|
Ram not found?
|
|
Member
1 product review
|
12. August 2008 @ 19:17 |
Link to this message
|
Ok well... I checked System info and found that it does indeed see 4GB of ram:
Total Physical Memory 4,096.00 MB
But my prob is... It states I only have 2.57GB of Available Ram... I find it hard to believe that XP needs a gig and a half to run itself... especially since my other comp with 256mb ram runs XP easily...
Available Physical Memory 2.57 GB
So yea... whats going on? I read on sites that XP (32 bit) can only see/use 3 or 3.5GB of ram... is this the issue? Do I really have to upgrade to 64bit OS to make use of my 4GB's of Ram?
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. August 2008 @ 20:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's correct, you will see 4094MB minus the amount of graphics memory you have.
|
Member
1 product review
|
12. August 2008 @ 20:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wait a sec... just ran Hot CPU Tester Pro and got a diff number...
Total Phys Mem: 3,341,676
Avail Phys Mem: 2,819,024
Total Virt Mem: 2,097,024
Avail Virt Mem: 2,055,540
Windows Sys info states about 4GB but Hot CPU shows 3.3GB
I've heard a lot about this... Thing is, which is more accurate?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. August 2008 @ 20:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hotmem, 3.3GB is common with PCs that have large amounts of memory in their graphics arrays (768MB+)
|
Member
1 product review
|
12. August 2008 @ 21:17 |
Link to this message
|
So basically I'm only getting to use around 3.3GB out of 4GB of my ram? Also, if this is true, will upgrading to Windows XP 64 Bit fix this? I have a copy of XP Corp 64Bit I can try...
(If I do the latter would it work to partition my drive, install XP Corp 64 on new partition to test to make sure it works, then delete the old Partition?)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. August 2008 @ 21:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by fuel_f2f:
So basically I'm only getting to use around 3.3GB out of 4GB of my ram? Also, if this is true, will upgrading to Windows XP 64 Bit fix this? I have a copy of XP Corp 64Bit I can try...
(If I do the latter would it work to partition my drive, install XP Corp 64 on new partition to test to make sure it works, then delete the old Partition?)
I'd pull RAM out of my computer before I would ever install any 64 bit OS. It isn't a software friendly OS.
Life is good!
GrandpaBruce - Vietnam Vet - 1970 - 1971
Computer: Intel Core i7-920 Nehalim;Asus P6T Deluxe V2
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 07:24 |
Link to this message
|
Windows XP 64-bit is hideous, use 64-bit Vista if you must have a 64-bit OS, even that isn't very nice. I have 4GB and can only use 3.5GB of it, but I don't really care, I've not used more than 3.5 so far, and even if I did, I'd sooner run out of RAM than have a crappy Operating System.
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Vista 32 bit doesn't support more than 4GB?
So I'm convinced NOT to use XP 64 Bit... 3.3GB is fine with me as well... Just tried playing Assassins Creed. Need a Vid card soon... built in GeForce 6150 can't even run Assassins Creed properly with lowest settings on tiny Res. Gonna Try Orange Box for now. Not sure how good Portal is graphically but I should be able to play HL2 at least till I get a graphics card.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 10:14 |
Link to this message
|
portal's about as demanding as HL2: Episode two, it'll probably run on low on the 6150SE, but not much higher, it's a pretty naff graphics chip (though an alarming number of noobs will try and convince you otherwise)
Vista 32 doesnt support over 4GB, I know that much, it might be even less with Vista.
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 10:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quick as always. Good thing I left outlook open while surfing. Well... I know this built in is garbage. And I know that at high end gaming my Dual Core 5000+ isn't cutting edge but its good enough for me. I've never really been into the newest of games anyways. But with a good graphics card I'm pretty sure this comp with 4... er... 3.3GB ram will fill my needs and then some till I decide to get another comp.
Plus I can always just replace the Mobo with one thats AM2+ and accepts Quad Core and then build my way from there. Woulda did that with this one but I was on a VERY tight budget and lucky I got this...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 10:33 |
Link to this message
|
That CPU really isn't THAT bad, it's still capable of playing most games out there quite well, the Quad cores have no real relevance to the games market except 3dmark yet... I have no trouble running games provided I adjust the graphics settings accordingly for my 3870 (and with my new GPU arriving soon hopefully that'll be a thing of the past) and I'd say my CPU is barely more than 45-50% faster than yours.
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 11:17 |
Link to this message
|
Oh I know the dual 5000+ is fine, just know its not top of the line anymore. But if I add a 4850 I'll be good for a while, then just get a better mobo and I can build up from there without having to get all new at once.
Mobo Allows for CPU upgrade later, then just add more ram, then better graphics card later (4850 should last me a while at my gaming level)
I'm gonna try to OC this one a little just to see how much of a diff I can make without having to beef my cooling much more... I'm running VERY cool right now suprisingly... and after a burn-in my CPU temp didn't rise that much... Now, I only burned it in for about 2 hours... but it was a decent test...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
The HD4850 is dozens of times faster than the 6150SE and should serve you well for a long time.
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
yea thats what I figured... I was thinking of cheaping out for a 3850, then saw little diff in the 3850 and 3650 other than the price so I almost went for a 3650... But I think it's best to wait and get the 4850, it'll likely make its way into the next incarnation of my Comp and keep me from having to shell out more cash in the long run.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 11:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
3850 is quite a lot faster than a 3650, but a 4850 is twice as fast as a 3850.
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 16:10 |
Link to this message
|
most benchmark tests I looked up showed a minor difference between the 3850 and 3650... usually of around 3fps and in some cases it showed the 3650 on par or even a fps higher (only on rare tests...)
But I'd rather wait and get the 4850
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 16:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
In the tests I read the HD3650 can't even keep up with the 8600GT, which is a lot slower than the HD3850 (4500 in 3dmark, not 9000), so no, the HD3850 is miles better, and the 4850 miles better still.
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 16:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh well then I'm glad I didn't settle for sure heh. 4850 will be nice... That should enable me to play Assassins Creed, unlike this 6150
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2008 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh absolutely, the 4850 can play Assassins Creed at 2560x1600 maxed out...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. August 2008 @ 22:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
my monitor is maxed at 1280x1024 heh... But again, gotta think long term :D
|
