DELL 2x 2GB of RAM = 4GB

[xaveon]

Hey Guys, I know that 2GB modules aren't readily available yet. I was wondering if someone can tell me if the DELL 2GB modules are compatible with the T60p.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=A0655397

They seem to be the same specifications and are made by Crucial. Has anyone tire/used these, if so please let me know if they worked. Thanks.

[xaveon]

I'm basically trying to find if this 2GB module will work:

Module Details: Crucial Part Number: CT518522 Module Size: 4GB kit (2GBx2) Package: 200-pin SODIMM Feature: DDR2 PC2-5300 Configuration: 256Meg x 64 DIMM Type: UNBUFFERED Error Checking: NON-ECC Speed: 667 SDRAM Timings: CL=5 Specs: DDR2 PC2-5300 • CL=5 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR2-667 • 1.8V • 256Meg x 64 What does this mean? US $3302.84 Product Details Install Guides FAQs Why Crucial Articles DDR 200-pin SODIMM Approximately 2.625 in. by 1.25 in. (66.7 mm by 31.75 mm) DDR2 200-pin SODIMM Approximately 2.625 in. by 1.25 in. (66.7 mm by 31.75 mm) A small outline dual inline memory module (SODIMM) consists of a number of memory components (usually black) that are attached to a printed circuit board (usually green). SODIMMs get their name because they are smaller and thinner than regular DIMMs. The gold pins on the bottom of the SODIMM provide a connection between the module and a socket on a larger printed circuit board. The pins on the front and back of a SODIMM are not connected. 200-pin SODIMMs are used to provide DDR SDRAM memory for notebook computers. 200-pin SODIMMs are available in PC2100 DDR SDRAM, PC2700 DDR SDRAM, and PC3200 DDR SDRAM. To use DDR memory, your system motherboard must have 200-pin SODIMM slots and a DDR-enabled chipset. A DDR SODIMM will not fit into a standard SDRAM SODIMM socket. (Information about which memory technology your system uses is included in the Crucial Memory Advisor™ tool.) The number of black components on a 200-pin SODIMM can vary, but it always has 100 pins on the front and 100 pins on the back, for a total of 200. 200-pin SODIMMs are approximately 2.625 inches long and 1.25 inches high, though the heights can vary. Like 144-pin SODIMMs, 200-pin SODIMMs have one small notch within the row of pins; however, the notch on the 200-pin SODIMMs is closer to the left side of the module.

[fbrdphreak]

You want to spend like $1800 per module????

Should it work? Yes. If it doesn't, you'll pay a restocking fee.

You do know that Windows XP 32-bit will only recognize up to 3GB right? Just get 2x1GB modules and be done with it

[BrianR]

You do know that Windows XP 32-bit will only recognize up to 3GB right? Just get 2x1GB modules and be done with it

This is an incorrect statement that has been discussed before on these forums.

It's a chipset issue and how devices are mapped into the upper address spaces. You can find machines that will run 32-bit Windows XP with 4GB of *available* RAM.

Currently Lenovo states that their machines will only see 3 GB instead of 4 GB.

To be clear, it's a chipset issue, not an OS issue.

Cheers,

Brian

[fbrdphreak]

You do know that Windows XP 32-bit will only recognize up to 3GB right? Just get 2x1GB modules and be done with it

This is an incorrect statement that has been discussed before on these forums.

It's a chipset issue and how devices are mapped into the upper address spaces. You can find machines that will run 32-bit Windows XP with 4GB of *available* RAM.

Currently Lenovo states that their machines will only see 3 GB instead of 4 GB.

To be clear, it's a chipset issue, not an OS issue.

Cheers,

Brian

While Lenovo's implementation of Intel's chipset may impose a 3GB limit, so does Windows. Read on:
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?id=69

Even machines with 64-bit processors running 32-bit Windows can only recognize 3GB RAM; the chipset certainly recognizes and supports 4GB as the BIOS reports 4GB and loading a 64-bit operating system will allow one to access the full 4GB. Until then, 3GB is the limit.

[BrianR]

This is an incorrect statement that has been discussed before on these forums.

