ASUS W3J & 2 x 2 GB Corsair Memory Modules The Result

OK, today the Corsair vendor told me that the 2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 Corsair RAM modules (VS2GSDS667D2) were just in. So I rushed to the shop to test the RAM modules, and the results were:

1. First, I removed one of my 1 GB RAM module and installed one of the 2 GB Corsair module in the slot. BIOS showed a total RAM amount of 2,944 MB. I began to wonder. Windows (Vista Ultimate 32) showed 2,943 MB. CPU-Z recognized the new RAM correctly and showed 3,072 MB.

2. Then I removed the other 1 GB RAM module and installed another one of the 2 GB Corsair module in the slot below the keyboard. Again BIOS showed 2,944 MB. And again Windows showed 2,943 MB. As always, CPU-Z recognized the new RAM correctly and showed 4,096 MB.

3. By chance, I tried to run ATI CCC. Both in no. 1 and no. 2, CCC did not show. I do not have this problem with the usual 2 x 1 GB RAM module.

4. I removed my hard drive and changed it with a test hard drive and installed Vista 64 to check again the result. Still the same with no. 2.

So... for now my conclusion is: Unfortunately, right now W3J is capped at 2,944 MB. And it's not fully compatible with 2 GB modules. Maybe it's the BIOS (I have v. 2.11 in my W3J).

Anyone care to comment on this?

 

Your results in #1 and #2 are consistent with the limitation of all 32-bit OS's to access memory above 3GB, which it can't do due to IO mapping limitations - what CPU-Z sees is physical (reading the specs from the chip, I think), while Vista reports accessible RAM - the difference is probably how the MB is accessing the chips, Vista is allocating or something, but I would say inconsequential since Windows is known for recognizing RAM differently (I get 2 different numbers from the 1.5Gb in both my notebook and desktop, go figure). I'm not sure I'd say the 2Gb sticks are not compatible with the W3J, however.

64-bit versions of OS aren't supposed to have the IO problem, however, so I don't know why Vista-64 didn't work.

 

Thanks for your reply. Well, even in the BIOS, my W3J cannot access memory above 3 GB, that's why I think that my W3J does not fully support 2 GB memory modules. If BIOS says only 2.9 GB, then any OS would never recognize anything above 2.9 GB. But this is just my 2 cents.

 

some say that the gma945 chipset does not support 4 full gb of ram at all....that the chipset limits it to 3 gb.

 

I just found a similar thread for Sony SZ series here. Even Vista 64 only shows 3,198 MB, and it's consistent with what BIOS shows, i.e. 3,200 MB. The Sony has an advantage over W3J though (W3J only recognizes 2,944 MB).

 

thanks for redirecting me, so does everything work ok if you just have the one 2xGB stick in, giving you only 2GB ram total? (This is kind of what I had planned to do)

 

I suggest do update the BIOS just to make sure, if there is a newer version than what you have. Although if it's a chipset limitation that won't solve anything...

 

@ earthdan: I also tried 1 x 2 GB stick in, everything seems OK, but I forgot to check whether CCC works or not. I'll do it again for you after getting some rest... it's 00:20 AM here .

 

Yeah, but I'm afraid the 2.11 BIOS I'm using is the latest for W3J... at least for now.

 

that would be much appreciated, thanks

 

Update: I just found out that even in my 2 x 1 GB RAM modules setup, CCC does not work sometimes. So maybe the CCC problem is not exclusive to the 2 x 2 GB RAM modules setup.

 

I'm trying 1 x 2 GB now. Everything works OK, CCC works also. Seems like the CCC issue is... well, just CCC issue, not related to the RAM.

 

The 2x2GB issue was quite the rage when the Gen2 MacBook Pro's came out and Apple only supported and shipped it with a maximum of 3GB of RAM (1x1G, 1x2GB). As it turns out Apple was being completely honest and saving customers the hassle and money of trying for 4GB.

As I understand the issue the 945GM chipset cannot support the full 4GB, even though it is specced up to that by Intel. It is because the chipset sets memory address for graphics cards and other expansion cards in the 3.2GB+ memory address area. Since it is a hardware limitation, this should be true regardless of BIOS or 64-bit OS, which Mac OS X is one. The best the 945GM can support is perhaps 3.2GB, which was why Apple only shipped with up to 3GB to avoid disappointment. The new GM965 chipset in Santa Rosa has placed graphics card memory address somewhere else and so it supports the full 4GB.

