Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

PC sees 3 Gig but says it's better with 4

- - - - - unused RAM still counts

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#1
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I got that Packard Bell laptop from a friend, which was going to bin it because it was making an awfull noise (I solved that in 3minutes). Nice screen, 1440 x 900, annoying keyboard (or is it because it needs the screws back on?).

Anyway... The thing, that is not listed on Packard Bell's site (Easynote SW51-204) has an nvidia chipset. It had 2x 512 Meg installed. I test a 2Gig stick and it was seeing it all right. So I grabbed a bargain on eBay to put 2x2Gig DDR2-6400 in it.

Unfortunately, the Bios as well as Windows7 only report 3Gig (Windows really says 4Gig but 2.87 usable because the graphic card uses 128Meg). So I replaced one stick by 1Gig DDR2-6400. Well... it then says the RAM is slower! I tried to swap the sticks but it's the same result.

HW-Info tells the same story for all scenarios (2+2, 1+2 or 2+1);

 [General information]
  Total Memory Size:                      4 GBytes
  Total Memory Size [MB]:                 4096
 [Current Performance Settings]
  Current Memory Clock:                   320.7 MHz
  Current Timing (tCAS-tRCD-tRP-tRAS):    5.0-5-5-15
  Memory Runs At:                         Dual-Channel
  Command Rate:                           2T
  Write to Read Delay (tWR_RD) Same Rank (tWTR): 3T
  Write to Precharge Delay (tWTP):        16T
  Write Recovery Time (tWR):              5T
  Row Cycle Time (tRC):                   21T
  Four Activate Window (tFAW):            13T
[General information]
  Total Memory Size:                      3 GBytes
  Total Memory Size [MB]:                 3072
[Current Performance Settings]
  Current Memory Clock:                   320.7 MHz
  Current Timing (tCAS-tRCD-tRP-tRAS):    5.0-5-5-15
  Memory Runs At:                         Dual-Channel
  Command Rate:                           2T
  Write to Read Delay (tWR_RD) Same Rank (tWTR):    3T
  Write to Precharge Delay (tWTP):        16T
  Write Recovery Time (tWR):              5T
  Row Cycle Time (tRC):                   21T
  Four Activate Window (tFAW):            13T

Still, the "Benchmark" says 1800MB/s for 4Gig and 1596MB/s for 3Gig! Windows Performance index also gives less for RAM speed with 3Gig.

Can someone explain that to me? I'm quite frustrated to loose a whole Gigabyte for 13% more speed. Is this a 100% hardware problem?( there is no Bios info/update that I can find).


Edited by Ponch, 01 January 2015 - 02:22 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 10,083 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Two things to note. It appears that chipset will allocate 512MB to the video controller.

Memory Allocation Technology TurboCache supporting 512MB

http://www.backoffic...on_64_x2_tl.asp

Second, in the 1+2 or 2+1 configuration, you are running in single channel. Using the matched set you are in dual channel. Some benchmark tests will show memory running in dual channel to be "faster" as can be seen here:
http://www.gamersnex...-channel/Page-3

See the MaxxMem one for example.

Can you post screenshots from CPU-Z showing the SPD for each stick? Also post the model numbers physically printed on each piece for comparison.
MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg

#3
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,009 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
And I guess you have not the guts :w00t: :ph34r: to patch the Windows 7 (32 bit) to allow it seeing the whole 4Gb, right? :whistle:

;)

jaclaz

#4
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

And I guess you have not the guts :w00t: :ph34r: to patch the Windows 7 (32 bit) to allow it seeing the whole 4Gb, right? :whistle:

Is this a real question? Well if he Bios only "half sees" them (in fact I'll edit my 1st post, Windows does say "4GB, 2.87 usable"), there's very little chance that it could solve the problem. I'll send you my Bios as an ascii file and see if you got the guts to patch it. :rolleyes:

For the video card, there is no menu in Bios to change those 128MB.

Here are the SPD's:

Attached File  CPU-Z_1Gig.jpg   40.65KB   0 downloads  Attached File  CPU-Z_2Gig.jpg   40.86KB   0 downloads

 

both 2Gig are identical and are; Hynix 2GB 2Rx8   PC2-6400S - 666- 12         HYMP125S64- S6 AB

the 1Gig reads                     Samsung 1GB 2Rx16 PC2-6400S - 666- 12 -A3   M470T2864QZ3-CF7   0931

 

While I do understand that dual channel is better than single, I don't see why HWinfo32 reports the memory as running Dual Channel but then bechmarks as single channel. Maybe he report only checks the beginning of the memory (maybe it goes dual channel up to the 1st 2Gigs then single channel for the remaining Gig of the 2Gig stick???). Cheers.



