3GB RAM or 4GB RAM on Dell Laptop?

Okay, so I started a thread here, but no one seems to want to answer. I will try here, I am wanting to purchase a Dell Inspiron 1525, I don't play games so the lack of a dedicated graphics card is fine with me. My question really is since the Dell Inspiron 1525 runs Intel's X3100 Graphics Media Accelerator, would it be better to go with 3GB of RAM or 4GB of RAM. I want to take FULL advantage of the X3100 onboard graphics so the laptop runs at its maximum.

I have read that having Windows Vista SP1 allows the system to recognize 4GB whereas before SP1, 4GB were not recognized if it was installed. This of course is on a 32-bit OS and I think that the 64-bit OS will fully utilize the 4GB of RAM. If I have 4GB of RAM installed on the 32-bit OS, how and where is all the extra 1GB (if not recognized) utilized?

Can anyone provide credible information on all of this for me because I am confused.

 

If you have 4GB of RAM on ANY 32bit computer, the last bit of it can never be used.

As for your RAM question, there is very little difference performance wise between 3GB and 4GB of RAM. You might as well get 4GB, so in the future if you upgrade to a 64bit OS you won't need to go out and buy more stuff. You'll get about 3.2-3.5GB usable then.

As for the X3100, there really is no getting it to perform better. When not playing games, it uses 8MB of RAM and that is it. When playing games, you are screwed because the X3100 is a low-performance part that can't do a lot of 3D work.

 

Thank you Greg. I don't plan on upgrading to a 64-bit OS when the laptop is only 32-bit to start off with. So, would it still be a good idea to go for 4GB or stay with 3GB? I want the best I can get even though the Dell Inspiron 1525 laptop is a budget laptop and a little limiting.

 

Just go with three, you'll never be able to use all 4 and there is probably next to nothing that will use more than 2gb on that machine. However, if you want to feel good by being even then go with 4.

 

i'm using vista premium 32-bit with 3 gb, and i'd say it's the sweet spot.

 

I am going to over explain sorry everyone. The question comes up very often and confuses many, it is relatively straight forward and simple.

SP1 will have no effect on how much RAM Vista can use. Microsoft finally caved to the ignorance of some consumers who thru a lack of understanding of a relatively straight forward and well publicized situation. Thought something was wrong with their computer or memory. It was easier to just have Vista read RAM amount from the bios not what the OS can see and use. 32bit OS (all, this is not a Windows issue) can map a maximum of 2^32 (4GB) of memory addresses (this is not the place to discuss PAE so please people do not interject here). RAM uses these memory addresses but so do other devices the main one that comes to mind is video card. There are others. Microsoft says "The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB". Link. Many on this site report more than 3.12GB so I do not know the truth of it. To give a simple example. With 2^32 (4gb) memory addresses if your video card maps 512MB of these addresses there will not be 4GB left for RAM. So even if you install 4GB RAM only 3.5GB of "memory addresses" would be available (example). There is the mistaken belief spread by some that well, the left over is used in some way, it is not it might as well not be there, that is how useful it is, if it can't be mapped it can't be used by anything. One very slight advantage of using 4GB over 3GB is the 4GB configuration will have a 3.3% bandwidth advantage over the 3GB on Intel chipsets. That is not an amount that makes any real world difference in my opinion. In your case I think 4GB might not be a bad Idea as you have your GPU taking memory addresses from the installed RAM so your setup should be able to use more of the RAM than a setup with dedicated GPU unless this 3.12GB limitation is for real. But that .12GB could leave over 3GB's for OS and apps so wouldn't hurt.

Do not upgrade RAM thru DeLL do on your own much cheaper. Have you considered a Vostro 1500? I think build is superior.

 

Powerpack is right...check the RAM Deals thread. Don't let Dell rip you off on RAM prices.

Anyway, either 3GB or 4GB. It will perform about the same regardless, so go with what you feel like.

