Will The HEL80 take more than 2GB

I am bored at work and was just wondering if this notebook will take more than 2GB of ram?

 

nope, sorry... That won't be till Santa Rosa in a couple months.

 

Funky. Wonder if it's legit. Because Bizcom, the people who distribute Compal's in the US, say it only supports 2GB

 

Ahtec Computer, the people who distribute Compal's in Spain, say it "The first Notebook with 4gb ddr2 memory"

 

I think it has to do with the chipset.
According to intel the Intel® 945GM & 945PM Express Chipsets supporting Intel® Core™ Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Celeron® M processors with 667/533 MHz system bus and up to 4GB of un-buffered Non-ECC DDR2 667/533 SO-DIMM’s.
But on the VBI(verfied by intel) product guide for barebone, the EL80 can have a max memory of 2gb and the picture rufo posted clearly shows an EL80 not an HEL80 so Ahtec must be mistaken or its talking about what it can support. Anyways 4gb will be really really expensive because you only have two sockets in laptops for rams.

Intel notebook Barebone product guide

 

The Intel® 945GM & 945PM Express Chipsets can only address up to about 2.8GB.

You will have to wait for the Intel® 965 Chipsets and combine them with Vista to be able to have totally addressable 4GB of memory in any Intel® chipset supported laptop.

You have to dig deep into the Intel® white papers to find this, but you can count on its accuracy.

 

Ya didn't believe me, and I work at Intel... hopefully you will believe Paladin44

 

Picture could be wrong, because it also states the NV7600 graphics card which isn't on the VBI.

 

Definitely believe the words of paladin44 and pyro9219 .

 

Yeah, I have the HEL80 from Ahtec (spanish provider)...

...with 4Gb RAM Memory...

...mmmm, only 3Gb detected at Windows System Info. Everest 3Gb detects too.

Do you wanna suggest some kind of test with my HEL80 ?

 

Are you running XP? Its limit is 3 GB. And as Donald says above...the chipset will only support 2.8 GB.

 

Yes, I'm running XP Professional.

If the chipset only support 2.8Gb... why the Control Panel is showing me 3Gb of memory?

I think that sell a laptop with hardware limitations between components is not a good idea whitout the possibility of flash update... Why install 4Gb if you can only run with 2,8Gb?

I'm gonna see my chipset version...

 

This topic has been covered over and over till the horse doesn't even make good glue anymore... The problem is that the Intel chipset will "see" 4GB, but because the system must be able to hold a table in memory at all times that knows all the memory locations of all the stuff, you can't ever use it all..

Don't think this is some sort of Intel gimmick either... It's a problem for anything designed with state machines / registers. (basically, all electronic chips ).

Check over on the Sager / Clevo thread for some stuff from Paladin44, myself, and a few others that were discussing the issue.

For a very simple example... think of a library... Not only do you have to have room for the books, but you have to have room for card catalogs or PC's that track where all the books are and what is available / checked out..

 

anything over 2 gigs is kinda overkill anyways isn't it? i think it is

 

ok, better spend the memory money with a higher processor.

oops, later for me...

 

Depends on what you are doing... gaming doesn't honestly require that fast a processor... Fastest gaming is done with GPU/FSB/HD Access times... CPU is last in the chain... especially with dual cores shuffling processes around so things don't get bogged down.

 

How about giving the extra money to your church, or someone that needs it more than you do?

T7200 processor, 2GB memory and a 7,200RPM hard drive and you are pretty much maxed out the best way you could be.

 

Because I need the notebook for 6 years like last one.
Pentium Mobile 1,8Ghz
512Mb RAM
32 Mb Graphic card
20Gb HD
CD Recorder, DVD Reader
More expensive than my new HEL80

Perhaps you change your notebook every year... Think about change it not so frequently...

mmmm, you can do with your money wathever you want but... not about my money...

 

Hmmm... 4GB is physically supported by the chipset you say? I don't know why, but I'd love to have 4GB of memory in my laptop, running 64bit Linux

 

Are you sure? I've seen some compelling benchmarks to the contrary. What's that Clevo thread you mentioned? I didn't see naything suspicious in a quick glance at the first couple pages.

I think they're saying it isn't.

 

l33t_cow

If you want synthetic benchmarks to look shiny, then by all means get the highest priced processor you want. But the truth of the matter is that if you take a C2D, set it up with RMclock, play a modern game (BF2142 is a decent example) and lock the processor at it's min speed, play for 20 minutes, then lock it at max, and play for 20 minutes, you won't "experience" any difference in your game play, infact most games I play on my signature's system will throttle automatically down to 1.0ghz while in the game.