#5
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,186 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

And I guess you have not the guts :w00t: :ph34r: to patch the Windows 7 (32 bit) to allow it seeing the whole 4Gb, right? :whistle:

 

Is this a real question? Well if he Bios only "half sees" them (in fact I'll edit my 1st post, Windows does say "4GB, 2.87 usable"), there's very little chance that it could solve the problem. I'll send you my Bios as an ascii file and see if you got the guts to patch it. :rolleyes:

For the video card, there is no menu in Bios to change those 128MB.

 

While he is half-joking, jaclaz is right, it can be done and does solve the problem (<link>), but it's frowned upon by MS.



#6
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 10,083 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

The SPD looks good. The only reason I asked for it was because you can run into RAM sticks that are re-labelled. ;)

While I do understand that dual channel is better than single, I don't see why HWinfo32 reports the memory as running Dual Channel but then bechmarks as single channel. Maybe he report only checks the beginning of the memory (maybe it goes dual channel up to the 1st 2Gigs then single channel for the remaining Gig of the 2Gig stick???). Cheers.


Well I don't think your benchmark is "testing" as single channel. It either is or it isn't. AFAIK, these tools merely read the state from the BIOS. It could either be a reporting error or a reading error. I looked up Hwinfo32 and see that it has detection for single/dual/quad per chipset. On the Memory tab of CPU-Z, there is a Channel # field. When you have the mismatching pair in, what does it say? If it says Single (as I would expect) then see if there is a newer version of hwinfo32... or if that doesn't work then perhaps file a bug report?

However, if CPU-Z also says dual channel with the mismatched set, then the problem might stem from the system itself.
MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg

#7
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Well I don't think your benchmark is "testing" as single channel.

I meant "the benchmark results looked like it was single channel". For the rest, you are right, CPU-Z says it's single channel, while the latest HWinfo32 reports dual channel. So I got my answer. Thanks.

@Dencorso, I bet Windows 7-64bits would tell me exactly the same (if (?) you read the 1st post).

Then some smart people would tell me "there is no gain on a sub 4GB system anyway". I know the songs here.

There's a reason I posted this in the hardware forum. :P


  • Tripredacus likes this

#8
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 10,083 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Then some smart people would tell me "there is no gain on a sub 4GB system anyway". I know the songs here.
There's a reason I posted this in the hardware forum. :P


Well I could use the example that 512MB RDRAM was better than 2GB DDR... :P

Anyways, when it comes to computing it really comes down to what works best for you. I'm certain there are still those out there that wish to participate in RAM stick measuring contests, but whatever works for you is just fine. :D
MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg

#9
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,009 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Of course i was half-joking :), but you seemingly have not checked if (as I believe) the "2.87" is caused by just the OS, by a "specific" combination of BIOS+OS or by the BIOS alone.

 

What do you see (without any fancy benchmark tool) in Windows 7 Resource Monitor, like, you know:

 

 

Spoiler

 

jaclaz



#10
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

It's worse than that. With 2+2 it says

-Hardware Reserved:  1153 (which I translate in ~1024 "lost"+128 VGA)

-Total:  2943 (which translates in ~3x1024 "seen" -128VGA)

-Installed:  4096MB (which decency forbids me to translate)

It's just psychologically annoying. Such bios limitations would not "hurt" us if there were 3 memory slots, it just feels wrong on 2.

+Actually the bios only allows me to set less than 128Meg of shared memory (128, 64 or 32, ...or "Auto" that comes to 128).

As the laptop was sold with XP Mediacenter and 1024Meg, it made sense to have only 1/8 of the RAM shared. Case closed I guess.



#11
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,009 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Worse or better, it still seems to me like the issue is not in the BIOS but rather in the limit within the Windows 7 kernel.

 

I.e., if you prefer, it is likely that if you try patching the OS, you will be able to have:

 

-Hardware Reserved: 128 (which decency forbids me to translate)
-Total: 3967 (which translates in ~4x1024 "seen" -128VGA)
-Installed: 4096MB (which decency forbids me to translate)

 

jaclaz



#12
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Jaclaz, the issue is the Bios. It only sees 3Gig and will only allow Windows to use 3Gigs. While Wndows is aware that there are 2 sticks of both 2Gigs, it will only be given 3, not 3.5, not 3.25, but 3Gigs. This is not a 32bit vs 64bits OS issue. This is the hardware forum. ;)  Case closed.



#13
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,009 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Hey, you posted here:
 
 

(in fact I'll edit my 1st post, Windows does say "4GB, 2.87 usable"), there's very little chance that it could solve the problem.

