4GB RAM installed, 3.12 > 2.75 usable

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
Hi everyone, i have just upgraded my machine and im now having some issues with the amount of RAM i have installed and the amount that's usable.

My machine is an HP DC5100 SFF, with HP 09e8H mobo running the hp786c2 v1.09 BIOS (the most up to date version for the mobo) a Mobile Intel® 915GM/GMS, 910GML Express Chipset Family onboard GPU, and a pentium 4 2.8ghz single core CPU.

Before the issue started it was running...

Windows 7 home premium 32 bit

2816 MB DDR2 RAM, consisting of...

2x 1GB Kingston KVR800D2N5/1G, PC2 6400
1x 512MB Dane elec value VD2D667-064645N PC2 5300
1X 256MB HP HYS64T32000HU PC2 4200

RAM detected in BIOS, 2816mb, RAM detected in CPU-Z 2816mb, RAM detected by windows in computer > system 2.75 GB (2.75 GB usable)

After the RAM upgrade...

Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit

4096 MB DDR2 RAM, consisting of...

2x 1GB Kingston KVR800D2N5/1G, PC2 6400
2x 1GB Corsair xtreme performance XMS2 CM2X1024-PC2 6400

RAM detected in BIOS, 4096mb, RAM detected in CPU-Z 4096mb, RAM detected by windows in computer > system 4.0GB (3.12 GB usable)
resource monitor shows 905mb as hardware reserved.

I thought that was a lot of RAM to be losing, over 900mb worth, maybe it was the 64 bit OS, or maybe the onboard GFX, eventhough i hadnt previously lost any RAM due to the onboard, i know the card itself wouldnt have 900mb of capability, but maybe with address space etc etc it may be the cause, so i added my card, thinking that it would release any mem that the onboard was using before because i would now be using a dedicated card, but no.

Card fitted: ATI HD5450 512mb PCI-e, and now, its even worse...

RAM detected in BIOS, 4096mb, RAM detected in CPU-Z 4096mb, RAM detected by windows in computer > system 4.0 GB (2.75 GB usable)
resource monitor shows 1282mb as hardware reserved.

My BIOS has no memory mapping options so i couldnt 'release' any that way, i have unchecked the max memory option in msconfig, checked in the bios and the intel graphics adapter (presuming this is the onboard?) is now automatically been disabled since i added the card (it was set on IRQ5 before i think) disabled the intel gfx adaptor within windows device manager, and i have also tried loading the default BIOS setup.

Then i tried resetting the CMOS, it booted, stopped at the black BIOS screen, counted up in mb in the top left corner from 0mb all the way to 4096mb, than after it had finished that count it showed some other info lower down on that same screen, i dont have the exact wording but it was something like...

Devices and info.

ATAPI DVDRW drive
500GB SATA HDD
3200mb RAM

and now within windows i still have 4.0 GB physically detected, 2.75 GB usable, and no idea at all what that 3200mb reading in the BIOS detection screen was all about.

The readings in resource monitor before and after the GFX card addition differ by 377mb, so i cant see it being a case of more usage by another piece of hardware as surely id lose 512mb exactly, unless address space for a 512 card could be as high at that amount.

Does anybody know of a possible cause of this, because as it is now I may as well have not bothered adding the extra RAM as I can't use it, it's in fact created an issue that I never had before, the RAM installed and the RAM that was usable never differed, with or without the ATI card installed as I had the machine setup both with and without it in the past with no issues at all, and the installing of the ATI card as a remedy seems to have in fact had the opposite effect, the only thing I can think of that is radically different now is the 64 bit OS instead of the x86, which I ironically installed in order to make use of my full 4GB.
 
Solution
dmmbbs
So its a compatibility problem. Somehow the chipset or bios does not like this config of 4X1GB mixed timing modules. I have lost lots of precious time playing troubleshooting minor problems and in my opinion upgrading would save a lot of headache and will let catch up to the latest generation of exciting tech.
Sort by date Sort by votes
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
No there isn't, my initial thought would be something like what my old machines used to have, where you can set the buffer from 8 upto 256mb, agp aperture I think it was called, but no such option here
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dmmbbs

dmmbbs

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2011
237
0
18,710
Your MB has proprietary BIOS with many features unavailable. That doesn't mean they are not there; only that you are not allowed to change the default values. It is not possible that while using IGP no hardware reserved memory would exist, so somehow your system used some amout of your RAM even before you upgraded your RAM and OS. What amount of RAM will be allocated to the IGP by default/Auto mode of the BIOS may be completely illogical, but it's true. And yes, graphics frame buffer may also be allocated to system memory while using discrete graphics when you have 4GB or more RAM installed if that is wgat the BIOS wishes to do by default without letting you know. I dislike these cut-down BIOSes exactly for this lack of control. It may be safe for noobs, but annoying to users who know even a little about haedware.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
Thankyou dmmbbs :)

I am now however very suspect of the new RAM i bought...

im getting intermittent "164- memory size error" before boot, with the accompanying message

"the following configuration options were automatically updated:

Memory: 3200mb"

*OR*

"Memory: 2816mb"

Regardless of this figure computer > system was still showing 2.75gb usable, so i experimented with all the RAM i have, my existing 2 1gb kingston sticks, the 2 new 1gb sticks, and the 256m and 512m sticks i had in there before, and the installed amount updated itself in the same above screen every time i changed the physical amount and was accurate to the mb, exactly matched, APART from when i introduced either one or both of the new corsair sticks to the system, regardless of which slots i used (i tried every combo i could think of, which took a while!) but physical RAM and detected RAM tally up as expected in every configuration until i start using the new sticks.

