Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sensei]

Cool, I guess that settles it. I'm gettin' a new processor!

Now I'll just be having to do the actual installation, and I think a BIOS update too.

[Sensei]

So, I put 4 gigabytes of RAM in my computer, up from 3 (I had extra RAM in a computer I wasn't using). However, dxdiag tells me that I only have 3.5 gigabytes of RAM. I looked it up, and I saw some people saying that the 4GB RAM maximum included things like video memory. So, am I really only getting 3.5 gigs worth? If so I'd like to put a 512mb in place of one of my 1gb cards, so I can use it for something else.

[Montague]

I believe 3.5MB figure is the usable RAM available, which is what my computer tells me. Some of your RAM is allocated by the computer solely to run windows and whatnot and background programs. Vista is particularly bad about using up RAM in this manner.

You could test this theory by swapping out your RAM cards and see if it says 3.0MB or 3.5MB available or not.

[gunnarig]

So, I put 4 gigabytes of RAM in my computer, up from 3 (I had extra RAM in a computer I wasn't using). However, dxdiag tells me that I only have 3.5 gigabytes of RAM. I looked it up, and I saw some people saying that the 4GB RAM maximum included things like video memory. So, am I really only getting 3.5 gigs worth? If so I'd like to put a 512mb in place of one of my 1gb cards, so I can use it for something else.

its becuse you are running windows XP on a 32bit processor it wont go any higher than that. i would just keep it that way. Regarding you processor just keep it that way save your bucks and buy a new motherboard. putting a new processor into that machine wont improve things that much. on the otherhand if you get a new cpu fan and go into the bios and set the clock speed a bit higher. aka the processor multiplayer you might be able to squeese 200mhz out of that one without running a sicnificant risk of burning up anything. just be careful and use a program like cpuZ to monitor your heat lvls and find out over google how much your motherboard handles mhz wise + how much other ppl have over clocked that same cpu and if you end up frying that cpu. well then go ahead and buy a new one but i would strongly suggest you overclocked your old one and squeezed the life out of it becuse it will most likely last as long as the computer would have been usable with the new one anyways.

[Phmcw]

You're all getting it wrong and it hurt my brain : he got a 64 bit processor but run a 32 bit operating system. Theorically he could support 4GB of ram but due to the fact that it use some of his adressing range for hardware adressing, it can only support about 3,2-3,5 GB of ram.
In other words your comp can only count to 4 000 000 000 and must use some of these number to point to something else than the ram.

[Thief^]

Here's the full explanation (beware confusion may result)

The ram controller will have a limit to how much ram it can address. This is the number quoted as the motherboard's maximum RAM.

The OS (32 or 64 bit) determines how much physical address space exists. a 32-bit OS can see 4GB and a 64-bit OS is essentially unlimited. Physical address space is mostly used for RAM, but some is used for the graphics card's ram and for communication with other devices (varies by motherboard, video card, and other devices installed). I've seen a motherboard that used up 1.25GB of physical address space, leaving only 2.75GB for RAM, even though it had 4GB installed. Typically you'll be down 0.5GB, leaving 3.5GB usable for RAM.

The software (32 or 64 bit) determines how much virtual address space the program can use. A 32-bit program gets 2GB (or 4GB if it was built with large address awareness), regardless of whether it is running on a 32 or 64 bit OS, and regardless of how much ram you actually have. 64-bit programs are essentially unlimited. Virtual address space can be mapped either on to physical address space (i.e. RAM or graphics ram) or can be mapped to files on disk (aka page file or virtual memory).



I wouldn't drop from 4x1GB to 3x1GB+512MB because most motherboards these days use dual-channel ram controllers, which means you get more speed from having matching pairs of ram sticks.

[Sensei]

Still in the Quest for a Processor: Eyeing an Athlon X2 6000+ and Athlon X2 6400+. The 6400+ is just labeled as "Athlon X2", hence the few bids. However, it's 125 watts. I'd much rather pay less for a higher clock rate with the 6400+, but I've been using a 65 watt processor (same as the 6000+) before.

My PSU is 300 watts. I have an Inspiron 531 mobo (frankly, people aren't sure how much it uses, stupid Dell) and a graphics card that uses ~50 watts. What are my chances of actually using the 125 watt 6400+? What will happen if I just try it and it exceeds what my PSU can supply?

[nenjin]

What are my chances of actually using the 125 watt 6400+?

I'd say your chances are passable....before you ask the processor to do any real work. Google the processor and "recommended PSU" to get some internet knowledge about the lowest PSU someone has tried to run it on. Consider also what amount of amps it will want.

What will happen if I just try it and it exceeds what my PSU can supply?

Well for one, it may end up starving other components of your computer when the processor goes under load and your PSU capacity is met. I'm guessing your video card would be the most likely component to starve, but I'm just talking out my ass.

You might notice your CPU fan not spinning up to max which will cause it overheat, your system might struggle to in various CPU intensive situations, applications might fail.

Or depending on its idle power wants, your system may just go "FUCK YOU" when you try to boot.

Ideally you want more power than all your components ask for. You don't need a lot more, but you want more. Frankly, I've been using more than a 400w power supply for probably close to a decade, it amazes me anyone that has an interest in PC gaming uses less than a 350w.

All I can really say is, never underestimate how power hungry new hardware is, especially if you haven't upgraded in years or are making a huge jump in performance.

Instead of guess what your current power use is, too, you should go get a good diagnostic monitoring tool that will tell you exactly how much power your using, and how much you have to spare on that PSU.

[Phmcw]

I'm pretty sure the 125 watt refer to how much the chips can dissipate, not to how much it actually use.
But that's tangential, given that the 300watt refer to how much the PSU consume, not to how much power it can actually give (70-75% of it, roughly).
Given that the 4550 doesn't use much and that the ram/mobo consumption is quite low, you can try it. At worse you're in for 50$ for a decent psu.

[Thief^]

The PSU rating is the amount of power it will output. Crap PSUs quote a "peak" output, good ones (an easy way to tell is if it has 80+ certification) quote a "sustainable" output.
A CPU's wattage is it's maximum, but CPUs get grouped so it's not very accurate.
A CPU cooler's wattage is its maximum, must always be at least the CPU's.
A motherboard's CPU wattage is the maximum CPU it can support. Must also be at least the CPU's.
A graphics card's wattage doesn't affect the motherboard, because it has additional power inputs.

I've never used a more than 500W PSU in a PC, and I've used performance-grade CPU/GPU every time. You only need higher than that for a multiple CPU or GPU (e.g. SLI) build.