dv9000t expandable to 2GB or 4GB ?

I know on the specs sheets it says 2. but the Intel chipset 945PM on the dv9000t is expandable to 4 GB. Why wouldnt it be expandable to 4GB ? (given we will have 2GB modules available soon and any firmware updates) I get conflictive info from HP.

 

Main reason why would be the BIOS (firmware) updates.

I myself doubt HP will support 4GB in any of their consumer brands anytime soon.

In any case, 2GB is far more than enough most people need. Unless you're using some memory-intensive programs, it won't make any difference.

Well, it won't make a difference until Windows releases their next resource hog of an OS...

 

after looking at their website; the dv9000t indeed can only be expanded to 2GB.

yes BIOS one of the reason why HP can't increase it to 2GB. its not the motherboard (945PM) limitation as you already know. possible though, the Qosmio can.

the next resource hog from microsoft already comes out. Vista is launched on 31st January 2007. with minimun of 1GB and mainstream at 2GB and the next performance computer with at least 4GB, its a resource hog alright!

though i'm sure 2GB will be enough for almost all task, except high-end gaming or professional application.

 

Can't wait to see the minimum requirements for Microsoft's next operating system.

Why does seeing 3.0GHz Quad Core processor, 4GB RAM, 50GB hard drive, and a DX12 capable graphics card being listed as the minimum requirements for the next Windows not surprise me?

 

Yea well, I need some more mem. Video encoding, Gaming.

I got WUltimate 64 than can use alot more RAM. Why would HP sell a 64bit OS without supporting more than 2GB ?

 

Because their business class machines can use up to 4gigs of ram.

 

I am already reluctant to upgrade to resource-hungry Vista, not to say the next OS from MS.

3D Linux is the way to go.

 

A good alternative, I've found, has been XP x64. For me, it's been a lot faster than regular XP, and more stable. Gaming has actually improved.

 

No fun without sound. AFAIK you have to pay for the sound drivers, since it's conexant sound cards in most of the new machines.

 

Does anyone know, for the dv9000 running an AMD chip, do we need to get similar RAM chips for DDR to function, or does this machine not use the DDR spec?

If we do get similar chips, but can't find the exact company, is it usually sufficient to get VERY CLOSE to original, i.e. same MHz, timing, etc.?

Thanks. I have 1 GIG now, I am thinking of getting a second chip (I assume there are two slots, right?)

 

Be sure that you only have a 1GB stick. Most of the time when HP sells 1GB machines they put two 512MB in.

A good make of memory is http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Pavilion+dv9000z+Series

The machines uses DDR2. Since there is no dual-channel using, it's doesn't really matter that the memory banks aren't paired. Having the same mhz does help though!

And yes, there is two slots in the machine.

 

I thought DDR2 memory was inherently dual channel (DDR = Double data rate?). I just checked the net as I wrote this and see that they are entirely separate notions. So, the Turion and the chipset on the dv9000 are not dual channel then?

If that is the case, then I could get 1.5 GB if I want to! Yay. That's good news. I just didn't want to spend the cash for a whole extra GB, because I think 1.5 GB total will cure my woes.

I will check to make sure I have one 1 GB stick. I am pretty sure I do - all my documentation claims that I do.

 

The Pavilion dv9000Z with AMD processor supports dual channel DDR2 667MHz memory modules.
Minimum addressable memory — 512MB using one 512MB memory module or two 256MB memory modules
Maximum addressable memory — 2048MB using two 1024MB memory modules
The notebooks support up to 2GB maximum system memory.

Configurations:

512MB (512MB x 1)
512MB (256MB x 2)
1024MB (512MB x 2)
1536MB (1024MB + 512MB)
2048MB (1024MB x 2)

If this can be any help to you.

 

I stand very much corrected by Eddie, I was going by the info given by Crucial on the machines. I've emailed Crucial to ask for more info. But the HP website does infact say for both z/t machines that Dual-channel kicks in when you have the same size mem banks.

I've used CPU-Z to test my own machine and it says "dual".

 

Dam... I guess that pretty much rules out me getting an extra 512 MEG in addition to a 1 GB chip and seeing optimal performance.

I guess it also means that if I DO have 1 GB in a 1GB stick in there right now, I'm only getting single channel performance. If I put it in the form of 512x2, or 1GBx2, then, I should see a performance increase, right? Especially on the graphics side, since the graphics shares the memory.

Although, I wonder if the graphics would take advantage of the dual channel...

I think tech white papers are warranted here, peeps. Any useful documentation to refer to on this?

 

Tried 1+1, 1+2 and 2+2 GB or memory on my nc8430.
On ALL occassions dual channel was activated (as seen on CPUz).
With only one DIMM I got single channel. So don't loose hope.

