My Upgrade Selection - Please Critique

Message

bulgarian388 · #1 Post by **bulgarian388** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:25 pm

Hi guys, I have a T60p 2007-94u model, and I am looking into upgrading the RAM and CPU. Here is my selection:

4Gb (2x2GB) PC2 5300

http://store.geilusa.com/product.php?pi ... 6d9477d896

And Core 2 Duo T7600:

...the CPU

What do you guys think. If you're asking why 4GB because I want it, and need it. I do a lot of Photoshop and Premier work, and for the occasional game (CnC3 is quite big). And for the CPU, I know it's ebay, but it's like the only place I can get it from, and for nearly $200 less than Newegg and ZipZoomFly, and $400 less than Amazon. And I do have the BIOS updated to work with the Core 2's.

So, what you guys think? Or if you have alternative places/hardware to purchase, please let me know.

#2 Post by **ryengineer** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:04 pm

I hope you're aware of the fact you won't be able to access full 4GB due to Intel's 945 chip limitation.

bulgarian388 · #3 Post by **bulgarian388** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:34 pm

Okay, well, you're right, but also wrong. It won't support 4GB at 667Mhz, but it will support it at 533Mhz. Now I'm in a dilema. Lenovo will configure new T60p's on the website with 4GB, if you have an extra $800+, so does that mean that they will place DDR2 533, and pretty much lower the performance, or do they still place DDR2 667, and hope for the best. Now I'm wondering if I should take a chance and see what happens. I suppose I can always return the RAM if it doesn't work, and just go down to 2GB.

Has anyone tried 4GB yet?

http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart. ... ture=en-US

#4 Post by **tomh009** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:39 pm

Are you saying that you can access the full 4 GB if you use slower memory? What are you basing this statement on?

To date, every single report I have seen on these forums (and on the rest of the Internet) of someone trying 4 GB in a ThinkPad, regardless of the model, the OS, 64 bit or 32 bit, has resulted in a maximum of 3 GB being available.

The Santa Rosa chipset addresses that, but that will require a T61.

bulgarian388 · #5 Post by **bulgarian388** » Wed May 02, 2007 2:51 am

Well, no offense, but you obviously didn't bother to look at the link I posted. This is straight off of the Intel chipset comparison page:

"#SO-DIMMs/Max Memory 2 SO-DIMMs / up to 4GB Max System Memory @ 533 MHz"

So, what I am wondering is why does Lenovo allow you to configure new T60p's with 4GB of RAM. You say this is addressed with that new chipset from Intel, but that it's only for the T61's, so what the heck is going on here?

At this point, I'm thinking about just making a blind purchase and see if it works. If not then, oh well, I'll send it back, if it does, then someone is lying, and it wouldn't be me.

ducky2802 · #6 Post by **ducky2802** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:23 am

I havent the cash to find out myself, but from what Ive read off of internet posts is that: windows xp pro can only "see" 3gb of ram, even if the mobo supports 4gb, but that the "lost" 1gb of ram is not really lost, but that it is used up in internal xp processes. And one site hints that you would be in dual channel mode. http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=49816 .

And if I remember right, I thought there was a disclaimer on the lenovo site that even stated only 3gb will be visible even if you purchase 4gb.

dr_st · #7 Post by **dr_st** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:30 am

If you want it, you can still buy the 4GB. Sure you'll only see 3, but it's still more than 2. And the next generation of chipsets should be able to use all 4, at least with a 64-bit OS.

Oh, and please edit your link in the first post. It stretches the screen even on SXGA+.

bulgarian388 · #8 Post by **bulgarian388** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:50 am

ducky2802, I read something similar on the Microsoft support site:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pl ... AEmem.mspx

In there it says that by default XP will limit RAM allocation to applications to 2GB, but can be changed to 3GB via an addition to the Boot.ini file. XP will still see and utilize 4GB of RAM, and from the thread you posted, in there Garvin says that the remaining GB will be hidden to applications, but will be used by the OS as a super cache of sorts, thus actually causing a performance increase.

2 Bricks Short · #9 Post by **2 Bricks Short** » Wed May 02, 2007 6:14 am

I was interested in hearing opinions on the low priced processor. $450 for a T7600?

#10 Post by **ryengineer** » Wed May 02, 2007 8:42 am

bulgarian388 wrote:XP will still see and utilize 4GB of RAM

Prove us wrong.

bulgarian388 · #11 Post by **bulgarian388** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:15 am

bulgarian388 wrote:
XP will still see and utilize 4GB of RAM

Prove us wrong.