It's a chipset issue and how devices are mapped into the upper address spaces. You can find machines that will run 32-bit Windows XP with 4GB of *available* RAM.

Currently Lenovo states that their machines will only see 3 GB instead of 4 GB.

To be clear, it's a chipset issue, not an OS issue.

Cheers,

Brian

While Lenovo's implementation of Intel's chipset may impose a 3GB limit, so does Windows. Read on:
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?id=69

Even machines with 64-bit processors running 32-bit Windows can only recognize 3GB RAM; the chipset certainly recognizes and supports 4GB as the BIOS reports 4GB and loading a 64-bit operating system will allow one to access the full 4GB. Until then, 3GB is the limit.

Well, I'll refer you to:

http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2 ... s3gbenough

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archi ... 99521.aspx

http://www.kudzuworld.com/blogs/Tech/2006_08_13.en.aspx

Bottom line: on the right hardware, 32-bit Windows can see 4Gb of RAM. On the wrong hardware, even a 64-bit OS won't see 4GB of RAM (I have a DELL box that does just that).

Cheers,

Brian

[fbrdphreak]

Thanks for the clarification, that went into more depth than I've read before. But it is still a software problem

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for Intel to support 4GB RAM on their new CPU's & chipsets. It is a 32-bit CPU, so you can't use a 64-bit OS to get past this limitation. I guess it was just a checklist feature for Merom, but they had to get Yonah out first to ensure their market hold.

[xaveon]

Well I just ordered the ram so it should be here on Thursday, I'll keep you guys updated on performance increases and compatibility. I got two sticks for $500 so I figured it was a good deal. Lets just hope they're compatible.

[fbrdphreak]

Where did you get 2x2GB for $500?

[JHEM]

Where did you get 2x2GB for $500?

I have to believe he means $500 each.

Might have gotten them from Dell Small Business, IIRC they had a sale on memory a little while ago.

Regards,

James

[BrianR]

Well I just ordered the ram so it should be here on Thursday, I'll keep you guys updated on performance increases and compatibility. I got two sticks for $500 so I figured it was a good deal. Lets just hope they're compatible.

Please do!

Cheers,

Brian

[xaveon]

I received the RAM today. They turned out to be DELL rebranded Samsung RAM. 2x 2GB. The BIOS recognized 4GB but unfortunately Windows could only recoginize 3GB (as we've known). I've turned off Paging Files (Virtual Memory) and the system seems to be running just fine. There has been some debate regarding performance increases with Virtual Memory turned off. Can anyone confirm a performance increase with Virtual Memory turned off (with a large amount of RAM)?

Now, since they're identical sticks I am wondering if DDR is automatically turned on, or if I have to go into the BIOS to turn it on.

Ohhh and I purchased the two sticks for a total $570 (shipped).

[xaveon]

So if i'm running to sticks of RAM do I need to set anything in the BIOS?

[BrianR]

I received the RAM today. They turned out to be DELL rebranded Samsung RAM. 2x 2GB. The BIOS recognized 4GB but unfortunately Windows could only recoginize 3GB (as we've known). I've turned off Paging Files (Virtual Memory) and the system seems to be running just fine. There has been some debate regarding performance increases with Virtual Memory turned off. Can anyone confirm a performance increase with Virtual Memory turned off (with a large amount of RAM)?

Now, since they're identical sticks I am wondering if DDR is automatically turned on, or if I have to go into the BIOS to turn it on.

Ohhh and I purchased the two sticks for a total $570 (shipped).

There's a good KB at MSFT [0].

That said, from experience you can do it.

That said there are downsides:

* Where you run into trouble and an application leaks you could run out of RAM

* If your system crashes you can't get a dump file. If you want a dump file then a page file must be on the boot partition since at kernel rundown that’s the only partition the kernel knows about.

* Other issues are that physical memory is used less efficiently--items that could be page out to disk aren't.

Since you're running a laptop and not a production server you should be fine. However, if you like to run large VMs I would keep the page file.

