Incorrect Total RAM Reported

[powerwalk]

I installed two new chips, Crucial 2GB Kit (2 x 1GB), into the first bank of
slots.

The second bank has two 512 MB chips. All four are DDR2 PC2-4200 UNBUFFERED
NON-ECC 240-PIN DIMM. My system can utilize up to 4 GB of RAM

System Properties under the General Tab reports correctly that I have 2.99
GB of RAM

System Tools/ System Information reports incorrectly that I have 2,048 MB,
this being my previous amount of RAM...having 4 slots and 512 in each slot.

Also my graphic programs report the old figure of 2,048 MB. I went to the
Crucial site and did a system scan, and they too came up with the 2,048 MB.
512 in each of the four slots.

Everest Home Edition reports correctly 3,063
SiSoftware Sandra reports 2,048
Windows Task Manager/Performance reports Total Physical Memory 3137004

What is going on here. Only three out of eight sources report what is
actually installed.
I even removed the chips, and reinstalled them, but this didn't help.

The computer appears slightly faster, but I'd appreciate any input as to
why the discrepancies.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I installed two new chips, Crucial 2GB Kit (2 x 1GB), into the
first bank of slots.

The second bank has two 512 MB chips. All four are DDR2 PC2-4200
UNBUFFERED NON-ECC 240-PIN DIMM. My system can utilize up to 4 GB
of RAM

System Properties under the General Tab reports correctly that I
have 2.99 GB of RAM

System Tools/ System Information reports incorrectly that I have
2,048 MB, this being my previous amount of RAM...having 4 slots and
512 in each slot.

Also my graphic programs report the old figure of 2,048 MB. I went
to the Crucial site and did a system scan, and they too came up
with the 2,048 MB. 512 in each of the four slots.

Everest Home Edition reports correctly 3,063
SiSoftware Sandra reports 2,048
Windows Task Manager/Performance reports Total Physical Memory
3137004

What is going on here. Only three out of eight sources report what
is actually installed.
I even removed the chips, and reinstalled them, but this didn't
help.

The computer appears slightly faster, but I'd appreciate any input
as to why the discrepancies.

Google.
This comes up a lot.

Some search words/phrases:

32bit OS and memory limitations.
How Windows XP handles memory 3GB and above
Windows XP and 4GB RAM

Essentially - your OS and many tools you might install on top of said OS to
check into such things will likely not ever see all the RAM you get above
3GB (if even that much) as long as you are utilizing a 32bit version of the
WIndows Operating System (at least.)

 

[JS]

Try running Memtest86+, this runs from a boot disk or CD and should
eliminate or
confirm if your ram is bad.
Let it run for as long as you can, 2,4,6,8 or more hours, if no errors by
then your ram is OK.
See: http://www.memtest.org/

Also, what does the BIOS report?

JS
http://www.pagestart.com

 

[powerwalk]

Thank you for the Search Words. Very Informative

The computer mentioned in my post is an XP Pro desktop. I also have a six
month old laptop with XP Pro which I upgraded from one GB of RAM to three
when I first purchased it.

All reports from all areas in the laptop show 3 GB of RAM installed. So,
I'm now thinking it is both a Windows and motherboard problem.
Why would two computers running the same OS and having the same RAM
installed show differing reports.

Again thanks for taking the time to help me.

 

[db.·.. >]

you might want to
double check your
motherboard manual
or its homesite

perhaps, you can not
mix and match or have
some other configuration
requirements.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

 

[Paul]

Thank you for the Search Words. Very Informative

The computer mentioned in my post is an XP Pro desktop. I also have a six
month old laptop with XP Pro which I upgraded from one GB of RAM to three
when I first purchased it.

All reports from all areas in the laptop show 3 GB of RAM installed. So,
I'm now thinking it is both a Windows and motherboard problem.
Why would two computers running the same OS and having the same RAM
installed show differing reports.

Again thanks for taking the time to help me.

What is the desktop computer make and model number ?

Does it have one video card or two video cards ?

With a 32 bit OS, the address space sometimes limits what
can be seen by the OS. The mapping of address to physical
devices, runs out of resources, forcing part of the
physical memory to be inaccessible.

There was one case a few days ago, where the chipset had
memory remap enabled, and it did not appear to have a BIOS
setting to disable it. It lifts memory above 2GB, to an
area that is more usable by a 64 bit OS, which is stupid
if the user has a 32 bit OS without effective PAE support.
Some other chipsets, when they memory remap, lift
everything above 3GB, and have a different cutoff point.
Disabling memory remap, leaves the usual level of
resource conflict. In that case, 4GB installed, leaves
2.75 to about 3.5GB accessible, depending on video
card situation.

Page 14 here, shows a chipset with remap enabled, and
remapping at the 3GB point. Such a remapping is not
a good choice for WinXP 32 bit version, and should be
disabled.

http://web.archive.org/*/http://dlsvr01.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/4GB_Rev1.pdf

The situation is quite complicated, and I'm still waiting
to find a simple utility that can explain what is going on,
for people who want to understand it. It would be nice
if a diagram like the one on page 14 could be used, only
with the resources currently in use, labeled as well.
(Such as where the video card is mapped and so on.)

As JS suggested, memtest86+ is a good tool, to test new
memory. Testing the memory is recommended, in order to
avoid corrupting the OS install. With the low price of memory,
there isn't much incentive for the manufacturer to test it
well. In addition to testing, memtest86+ will also report
how much memory it can address while testing.

Paul