Duchess44
Premium
join:2001-10-24
Chattanooga, TN
 ·Comcast
| reply to idlewillkill
Re: Windows Vista and RAm
said by idlewillkill  :You mentioned you're not terribly happy with the performance you're getting right now. Have you turned the shadow detail down? It carries a HUGE performance penalty. I have mine down to medium. My video card isn't a beast, but faster than yours, and high shadow detail made it cry. Yea, I always have had it turned all the way down ever since it first showed up in my settings. |
|
Duchess44
Premium
join:2001-10-24
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| So the general consensus is that I should get a few more sticks of memory and perhaps upgrade my video card? I understand about getting the whole 3 gig at once and that's not a problem. My only issue now is whether to and which video card to upgrade to.
I appreciate all the help everyone  |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
1 edit | imo ATi 4850 cheap fast and made by XFX now
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···14150351
if you want an nVidia card GTS250
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···14130468
same price range bit slower
and as always if you do get ether get the latest driver from the web sites!
as for ram
not even 50 bucks
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···20231122
pull out what you have put that in call it a day
if you want some thing with a bit more oomph in it
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···20227298
53 bucks |
|
Duchess44
Premium
join:2001-10-24
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
1 edit | Ok found this:
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···20145098
Would it work on my computer? And if so, I am thinking of getting 2 packs, meaning 4 sticks alltogether. I will only put 3 in, but if it is better to replace all memory at the same time, this would be the better deal. |
|
Duchess44
Premium
join:2001-10-24
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
3 edits | reply to elios
Thanks for the links. I am not really looking for 2GB strips. I would prefer to only add 3Gig at this time, and preferably at the same time because I was told that it was better to replace all the memory at the same time.
I am impressed with the video card recommendation, tho I am liking the ATI better, since all of my cards have been ATI.
And, if I do get that, I will need to upgrade my PSU. Any recommendations? |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to Duchess44
said by Duchess44 :How did it do on the recommended specs? That's what your first test showed. Here's mine...(sorry, my screen isn't so big Wrath of the Lich King.
Remember, this is a laptop.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Duchess44
Premium
join:2001-10-24
Chattanooga, TN | WoW (no pun intended) that's pretty good. |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
3 edits | reply to elios
Careful, the ATI card is a 1 gig . . .while the EVGA card is a 512 . . .
The OP has stated they are going to stick with 32 bit and 3 gig max . . . if they went with the ATI card, it would be counter productive to upgrade to 4gig, as it would require an additional 512 mb to be addressed. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
2 edits | thats sOOOO wrong i dont know were to start
OK the total amount of ram on the card has NO bearing on the range it uses for memory mapped IO
two
you can use 4 GB of ram JUST FINE in a 32bit OS
i did it
its better to use matched ram and keep to no more then 2 sticks of ram
which is why i said to get 2x 2GB DDR2 is cheaper then air no point NOT to get 4GB
both cards are mid range the extra 512 on the ATi card is gimmic it matter much really and itll use use the same memory range as card with 16MB on it
said by Duchess44 :Ok found this: » www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···20145098Would it work on my computer? And if so, I am thinking of getting 2 packs, meaning 4 sticks alltogether. I will only put 3 in, but if it is better to replace all memory at the same time, this would be the better deal. its not a good idea to run 4 sticks you will lose some speed its really just better to run 2x 2GB
fyi they do not make 1.5GB sticks
just get 2x 2GB it may not use all of it but it will work just fine
you can always move to winodws7 64bit later |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
1 edit | Not sure exactly what you think is wrong. What do you know about windows and VRAM?
Nobody is contesting you can put in more than can be addressed. Sure, the computer will work fine, but in her case, it is ill-advised.
But, The OP should know windows counts VRAM up to a gig, in its addressable space.
Upgrading to a 1 gig card with 3 gig of ram will result in less main memory being available for use. So, go ahead and put in the memory, but the OP won't get anything out of it.
It would be better to stick with an upgraded 512 card and bump the memory. Hey, what do I know. I only write software for a living. Don't take it from me.
I can link the microsoft technical article if you still doubt. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
2 edits | IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WHAT
the card it self gets an IO range this is mapped to the ram on the card by the card it self
this range use usely 512MB wide
i know
i had GTX260 + 4GB or ram in XP Pro 32bit and my useble ram was 3.75GB the GTX260 has 800MB+ of VRAM
YOU DO KNOW NOW HOW MEMORY MAPPED IO WORKS STOP SPREADING FUD
THE GPU MAPS ITS OWN RAM THE CPU MAPS THE IO RANGE FOR CARD USELY LESS THEN 512MB NORMALY ~256MB
AVG USABLE RAM REGARDLESS OF VRAM SIZE IS ~3.someGB
the card may set aside ~1GB for texture swaping when in 3d mode but thats no mapped twice
dont beleave me go look at the IO range and memory mappings in the device manager |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
| reply to longstreet
Different versions of the Windows OS tend to display memory differently. Just because you see 3.75 doesn't mean you're actually able to use 3.75 gigs.