Cheers,

BrianR

[0] http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=555223

[BrianR]

Hey Guys, I know that 2GB modules aren't readily available yet. I was wondering if someone can tell me if the DELL 2GB modules are compatible with the T60p.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=A0655397

They seem to be the same specifications and are made by Crucial. Has anyone tire/used these, if so please let me know if they worked. Thanks.

BTW, clicking the link now (Aug 24th) shows a price of $768 for one stick. How did you get such a "super" low price?

Cheers,

BrianR

[fbrdphreak]

I received the RAM today. They turned out to be DELL rebranded Samsung RAM. 2x 2GB. The BIOS recognized 4GB but unfortunately Windows could only recoginize 3GB (as we've known). I've turned off Paging Files (Virtual Memory) and the system seems to be running just fine. There has been some debate regarding performance increases with Virtual Memory turned off. Can anyone confirm a performance increase with Virtual Memory turned off (with a large amount of RAM)?

Now, since they're identical sticks I am wondering if DDR is automatically turned on, or if I have to go into the BIOS to turn it on.

Ohhh and I purchased the two sticks for a total $570 (shipped).

There's a good KB at MSFT [0].

That said, from experience you can do it.

That said there are downsides:

* Where you run into trouble and an application leaks you could run out of RAM

* If your system crashes you can't get a dump file. If you want a dump file then a page file must be on the boot partition since at kernel rundown that’s the only partition the kernel knows about.

* Other issues are that physical memory is used less efficiently--items that could be page out to disk aren't.

Since you're running a laptop and not a production server you should be fine. However, if you like to run large VMs I would keep the page file.

Cheers,

BrianR

[0] http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=555223

This man is entirely correct!

[JHEM]

This man is entirely correct!

That's the norm with Brian, you two should get to know each other better. (Nothing off-color implied!!!)

Regards,

James

[xaveon]

Hey Brian,

I have a couple questions for you:

1. What happens when you run out of RAM?

2. What is the purpose of a dump file?

3. Does turning off page filling really improve performance?

4. In the MS link you sent it says:

Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004):

Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB
Windows XP Professional: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition: 2 GB
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition: 32 GB
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition: 64 GB

But currently Windows XP is only recognizing 3GB, do I need to set something?

5. Regarding the DDR question, this is automatic when I have two sticks of RAM correct? I don't need to set anything to increase performance when using two identical sticks of RAM?

Thanks for your help! I really appriciate it.

A friend at Dell purchased the RAM for me.

[Liam_]

xaveon, usually memory sticks have an additional chip with all the settings (speed, latency, etc.) in it. I think it is called SPD, so when your system starts, the BIOS will read the information that is in the SPD chips and set the settings for your memory to the right settings.

It is not possible to "activate" or "deactivate" the DDR function of your memory, since it is a chipset feature (the memory controller, in case of AMD, it will be on the CPU).

So, you don't have to do anything with the memory, just stick it in and let it work.

Regarding your other questions:

1) I have no idea, I always use a pagefile, I like the way it works

2) The purpose of a dump file is that you can analyze what went wrong when your computer generates a "blue screen". At least, if we are talking about the same dump-file (I think so).
So you can choose different settings for your dumpfile. For the options you should check your system properties, go to the Advanced Tab and then hit the "Startup and Recovery" button.

The function of a dump file is to provide debugging information, it is quite usefull, I use it when testing new drivers on my testmachine.

3) It should provide better performance, however, I doubt you will actually "feel" it in real live. The Windows Page file system is not designed to slow you, but to assist you. I've got it on, and I like it.

4) You can't do anything about it. It won't see the 4GB. I have a MSI K7D Master-L (with a dual MP2600+ barton underneath) and have tested it with 4GB. It actually sees 3.5 and nothing more. So you will only see 3GB. That's not bad either.

5) See my intro-post.

Hope it is a bit usefull for you!

Update: Added a Wikipedia link with some info regarding SPD


(correct me plz when I'm wrong, I don't know everything

[xaveon]

So with 3GB of ram (as recognized in Windows) I set Page Filling to 256MB on my D drive (ultrabay slim drive). I go into security options and have Windows clear the pagefile everytime I shutdown. Then I shut down and restart. When I go back to control panel it says that "Total paging file size for all drives: 256MB". Good!