I have now got my original 2 1gb kingston sticks in slot 1 and 2 as before, but have switched the 2 new ones round so the one that was in slot 4 is now in slot 3 and visa versa, and it now detects 3200mb installed in the aforementioned "the following configuration options were automatically updated" screen, and still shows 4096mb installed in the bios information screen, BUT, it now shows 3.12GB usable in computer > system, and although this kind of behavior would normally indicate a problem with either slot 3 or 4 on the board, the combos of RAM i have tried earlier discounts that possibility, so i am of no doubt that it has to be the RAM.

I have contacted the seller and asked if they are willing to send me 2 more 1gb sticks out, preferably of a different brand, and i will return the ones i originally bought, im awaiting a response, but i don't think that's an unreasonable request, especially as i have offered to pay the postage costs,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dmmbbs

dmmbbs

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2011
237
0
18,710
run memtest86+ from a boot CD/usb for 1hour on each of the new sticks in slot you know is working(say memtest shows no error when kingston in slot1, so the slot is okay). You'll definitely be able to locate any hardware problem.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
I'm running memtest86+ as suggested now, it shows the memory amount in the top left as 2815m, so a portion of ram is obviously not readable, although no errors yet, I'll keep you posted :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
The new RAM shows up with no errors, although I can still only get to 3200 mb before I lose anything above that to reserved, 3 sticks of 1gb installed shows as all available, as it's 3072mb, and is under that 3200 threshold, but as soon as I add my 256 chip giving a total of 3328mb I get the screen I mentioned earlier and it updated the available memory as 3200mb, the same if I use 3x1gb and the 512, a physical total of 3584, but 3200 available, it's when I use the 2 new corsair ones together in any slot configuration that I get a 3200mb amount, press f1 to save, reboot, then a 164 memory size error and a total of 2816mb, maybe my rig just doesn't like this memory.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dmmbbs

dmmbbs

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2011
237
0
18,710
I am also surprised at this behaviour. I've heard that mixing different RAMs is not a good practice but I've never heard of such a partial loss of capacity. In my opinion it is some sort of compatibility problem, not a problem with your corsair RAM. Had it been so, using a pair of corsair and a kingston would have resulted in memory error. I draw attention of memory experts to this thread.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
Yes it is very odd, I know that the maximum supported memory is 4gb, so I'm at the limit it terms of capacity. The only possibility I could come up with is that I'm using 6400 memory and the specs indicate a maximum of 5300, but in understand that the motherboard will simply underclock it to run at the lower speed, and my original 2 1gb Kingston sticks are also 6400, if anything I'm amazed it didn't throw any wobblys when I was running the original 2.75gb, as I had 6400 5300 and 4200 all running together, my additional ram should make for a much better system as it's all the same speed.

I received the following reply from the seller that I bought the corsair ram from earlier on.


"Dear clarkey_1984,

Hi,

We are very sorry that you are experiencing problems. it seems these modules are incompatible with your motherboard as these have been tested and are slightly faster than standard spec.

but no probs I will send immediately and also refund you cost of delivery back to us.

Regard

Adam

- click4memory"

Where he has found additional info that suggests this ram is incompatible with my mobo I don't know, but I'm very happy with his reply and replacement memory being on it's way, as at the moment, the machine is doing exactly what x86 windows would do, yet I'm running x64.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
The new RAM has arrived, and its made no f@@king difference at all, its exactly the same memory as my 2 original kingston sticks are, apart from these are full height sticks and my originals are the lower profile ones, in fact it skips the mem size error entirely and goes straight to 2.75GB being available now so actually its worse, i've reset the CMOS and loaded the default settings in the bios, its made no difference, i may as well just give up now, time to bite the bullet and buy something from this decade i guess.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dmmbbs

dmmbbs

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2011
237
0
18,710
So its a compatibility problem. Somehow the chipset or bios does not like this config of 4X1GB mixed timing modules. I have lost lots of precious time playing troubleshooting minor problems and in my opinion upgrading would save a lot of headache and will let catch up to the latest generation of exciting tech.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
clarkey1984

clarkey1984

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2014
56
1
18,545
Exactly, thats all it can be. On more googling and a topic on the HP support forum i have discovered that in order for windows x64 to see and use all 4gb on an intel machine it has to have the 965 or newer chipset, im on the decade old 915, so that explains it. It does however seem to 'like' the brand matched kingstons more though, as despite them being slightly different, (my original 2 sticks are KVR800D2N5/1G, my 2 replacement ones are KVR800D2N6/2G) the windows experience figure on memory operations per second has jumped up from 4.7 to 5.1, every cloud eh.

Thanks very much for all your help anyway guys, im sure ill be back posting here again in a few months when i start a fresh build with parts from this decade, and i get stuck, which i inevitably will because ive not built anything since the mid 2000's and everythings different, the era of 80GB seagates, socket 478 pentium 4's, DDR SDRAM and AGP GPU's has well and truly gone lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dmmbbs

dmmbbs

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2011
237
0
18,710
You are welcome to this lively forum. It's a good news that you are going to upgrade. I myself am no different from you when it comes to choosing a platform and sticking to it for a years. I bought my first computer when I was college student, in 2005. It was a socket 754 AMD Sempron machine with 256MB DDR SDRAM and 80GB Seagate HDD. I had to change my build in 2011 owing to intolerable performance and upgraded to my current rig. I am happy with it. Let's see how many more years it serves.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom