Only 2.99GB usable memory out of 4GB

I am working on a ThinkPad T60, Core 2, 2GHz with 4GB of Ram, Win7 Pro x64. When I look at System Properties it only shows 2.99GB usable memory.

What could be hogging the balance?

Thanks

 

Video card uses some of it, but I would not think near that much. But it could be that much.

 

I thought of that but discounted the amount as excessive. I could be wrong though and would like to find out if possible

 

Could you explain why?

 

So, in essence I might be as well off as far as system performance goes if I go with 2GB of ram? (1 module rather than 2 x 2GB)

 

I am afraid I have to disagree. While 64-bit may use more resources, it uses those resources more efficiently. For example, with 32-bit, because of hardware mapping of memory, you will only see 2.8Gb to 3.6Gb of RAM (most users see about 3.2Gb).

With 64-bit, your system will be able to use all of that 4Gb. Also significant is virtual memory use. With 32-bit, each application is limited to 2Gb of per application. For 64-bit, that's 8Tb (8,000Gb).

Other advantages to 64-bit include the ability to add and use more RAM in the future. Also, 64-bit Windows is more secure than 32-bit because 64-bit Windows (Vista and Win7) support hardware-backed DEP, Kernel Patch Protection and mandatory driver signing.

Finally, there are many programs out there that come in 64-bit versions that perform significantly better than their 32-bit counterparts. For example, 64-bit Photoshop or CAD programs - not to mention, Windows itself.

32-bit is legacy. 64-bit is here to stay, until supplanted by 128-bit. Sticking with 32-bit holds you back. Moving to 64-bit allows you to grow and expand. Even if all your programs are 32-bit, with the OS being 64-bit, OS and hardware (with 64-bit drivers - which are everywhere today) functions will take advantage of 64-bit performance.

I see no reason to stick with 32-bit unless you absolutely must use some antique piece of hardware where the maker has refused to provide 64-bit drivers. And if that is the case, I recommend replacing that piece of hardware and go 64-bit.

To me, the most logical reason you are seeing 2.99Gb is because you are using integrated graphics, and that lost RAM has been dedicated to your graphics solution.

 

Thx for the explanation

While I do not pretend to understand the ins and outs of memory, I do understand the law of diminishing returns so, I tried out some different scenarios:


- 2 x 2GB modules shows 2GB installed - no reference to "available "

- shows Hardware reserved - 1034 MB - as you suggest, likely the graphics
- In Use 1041 MB
- Modified 27 MB
- Standby 292 MB
- Free 1702 MB


1 x 2GB module shows 2.99GB available

- Hardware reserved - 10 MB - in my mind would suggest slower graphics
- In Use 979 MB
- Modified 119 MB
- Standby 940 MB
- Free 0 MB


1 x 2GB plus 1 x 1GB modules shows 3GB installed - no reference to "available "

- Hardware reserved - 10 MB - same as 1 x 2GB
- In Use 1329 MB
- Modified 60 MB
- Standby 1261 MB
- Free 378 MB

I am off to a site that explains this

Clearly I am not a MVP (but admire those that are). I just like to understand what I am up against.

Thanks

 

Being a MVP IN NO WAY means we know everything. There are industries within industries that make up "IT" and an MVP may have expertise in but a tiny area within one of those areas. About the only thing most MVPs are have in common is the desire to help others, and we are all pretty good with that thing called, "Google "!

 

I always thought of myself as very stupid as I don't know everything... yet and, just like caulking in house construction, Google is my friend too.

 

Well, I can see that if you know for a certainty you NEVER will want to add more RAM. But IMHO, being able to fully utilize that last Gb of RAM is reason enough. Virtually all hardware made in the last 5 - 6 years has 64-bit drivers so that's not a reason. And virtually all 32-bit software runs great in 64-bit environments. More and more games support 64-bit and if not, are designed to run fine in 32-bit mode on 64-bit systems too. And as I said before, 64-bit (Vista and Win7) is more secure.

Ummm, I did Arie and your comment that "You shouldn't" run 64-bit on a 4Gb system is what I disagree with.

There is no reason NOT to run 64-bit Windows 7 with 4Gb. Three or four years ago, I might have agreed. But not today - not with today's beefier graphics and not with Windows 7.

Here's some more reading on 64-bit vs 32-bit.

 

I think my post has been hijacked we're listening and learning

While you are at it, I have another one for you guys. My desktop is running Win 7 Ultimate x64 on a Think Center i5, 3.2 GHz with 6GB of RAM but it shows only 3.74 as usable.

After reading various bits of info, I figure that my configuration is wrong. I have a 4GB and a 2GB module in each of slots 1 and 2. I surmise that I should really have 4 x 2Gb modules.

Am I right here?

 

Not exactly. For many years, most motherboards have supported "dual-channel" memory architecture for almost double the memory bandwidth. However, to take advantage of that motherboard (not RAM) feature, you had to install matched pairs of RAM modules in respective pairs of slots. Some motherboards use slots 1 & 2 and 3 & 4, some motherboards use 1 & 3 and 2 & 4.

However, if you used unmatched pairs, the RAM should still be fully recognized and used - but in single channel mode. In other words, with your unmatched pairs (and 64-bit Windows) you should still see 6Gb of RAM so something is not right with your system. What does System Information for Windows (SIW) show for your memory? (Be sure to opt out of any extra stuff the installer wants to install on your system).

And sorry for the hijacking part.

 

No worries, it was more tongue in cheek than anything else

Here is the info from SIW

This is mostly Greek to me but I do see a warning about the BIOS. I shall look at this later today and tell you what I find.
Thanks