Recommended Posts

@ShortFuse: You're running a Intel 945 which explains the limitation (its got a 32-bit memory controller) but has the additional limitation of reserving 1GB of ram for resource mappings) which gives you only 3GB to play with, and thats before video card ram is taken into account.. I feel your pain (my laptops the same) but unfortunately I don't think there is anything that can be done.

M.F.D.K. from what I can tell has a 32-bit memory controller. As such 256MB is probably taken away for the integrated video card (regardless of whether its enabled or not) although it may be possible to unmap the video card. But I don't know where the other 512MB ram are going (it shouldn't be the dedicated video card)

You can always try removing the discrete card, and running off the integrated one just to see what memory Windows then reports.

The one thing both the problems have in common is they aren't Windows 7 issues. The only reason they're cropping up now is Windows Vista SP1 reports installed RAM to appease manufacturers (SP0 did it accurately though)

After I saw the model of your motherboard I looked it up and downloaded the manual. It says it can support a maximum of 4GB of RAM but maybe the northbridge (P4M900 from VIA I think) is only addressing at a 32 bit level. Windows 7 is showing you the same amount of memory available as if you were running a 32 bit OS (I did see you are running the 64 bit version). From the pictures they had posted in the manual I don't see many optioins for memory. I am not sure if there is anything you can end up changing to get the full 4GB to show up.

I'm curious as to why (in the attached image) it's saying you only have 4 megs of L2 cache.

Intel Core 2 Duo / Core 2 Quad do not have a unified L2 Cache Architecture so its 4MB of L2 cache per core.

AMD's newer Dual and Quad Core Processors have a unified cache, and Intel's i7 has a weird combo of 256KB L2 cache per core and 8M L3 cache shared across all cores

Edited by Ames
Intel Core 2 Duo / Core 2 Quad do not have a unified L2 Cache Architecture so its 4MB of L2 cache per core.

AMD's Dual and Quad Core Processors have a unified cache, and Intel's i7 has a weird combo of 256KB L2 cache per core and 8M L3 cache shared across all cores

If it was showing the amount of cache per core, it would be showing 2 megs.

Intel Core 2 Duo / Core 2 Quad do not have a unified L2 Cache Architecture so its 4MB of L2 cache per core.

The Q6600 has 2x 4MB L2 cache. I just thought it was weird it's only showing half of the amount, that's all.

Sorry, probably should've worded that better. Its probably showing the amount of cache available to each core

Because 2 cores share a cache, each core can access 4MB of L2 cache.

Just my guess though

I'm back chaps, thanks for all your input. Its not important but nevertheless it should not be ignored and of course its not Windows 7 problem. I will try switching to Integrated GPU and see what I get, but as some of you have read the manual its pretty clear its the motherboard problem.

Here is a CPU-z screenshot

post-65695-1236198224.png

I'm back chaps, thanks for all your input. Its not important but nevertheless it should not be ignored and of course its not Windows 7 problem. I will try switching to Integrated GPU and see what I get, but as some of you have read the manual its pretty clear its the motherboard problem.

Here is a CPU-z screenshot

Thanks. Like I said, I was just curious. :blush:

Thanks. Like I said, I was just curious. :blush:

No worries mate

:cool:

Here is a screen shot running on integrate graphics, 64MB video on board, basically the numbers have gone from 3.25GB to 3.43GB

post-65695-1236200277.png

Edited by M.F.D.K
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi guys

I was trying to solve this same problem myself over the last few days and managed to fix it on my system so thought I'd suggest my fix to you.

Mine happened after I installed new Ram. When I had previously had 4x1gb 800mhz sticks it had picked it up as 4gb ok. I then switched to 2x2gb 1066mhz and it said only 3.25 usable. I found that the problem had been that while I'd been using my old ram I'd gone into msconfig and gone to the boot tab and clicked advanced. In there I'd set the maximum available memory to 4096. This had worked fine with the old ram but with the new max available memory was showing as 0. To correct the problem I went back the general tab on msconfig and selected Normal startup and rebooted. When the system came back on all 4gb was usable again.

I dont know if yours will be the same issue but I thought I'd suggest this fix since I dont seem to be the only one with this problem.