Exceptions to this CAN come from RTS games where the system in managing hundreds+ units. The way software is run on dual core systems is different then in single core system though, so you can't keep thinking it's all about the GHZ. A dual core system running single core supporting applications will split the workload among the processor so neither core gets maxed. As long as your core's aren't maxed you are running as fast as the software can get. Get dual core supporting applications and you will have have a potential speed boost.

Games aren't like file compression where you can always make it "faster". At some point, the game doesn't make calls to the CPU to keep up anymore. If a game DID do this, you would run into problems where the game is running faster then intended, typically called a "speed hack" - which players of PlanetSide will probably remember from when dual cores first came out.

Hope that helps on that subject. The Clevo thread I think I was refering to was talking about 4gb of ram, not processor speed. Here it is.. http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=117024&page=3

 

Pitabred, please read the Intel document that I linked to very carefully.


http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30921903.pdf look carefully at section 9.2

 

Something is wrong with your link Donald... I got the new ones for ya..

CORRECT: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30921904.pdf
UPDATED DOC: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/30922008.pdf

Some interesting changes for those whom are pure geeks at heart...

 

Saved again

Thanks pyro!

 

Whoops. I should have been more specific. I meant this: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

 

Silly moron?

Anyways... as to your article, oblivion is a different beast... They actually wrote it specifically to eat your system alive for all it was worth so they could push the envelope. One single game doesn't set the bar...

I'm telling you.. try it.. you are trying to prove something without doing your own research, and I could find many article's to back what I'm stating as well. I could also point to dozens of people on this forum alone that will tell you the CPU isn't everything. It's almost a daily issue on here. The proof is in trying it for yourself...

Maybe I could get some of my co-workers that design all the uber Intel gear you play on to back up what I'm saying with their knowledge? That would go further then someone who rights reviews or posts on forums right?

****UPDATE****
After going through the article more fully, all I'm really seeing is the same thing I was saying.. dual core CPU's are a different beast then single cores, taking GHZ out of the equation. This is because of what I already said... it split's the PID's across the cores so no single core get's maxed.

 

There are other laptops that support up to 4gb of memory with this same 945GM and 945PM chipset, so i dont see how this could be.

IE: http://cdgenp01.csd.toshiba.com/content/product/pdf_files/detailed_specs/satellite_A200-ST2041.pdf# (Toshiba A2xx series and the A135 series both can utilize 4GB).

I have also seen a few Compal Hel80 vendors offering 3gb of memory with the base system like this one:

http://www.rjtech.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RT&Product_Code=CP-HEL80

As far as XP supporting 3GB or more.. It can handle up to 4GB of memory in 32bit, but it only addresses the 3GB in the user space the rest (.5gb to 1gb goes to PCI and video). Simple fix for this is to get x64 XP or x64 Vista if using more than 4GB of memory (in general).


Side question.. sorta offtopic.. does anyone know if the Wifi ABG card that the compal hel80 comes with (internal) is a mini PCIe? If it is, I'm wondering if I could just buy the one new draft N dell mini PCIe card and use it?

Also does the Hel80 have an internal tv tuner option, or this external?

Thanks

 

Please check out the post #24 for the ram limitations.

 

Basically what I stated.. I didnt realize someone posted the corrected link.

Dell has stated that laptops like the e1505 wont allow 4gb of memory, but if this is the same chipset, I would think they would? It is the 945 chipset as well. Or for that matter, any laptop with this same chipset

 

The chipset will recognize up to 4gb, but it won't address it beyond 3. The section of the guide paladin pointed out (that I updated the link for) explains the problem.

Technically Dell is right, and they are just trying to cover their tails against complaints by stating something that they can't truly offer. It's easier to ignore, then try and explain it.

 

Ahh... my poor attempt at humor. Please don't take it too seriously, and especially not personally. It's my nature to question everything, even things that come from trusted resources.

*wince* I think I actually missread your initial post in the first place, and then I just replied to you mentioning synthetic benchmarks. I usually take some pride in actually reading what I'm responding to.

Do you think it will become increasingly common to have games that are CPU-bound, with all the neat physics and AI stuff that's being developed?