I'll try, but it's not gonna be this week exactly. I'm about to spend all of my cash on upgrades to my truck.

I was interested in hearing opinions on the low priced processor. $450 for a T7600?

I thought it was "cheap" as well, but the guy does have what I would call a good rating, so I guess, I'm just gonna take a chance.

bulgarian388 · #12 Post by **bulgarian388** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:27 am

Well, guys, this is indirect, but I just finished setting up a new desktop for a friend of mine. It has a an Asus P5N32-E mobo, Core 2 Duo E6600, and 4GB DDR2 800Mhz.

The mobo successfully recognized 4GB of RAM, and after we installed Windows XP Pro SP2 32-bit, it reported 3.25GB right off the bat without any hacks what so ever.

So I guess, XP isn't that limited past 3GB. I think the remainder is used as a sorts of a super cache by the OS.

dr_st · #13 Post by **dr_st** » Thu May 03, 2007 8:19 am

bulgarian388 wrote:So I guess, XP isn't that limited past 3GB. I think the remainder is used as a sorts of a super cache by the OS.

Can you base this "super cache" statement on something? You just said that the OS saw only 3.25GB and not 4GB. How is that not limited? And how can you know what the remainder is being used for?

whizkid · #14 Post by **whizkid** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:54 am

bulgarian388 wrote:This is straight off of the Intel chipset comparison page:

"#SO-DIMMs/Max Memory 2 SO-DIMMs / up to 4GB Max System Memory @ 533 MHz"

So, what I am wondering is why does Lenovo allow you to configure new T60p's with 4GB of RAM. You say this is addressed with that new chipset from Intel, but that it's only for the T61's, so what the heck is going on here?

If you read Intel's chipset specsheet http://download.intel.com/design/mobile ... 921904.pdf, you'll see on page 22 that 4GB can be used at 400, 533 and 667MHz. What stops that being available to the OS is how the device space is mapped onto memory. There are several ways to do that, even using the same chipset.

I guess the only real way to find out is to delve into Lenovo's internal documents, or just go ahead and test... which I hope you do. It's certainly faster and gives us all the real scoop.

kulivontot · #15 Post by **kulivontot** » Thu May 03, 2007 12:49 pm

There have been reports on here since the dawn of the ages about Windows XP and thinkpads not being able to support more than ~3 gigs of memory regardless of the speed of memory. Perhaps that chipset datasheet shows otherwise, but experiences of many members of this forum have shown otherwise, unless you are using some form of 64 bit OS (I'm not even sure which ones that will work for). The general consensus is that upgrading to 4 gigs vs. 3 gigs will probably be a waste of money as there is an extremely high probability that you will not be able to use the full 4 gigs. There is no "super cache" if windows can't see it used, then it's wasted. The reason this problem exists is because Windows will map this upper portion of the memory range to I/O devices, not the memory. So the remainder of the upper memory range becomes unaddressable and thus unusable by applications.

dsalyers · #16 Post by **dsalyers** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:18 pm

whizkid wrote: If you read Intel's chipset specsheet http://download.intel.com/design/mobile ... 921904.pdf, you'll see on page 22 that 4GB can be used at 400, 533 and 667MHz. What stops that being available to the OS is how the device space is mapped onto memory. There are several ways to do that, even using the same chipset.

I guess the only real way to find out is to delve into Lenovo's internal documents, or just go ahead and test... which I hope you do. It's certainly faster and gives us all the real scoop.

If you look at Chapter 9 (System Address Map). You will see that it is stated that the 945 chipset is limited to 4GB total address space. This address space has to cover system memory, and the addressable regions of any devices. The amount of the region that is reserved for the devices is determined by the Bios.

"ALL of these ranges MUST be unique and NON-OVERLAPPING. It is the BIOS or system designers responsibility to limit memory population so that adequate PCI, PCI Express, High BIOS, PCI Express Memory Mapped space, and APIC memory space can be allocated." 945 - datasheet p.318

Now, Lenovo does explicity state that the T60 Maximum addressable memory by the OS will be limited to 3GB. If you try to configure a T60 with 4GB, Lenovo gives you a warning that it is limited to 3GB addressable. So, I will be really surprised if, with the T60 you will be able to get more then 3GB.