:)

  • 6 months later...
Hi guys

I was trying to solve this same problem myself over the last few days and managed to fix it on my system so thought I'd suggest my fix to you.

Mine happened after I installed new Ram. When I had previously had 4x1gb 800mhz sticks it had picked it up as 4gb ok. I then switched to 2x2gb 1066mhz and it said only 3.25 usable. I found that the problem had been that while I'd been using my old ram I'd gone into msconfig and gone to the boot tab and clicked advanced. In there I'd set the maximum available memory to 4096. This had worked fine with the old ram but with the new max available memory was showing as 0. To correct the problem I went back the general tab on msconfig and selected Normal startup and rebooted. When the system came back on all 4gb was usable again.

I dont know if yours will be the same issue but I thought I'd suggest this fix since I dont seem to be the only one with this problem.

:)

Sorry for gravedigging this, but I registered just to say thank you for this solution. I had messed with this setting awhile back in msconfig while troubleshooting some stability issues with a Phenom 9600 and Windows 7 64 bit. Basically I was getting random bluescreens. Manually setting maximum RAM to 4095mb and underclocking the 9600 to about 2.1ghz did the trick. However, that was not an acceptable solution for me, so I bought a PhenomII 920 to replace the 9600. After I installed it Windows 7 wanted to reassess my experience score, which is when I realized I was being short-shrifted on my RAM. I did some searching, found this thread, and was able to resolve my problem. Thank you so much!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Glad these prices are starting to come down, but that is still crazy. I bought the 2TB 9100 Pro (slightly more expensive version with PCIe 5.0) last year for $240.
    • The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months by Sayan Sen Yesterday, we covered a really good deal wherein you can get a 4TB TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 NVMe PCIe Gen4 SSD for a low price of just $400 with a special discount coupon. That's just $100 per TB, making it a very good offer during these hard times. The deal is still live, so you can check it out in its dedicated article here if you do not want to miss out. Meanwhile, if you don't have that kind of budget but still wish to buy an SSD for a good price, the 2TB variant of the TeamGroup SSD at $280 its lowest price in over three months. Meanwhile, those seeking 2TB but faster performance can check out Samsung's 990 PRO, which has hit the lowest price also in the last quarter or so, as it's on sale for $370 (purchase links under the specs table down below). Thus, you want a faster drive, get the 990 Pro, or you want more capacity, grab the TeamGroup 4TB linked in the first para. The 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 2TB Samsung 990 PRO 2TB Interface PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe 1.4 PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 M.2 2280 Controller InnoGrit Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC 3D TLC DRAM Cache None (HMB supported) 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 5,000 MB/s 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 4,500 MB/s 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 600,000 IOPS Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 700,000 IOPS Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,300 TBW 1,200 TBW MTBF 3,000,000 hours 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink Patented Graphene Heat Spreader No Get them at the links below: Samsung 990 PRO SSD 2TB (MZ-V9P2T0B/AM): $369.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US) TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 2TB SSD (TM8FFE002T0C129): $279.99 (Sold by TeamGroup, Shipped by Amazon US) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • If you can't spell a simple word that 2nd graders learn, your entire argument is suspect.
    • And here goes the "Won't someone think of the children" brigade. Get stuffed mate. This has NOTHING to do with making the internet safe. It's about tracking adults, spying on your online activity, and sending the boys around when they don't like something you post. Also, again, parliament have voted TWICE against this, and Starmer is going ahead anyway. THAT is anti-democratic bullsh**. They will use this law to track you, they will use this law to control you, and they will use this law to punish you if they don't like what you do, even if it's legal. And your data? Say bye bye to that. It'll be on the darkweb in weeks. I'm not some rando online. I've been an IT professional for 40 years, many of it in security. I know exactly what this means and what will happen to your data. I do not consent and I will not comply.
    • "...but it may not be Microsoft's fault" seems like a reasonable way to tease what is going on without leaving the user with a false impression that an update is the problem. A title isn't a summery, it is meant to entice the user to read the article. It should not contain a misleading premise; which this title does not. You could maybe complain that the first paragraph should have included that detail. The writing style popularized over 100 years ago in newspapers will cover the most important information as soon as possible with details and nuance added later; the idea being that with each new paragraph you have less of the reader's focus.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      520
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!