 
I took that to be (with different values) the same that you can see in the screenshot I posted in Windows Resource monitor.
 
If you are sure that this is not your case, my bad :( though I am of course happy :) that the case is closed.
 
As a side note, it is really sad how I spent all these years in believing that the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was actually a hardware abstraction layer and that it was hardware related. 
 
jaclaz

#14
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined 12-May 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Ponch, no offense meant and I could be wrong, but I think that jaclaz is correct.  Regardless of what the BOIS says, I think that the Windows kernel is "artificially" limiting Windows to 3GB and by patching it you would be able to use the full 4GB.

 

Cheers and Regards


Posted Image


#15
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,186 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Ponch, with all due respect, both NT-family and unix-family OSes do fully supersede BIOS during the boot process. Hence, unless the machine's chipset does not contain a memory hoist, no matter what the BIOS thinks, those OSes can access all (or almost all) installed memory.



#16
smeezekitty

smeezekitty

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 36 posts
  • Joined 03-December 13
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x86
  • Country: Country Flag

A word of warning about PAEPATCH: It doesn't work with all drivers and some will cause a BSoD



#17
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

While he is half-joking, jaclaz is right, it can be done and does solve the problem (<link>), but it's frowned upon by MS.

It solves "a" problem but not "the" (my) problem.

 

I am of course happy :) that the case is closed.
 
As a side note, it is really sad how I spent all these years in believing that the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was actually a hardware abstraction layer and that it was hardware related.

Happy or sad, it seems that (your) sarcasm cannot bend (my) harsh reality.

 

Ponch, no offense meant and I could be wrong, but I think that jaclaz is correct.  Regardless of what the BIOS says, I think that the Windows kernel is "artificially" limiting Windows to 3GB and by patching it you would be able to use the full 4GB.

Yes indeed (you could be wrong). :yes:

 

Ponch, with all due respect, both NT-family and unix-family OSes do fully supersede BIOS during the boot process. Hence, unless the machine's chipset does not contain a memory hoist, no matter what the BIOS thinks, those OSes can access all (or almost all) installed memory.

Have you actually ever witnessed that? I haven't.

 

Anyway... as much as you, I hate it when people blatantly ignore advices. So for all you folks, even in the knowledge that none of you would pay me a beer after I would lose this half hour of my life,...I did it.

On this Motherboard which Bios only sees 3Gigs (before any OS kicks in) while 2x2Gigs are physically present, driven by this this PAE and NoExecute enabled AMD K8 processor I swapped HDD and loaded Win7 64 bits and oh, surprise, while Win7 sees 4 Gigs it still only gets 3 (2.87) Gig usable. This didn't come as a surprise as it is in fact written up this very web page I'm facing, as a thread's title. At he risk of repeating myself, this is not a 32bit OS problem. As we say in french, CQFD.

Attached File  Win7_64_vs_CPU-Z.jpg   24.24KB   0 downloads

I have an other example were a 512Meg stick is seen (limited) as 256Meg (even if used alone). Slightly different problem, same outcome. Bios has the 1st and the last word. This is what I see.

Attached File  Win7_vs_CPU-Z.jpg   21.97KB   0 downloads



#18
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,009 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Happy or sad, it seems that (your) sarcasm cannot bend (my) harsh reality.

 

Which saddens me :( (your harsh situation much more than the apparent failure of my perverted humour to at least cheer you up a bit :)).

I guess that getting a couple of identical 1.5 Gb sticks is out of question :unsure:, right? ;)

 

jaclaz



#19
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,438 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Slightly O/T, but I have several older MoBo's (HP's) that boot with 256MB RAM (SDRAM limited supply) sticks but one stick is only recognized as 128MB. They are not the same brand, BTW. Seems that the RAM chips aren't correctly recognized (the MBIT problem and how many chips on the stick).

 

IOW, are you *certain* that they're a matched set? May be the problem. :unsure:

 

edit - above is a "generic" description, so please don't slam me for using less-than-desirable terms and phrase.


Edited by submix8c, 22 January 2015 - 06:14 PM.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#20
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined 23-November 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
IOW, are you *certain* that they're a matched set? May be the problem. :unsure:

As certain as I am that you did not read the thread either. :angel

FYI,

-the original question is answered; HWinfo was mistakenly reporting 2+1 Gig as running Dual Channel, that was obvious to Tripredacus in the 1st answer (case closed).

-the collateral assumption (hammering) by all the Witnesses of J. that patching the OS would bypass the bios limitation is at last dismissed by hard facts and, I hope, accepted after I had to post 5 more times (case closed).

I can't believe I'll need a mod to close this.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users