This says nothing about other Intel chipsets -- they have their own specifications, which may not be the same.

perry_78 · #17 Post by **perry_78** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:23 pm

There is no way you will see 4gb with a T60. It's a physical limitation, end of story

bulgarian388 · #18 Post by **bulgarian388** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:48 am

Can you base this "super cache" statement on something? You just said that the OS saw only 3.25GB and not 4GB. How is that not limited? And how can you know what the remainder is being used for?

You're right, I can't base it on anything, except on what I've read on the world wide interweb. And what I have read says that XP will allocate the remaining .75GB of RAM as a cache for all IO, PCI, etc. mapping, indexing, whatever...

I guess the only real way to find out is to delve into Lenovo's internal documents, or just go ahead and test... which I hope you do. It's certainly faster and gives us all the real scoop.

I'll let you know in a couple of weeks. I'm actually sending the thinkpad to lenovo for a screen replacement on monday, and when it comes back, I'll purchase the parts and try my luck.

Also, everyone keeps stating that XP can't see past 3GB. Well, not to be a jerk, but didn't I just prove everyone wrong in a way? My friends computer reported 3.25GB. Notice the .25GB. That is 256MB, and 256MB is not something that can just be ignored. There is a huge difference between 3GB and 3.25GB.

dr_st · #19 Post by **dr_st** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:23 am

bulgarian388 wrote:There is a huge difference between 3GB and 3.25GB.

No, there isn't. That's less than 10% and will never be felt by anyone anywhere. When everyone says 3GB they can easily mean 3.25GB, and just don't want to be overly finicky.

dsalyers · #20 Post by **dsalyers** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:31 am

bulgarian388 wrote: You're right, I can't base it on anything, except on what I've read on the world wide interweb. And what I have read says that XP will allocate the remaining .75GB of RAM as a cache for all IO, PCI, etc. mapping, indexing, whatever...

Also, everyone keeps stating that XP can't see past 3GB. Well, not to be a jerk, but didn't I just prove everyone wrong in a way? My friends computer reported 3.25GB. Notice the .25GB. That is 256MB, and 256MB is not something that can just be ignored. There is a huge difference between 3GB and 3.25GB.

XP most certainly can see past 3GB. I don't know why some people would say otherwise. But, that is not what the majority of people are saying here. It is a hardware limitation of the Intel chipset used in the T60 (or any Intel based laptop that uses the 945 chipset).

Yes, the upper address ranged is used for IO devices and the such, but this isn't RAM. These address ranges literally address these devices.

So, any ram installed on a system that overlaps with this space will be wasted. The system literally has no way of addressing it. Notice on your firends computer He used a desktop Processor and a Desktop Motherboard (Which is based off a NVidia chipset). So, what his system can see and what yours can will likely be two different things. All this does is show that XP can see more then 3GB, but I am not claiming you will have a problem in XP, just that you will have a problem with your T60.

bontistic · #21 Post by **bontistic** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:56 am

bulgarian388 wrote:My friends computer reported 3.25GB.

Question on the side:

Bulgarian388, can you check with your friend's desktop (Asus P5N32-E mobo, Core 2 Duo E6600, and 4GB DDR2 800Mhz) if it is running DUAL-CHANNEL? How many sticks did you put in it?

bulgarian388 · #22 Post by **bulgarian388** » Sun May 06, 2007 5:16 am

Question on the side:

Bulgarian388, can you check with your friend's desktop (Asus P5N32-E mobo, Core 2 Duo E6600, and 4GB DDR2 800Mhz) if it is running DUAL-CHANNEL? How many sticks did you put in it?

Yes, it was dual channel. 2 sticks of 2GB...

Here they are: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820220227

bontistic · #23 Post by **bontistic** » Sun May 06, 2007 6:19 am

Great! That means eventhough not all 4GB can be utilized, one can still benefit from the advantages of dual channel in a 2+2GB as compared to a 2+1GB stick configuration.

2+2GB = dual channel
2+1GB = no dual channel

Troels · #24 Post by **Troels** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:47 am

Hmm 1GB stick and a 2GB stick won't work in dual-channel mode together, or will they? I always had the impression that they must be of equal size?

bontistic · #25 Post by **bontistic** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:51 am

No they won't work, they should not work. Sorry for the confusion, added more info in my previous post.

dr_st · #26 Post by **dr_st** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:37 pm

They will work in a sort of "half-assed" dual channel. There was a thread on it here somewhere. Equal size, equal spec sticks are still optimal.

My Upgrade Selection - Please Critique

My Upgrade Selection - Please Critique

Who is online