F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Windows is displaying only half of the available RAM speed.

Windows is displaying only half of the available RAM speed.

Windows is displaying only half of the available RAM speed.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
S
Sanjacobito
Junior Member
18
06-26-2016, 06:38 PM
#11
It seems there might be some confusion. Could you clarify what you're referring to? I'm here to help with any questions or issues you have.
S
Sanjacobito
06-26-2016, 06:38 PM #11

It seems there might be some confusion. Could you clarify what you're referring to? I'm here to help with any questions or issues you have.

M
Magnola
Junior Member
34
07-03-2016, 04:16 AM
#12
CPU-Z is more accurate than the built-in task manager. It consistently displays real clock data, making it dependable. My personal manager shows adjusted speed, which isn't as trustworthy. Windows misrepresents disk usage measurements, so I wouldn't rely on it for RAM rates.
M
Magnola
07-03-2016, 04:16 AM #12

CPU-Z is more accurate than the built-in task manager. It consistently displays real clock data, making it dependable. My personal manager shows adjusted speed, which isn't as trustworthy. Windows misrepresents disk usage measurements, so I wouldn't rely on it for RAM rates.

H
henry1028
Member
60
07-03-2016, 04:55 AM
#13
The Windows Task Manager isn't very useful. Check CPUZ or HWINFO for real performance data. Don't rely on it.
H
henry1028
07-03-2016, 04:55 AM #13

The Windows Task Manager isn't very useful. Check CPUZ or HWINFO for real performance data. Don't rely on it.

K
Kynedee
Posting Freak
784
07-11-2016, 06:08 AM
#14
It appears the CPU-Z displays a genuine clock speed of 1066 MHz, whereas the XMP profile lists 1200 MHz. It might be worth reviewing the XMP settings within the BIOS again. Additionally, the "actual" frequency is shown in Task Manager.
K
Kynedee
07-11-2016, 06:08 AM #14

It appears the CPU-Z displays a genuine clock speed of 1066 MHz, whereas the XMP profile lists 1200 MHz. It might be worth reviewing the XMP settings within the BIOS again. Additionally, the "actual" frequency is shown in Task Manager.

L
L3gend_PvP
Junior Member
1
07-11-2016, 06:40 AM
#15
CPU-Z reports 1197.1MHz, while your RAM's actual frequency is 3600MHz as seen in the SPD section for maximum bandwidth. The memory details are what display the real performance.
L
L3gend_PvP
07-11-2016, 06:40 AM #15

CPU-Z reports 1197.1MHz, while your RAM's actual frequency is 3600MHz as seen in the SPD section for maximum bandwidth. The memory details are what display the real performance.

T
The_D3mon
Senior Member
694
07-16-2016, 03:43 AM
#16
I don't agree. Claiming the speed should be displayed as 2400 Mhz is incorrect. It should be shown in MT/s, not MHz. This misunderstanding is causing the confusion. Taskmanager accurately reflects the actual performance, rather than the higher figure you might prefer.
T
The_D3mon
07-16-2016, 03:43 AM #16

I don't agree. Claiming the speed should be displayed as 2400 Mhz is incorrect. It should be shown in MT/s, not MHz. This misunderstanding is causing the confusion. Taskmanager accurately reflects the actual performance, rather than the higher figure you might prefer.

_
_MinezPlays_
Member
183
07-16-2016, 04:17 AM
#17
The task manager behaves unpredictably, making it unsuitable for use. (For accurate details) It displays the estimated clock speed instead of the actual one.
_
_MinezPlays_
07-16-2016, 04:17 AM #17

The task manager behaves unpredictably, making it unsuitable for use. (For accurate details) It displays the estimated clock speed instead of the actual one.

T
TanysToy
Junior Member
48
07-16-2016, 12:57 PM
#18
Is this okay ...?
T
TanysToy
07-16-2016, 12:57 PM #18

Is this okay ...?

M
MerigaZENNA
Junior Member
13
07-21-2016, 10:54 AM
#19
Yes.
M
MerigaZENNA
07-21-2016, 10:54 AM #19

Yes.

R
Rhuji
Senior Member
437
07-22-2016, 12:31 AM
#20
This appears to be a Windows issue. It seems some updates might not have been applied, possibly affecting my display of the real clock. I’m curious why this happened—was it fixed in a recent patch?
R
Rhuji
07-22-2016, 12:31 AM #20

This appears to be a Windows issue. It seems some updates might not have been applied, possibly affecting my display of the real clock. I’m curious why this happened—was it fixed in a recent patch?

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next