This is the difference between 'physical' installed ram and 'usable' ram. 'Usable' happens to be what I am discussing, not what is displayed. Sure the BIOS will tell you how much you have installed and windows may vary in what it reports to you, but the limit doesn't change.
XP and Vista report these differently, sometimes, depending on the version and service pack, it may display more or less, but the usable amount of memory doesn't change regardless of what is displayed.
The OS can also vary how much memory it reserves for the system + video, so the exact same hardware setup on different versions of windows may display differently.
You may be seeing 3.75gb on your XP system, but that's purely cosmetic, it's not a reliable indication of how much is usable.
The system itself needs to reserve memory, so even in the best case, regardless of how you choose to interpret the amount of memory displayed, you're still bound by the limit. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to elios
Allow me to translate into English 
"It is not necessary that all memory on the video board be mapped into the address space seen by the processor and system bus."
Now, whether or not this is a true statement in any particular case, I don't know. But it's plausible as a general statement of system structure. |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
3 edits | reply to Duchess44
Again, my recommendation to the OP :
3 gig main memory installed max
No bigger than a 512mb video. |
|
Keizer
I'M Your Huckleberry
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-20
| said by longstreet :Again, my recommendation to the OP : 3 gig main memory installed max No bigger than a 512mb video. That would be my recommendation too. That or switch to a 64 bit OS. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
4 edits | reply to longstreet
»www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1035670
read that
a 1GB video card is FINE 4GB of ram is FINE
running 4x ram sticks can lead to slower ram speeds
its better to just get 2x 2GB and leave it be and go 64bit at a latter time
the VRAM does not impact the useble system ram only the card mapped IO set by the driver and BIOS
L2MEMORY MAPPED IO
The hole the graphics adapter causes in physical memory is called its aperture. This value is settable in the system BIOS, at the cost of being able to access memory on the video card directly and rapidly. With very large buffers on video cards, and the advent of SLI systems, the memory aperture taken out of the system address space can be huge, and reduces the usable general-purpose memory accessible by the system.
your confusing this with mapping all of the vram
the aperture setting is normal ~128MB to 256MB MAYBE has high as 512MB but a setting of 256MB is fine and tests show a larger setting doesnt really effect speed much if at all
While the card still reserves 256 megs for its video memory, the aperture now takes much more room from the system address space. In the first screen shot, we see the aperture is from 0xF8000000 to 0xFBFFFFFF, which is 64 megabytes. On the second screen shot, the aperture extends from 0xE0000000 to 0xEFFFFFFF, which is 256 megabytes.
Had this system four gigs of memory, the system would show at most 3.94 gigabytes of physical memory available after it booted with the 64 megabyte aperture. With the 256 megabyte aperture, the maximum is 3.75 gigabytes. The true maximum is substantially less, since the 256 megabyte card memory also comes from the physical address space, as well as memory for other devices on the system.
»blogs.technet.com/markrussinovic···070.aspx
I purchased one from a boutique gaming rig company that came with 4GB of RAM and two 1GB video cards.
Device Manager reveals that 512MB of the over 2GB hole is for the video cards (256MB each), and it looks like the firmware has reserved more for either dynamic mappings or because it was conservative in its estimate:
|
|
bangaroo
Premium
join:2000-08-13
1 edit | reply to Duchess44
Anyone know why my system only shows 2519 Physical Memory? I know I won't get 4GB, but other 32bit owners are getting 3.1GB.
My system specs.
Lenovo T500 laptop
Vista 32Bit Home
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
ATI Mobility Radeon 3650 with 256MB
Intel® Turbo Memory hard drive cache 2G |
|
HeavyHemi
join:2001-05-24
98500
| Perhaps this will ease the confusion over how video memory is mapped. Hint...with the latest udates to Vista GPU memory size is essentially irrelevant to system memory.
»support.microsoft.com/kb/940105
Nothing at all wrong with installing 4GB system memory with a 1GB GPU. As a matter of fact this a a nice combo and your q6600 would drive a nvidia 250 GTX rather nicely. |
|
HeavyHemi
join:2001-05-24
98500 | reply to bangaroo
I'd say it's likely your intel turbo cache. |
|
bangaroo
Premium
join:2000-08-13
| reply to Duchess44
Maybe the 1003mb of shared system memory for graphics?
Still not sure how the math works.
4GB less 1.0GB shared memory = 3.0GB.
How to explain the other 0.5GB? |
|