(On a side not, I don't believe the desktop 945 chipsets have this limitation because they support a 36-bit memory interface. The mobile series stuck with a 32-bit interface to save power.)

 

Nice explanation ltcommander_data. Yeah, so I guess I need to wait for the SR notebook to fully utilize 4 GB of RAM.

 

hey MR robo,

if its not too much troubble that is, can you do a quick windows experince index test to see how much 3GB ram improves over 2GB?

its a shame the w3j cant fully support 2X2GB ram modules or else ill be upgrading mines because at the moment my ram is the bottleneck for my system.

 

If your bios is designed to support memory remaping it can support 4gb of ram on the 945G, this is common to some of the desktop motherboards.

What lt commanderdata said is correct about some of the memory addressing being reserved for system use, so the work around was to relocate those memory addresses aka "memory remaping" however it seems that there are no notebooks that I know of that give you this option. It seems like something that could be done tho if sombody took the time to do it.

For the most part its pretty stable but there are a few programs that are programed to work with specific memory addresses and with them remaped they will not function correctly. The most known about issue that suffered from this was probably the creative x-fi cards. People were not able to use all 4gb of ram and there card it would give horrible sound problems or not work at all. Untill creative re-released some new drivers to fix the issue.

 

No need for 'MR' here.... OK I'll do it after this. Right now I have 2 x 2 GB installed. Here's the list of WEI subscores for this installation:

Processor : 5.2 (not 3.2 as previously typed)
RAM : 5.6
Graphics : 4.8
Gaming graphics : 4.9
Primary harddisk : 4.8

And the base score is of course the lowest of the subscores, i.e. 4.8. You see, the bottlenecks are graphics and primary harddisk.

For 2 x 1 GB and 3 GB scenarios, wait until I have time to open the W3J again...

 

eh??? lowest score is the cpu at 3.2 so your score would be reported as 3.2 This is the case with my desktop as my cpu is my lowest number so thats the score I got. Vista WEI is pointless anyways its not a real benchmark and contains no real validy in testing for performance.

 

Sorry, I made a mistake. The CPU subscore should be 5.2, not 3.2. But yeah I think WEI is a crap. Maybe it's a bit better if M$ calculates the base score using a weighted average of the subscores.

 

@robohgedhang: Excellent findings! Its just a shame that the W3J will not have SR!

I see you have nearly done everything possible to max out your W3J, except for the HDD!

 

Yeah I love how my 2.8ghz Opteron only gets a 4.2 in Vista WEI test when it performs on par with a 1.6ghz dual core (in dual threaded aps) wich gets into the high 4's low 5's.

If you caught wind of the threads when the G1S came out alot of people were getting bad scores on the test with there 2.2ghz C2D's and after a INF update the score went up by a whole point (from 4.2 to 5.2 or something like that) and the performance of the cpu was the same the whole time. But Vista rated it diffrently just because of an INF.

 

Yeah, that's because I chose size (160 GB 5400 rpm) over speed (100 GB 7200 rpm), and besides, I got a hard time finding a 7200 rpm 2.5" HDD in Indonesia.

 

nice to hear that it works properly with the 1 x2GB, thanks for checkin that out,
Dan

 

You're welcome

 

Well, even if you don't get the extra memory by going 2x2GB, you do get dual channel enabled versus a 3GB configuration. Although, with a 667MHz FSB, which 1 channel should be able to feed, the difference is probably only relevent in synthethics.

 

I dont know if this is the case or not, its probably running asymetric dual channel, and you can do that with a 2gb dimm and a 1gb one.

 

How do we tell that the dual channel feature is on? From CPU-Z? CPU-Z shows "Dual" in "Memory" tab in both 2 x 2 GB and 3 GB (1 x 2 GB + 1 x 1 GB).

 

I don't actually think that there is a significant increase in performance with dual channel in the w3j, sym or asym. The FSB is only 667 MHz which is the same as the ram. If the FSB was say 800 MHz in the w3j , then dual channel ram would be good because there would be essentially 2 paths for "stuff" to go, each at 667 MHz.

 

I curently run 2 x 1GB sticks and was thinking of upgrading, to take use of 3GB, so does anybody know weather it is better to get 2X2GB sticks rather than just one xtra 2gb stick to replace one of my 1gb sticks?

Even though the W3J will not ultlise more than 3gb RAM is it better to get 2 x 2GB to take advantage of dual channel?

Cheers

 

pretty sure there would be no difference NZ in regards to dual channel, I'd stick with the 1x1GB plus 1x2GB for cost, especially since 4 gigs doesn't work in the w3j.