 

I don't mind the humor but I was sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out how what I send offended someone

I honestly try to provide information as best I know / find it without talking down to anyone.. Anyways, thanks for the clarification

The question about games that are able to fully tax a system is iffy. The biggest problem is that the best written games (code wise) are often developed for a few years, If memory serves me right, oblivion started in 2002... Look at the advancement we have had in mainstream technology since then till release... The people financially tied to that game must have been very forgiving to allow them the time to write such complex software..

On the other side of the question is GPU's are becoming more powerful and able to offload more and more from the CPU. AGP -> PCI-X were jumps to get direction pipes to the memory so the system wasn't slowed down. There is also stuff like PhysX cards that may or may not take off that will remove the need for the CPU...

The purpose of the CPU is a generalized facilitator of data stream's between the hardware components. Think back to the pre-pentium day's when Math-Co processor's were used when people really need to crunch numbers. While today they are far more complex, the system's design is still roughly the same.

More proof can be seem with the upcoming systems that have 5-6 PCI-E slots for super fast cards. The history of computers has seen hardware level modems (USR modems mostly) vs win modems, and even network adapter cards that had their own on board processors. Good quality soundcards have things called DSP's which are specialized processors in them too.

Hopefully that answered your question.

 

I googled this, and Microsoft has articles on it. apparently, you can turn on a feature called PAE (Physical Address Extension) PAE "...is an Intel-provided memory address extension that enables processors to expand the number of bits that can be used to address physical memory from 32 bits to 36 bits" Link

In this article, microsoft says that enabling this mode may cause driver conflicts, and because of that, PAE mode is not enabled by default so windows can provide maximum driver support.

Regardless, I wouldn't try this until you get Pyro's opinion on this.

More information here

This stuff is way beyond me

 

PAE is actually for going beyond 4gb addressable space. This doesn't change the fact that that the motherboard itself has hardware addressed in that <= 4GB space, which makes your total available memory still smaller. The limitation is in the motherboard chipset itself unfortunately.

Now, if the chipset were designed for say... 8GB ram support... like Santa Rosa.. we might be able to talk... Because you would be able to use PAE to push the internal memory addressing higher then your 4gb ram, essentially freeing that memory and giving you access to all 4GB. (this was the intent)

PAE is one of those features that was a stab at fixing server solutions sold by Intel that needed more then 4gb. To keep cost down though, it made it's way into most modern chips.

Something to keep in mind too: Unless a program is compiled and linked with the LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE switch (In whatever form the language uses it) the program will be limited to 2GB of memory in any windows OS. Even a 64-bit program on a 64-bit OS.

Something else to think about... In the 4GB memory space model, the memory is broken into 2 User / 2 System, but you can change it to 3 User / 1 System by adding the /3GB switch.

***EXAMPLE - DO NOT COPY AND PASTE***
Go into your c:\boot.ini file (it is hidden so you will have to unhide it)

add the following /3GB switch to your OS line:

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB

 

A cool article on the topic I just read: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

 

good find on that article! interesting read. thanks a bunch for sharing, and have a cookie (rep point)

 

Just a quote for anyone to lazy to read the article (including comments)...

"There are loads of systems out there with 64-bit CPUs that only have a 32-bit physical address range. For example, the vast majority of laptops only have a 32-bit physical address range, even though many are now available with 64-bit CPUs. And plenty of desktop systems have the same issue.

People following your advice are liable to put themselves to the inconvenience of switching to a 64-bit OS only to find that it doesn't actually solve the problem - they're still limited to 3.5GB of RAM, but now they have the additional problems that half their devices are no longer properly supported, and their OS now has a bigger memory footprint thus *reducing* the amount of memory available for doing useful work... Most people will not regard this as an improvement, and they could reasonably be annoyed with your advice.

The bottom line is this: a lot of chipsets only use 32 address bits - the higher order address bits on the processor are not wired up to anything more than terminating resistors. Turning on /PAE or switching to 64-bit won't help you if you have such a chipset because the CPU doesn't have a way of asking for stuff above the 4GB mark. 64-bit will let you get more than 2GB of *virtual* address space in a process, but you'll still be stuck with 3.5GB or so of physical memory.

So if I were you I'd qualify your recommendation before you get a horde of angry people beating a path to your door... Make it clear that you need to have a suitable chipset. Moreover, if you do have a suitable chipset you probably don't actually need to go 64-bit. /PAE may actually be a better option in reality, given today's less than total support for 64-bit."

