With the new December ATI Drivers I have 383 MB of Shared System Memory for
my Mobility Radeon X300. This seems too high, as it was advertized to only
use 64 MB. Anyone have a comment on why this would be happening? My RAM is
dual channel 400 MHZ, so there is no way that that much ram could acutally
be used, or is there? Has anyone expereinced this in XP?

Ben

I noticed the same thing- Mobility Radeon x1400-256mb
but shows 383 also
hmm

Jeff

"Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0633EEC2-4022-4250-8821-(E-Mail Removed)...
> With the new December ATI Drivers I have 383 MB of Shared System Memory
> for my Mobility Radeon X300. This seems too high, as it was advertized to
> only use 64 MB. Anyone have a comment on why this would be happening? My
> RAM is dual channel 400 MHZ, so there is no way that that much ram could
> acutally be used, or is there? Has anyone expereinced this in XP?
>
> Ben

The most odd part about my situation is that I only purchased a 64 mb card,
and 32 of those mb were supposed to come from the PCI Express interface with
the system RAM. I don't understand how the extra 383 MB are showing up. I
also don't see them being used when I look at task manager (although I might
not be looking at the right place). Does anyone have a link to an
explanation of the PCI Express interface and how Windows deals with system
RAM being used by the graphics card? Possibly that will shead light on the
situation.

Could much of Vista's high RAM usage be due to the graphics card drivers
eating up much of it? If I subtract that 383 MB then my computer only
appears to be using 246 MB of ram to run Outlook 2007, Excel 2007, Explorer,
one IE tab, Outlook Express, this e-mail, Task manager, Foldershare, ATI
Control Panel and Windows Sidebar, all the while running the Aero interface.
Very efficient if you ask me.

Ben

"Jeff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I noticed the same thing- Mobility Radeon x1400-256mb
> but shows 383 also
> hmm
>
> Jeff
>
> "Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:0633EEC2-4022-4250-8821-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> With the new December ATI Drivers I have 383 MB of Shared System Memory
>> for my Mobility Radeon X300. This seems too high, as it was advertized
>> to only use 64 MB. Anyone have a comment on why this would be happening?
>> My RAM is dual channel 400 MHZ, so there is no way that that much ram
>> could acutally be used, or is there? Has anyone expereinced this in XP?
>>
>> Ben
>

Don't know. I have an ATI Radeon Mobility X300 also. It has 64mb of
dedicated graphics memory, and it used to say 64mb of shared system memory.
I recently upgraded my system memory from 512mb to 2gigs. Now the card is
using 763mb shared system memory. 763mb! Total available graphics memory is
now 827mb. Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.2.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The most odd part about my situation is that I only purchased a 64 mb
> card, and 32 of those mb were supposed to come from the PCI Express
> interface with the system RAM. I don't understand how the extra 383 MB
> are showing up. I also don't see them being used when I look at task
> manager (although I might not be looking at the right place). Does anyone
> have a link to an explanation of the PCI Express interface and how Windows
> deals with system RAM being used by the graphics card? Possibly that will
> shead light on the situation.
>
> Could much of Vista's high RAM usage be due to the graphics card drivers
> eating up much of it? If I subtract that 383 MB then my computer only
> appears to be using 246 MB of ram to run Outlook 2007, Excel 2007,
> Explorer, one IE tab, Outlook Express, this e-mail, Task manager,
> Foldershare, ATI Control Panel and Windows Sidebar, all the while running
> the Aero interface. Very efficient if you ask me.
>
> Ben
>
> "Jeff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I noticed the same thing- Mobility Radeon x1400-256mb
>> but shows 383 also
>> hmm
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> "Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:0633EEC2-4022-4250-8821-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> With the new December ATI Drivers I have 383 MB of Shared System Memory
>>> for my Mobility Radeon X300. This seems too high, as it was advertized
>>> to only use 64 MB. Anyone have a comment on why this would be
>>> happening? My RAM is dual channel 400 MHZ, so there is no way that that
>>> much ram could acutally be used, or is there? Has anyone expereinced
>>> this in XP?
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>

I had the option to buy either the 64 or 128 MB card, both came with half (I
think) memory reported (so 128 came with 64 mb, the 64 mb came with 32 mb).
Unless Dell gave me a present, I only thnk I have 32 mb on my card. Please
clarify if I am wrong. XP only reports 64 mb, or it did when I had it
installed.

