just added 2GB . now 4GB Total

[jajaja]

Finally, after like 10 times of turning and shutting down the system and pulling out and sticking back in each stick, I managed to get them all detected by bios. It's 4 GB baby.
however If I see the data on my computer properties, it only says 3.5 GB . where is the other half gig at ? lol

and I don't see much diffrence between having 2GB and 4GB . is there any way, like opening spesific program/apps and stuff, so I can really feel the speed diffrence ?

Thanks

motherboard = GA-965P-S3
cpu = E6600 (set at stock speed)

 

[chizow]

What OS? If its 32-bit Vista or XP that'd explain why you don't see much difference.

 

[jajaja]

it's only windows XP version 2002, service pack 2

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: jajaja
it's only windows XP version 2002, service pack 2

Then you won't be able to see all 4GB.

 

[jajaja]

why not ? even if I can't see it, does the system actually still run all the 4GB ?

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: jajaja
why not ? even if I can't see it, does the system actually still run all the 4GB ?

no.

you cant see it because of the physical adress limits of a 32 bit os.

 

[pallejr]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

 

[JustaGeek]

And a little bit more of reading material - I like the HP Mini White Paper's "short & sweet" explanation:

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsu...M_w-Windows_08Ap07.pdf


More detail:

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

 

[jajaja]

Daaamn

Thank you for the articles

AFter reading them, I conclude that it's a waste having more than 3GB of RAM when running XP and VISTA (both 32 bit) correct me if I'm wrong

If it's true like that, why many people are so excited to up their RAM to 4GB. I guess most of those people are like me who didn't know about this thing

maan. if I knew this, I wouldn't had bought another 2 GB until I get 64 bit OS

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: jajaja
Daaamn

Thank you for the articles

AFter reading them, I conclude that it's a waste having more than 3GB of RAM when running XP and VISTA (both 32 bit) correct me if I'm wrong

If it's true like that, why many people are so excited to up their RAM to 4GB. I guess most of those people are like me who didn't know about this thing

maan. if I knew this, I wouldn't had bought another 2 GB until I get 64 bit OS

Basically, that is correct.

But RAM is very "affordable" these days, so if your motherboard has no issues with running 4GB and using only 3.5Gb or so, you're still OK.

Some games, like Quake 4, will benefit from more than 2GB of RAM.

 

[jajaja]

alright

Thank you all for your time and information

 

[djspl]

Originally posted by: jajaja


and I don't see much diffrence between having 2GB and 4GB . is there any way, like opening spesific program/apps and stuff, so I can really feel the speed diffrence ?

Your computer (running Windows XP) uses only the ram that it needs, adding more when you aren't using all of what you already have will not "turbocharge" your system.

Ram is the gas tank, the CPU is the engine. The engine doesn't have a problem until it's out of gas. Adding a bigger gas tank doesn't get you more performance out of the engine. If you never use all of the gas that you have, adding more isn't going to do anything.

 

[soydios]

what others have said already is correct: a 32-bit operating system cannot address more than 3200MB of RAM (or at least my 975X northbridge in 32-bit mode can't).

Vista 64-bit really likes RAM. I'd be curious to see what 8GB of RAM in Vista 64-bit is like. 4GB for me (64-bit memory controller enabled in BIOS) makes SuperFetch happy. I'm loading BF2 maps faster than people using Raptors in Raid0 with 2GB of RAM in XP. Vista shows ~%50 RAM usage at idle. Outlook, Firefox, iTunes, Folding@Home, and OneNote are permanently cached by now, I suppose.