 

I thought that 4GB can be usable by apps, just not reconized by the OS? Like if needed, PS can access all 4GB, even though Windows shows 3.2GB

 

HK? OK if it is not mapped, not seen how might it be used? Reread my post, you need to spread the word on this as it does come up. You are no longer a newbie buddy. Any real question or confusion PM me.

 

Keep an eye out for deals like Greg said. I just happened to find my RAM deal at Frys.com. (Check daily and be patient to get the best deal!) I got a 2GB stick for $14 after a $30 rebate. It works wonderfully!

 

lol, I didnt read through it b4, but now it makes sense

 

In US. Dell charge $100 for 3GB upgrade from 1GB.
Select 1GB option and buy this $85 4GB RAM. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231154 memory from Newegg.com and install your self.

Now you have
1. Cas 4 and full dual channel access to RAM.
2. 3.2-3.5GB is bigger then 3GB.
3. Vista may only use up to around 2GB but my Nvidia console show 1500mb shared memory.(this may not work for Intel driver).
4. You save $15.
5. You can sell 1GB RAM.

I did it with my M1330 and I didn't notice big performance boost but I think every small things count.

 

Hell,you can never have enough RAM. Especially with Vista.
4 GB is better than 3, even if a 32bit OS won`t use it all. Yet.
Newegg had a lot of 90$ 4gb deals(2x2gb)
Just check the Hot RAM deals thread.

 

There is no "yet". At least as far as Windows goes. A 32 bit OS can only address 4GB of memory on all devices, and for backwards compatability, Windows will always have about 1GB of that address space mapped for other devices. This will never change.

Imagine if you are building houses, and the number plates can only have a maximum of 3 digits. No matter what you do, you will never be able to build a house with an address of 1000 unless you get bigger name plates (analogus to a 64 bit OS). Now imagine that numbers 700-999 were reserved for buildings necessary for the utilities companies and government. Even though you can have numbers up to 999, your system limits the numbers available for actual houses to 0-699. There is no way around this.

Current (I say current because a 32 bit OS could theoretically be designed to use 64 bit addresses, but it would be kind of silly to do so, and there are no such OSes that I am aware of) 32 bit OSes will never be able to use more than4GB of memory. In Windows, roughly 1GB of that will always be reserved for special purpose mapped memory. Therefore, in Windows, you will never be able to utilize more than a little bit over 3GB of RAM.

(One caveat: if some funky OS/harware combo uses addresses for units larger than 1 byte RAM, you will be able to address over 4GB of RAM within a 32 bit address space, and in fact, a similar concept is the reason that a 32 bit OS can use an HDD larger than 4GB. That said, again, I know of no OS that has addressed memory locations bigger than 1 btye. Basically, the limit is 2^n * m, where n is the number of bits per address and m is the size of each addressable location. For all common systems, n = 32 or 64, and m = 1 byte.)

 

If I remember correctly,there is a 32 bit version of some Windows,maybe a server type,that uses 4 Gb of RAM. I saw it somewhere on the forum.

 

If it is a server version of windows, it will probably suck royally for gaming. That said, I will admit that that is highly likely to be true that server versions can use more RAM. However, it probably requires both special hardware and special OS to work.

 

To both of you, you have to be talking about PAE here is a link. This has come up before. If this is what you are talking about and have questions please start a new thread. It is useless for almost any notebook user.

 

Yup, basically what I said. There are computers out there capable of it, but nothing that has baring on consumer machines.

 

Well, yours is capable, mine is capable and eleron911 also. I suspect the majority of members computers can handle it. It really is a software application/drivers issue more than hardware. It will not improve performance on any applications any of us normal productivity/game/entertainment/web users. But that is it, so back to 32bit can address 2^32 (4GB) and the OS must map hardware (GPU) and drivers so the entire 2^32 (4GB) is not all available to the RAM even if 4GB are installed.

Vista does support, XP don't remember right now (think so).

 

It does, but your mobo needs 36 address lines. Even if the proc and OS support it, if your mobo doesn't have the extra physical lines (hence PHYSICAL address extension), you can't utilize it. Of course, if your mobo is truely 64 bit capable, it has that many lines...