Just wondering, what is your screen resolution?

BTW, I have 1.25 gigs of ram.

Ben

"Robert Firth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news87C5729-5D5D-453F-8064-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Don't know. I have an ATI Radeon Mobility X300 also. It has 64mb of
> dedicated graphics memory, and it used to say 64mb of shared system
> memory. I recently upgraded my system memory from 512mb to 2gigs. Now the
> card is using 763mb shared system memory. 763mb! Total available graphics
> memory is now 827mb. Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.2.
>
> --
> /* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Robert Firth *
> * Windows Vista x86 RTM *
> * http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
>
> "Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The most odd part about my situation is that I only purchased a 64 mb
>> card, and 32 of those mb were supposed to come from the PCI Express
>> interface with the system RAM. I don't understand how the extra 383 MB
>> are showing up. I also don't see them being used when I look at task
>> manager (although I might not be looking at the right place). Does
>> anyone have a link to an explanation of the PCI Express interface and how
>> Windows deals with system RAM being used by the graphics card? Possibly
>> that will shead light on the situation.
>>
>> Could much of Vista's high RAM usage be due to the graphics card drivers
>> eating up much of it? If I subtract that 383 MB then my computer only
>> appears to be using 246 MB of ram to run Outlook 2007, Excel 2007,
>> Explorer, one IE tab, Outlook Express, this e-mail, Task manager,
>> Foldershare, ATI Control Panel and Windows Sidebar, all the while running
>> the Aero interface. Very efficient if you ask me.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> "Jeff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>I noticed the same thing- Mobility Radeon x1400-256mb
>>> but shows 383 also
>>> hmm
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> "Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:0633EEC2-4022-4250-8821-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> With the new December ATI Drivers I have 383 MB of Shared System Memory
>>>> for my Mobility Radeon X300. This seems too high, as it was advertized
>>>> to only use 64 MB. Anyone have a comment on why this would be
>>>> happening? My RAM is dual channel 400 MHZ, so there is no way that that
>>>> much ram could acutally be used, or is there? Has anyone expereinced
>>>> this in XP?
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>
>>
>

"Robert Firth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news87C5729-5D5D-453F-8064-(E-Mail Removed)...

> I recently upgraded my system memory from 512mb to 2gigs. Now the card is
> using 763mb shared system memory. 763mb! Total available graphics memory
> is now 827mb. Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.2.

"1279 MB Total available graphics memory 5.8"

512MB is on the card, the other 767MB is on the system. If my system had
put aside 767MB for the graphics card only I would of noticed. Perhaps a
driver fault, or perhaps describes how much system memory it can use, if it
wants to. Sort of like the AGP aperture size.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

I think that is what it is. If you had 4GB of ram installed I suspect you
would see 3.2GB of user ram for the same reason.

"Paul Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:052475AF-986A-42E7-86FD-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Robert Firth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news87C5729-5D5D-453F-8064-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> I recently upgraded my system memory from 512mb to 2gigs. Now the card is
>> using 763mb shared system memory. 763mb! Total available graphics memory
>> is now 827mb. Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.2.
>
> "1279 MB Total available graphics memory 5.8"
>
> 512MB is on the card, the other 767MB is on the system. If my system had
> put aside 767MB for the graphics card only I would of noticed. Perhaps a
> driver fault, or perhaps describes how much system memory it can use, if
> it wants to. Sort of like the AGP aperture size.
>
> --
> Paul Smith,
> Yeovil, UK.
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
> http://www.windowsresource.net/
> Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/
>
> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>
>

ok,
make this simple for me,
"jeffproof" as it were,
so with my ATI x1400 256mb
256 is the card-and 127 mb is RAM ??? =383?
not good with numbers,but ya get the gist.

