What is the maximum RAM that T61 supports?

What is the maximum RAM that T61 supports?

 

Probably 4GBs.

 

4gb per slot or 4gb total?

 

Total.

 

The T61, X61/t (GM965) support 8GB RAM, e.g. http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs...-lenovo-thinkpad-t61p-now-has-8gb-of-ram.aspx

 

the T61 can support 8GB.   i have 8GB in my X61s running server 2008 EE and every bit of it is addressable by the BIOS and OS.

 

Hmmm. I would have agreed with Zaz. I've had a t61p and I was sure 4 gigs was the limit. A T61p is not an
X61s.
-Renee

 

One said 4GB is total, one said 8GB is total...

So, which one is correct?

 

the PM965/GM965 definitively supports 8GB.   the link posted above by fs005 is of a user with a T61p and 8GB installed.

 

T61p isn't equal to T61, I think.

 

the T61 uses either a GM965 or PM965 chipset depending on whether integrated or discreet graphics are installed.   this does not affect the chipset's ability to address 8GB.

there are a number of users on both the lenovo and thinkpads.com forums with these systems and 8GB installed.

i know for a fact that 8GB will work in any T61 or X61 system.   unlike others here who make guesses on this stuff, i only post if i have first-hand experience.   since i have personally used 8GB in my own systems and know others in my industry who have used 8GB in theirs, i have no issue saying that your T61 will be able to use and address 8GB.

 

Let me put it this way, Lenovo offered 4 gigs max. I filled my t61p to the max and it held 4 gigs.
-Renee

 

I have 20 years as a writer of OS system software. We were the first people to have a 32 bit system out. I know better than you what a 64 bit system is. My responses are not at all incorrect and I defy you to find one that is. I know how much memory my system supported. It's determined by the hardware and the OS.
-Renee - who gives a damn about spelling

 

To answer the question the t61p supports 8 Megs of ram if the test ram came out and I assume it did, after I was knocked out. I am still in the hosptal for that one. When I had my t61p, the max was 4 megs. Since I was run over, memory has come out that makes the maximum 8 gigs.
-Renee

 

intel's whitepaper on the GM965/PM965 states that 8GB is supported.   at this point i think we'll all agree that it's best for everyone to calm down about this topic since the question has been asked and answered.

regarding OSes, 32-bit versions of server 2003 and 2008 can support more than 4GB.   the limitation isn't always determined by the bit level of the OS but the architecture itself.   the chipset, BIOS, and OS all must support memory hoisting to allow 4GB+ to be addressed by a system.   besides that, 32-bit architecture limits addressing to 2GB per application unless the individual app supports 3GB addressing and the OS is switched to allow this.   as it sits, 64-bit architecture allows each application an unlimited amount (at least until we hit the 2TB threshold).

 

I'm not sure that this reply was necessary.

Now we should stay on topic...

 

2003 can support more than 32-bits through overlays. That's the only way it can be done. Vista does not support more than 4 gb of addressing unless it is 64 Bits. That's physics.

-Renee

 

i'm not familiar with the overlays you're referring to but it's mostly because the "32-bit" version of server is actually 36-bit.   hardware addresses need to go somewhere and that ability only comes from an expansion in address architecture.   i suppose that could be considered "physics," although, having a background in physics myself, i'd probably put it in the 'software architecture' category.

for this discussion, however, these details don't matter.   the only reason i bought this up was because so many people blanketly refer to this being a 32-bit OS issue when there are, contextually speaking, 32-bit OSes capable of addressing more than 4GB (even though they're technically 36-bit).

vista 32 could support this if microsoft chose to implement the capability.   since vista is a desktop OS and not intended for workstations or servers, users must spend the extra dough to get 2008 or switch to a 64-bit OS.   that's not physics, that's just marketing and reality.   since none of this will matter once everyone finally shifts to using 64-bit OSes—just like when we went from 16-bit OSes to 32-bit (for those of us old enough to remember)—most of what i've said above is moot.

 

The whole thing is marketing in a way. I come from the VAX OS of which microsoft has looked at extensively. We architected our machines so that they would play with the software. I dont know that Microsoft has quite had that that luxury but they have almost anyway. We had a P0 space which was 1/4 of 32 bits or 1 gb. My question is why a program needs to be that large? The answer becomes apparent when I remember that microsoft does not have seperate KESU (kernal-exec-Supervisor and user) stacks. They aren't beginning with the quality of processor that we had. In all, to larger spaces because they have a different architecture. I don't know how much of it has a 'because we can' attitude behind it and how much is 'we have to do it this way. Certainly. this is is the cheapest NOW. Memory costs an unfathomable amount per megabyte compared to the seventies when the first VAX was designed. The point is that they aren't building the same machines by a long shot.

