for one of my offices.
> I choosed this MOBO because I already have a system based on it that has
> given me good satisfaction for the past few months.
>
> Now, this new system will not POST with the PC-100 64 MB (single unit)
> generic RAM chips that I bought!
> Swapping the 64 MB RAM chip from my older machine, the system
> POSTs but will
> only do so if I insert the RAM chip into BANK 1 (the middle slot) of the
> three SDRAM slots. Any other slots (BANK 0 and BANK 2) were no go
> areas; and
> even then system hangs when I try to go into SETUP!
> However, the new RAM chip works well with my older machine which uses the
> same motherboard in BANK 0 and BANK 1 of the SDRAM slots .
> Both motherboards use Award Modular BIOS v4.51 PG with the
> following dates:
> 06/29/98 for the older board, and 09/03/98 for the newer board.
> The AMD K6-2 300MHZ processor that I'm using works very well in my old
> board, so I don't think the fault lies there.
> EPOX Technical Support did not see why the MOBO should not POST except the
> board was faulty though they recommended CORSAIR PC-100 RAMs for maximum
> stability.
>
> My questions are these:
> a) Why did the RAM work in one motherboard but refuse to work in the other
> (same brand)?
>
> b) Why did it prefer BANK 1 but will not post when inserted into BANK 0 or
> BANK 2?
>
> c) Is the RAM chip so critical in this type of motherboard, and
> why is that
> so?
> Could this also apply generally to all Super 7 motherboards?
>
> Any personal experience with the EPOX Super 7 motherboards will be highly
> appreciated. Many thanks.
>
> Richard.
>