4 gigs in 32 bit vista

I know that Windows Vista 32 bit will work with 4 gigs of ram. My question is, will 4 gigs of ram help, or will it actually slow down my computer? I know that I need to upgrade to 64 bit Vista in order to see the 4 gigs, but I don't care if they show up or not, I just want it to work properly.

Also My CPU has a front side bus running at 667MHz the ram I am wanting to upgrade to is 800MHz. Will having a slower fsb on the CPU slow down the ram? Or will it just not work at all?

 

If your FSB is 667MHz, your 800MHz ram will run at 667MHz. Also you will be able to use only ~3GB of ram in a 32bit OS even if you install 4gigs.

 

but will it slow my pc down using the 4gigs with the higher bus speed? or will there be no change at all?

 

There wouldn't be any change. It would be the same as having 3GB of ram running @ 667Mhz.

 

Not very accurate. I did the same thing as the OP and I have a 5 % increase in bandwidth according to Sandra. Not a lot but...it is there.

 

I haven't seen any official benchmarks but ram can't run any faster than the fsb of the cpu allows therefore 800MHz ram coupled with a CPU with 667MHz fsb will run at 667MHz. I'm not sure how you got that performance increase...

EDIT: Maybe your OS can actually use a bit more than 3GB of ram which might be the reason for this 5 % increase in bandwidth. Sometimes a 32bit os will recognize 3.2gb while most of the time it can only use 3gb.

 

well I plan on updating to Vista x64 and getting the t9300. So I think it might be worth it to get the ram now and upgrade one thing at a time.

 

There are two possible explanations for the 5% increase:

1) The 800 MHz RAM is running at slightly faster timings (e.g. CAS Latency 4) when downclocked to 667 MHz.

2) Having a matched pair of SO-DIMMS means the motherboard is running in synchronous dual-channel mode instead of asynchronous.

 

It recognises over 3.2 GB and I was not referring to some chipset limitations. If 667 is max, RAM will downclock from 800. What is RAM 101 . As I mentioned, 2x2GB@667 gives approx 5% more bandwidth than 1x1GB+2x1GB@ 667. Moreover, overclocking with my new sticks is more stable and it goes higher.

I bought them because, I too, will go on X64 this weekend. I will reserve a day to hunt drivers and make it work. I saw CS4 Master work faster on 64 so, I am going 64 .

 

If you read a bit about INTEL's Flex approach you will see that they managed to do a pretty good job. On AMD sync dual-channel is important. On INTEL, not that much.

My rams are still CAS5 like the old ones.

 

No but my point was it still makes a difference and when you are talking about small percentages it all adds up.

Vista x86 has been limited to using a maximum of 3.12GB RAM for driver compatibility reasons by the way.

 

Then my reports wrong and the pagefile is not accurate.

 

You've lost me there? What did you say about the pagefile?

 

How is the page file calculated mate? If what you are saying is true, then my Vista is doing it wrong and I should have 3.12 GB. I have more than 3.2 GB and with the /PAE switch I managed to get it to 3.5GB.

 

The PAE switch does nothing in Vista x86 as Microsoft have included a software lock to stop it functioning properly. There is a workaround which involves replacing some files with Server 2008 versions, but it's really not worth the hassle.

Referring to the maximum total memory in Vista x86:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

Also regarding the size of your pagefile, there really is no way of Windows calculating the optimum size. Have a read of this - very interesting, if you're into that sort of thing!

 

As I previously mentioned, the logical conclusion, everyone, including me, reporting more than 3.12 GB is misinformed. Funny, when I had 3 GB the page file was 100 % accurate. Now, it is not. It happens .

 

Would I be able to run a processor with a fsb of 1066? I dont know the limitations of this motherboard and there are no specs on gateways website.

 

How does that question have anything to do with this thread?

The answer to your question is no - you are limited to 800MHz.

 

A 32-bit OS can only see 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 (4GB) This is all system memory including your vid cards and any other memory in your computer.

A 64-bit OS is 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 Exabytes)

This is the short answer. The maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB.

Lots of good reading out there just stop by your local Google and they will be glad to help you

 

64 is the way to go for more than 3GB of RAM.

 

I think all the processors with a fsb above 800 are the newer nehleahem (or however the hell its spelled) processors and will not work with your motherboard.

 

the processors are still penryns, just with a 1066mhz bus that works on the montevina chipset.

 

Yeah just remembered that nehalem is the new desktop processors the core i7's. Either way any mobile cpu that has a 1066 fsb which I think they are denoted by having a Pxxxx next to the name instead of Txxxx will not work as an upgrade for his comp.

 

there are both P and T series cpu's that have a 1066mhz bus. the difference is the TDP (25 watts for P series, 35 watts for T series)

a 6831/6860 - compatible cpu's are X7800/X7900/X9000/T9500/T9300/T8300/T8100 800mhz FSB cpu's

7811/7805/7807 compatible cpus are X9100/T9800/T9600/P9600/T9550/P9500/T9400/P8700/P8600/P8400 along with a, emphasis on, SLIGHT possibility that the Q9000/Q9100/QX9300 may work in the 7805/7807 laptops. it has already been tested before by NBR user BMW325i in the 7811 and has been confirmed not to work.