THEN!!! I go to Task Manager and PF Usage is 800MB+. I then open photoshop and photoshop says that I have 1.7GB of available memory. How are all my apps taking up 1.3GB right after boot??? Why is PF Usage still so high even after I've set it to 256MB and what is eating up 1.3GB of ram after boot. I've attached a print screen of the Task Manager:

Any advice is greatly appriciated.

http://www.tranpublishing.com//images/system.jpg

[bebzif]

xaveon -- please check what processes are actually using memory by clicking on the "processes" tab in the task manager. and let us know.

[sapsteve]

xaveon,

Can you tell us how you got the two sticks for a total $570 (shipped)? I would appreciate if you could let us know the URL and any coupon you may have used.

Thanks
Steve

[fbrdphreak]

xaveon,

Can you tell us how you got the two sticks for a total $570 (shipped)? I would appreciate if you could let us know the URL and any coupon you may have used.

Thanks
Steve

He mentioned he knows a Dell employee. Do you? If not then I doubt he can help

[deforest]

I think you are stumbling over naming conventions.

Looking at the screen shot you provided, the PF usage in there is basically the combination of physical memory and the pagefile that you set up. I see that you have 3 gig total which is consistent to what you stated, i.e. 3gb of ram and 256 mb page file. For reference my show 6gb, for 2 gb of ram and 4 gb page file.

So in this case the 986 mb being used is bascially in your ram since your swap file is small. You need to go to the process tab in task manager and see what processes you have running and how much space they are using to account for that memory.

For this I like to use process explorer, since they seem to account for memory usage slightly differently than task manager, since it turns out how to account for a process size, like when 2 processes share the same dll.


Now the next question is why photoshop only has 1.7gb available. This is because a windows process can have only have 2gb of address space. So in this case photoshop probably is using .3gb just by starting it. So say you have 3gb of ram available (or 3gb of virtual memory which includes swap space), the maximum process size can only be 2 gb.

In my case I have 6gb of virtual memory, and the maximum process size I can reach is 2 gb. Usually this is less since the apps I run experience heap fragmentation and when a memory alloc occurs, it fails since it can't get all of the heap space contiguously that it needs (so there is enough memory to satifisy the memory request, the problem is that it's not all together as one block to give to the app).

[deforest]

I should also mention, there is a switch you can give to windows in the boot.ini file to enlarge process size to 3gb. I tried that on my machines and it usually causes the system not to boot.

The other option if you need larger process space is to go to windows xp 64 (64 bit version of windows), but then I believe you need the new duo 2 chips that support emt64.

[xaveon]

There is no way to upgrade the process correct? I would guess that the Core 2 Duo uses a whole new chipset.

[Liam_]

The core 2 duo doesn't uses a "whole" new chipset. If i'm correct it is pin-to-pin compatibale with the Core Duo.

I thought there was a review of a core 2 duo (notebook) which they used in a Asus Core Duo notebook. So you only should need to change the CPU from core duo to core 2 duo, it should work.

However, if this will solve your problem?? I don't know, i'm not sure. Why do you need 4GB anyway?

[xaveon]

Well actually I don't really. The 3GB currently accessible seems to be enough for my Photoshoping needs. But, seeing how Mega Pixel cameras and HD is starting to become a standard I can see a need for more RAM very soon.

From the reviews that I have read, the Core 2 Duo isn't that much of an improvement over the current Core Duo. It's a little faster, and the battery life is a little better. I feel that for me, the problem will be Vista. Like any new OS, it takes a few years before it's "good". I remember when XP first came out, it was crap. But after a couple years and numerous updates, XP is a great OS now. I would suspect the same for Vista. I've installed and played with Vista Beta 2 and couldn't find much improvement over XP, it looks pretty but that's it. Keep in mind that I wasn't using a 64-bit processor with Vista (although the system was powerful enough to run Vista).

Thanks Liam for letting me know, so I'm guessing we can just pop a new Core 2 Duo processor in when the time comes?