Now I didn't know about the 36 bit architures on Intel chips, never mind the overlays then. We had 36 bit machines also but of a different family. The overlay was a way to increase the address space of a 16 bit machine. We're much more and much less sophisticated at the same time.

 

Would be nice if 4GB modules weren't exponentially more expensive than the 2GB modules. I'd love to shove 8GB into my x61s. Good to know it does support more than 4GB though for when the day comes.

 

I only said 4GB originally because that's what the tabook says. If you can fit more into your machine, more power to you. Let's all remember we're all here to help one another in a positive and constructive way. Rudeness will not be tolerated in any form.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

this is what they say...

 

Ouch 1GB max on Vista Home Starter. I'll take 128GB for my Vista Ultimate 64-bit thankyouverymuch. heh.

 

Home Starter is for "developing markets" in third world countries. Home Starter is different from Home Basic.

 

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=ThinkPad T61 Series (4 GB according to Crucial)

 

again, the T61 and T61p support 8GB maximum.   just to put this topic to rest, i found a user on the lenovo forum with 8GB in his T61:

http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.id=T_Series_Thinkpads&message.id=33120#M33120

 

^^^^ Not to unnecessarily contradict you, why then is crucial not offering it to T61 customers, when they are in the business of selling as much ram as they can??

 

I'm well aware.

Because Crucial nor Lenovo failed to update the T61 spec sheet when 4GB SO-DIMMs came out. The spec sheet was developed prior to 4GB modules, so Lenovo (and Crucial) don't list it as supported since they didn't know if it would work. But as people have stated, users have tested 2x4GB modules and found that it will indeed work. As an aside, manufacturers tend to not reflect real life situations, such as notebook weight - hence why I trust NBR user experience over technical documents - just like in this case with memory.

 

Screendump of me running 6GB RAM under Windows XP X64 in my T61p.

 

there are still official intel whitepapers available stating that the largest available DDR2-667 SODIMM is 1GB.   as others have said, manufacturers don't always get around to updating specs like they should.   in cases like this, first-hand knowledge, experience, and testing are better than paper specs any day.

 

How about XP pro 32 ? (T61/ NVS140m/T9300)

 

A 32-Bit OS (Windows Server excepted) is able to address at MOST 3.25GB of RAM. This is often reduced even further due to reserved space for graphics cards.

If you intend to utilize 4GB+ of RAM it is in your best interest to run a 64-BIT OS (most likely Vista/7 x64, although XP Pro 64-Bit or any Linux distro labeled AMD64 can work as well).

 

this is what you'd see on a T61p:


like jonlumpkin said above, you might see up to 3.25 GB depending on how much address space the NVS140m takes up.   my guess is that you'd have between 3.0 and 3.1 GB max.

32-bit addressing is a completely separate issue than hardware memory addressing.   what i wrote on page 2 of this thread would be good reading if you haven't already.

 

I have 4GB DDR2 installed in my T61p.
I also believe 8GB is the total support.
However, a 4GB stick of SODIMM costs magnitudes more than 2GB SODIMMs, from what I understand.

 

I have personally ran 8GB on my T61p. I had a friend who ordered comparable memory and tried to install it on his computer, but it wouldn't play nicely, prior to returning it, I tried it on mine and all 8GB were recognized by the system, Vista (x64) even showed it in the system screen. Pretty amazing performance with large video clips in Premiere and After Effects.

Needless to say, I wasn't about to pay $600 for the upgrade so I let my friend return them. This was late last year.

 

John,
I think you in error this time. I think 32 bits is 4 megs, it just that the exec is included so that you get 4 gigs total.

Drawmerl,
32 bits and 64 bits are both versions of Vista. Its definitely better no too confuse the two.
-Renee

 

In China, the 4GB SODIMM DDR2-800 is cheaper, probably the cheapest in the world. I got 4G x2 for around USD131 last month. Works perfectly in my T61p.

 

Who makes this memory? Will it fail after a few months Try stress testing it for 48 hours to see how stable it is?

 

The modules are from 3 different chip makers.
Samsung / Qimonda and Elpida

Mine is Samsung and so far so good

 

^^^ SEND TO USA A.S.A.p.