Question about RAM quantity

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John Smith, Jan 6, 2011.

  1. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Hi, My computer specs are laid out below, and as you can see I currently
    have 2 GB of RAM installed.

    Operating System
    MS Windows XP Home 32-bit SP3

    CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz 48 °C
    Conroe 65nm Technology

    RAM
    2.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 399MHz (5-5-5-18)

    Motherboard
    Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. EP31-DS3L (Socket 775)

    Graphics
    SyncMaster @ 1680x1050
    512MB GeForce 8500 GT (Undefined)

    I am frequently use Autodesk Inventor 2011 which gets quite busy with the
    RAM at times. I think it would definitely speed up the program if I had more
    memory.

    From what I've read on the internet XP Home 32-bit SP3 can take 4GB of RAM
    but some motherboards only see 3.5GB and considering I already have 512MB
    attached to my Graphics card I think a safe bet would be to add just one
    more GB.

    Thoughts?

    Cheers
    Buck
    John Smith, Jan 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Smith

    Paul Guest

    John Smith wrote:
    > Hi, My computer specs are laid out below, and as you can see I currently
    > have 2 GB of RAM installed.
    >
    > Operating System
    > MS Windows XP Home 32-bit SP3
    >
    > CPU
    > Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz 48 °C
    > Conroe 65nm Technology
    >
    > RAM
    > 2.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 399MHz (5-5-5-18)
    >
    > Motherboard
    > Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. EP31-DS3L (Socket 775)
    >
    > Graphics
    > SyncMaster @ 1680x1050
    > 512MB GeForce 8500 GT (Undefined)
    >
    > I am frequently use Autodesk Inventor 2011 which gets quite busy with the
    > RAM at times. I think it would definitely speed up the program if I had more
    > memory.
    >
    > From what I've read on the internet XP Home 32-bit SP3 can take 4GB of RAM
    > but some motherboards only see 3.5GB and considering I already have 512MB
    > attached to my Graphics card I think a safe bet would be to add just one
    > more GB.
    >
    > Thoughts?
    >
    > Cheers
    > Buck


    On the one hand, it's a relatively cheap upgrade. So it's not the
    end of the world, if the upgrade is a flop.

    I recommend going from 2x1GB to 2x2GB, then keep the 2x1GB as
    "spares", in case you have a memory failure. I'm not a big
    fan of running four sticks. On some motherboards, two
    of the modules get no cooling (they're shoulder to shoulder
    and touching each other), and that may not be good for the
    modules. I prefer a two stick configuration, as it gets better
    cooling. I've had a module failure, in a short time (30 days),
    after running a four stick config. The RAM used in that case,
    had been running as a two stick configuration in a couple of
    computers, and the memory failed, soon after all the memory
    was moved to just the one machine.

    I've tested both 2x1GB and 2x2GB on WinXP, and am currently using
    the 2x2GB configuration. I run multiple virtual machines in VPC2007,
    and that seems to work OK. I've noticed some other programs, like
    an old copy of Photoshop, won't go over 2GB in their usage. There
    is a "flag" on the .exe files, which determines whether they can use
    up to 3GB or not. So if the OS says "3.2GB free", a single program
    could use up to 3GB, but only if the flag is set. (And as far as
    I know, the compiling of the program, and the flag setting, may be
    associated with one another. While I read an article that stated
    good things would happen, by hacking the flag, I wasn't impressed
    with the results.)

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

    Memory type Limit in on X86 [i.e. 32 bit]

    User-mode virtual 2GB
    address space for
    each 32-bit process Up to 3 GB with
    IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE
    and 4GT

    My copy of Photoshop, doesn't seem to have IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE.
    I fooled around with boot.ini a bit, when I first installed the RAM,
    and couldn't get *any* application at the time, to use more RAM. But
    I have noticed, that my copy of VPC 2007, seems to do pretty well
    in the RAM department (I haven't a clue how it manages the virtual
    address space). On the one hand, VPC 2007 seems to involve only one
    "process", as seen in Task Manager. And bears evidence of sharing
    only one core across all virtual machines. But in terms of RAM usage,
    it seems to escape the 2GB limit, and it may be doing that by (somehow)
    having more than one virtual address mapping at play (one per virtual
    machine maybe ?).

    In any case, in 25 words or less, I can't say for the vast
    majority of stuff, you're much better off.

    It's a "special case" kind of world, where it's up to your "tuning skills"
    to actually make good usage of the purchase. I was a failure at it.
    And wasn't in a mood to go buying more commercial software, to test it.

    I notice the OS slows down a bit, roughly when I'm using 2.6GB or
    more, of 3.1+ GB free. So actually driving it to the wall, doesn't
    work as expected. And yes, I checked for swapping, and there is
    no drive light activity when I see a slowdown. Perhaps it's
    "paged pool" or "pool pointers" ? I'm not really sure. In any case,
    I've modified my usage pattern a bit, to try to avoid the pesky
    situation.

    So my opinion would be, yeah, do the upgrade, but don't expect
    miracles. Don't even expect "justification" of the money spent.
    The only reason I'm running the 4GB config, is it was sitting
    unused in my junk room (left-overs from another project)
    so I installed it.

    Paul
    Paul, Jan 6, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daz

    Mixing SDR Ram with DDR Ram?

    Daz, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    780
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Sep 14, 2003
  2. Morph
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    596
    Morph
    Oct 9, 2004
  3. Pudda Work
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    587
    Pudda Work
    Dec 24, 2003
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    539
    Chris Davies
    Feb 29, 2008
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,023
Loading...

Share This Page