Adding RAM to an Intel motherboard - what's the max?

[Trent SC]

I've got an Intel D865PERL motherboard with an Intel P4 2.8 processor and
1Gb or RAM (a pair of GB). I'm looking to upgrade the memory and have
looked at the useful crucial.com site, which advises that 32-bit versions of
Windows will only recognise, and more importantly use, between 3 and 3.5GB.

Is this true? In which case, there seems little point in putting 4GB on my
Windows XP Pro machine...

Thanks in advance.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I've got an Intel D865PERL motherboard with an Intel P4 2.8
processor and 1Gb or RAM (a pair of GB). I'm looking to upgrade
the memory and have looked at the useful crucial.com site, which
advises that 32-bit versions of Windows will only recognise, and
more importantly use, between 3 and 3.5GB.
Is this true? In which case, there seems little point in putting
4GB on my Windows XP Pro machine...

What are you utilizing the computer for?
The reason I ask is that there is probably little point in your putting more
RAM in it from the "what you actually would use" standpoint anyway...

 

[R. McCarty]

Unless you use memory intensive software ( Virtual PC, Graphics editing )
you're unlikely to need that much physical RAM. To keep a balanced
hardware setup, I'd save my money and invest in a newer Motherboard/
CPU & RAM sometime later. And yes 32-Bit Operating Systems have
a hard limit on how much RAM space they can address.

 

[HeyBub]

I've got an Intel D865PERL motherboard with an Intel P4 2.8 processor
and 1Gb or RAM (a pair of GB). I'm looking to upgrade the memory and
have looked at the useful crucial.com site, which advises that 32-bit
versions of Windows will only recognise, and more importantly use,
between 3 and 3.5GB.
Is this true? In which case, there seems little point in putting 4GB
on my Windows XP Pro machine...

Thanks in advance.

Yes, it's true that XP cannot use the entire 4GB.

There is advantage in putting 4GB of RAM in your machine - you can't raise
your RAM to 3.5GB.

 

[Tim Slattery]

I've got an Intel D865PERL motherboard with an Intel P4 2.8 processor and
1Gb or RAM (a pair of GB). I'm looking to upgrade the memory and have
looked at the useful crucial.com site, which advises that 32-bit versions of
Windows will only recognise, and more importantly use, between 3 and 3.5GB.

Is this true?

It's true. See http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html for a
discussion.

In which case, there seems little point in putting 4GB on my
Windows XP Pro machine...

It's not clear from your description just how much RAM you currently
have ("1GB", "a pair of GB"???). If you currently have 2GB or more
it's not very likely that adding more would do you any good unless
you're using some VERY RAM-hungry apps (image or video editing, for
one).

 

[M.I.5¾]

I've got an Intel D865PERL motherboard with an Intel P4 2.8 processor and
1Gb or RAM (a pair of GB). I'm looking to upgrade the memory and have
looked at the useful crucial.com site, which advises that 32-bit versions
of
Windows will only recognise, and more importantly use, between 3 and
3.5GB.

Is this true? In which case, there seems little point in putting 4GB on
my
Windows XP Pro machine...

1 Gb of RAM should be more than enough for most applications. The only
reason to add more than this is if you are doing something that really needs
it, such as editing high definition video. Otherwise stick with 1Gb - you
are unlikely to notice the change.

 

[Trent SC]

I've got an Intel D865PERL motherboard with an Intel P4 2.8 processor and

It's true. See http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html for a
discussion.


It's not clear from your description just how much RAM you currently
have ("1GB", "a pair of GB"???). If you currently have 2GB or more
it's not very likely that adding more would do you any good unless
you're using some VERY RAM-hungry apps (image or video editing, for
one).

Thanks to all for the helpful input, and apologies for the confusion. To
clarify, I have a pair of 512MB sticks at the moment - 1GB in total - and
I've noticed a significant slow-down on my machine since upgrading some
applications: Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Photoshop all open and run
significantly more slowly than their earlier incarnations.

I also notice significantly more HDD access while I'm waiting for these to
open, so my thinking is that I'll leave the two 512s in there, and bung in a
couple of 1GB sticks, taking the total to three. Does that seem to make
sense?

 

[David]

I also notice significantly more HDD access while I'm
waiting for these to
open, so my thinking is that I'll leave the two 512s in
there, and bung in a couple of 1GB sticks, taking the
total to three. Does that seem to make sense?

sticks = memory module?
bung = install?

Just curious.

 

[Trent SC]

I also notice significantly more HDD access while I'm waiting for these

sticks = memory module?
bung = install?

Just curious.

Yup.

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

you can research your
genuine motherboard at
the genuine intel website.

also, you can email their
sales rep to inquire what
applications require max
memory engineered into
the mobo and buy the
amount you require.

however, many, if not all
off-the-shelf software are made
for the average user and
computer.

it is not to say that software
could not be designed/coded
to use maximum memory. but
this software wouldn't be sold at
walmarts, amazon, etc...


--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Tim Slattery]

Thanks to all for the helpful input, and apologies for the confusion. To
clarify, I have a pair of 512MB sticks at the moment - 1GB in total - and
I've noticed a significant slow-down on my machine since upgrading some
applications: Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Photoshop all open and run
significantly more slowly than their earlier incarnations.

I also notice significantly more HDD access while I'm waiting for these to
open, so my thinking is that I'll leave the two 512s in there, and bung in a
couple of 1GB sticks, taking the total to three. Does that seem to make
sense?

Makes sense to me. The disk access is very likely to be the paging
file being read from and written to. Adding RAM should cut that
considerably. Photoshop can be RAM-hungry, I'm not sure about the
others you mention.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It varies from 2.5 to 3.5 across my machines. It is due to the BIOS
reserving space for memory-mapped IO for devices like video cards. Windows
could use all 4GB if the BIOS didn't hide some. What is reported on system
properties is the amount of ram available to user programs, not necessarily
Windows itself.

 

[Anna]

Makes sense to me. The disk access is very likely to be the
paging file being read from and written to. Adding RAM should > cut that
considerably. Photoshop can be RAM-hungry, I'm not
sure about the
others you mention.
--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
(e-mail address removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Trent:
While I personally haven't worked extensively with the programs you
mentioned, I can tell you that we're aware of many users who do, and without
exception (as I recall) every one of them have commented favorably on the
speed improvement they've experienced after increasing their RAM from 512 MB
or 1 GB to 2 GB. Given the relatively low cost of RAM these days I think you
would be wise to similarly upgrade your system.
Anna