 

So that just means I've gotta buy one 2GB chip, forego dual-channel (whoop-de-do), and I'd have 3GB addressable. And then pawn off my 1GB module on someone else that can use it. Sweet

 

That's one way to think of it

 

Still alittle unclear here.. so will the hel80 physically work with 3gb or even 4gb of memory.. or does it depend on which version you buy.. (Forgetting about OS limitations.. will the bios read 3 or 4gb)..

 

It will have about 3GB usable. If you don't care about dual channel, you could install a 2gb and a 1gb and be ahead of the game. You won't honestly see much improvement though (maybe more on vista then XP).

 

So instead of running at 667mhz it would run at say 333?

I would think that would show a difference in speeds though.

Still confused on the marketting here.. there are laptops like the Toshiba A205/200 and the ThinkPad T60 which say they support 4GB, but this one cant (I think the chipsets are the same too).

 

ACK! no no...

You are thinking DDR, not dual channel. Dual channel uses two pipelines for the memory controller so you can have more communication. It has to do with total bandwidth, not speed. Think a two lane highway vs a four lane.. it's not that the traffic moves faster on the 4 lane, but more cars can move at once.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_channel

I'm sure with a small bit of googling you can find some speed comparison's if you care. It's not a HUGE boost yet, but it's potential need was seen early with things moving to 64 bit.

*******************************************************
Marketing people don't understand whitesheet's usually. They just see the top "summary" page that says "4GB supported by the memory controller". They never scroll down and read that part that talks about the real and virtual addressing. All notebooks currently out are going to have this problem if they are running Core Solo/Duo's. Most AMD and other Intel boards are the same. (notebooks)

New Santa Rosa chipsets will raise to 8GB though.

 

Mind is still wavering on this.. after reading those links previously and all the comments on that one page.

From reading those and everyone's comments here.. this is what appears to be the case..

Any core2 duo or core duo should be x64 capable (one person on that one link in the comments section said this wasnt the case with his core duo).. Correct? (one article.. not sure how accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit ) I know from experience that the Pentium D and the duo's that I have in workstations have the emt extensions and run x64 because I've been running x64 since XP came out with the x64 version..


If running x86 XP (no PAE or tweaks).. 2.8gb would be what shows up in XP (I have seen some peoples x86 XP's showing 3.3GB though.. so this baffles me, without any PAE/tweaks, perhaps the 3.3GB systems were different chipsets, desktops too)

If running x86 xp or vista (no PAE or tweaks).. 3.5GB would show usable in the OS?

Trying to find a summary on this....

 

Core Duo has emulated 64bit instructions, while a core 2 duo has true 64bit support.

People will show between 2.8gb and 3.3ish... It depends on what the system has for hardware... for Instance, a 512mb video card by itself will knock a 4gb system down to 3.5gb, add the memory reference table, the room for the PCI addressing... other system components with memory.. before you know it you lose around a gig of ram. That's what that link I posted was trying to explain. Using the PAE switch will toss those mapped memory locations HIGHER then 4gb, so your system will be able to see and use the full < 4GB range for system memory. The problem with this is that the chipset on the motherboard itself only has a 4gb table, so PAE will have no effect since there is no > 4gb range to push the stuff to.

For all intent and purpose, x86-64 *64 bit OS* isn't required for 4GB support if your motherboard and processor are capable on using more then 4GB through PAE. However, like I said, that is a more workstation / enterprise class feature that just creeps into the desktop CPU's to keep production costs down. (Meaning your home PC / notebook's motherboard doesn't support this 98%+ of the time)

If you are from the DOS era of computing, there used to be a program called HIMEM that would do basically the same thing as PAE by enabling the system to push the address table higher up and let the user have more system ram. Both PAE and HIMEM were known to lower the stability of the system though because not all hardware and software can play friendly with this higher then normal range.

 

holy crap...i remember messing with himem when i was a kid on my 386.

i had to change the memory settings for different games.

 

haha same here... I also used to use a program called memmaker or something like that. it would make more room on my piddly 386 machine so I could have a whopping 1 meg of extra space for the 'evil version' of wolfenstien 3d (it added extra gore).

Thanks for totally clearing that up for us pyro. I was considering going to 4 GB, but of course, that isn't possible with my laptop .

 

Wha??? There was an evil version of wolfenstien 3d? But yea. I remember using that as well. What it did was load as much stuff into high memory as it could so that more conventional memory was available for other programs.

 

Thats what all these post's and links are talking about