Re: Some RAM confusion.
- From: Brian V <BrianV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:01:01 -0800
Again thank you. I posted one question in the hardware section, sent it, and
I got sent back here. This should be there. But thanks anyways.
"Paul" wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:.
Brian V wrote:
On my system (It's an Acer Aspire E380 Windows XP 32-bit), The
manufactures
specs say it has a 4Gb limit for Memory. There are 4 slots for the RAM. I
went on the crucial.com web-site, it scanned my computer (and like in some
posts people replyed to on another topic from me): There is a 4Gb limit
(4096MB).
I downloaded some drivers and updates for some stuff on my computer the
last
few days. Some stuff had to do with my graphics card and one was an Acer
eSettings Management application. It gives my a information: in Summary,
Processor, Memory, MB and BIOS, Video, Audio and Network. There is all the
information I need, and can probably find this in the control panel and
system information, etc in XP. The difference is:
When I click Memory, it says The Current Memory Size (I have 1 GB) it also
says supported Maximum is 16 Gb. It says supported types: Unknown, Memory
slots: 4, Slot 1: 512Mb, slot 2: 512Mb, Slot 3 and 4: Not Installed.
I can provide a screenshot: Just tell me how. It's limit is 4Gb, but
another
program says I can use 16Gb. It makes no sense.
Why is this so and can I put 16 Gb in there? If I changed my processor or
upgraded to 64-bit Vista or Xp or something, can I utilize the 16 Gb's? If
I
did put this amount of RAM in and there is a descrepency like this: Would
my
system not use the RAM, crash, catch fire, etc?
Another thing I'v done is I installed a lot of drivers from Acers web-site
and from my sound cards web-site. Some of these changed the XP factory
included files (I got asked to proceed or not). My system is still running
smooth, and the driver numbers are much higher now (and the dates are more
current). I did download a motherboard driver from NVIDIA and my system
did
not have one before. The sound card is a: NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE nForce
430.
The motherboard is an nForce 520LE (I think). If anyone looks on NVIDIA's
site, that is the info, just run the search.
I could add that much RAM if I wanted to. I am curious as to why this is
happening. I plan on going to 3 or 4 Gb, and I am sure that will be
enough.
Thank you very much.
You likely will not use more than 2GB unless you edit video/heavy 3D
pictures or are really into mixing music. Maybe some database applications?
Running virtual machines?
Anyway - I would trust the manufacturer first, crucial second (after all -
they are trying to SELL you something and why would they tell you a number
less than what they could possibly sell you?) and the management
utility/some software like that seldom (even if it is from the
manufacturer). ;-)
Manual says 4GB - that's it.
Crucial says 4GB - that's it.
Windows 32-bit says 4GB - all the rest doesn't matter. ;-)
As for 64-bit - yeah - the OS could have access to it. I have several
servers with 64+GB memory. Would *you* ever likely use it all? See the
queries above.
Crucial doesn't usually correct what a manufacturer provides in terms of
information. They do make exceptions though. For example, 440BX chipsets
years ago, had "128MB" as the largest DIMM. Yet, it was discovered later,
that they would take 256MB ones. Crucial has listed 256MB products for
some time, based on knowing the reasons why it works. That would be
in contrast to the crusty 128MB info in the motherboard manual.
But they don't go around correcting every thing that doesn't make technical sense.
In the case of the OP's E380, the memory controller is on the processor itself
and not the chipset.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/gf6150-gf6100_2.html#sect0
If we take a motherboard from the same generation, with a similar chipset,
we can look at the memory recommendation and compare it. This one
recommends 4x2GB max.
http://dlsvr03.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/socketAM2/M2NPV-VM/e2806_m2npv-vm.pdf
Now, a minus I can find, is one user of the E380 tried to upgrade to 4GB
using 4x1GB, and found it didn't work. Anything more than 2x1GB failed.
Another user reported what seemed to be a bad DIMM slot. You have to ask
yourself, how good is the BIOS that comes with that motherboard.
Some possible upgrade options would be:
1) Buy 4x1GB, install in pairs, see what happens.
2) On the theory that the board has a problem with using all the memory
slots, you could buy 2x2GB and see what happens. There is a less
good fallback position, if the board doesn't like it. You could
easily be stuck with 2x2GB you can't use, if the BIOS kicks up a
stink.
I have a feeling the *hardware* can accept even more memory, but it takes
a quality BIOS in order to use it.
I can give an example with my own motherboard. Manufacturer says "2x1GB max".
Installed 2x1GB, worked flawlessly. Then, I read on a German web site, that
the board could take more. I tried 2x2GB and it worked! Even the chipset
manufacturer did not admit to that being the case. Now, what is the problem
with that ? The BIOS doesn't have optimal settings for 2GB modules. For
example, I can install 1GB + 2GB for a total of 3GB, and I get memory errors.
I also get memory errors with 2x2GB. The BIOS is not designed with 2GB tuning
in mind. And it was noted on some Intel chipsets, that there is a difference
between the chipset settings needed for 1GB and 2GB modules (it actually
took BIOS updates when 2GB modules came out, to get them error free). No
technical explanation has ever been delivered as to what these differences
might be.
So on the one hand, there is a hint the hardware can take more. But there
is also evidence the BIOS may be less than capable on the E380.
In the case of my own motherboard, I'm back to 2x1GB and quite happy with the
outcome. I can make a nice pair of Christmas tree ornaments, from my 2x2GB
modules.
Paul
.
- References:
- Some RAM confusion.
- From: Brian V
- Re: Some RAM confusion.
- From: Shenan Stanley
- Re: Some RAM confusion.
- From: Paul
- Some RAM confusion.
- Prev by Date: Re: Some RAM confusion.
- Next by Date: Re: Some RAM confusion.
- Previous by thread: Re: Some RAM confusion.
- Next by thread: Re: Some RAM confusion.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