 

1+2 gave you dual, eh? Interesting. I wonder what that would have been then, did you actually get only 2 GB total, with 1 GB wasted, but in dual channel? Or did it give you 2 GB address at the dual channel speed and then 1 GB addressed at the normal speed...

Interesting...

 

I wouldnt worry about Dual channel too much. yeah, it does double your memory bandwidth but thats just the theoretical limit. In practical everyday usage the advantages of running memories in dual channel is next to nothing. The only instances where you are going to notice any difference is in memory bandwidth benchmarks and programs which use large amounts of memory.
http://laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=20&page=3

Also, some newer Intel chipsets support dual channel even if the 2 memory sticks are not equal sized.

 

Well, I'm not on an Intel chipset. I'm on an AMD.

I have to question what will happen if I run two sizes of memory, 512 and 1 GB in my machine. Dual, or not?

OTOH, maybe I should just spring for a 2nd 1GB chip, laptop memory is generally inexpensive...

 

I would say spring for 2GB. Vista works well under 2GB. Plus you could sell your 2x512MB as a couple or split. Either way, you could sell them, and that way the upgrade doesn't cost you as much.

I have a TL-56 and 2GB and vista plays nice for me.

 

I agree. If your going to spend the money you might as well max it out. I did and the difference was noticible so I'm glad I spent the $160 for the 2 1gb sticks. I also use a 4gb 150x HC SD card for the Readboost drive. My DV9310 is smooth and peppy now.

 

I guess I should spring for the extar gig when I have the money.

Yeah, there is no question, with 128 MB eaten up by the graphics card MINIMUM, I find my Vista machine runs about 60% memory with MSN, Mail and Virus open.

At Large, you're not using the built-in drive for the Readyboost are you? I tried putting an SD card in there, as well as plugging in my USB 2.0 Digital camera, and neither would enable with Readyboost. I thought you had to have an external (USB) flashdrive for it to work.

Thanks.

 

No, you can use a SD card, it just has to be fast enough.

I tested out the SD card from my digicam, and it worked well. But I need it for the camera. So, I'm gonna grab a 2GB one some day just for the readyboost.

 

Yes, I am using the internal slot. I started out with a 1gb Sandisk Extreme III. That one worked well but I got greedy. Then I tried a 4gb Sandisk Ultra II. For some reason Vista didn't like that one which I thought was odd because I expected it to be faster than the Extreme. I switch over to another brand of SD made by SF Technology that supposedly is 150x and it works great. I formatted all of them at Fat32. Might try NTFS for that little extra umph. From what I've read the 4gb actually acts like 8gb because of compression. It's just a cache but mostly for small files not large one that have to come from the hard drive. Part gimmick part band-aid but I'm all for helping out with the horsepower whenever possible. Regardless of which way you go card or USB check the r/w specs closely before you buy and if you can find them. Not all the manufacturers post that information but they make a lot of claims on the packaging. It's subtle but it does work.

 

Do you think an SD card instead of actual memory might do the trick for a while? Like how much of a speed increase are we talking, here? Is it noticeable?

 

I don't have anything to benchmark it against. Just seat of the pants feel. When I was running 1gb of main memory it was definitely noticable. For some reason my video and audio had some hesitation and using that card made it smooth out so there must have been some transfer of overhead. Now that I have 2gb of main ram it's hard to judge. If you can get a 4gb card cheap enough I'm sure you'd see the benefit. I payed $40 for mine which isn't much less than a 1gb ram stick at BB in their sale paper last weekend for $70 of PNY. YMMV.

 

Ya know what, the video and audio issue is exactly what I am hoping to resolve. I find that my audio skips or is jerky, and video is just the same. It almost seems like there's not enough of a memory buffer for videos to decode, or whatever, because the HD seems to be constantly loading new data into memory when I watch a video, and the computer can't keep up and decode certain video fast enough.

I am surprised to hear that RAM would really have an effect on video and audio issues, but can anyone attest to this being the case in a lot of cases? And if so, is it likely an issue of not enough of a "buffer" being available for decoding?

I would hardly think that a 1.6 dual core processor shouldn't be able to handle the decoding of high-res video, etc. so I really hope that is not the problem, or I've bought too slow of a computer

 

I hear ya. One thing you might want to look at is check your bios setting for video ram. I jacked mine up to 128 but that was AFTER I had already went the SD card and RAM route.

Frankly, I think Vista is just choking the crap out of it. I have a Toshi with a 1.6 P4 and only 512mb of ram (now my wifes machine) and I think it will run circles around my spanking new HP. One of these days when I'm bored I'm going to do some comparison runs between the two. Who knows. I might have to trade her back.

 

I was able to upgrade mine to 3GB (1+2) and it seems to be working ok. When I tried 4GB, it POSTed and Windows even booted, but no display

 

do you have the latest updates? SP1?