memory capacity issues

i own an HP Pavilion 6680ej notebook (one of the many models in dv6500 line). i upgraded my ram recently from 1GB ddr2 533mhz(two bricks in dual channel) to 4GB Kingston 667mhz ddr2(also two bricks dual channel).

the problem is that the system recognizes only 3gb instead of 4. i'm running Windows 7 32bit ultimate edition. please help. here's the picture. it says that there are 4gb installed but only 3 available.

 

A 32bit OS can only use 3-3.5gb of memory , also if you have a intergrated graphics it will be steeling some memory as well, upgrade to a 64bit OS to use the full 4gb

 

thanx! i suspected that the os was the problem. the gfx card is nvidia 8400gs btw.
p.s. i'm planning to upgrade my notebook hd too. from 160GB 5400rpm 8mb to 320 7200 16mb WD Scorpio. and i wonder if the rpm and hd buffer make a big diiference in speed on notebooks. should i buy a smaller capacity but faster or huge capacity hd with the same buffer and rpms as the one i have. (using notebook for games and image and video editing)

 

A faster hdd will make your notebook seem like new, be warned you 8400m GS is on Nvidia`s faulty card list and could suddenly fail , lots of info on NBR about that.

 

thanx 4 the info once again.
will the new hd increase speed in games? are there any framerate comparison topics regarding this issue on the forum?

 

Faster HDD generally does not have an impact on framerates (unless you are in a game that is zoning or something and loading something off HDD in the background). HDD is almost always the slow point in any piece of software, so devs try to minimize the amount of time spent hitting it. Faster HDD generally translates to faster load times in games, but not better framerates.

 

I just installed that same drive in my laptop and i notice a huge difference in load times and all around performance,worth every penny.....

 

read on the forum that some systems don't see 4 gigs because of the chipset and its 32bit memory bus controller. i got i965 with 64. so i guess the chipset is not the issue.

 

cool, will be ordering mine soon

 

note: new hard drive will reduce loading times for games but won't actually make games run faster meaning there will not be and increase in Frames per second... for that u need to upgrade ur CPU and overclock ur GPU... and ya your 8400M GS is likely to die anytime so i would think again before upgrading just to ensure u don't waste ur money when the laptop dies...

 

remember too that no matter how much money you spend on an old laptop it will still be an old laptop.

Considering that new machine, 17" display, i3 or i5 cpu, 4 Gb ram, fast hard drive, will cost around $600 with a 1-3 year warranty, you really want to evaluate whether or not it's smart to spend $200- and more to pump up an old machine.

 

It doesn't matter because it may still be hardware limited to 32 bits.

 

bus width is NOT the same as address space.

And at the end of the day, it's all run by the BIOS and OS.

 

But if the memory controller is physically limited to 32 bits, shouldn't a 64 bit OS still be able to address 4GB of RAM, given that the 3-3.5GB limit is due to Windows reserving memory ranges to address the GPU and other devices, not the hardware itself? I may be mistaken, but if the memory bus actually has 32 physical address lines to the RAM, a 64 bit OS should be able to address up to 4GB.

 

before you go any further, do some research on the reserved addresses spaces in x86 (and yes, x64) systems. There is at least one sticky topic on the forum, search here works, and google is your friend.

All will become clear grasshopper.

 

Or you could type a single simple sentance that says that the memory controller maps directly though to the OS, if that is the case. But you know, "you're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you anything more," is just as helpful. And of course it follows that x64 would still have reserved memory space, as you still have the same hardware in the system and the same underlying architecture, just more address space. So is that the case? Does Windows just map directly over the memory controller?

 

The thing is, I don't think it's just Windows that's reserving memory ranges to address the GPU and other devices, but the BIOS. So even if Windows can address more, the hardware memory controller is the limit, as if all the memory slots for the hardware memory controller go to the RAM, the GPU and other components won't be able to have their memory addressed, and so won't be able to operate properly. I suppose this problem could, in theory, be solved if each of those other components has its own memory controller, but I'm guessing that most of them don't, because even then, you're faced with the problem of how all those separate memory controllers would communicate with the OS, as that would probably require some "primary" memory controller to coordinate all the input, which brings us right back to that hardware memory controller issue again, since that primary memory controller would almost certainly require enough hardware addresses to address all of the memory space in the first place, so why bother with the individual memory controllers when you can just put it all in the primary memory controller in the first place?