Jeff

Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8BC69972-7531-4401-8B8B-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I think that is what it is. If you had 4GB of ram installed I suspect you
>would see 3.2GB of user ram for the same reason.
>
> "Paul Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:052475AF-986A-42E7-86FD-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Robert Firth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news87C5729-5D5D-453F-8064-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> I recently upgraded my system memory from 512mb to 2gigs. Now the card
>>> is using 763mb shared system memory. 763mb! Total available graphics
>>> memory is now 827mb. Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.2.
>>
>> "1279 MB Total available graphics memory 5.8"
>>
>> 512MB is on the card, the other 767MB is on the system. If my system had
>> put aside 767MB for the graphics card only I would of noticed. Perhaps a
>> driver fault, or perhaps describes how much system memory it can use, if
>> it wants to. Sort of like the AGP aperture size.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Smith,
>> Yeovil, UK.
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
>> http://www.windowsresource.net/
>> Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/
>>
>> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>>
>>
>

Has to be.

"Jeff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Oum$(E-Mail Removed)...
> ok,
> make this simple for me,
> "jeffproof" as it were,
> so with my ATI x1400 256mb
> 256 is the card-and 127 mb is RAM ??? =383?
> not good with numbers,but ya get the gist.
>
> Jeff

Screen resolution 1280x800. I'm not sure, but dell said I could upgrade my
card to the 128mb x300 for $150. I was hoping that it would really be 128
and not 64mb shared and 64mb dedicated because that is what I already have.
I'll probably get a new computer later this year anyway.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:20DB3194-BF92-49DE-8BC6-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I had the option to buy either the 64 or 128 MB card, both came with half
>(I think) memory reported (so 128 came with 64 mb, the 64 mb came with 32
>mb). Unless Dell gave me a present, I only thnk I have 32 mb on my card.
>Please clarify if I am wrong. XP only reports 64 mb, or it did when I had
>it installed.
>
> Just wondering, what is your screen resolution?
>
> BTW, I have 1.25 gigs of ram.
>
> Ben
>
> "Robert Firth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news87C5729-5D5D-453F-8064-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Don't know. I have an ATI Radeon Mobility X300 also. It has 64mb of
>> dedicated graphics memory, and it used to say 64mb of shared system
>> memory. I recently upgraded my system memory from 512mb to 2gigs. Now the
>> card is using 763mb shared system memory. 763mb! Total available graphics
>> memory is now 827mb. Display adapter driver version 8.31.100.2.
>>
>> --
>> /* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> * Robert Firth *
>> * Windows Vista x86 RTM *
>> * http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
>>
>> "Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> The most odd part about my situation is that I only purchased a 64 mb
>>> card, and 32 of those mb were supposed to come from the PCI Express
>>> interface with the system RAM. I don't understand how the extra 383 MB
>>> are showing up. I also don't see them being used when I look at task
>>> manager (although I might not be looking at the right place). Does
>>> anyone have a link to an explanation of the PCI Express interface and
>>> how Windows deals with system RAM being used by the graphics card?
>>> Possibly that will shead light on the situation.
>>>
>>> Could much of Vista's high RAM usage be due to the graphics card drivers
>>> eating up much of it? If I subtract that 383 MB then my computer only
>>> appears to be using 246 MB of ram to run Outlook 2007, Excel 2007,
>>> Explorer, one IE tab, Outlook Express, this e-mail, Task manager,
>>> Foldershare, ATI Control Panel and Windows Sidebar, all the while
>>> running the Aero interface. Very efficient if you ask me.
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> "Jeff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>I noticed the same thing- Mobility Radeon x1400-256mb
>>>> but shows 383 also
>>>> hmm
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>> "Ben Enfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:0633EEC2-4022-4250-8821-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> With the new December ATI Drivers I have 383 MB of Shared System
>>>>> Memory for my Mobility Radeon X300. This seems too high, as it was
>>>>> advertized to only use 64 MB. Anyone have a comment on why this would
>>>>> be happening? My RAM is dual channel 400 MHZ, so there is no way that
>>>>> that much ram could acutally be used, or is there? Has anyone
>>>>> expereinced this in XP?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>
>>
>