Why does 512MB of RAM installed show as only 448?

[Ken90630]

So I'm working on an acquaintance's laptop for her (general cleanup/speedup/un-mucking stuff). It's an old Toshiba Satellite P35, circa 2004, with one stick of 512 installed from the factory. I verified, visually, that it's the right type (DDR, PC2700).

For some reason, the system is showing 448MB of RAM installed rather than 512. The BIOS is up to date, so I'm scratching my head here. What's the deal?

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Likely because the on board video is taking 64mb of the ram for its use. You can likely adjust the amount of ram the on board video will use via the bios.

 

[Rifter]

i would assume shared memory for the GPU, like 95% of the laptops out there which use integrated craptel(intel) graphics.

edit: damn stop to answer the phone and get beat to the punch!

 

[Ken90630]

Ah, okay. I can't believe I didn't think of that. *kicks self in the head*

One more question though: If I decrease (via the BIOS) the amount of system memory that the onboard video uses, will that presumably adversely affect video performance? Like maybe make YouTube videos or any motion video material become 'jumpy' or pause to buffer itself all the time?

 

[taltamir]

integrated craptel(intel) graphics.

also know as the lowest power consumption, lightest (weight), and lowest heat generating GPU in the world with more then enough power for desktop rendering. Making it a far superior choice for anyone who uses their laptop for anything but 3d gaming (web games are 2d). Oh, and cheap too.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Ah, okay. I can't believe I didn't think of that. *kicks self in the head*

One more question though: If I decrease (via the BIOS) the amount of system memory that the onboard video uses, will that presumably adversely affect video performance? Like maybe make YouTube videos or any motion video material become 'jumpy' or pause to buffer itself all the time?

No.

The computer will suck slightly more for 3D gaming, though.

 

[Rifter]

also know as the lowest power consumption, lightest (weight), and lowest heat generating GPU in the world with more then enough power for desktop rendering. Making it a far superior choice for anyone who uses their laptop for anything but 3d gaming (web games are 2d). Oh, and cheap too.

For non-graphics based business sure. But anyone else would be much better off on something with enough GPU power to at least do light gaming, and if you are doing graphics work on your work laptop you will also need more GPU horsepower depending on the programs you are using. And laptops with at least a basic ATI/Nvidia GPU do not cost more than ones using the integrated intel.

 

[taltamir]

if you are a serious gamer you are using a console or a PC. Gaming on an anemic laptop with low battery, slow, anemic monitor, horrible keyboard, clunky mouse (unless you carry a desktop mouse you have one of those wireless mini mouses... which to be honest is the best thing about a laptop) and low low low quality graphics.

Laptops ARE for work / school / etc.
I don't understand that inane fascination with gaming laptops, I think its a fantasy of reviewers and product execs, just like the ridiculous notion that the "hardcore gamer" is 14 year old, cares nothing for plot, has the attention span of a gnat, buys games entirely based on their graphics, has a 2000+$ computer, and wants games and gaming hardware with a scantly clad woman on the cover.

And laptops with at least a basic ATI/Nvidia GPU do not cost more than ones using the integrated intel.

Blatant falsehood. Both companies make laptop video cards which are expansion cards that are available in addition to (not instead of) the IGP and drive up the price, weight, and lower battery (except optimus).
AMD laptops with an AMD cpu could have an AMD IGP instead of the intel IGP, which isn't more expensive but isn't much better.