Windows XP Pro (32 bit version) can do 4GB of RAM. So let's pretend we have a system with 4GB of RAM installed and two nVidia video cards each with 512MB of RAM.
Does the 4GB total RAM include video card RAM? Thus, if you have 4GB of RAM installed and your video cards are 512MB cards, your system's RAM would only appear as approx. 3GB? (because the video card RAM would take away one of your available 4)
Or is the RAM on your video cards counted separately and your 4GB installed RAM should appear as approx. 4GB?
I need a 100% positive answer and I'm not seeing concrete proof online. In fact, I've seen people answering the question both ways.
RAM Question
In Win XP 32-bit, I would be stunned if your system reported more than 3.5GB.
From a Microsoft dev.
I have 4GB of RAM with a 512MB card in my laptop, Windows reports 3.5GB. Whether or not the 4.0GB - .5GB of video RAM = 3.5GB, or just a coincidence, I'm not sure.
Due to an architectural decision made long ago, if you have 4GB of physical RAM installed, Windows is only able to report a portion of the physical 4GB of RAM (ranges from ~2.75GB to 3.5GB depending on the devices installed, motherboard's chipset & BIOS).
From a Microsoft dev.
I have 4GB of RAM with a 512MB card in my laptop, Windows reports 3.5GB. Whether or not the 4.0GB - .5GB of video RAM = 3.5GB, or just a coincidence, I'm not sure.
It's not me, it's someone else.
There are MANY PCs/Laptops who's video cards use "shared RAM". Which means, the video card has some RAM, but it also borrows from system RAM to do it's thing. It's normally set up such that the video card has half of the reported RAM built in and the other half is system RAM. A 512MB video card would have 256 built in and would borrow the other 256 from system RAM. However, a high end video card (the cards we buy) have it on the card and do not share the RAM as shared RAM is much slower, for obvious reasons.
As to why a system with X amount of RAM is reporting less than that, I have no idea. I've only got 2GB RAM, and mine says I have 2GB RAM. I only know that many systems use "shared RAM" on the video cards. Also, I have no idea if/how the system reports RAM when it's being shared.
So, this may not answer your question. . . it might provide a clue?
As to why a system with X amount of RAM is reporting less than that, I have no idea. I've only got 2GB RAM, and mine says I have 2GB RAM. I only know that many systems use "shared RAM" on the video cards. Also, I have no idea if/how the system reports RAM when it's being shared.
So, this may not answer your question. . . it might provide a clue?
Catt's link does an excellent job of explaining where the RAM goes and proves a point I'm making in my debate with Dell. (It's a long story that I'll type up tomorrow, but to get you more interested, this is all for a letter to Michael Dell, I was given his actual email, and several managers at Dell. But more on that tomorrow...)
The systems in question are Dell XPS 720s. They both have 4GB of overclocked Corsair Dominator RAM. They both also have dual 512MB nVidia cards running in SLI. One is running Windows XP Media Center 2005 and the other is running Windows XP Pro. Both show 2.75GB of RAM when you look at the System properties in Windows. Both also show 4GB installed when you look in the BIOS.
Dell claims "memory leak" for the error, which is bunk if they're implying what memory leak usually is, a slow loss of memory, as the systems show 2.75GB immediately upon boot. They also speculate that not all memory ever appears, which is somewhat true. Buy 2 GB and you might see 1.97GB or buy a 750GB hard drive and it might only have 698GB. That sort of thing is expected, but to drop 1.25GB right out of the gate when 4GB should be there is a damn big drop.
Obviously, Catt's linked article states that such a thing occurs with the 32 bit versions of Windows. However, also stated is that the amount of RAM seen by the system can be increased with some tweaking. That piece of info is very helpful to my case against Dell.
Unfortunately, it didn't seem to address the video card situation, but like Cake says, due to the numbers we're seeing and Catt is seeing on his laptop, perhaps it's a clue?
The systems in question are Dell XPS 720s. They both have 4GB of overclocked Corsair Dominator RAM. They both also have dual 512MB nVidia cards running in SLI. One is running Windows XP Media Center 2005 and the other is running Windows XP Pro. Both show 2.75GB of RAM when you look at the System properties in Windows. Both also show 4GB installed when you look in the BIOS.
Dell claims "memory leak" for the error, which is bunk if they're implying what memory leak usually is, a slow loss of memory, as the systems show 2.75GB immediately upon boot. They also speculate that not all memory ever appears, which is somewhat true. Buy 2 GB and you might see 1.97GB or buy a 750GB hard drive and it might only have 698GB. That sort of thing is expected, but to drop 1.25GB right out of the gate when 4GB should be there is a damn big drop.
Obviously, Catt's linked article states that such a thing occurs with the 32 bit versions of Windows. However, also stated is that the amount of RAM seen by the system can be increased with some tweaking. That piece of info is very helpful to my case against Dell.
Unfortunately, it didn't seem to address the video card situation, but like Cake says, due to the numbers we're seeing and Catt is seeing on his laptop, perhaps it's a clue?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Cake's issue is separate. A 2GB RAM machine, with 256MB shared video memory would only report 1.75GB to the OS.
Dell has had a disclaimer for a while about how 4GB systems won't show up as 4GB when you shop for a system. Obviously I dont know if that was up when you bought yours, but it was when I bought mine.
But yeah, it's nothing about a "memory leak" at all. That's crap.
Also, the OS and manufacturers measure RAM the same way, unlike HD mfrs and the OS. So, 2GB = 2GB (well, 3GB = 2.998GB... at any rate, closer than HD specs)
Dell has had a disclaimer for a while about how 4GB systems won't show up as 4GB when you shop for a system. Obviously I dont know if that was up when you bought yours, but it was when I bought mine.
But yeah, it's nothing about a "memory leak" at all. That's crap.
Also, the OS and manufacturers measure RAM the same way, unlike HD mfrs and the OS. So, 2GB = 2GB (well, 3GB = 2.998GB... at any rate, closer than HD specs)
It's not me, it's someone else.
Dell has had a disclaimer for a while about how 4GB systems won't show up as 4GB when you shop for a system. Obviously I dont know if that was up when you bought yours, but it was when I bought mine.
Yeah, they didn't have that when I bought. Of course, I bought mine via my sales rep and not over the web.
LOTS of problems with the systems the way they shipped. I had to scratch and reload both due to problems with Windows Media Center and the image they slapped onto the system. More on the details tomorrow.
Perhaps I'll post the letter here tomorrow before I sent it to let you peeps give it a look and drop in some thoughts. We'll see.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell