Computer slower after adding more Ram

Hewlett-packard 6730b
January 5, 2010 at 10:00:04
Specs: Windows XP, 3-4GB
When we first got the laptop it can with 2GB of RAM. We then placed another 2GB of RAM into the laptop and it runs slower.

I have read somewhere the a XP running a 32-bit processor can only use 3GB of the RAM even if there is room for 4GB. SO i know that there is one GB of RAM that is just sitting there. Could that be the problem for the laptop to run slower?


See More: Computer slower after adding more Ram

Report •


#1
January 5, 2010 at 10:04:25
First, 32bit OS can only utilize 3.5 GB of ram the rest is a waste unless you upgrade to 64bit.

Now for it running slower, did you match your RAM speed to your bus speed. You RAM will run at the speed of the slowest RAM module so make sure their speeds match.


Report •

#2
January 5, 2010 at 10:08:51
Yes, we did match the RAM speed to the best speed. When we go to "My computer" it shows only 2.9GB of RAM. So some of it is lost somewhere.

Thanks,
Shandi


Report •

#3
January 5, 2010 at 10:11:26
1. Is Dual Channel Technology enabled ?
2. Are the RAM Sticks completely identical ?

Google is your friend

www.google.com

-----------------------

Keyboard not present,press F1 to continue...


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
January 5, 2010 at 10:15:58
1. How would i check to see if Dual Channel Technology is enabled ?

2. This is a laptop. the 2GB of RAM that it came with is not accessible.

Thanks,
Shandi


Report •

#5
January 5, 2010 at 10:24:22
1. That info should be shown on POST....restart your lappy and look for something like "Single Channel" or "Dual Channel"

2. You can download ASTRA32 to get info about RAM manufacturer & model !

Google is your friend

www.google.com

-----------------------

Keyboard not present,press F1 to continue...


Report •

#6
January 5, 2010 at 12:11:27

Report •

#7
January 5, 2010 at 12:19:10
jam,

I already know why it can't hold more then 3GB of RAM. I just want to know why it is slower now...

Thanks,
Shandi


Report •

#8
January 5, 2010 at 12:28:20
1. Download CPU-Z
2. Go without extra RAM
3. Open CPU-Z
4. Go to "Memory" tab
5. Check the frequency and timings
6. Write them down
7. Add extra RAM
8. Repeat 3-6 Step
9. POST the results here

Google is your friend

www.google.com

-----------------------

Keyboard not present,press F1 to continue...


Report •

#9
January 5, 2010 at 13:10:40
Most of the original Intel P-I chipsets couldn't cache more than 64 meg of ram. Intel warned that on those, more than 64 meg might cause the system to run slower.

I wonder if maybe the same thing is happening here. Perhaps your 4 gig of ram is overwhelming the chipset capabilities. (Note, it's not an addressing issue; it's a chaching issue.)

Another thing, for more than 3 gig the chipset must support 'memory swap function':

http://support.asus.com/faq/asus-fa...

It doesn't say what happens it the chipset doesn't support that but it's likely that anything less than ideal will result in slower operation.

Ubuntu Cheeta, Ubuntu !


Report •

#10
January 5, 2010 at 22:31:27
"Most of the original Intel P-I chipsets couldn't cache more than 64 meg of ram."

Not an issue today, since L2 cache and cache controllers are built into the processor. Most processors can cache hundreds(?) of gigabytes of RAM. The old P3-Tualatin could cache up to 64GB. It was up to the MCH to access all of it.

I think the issue here is that either the MCH on the motherboard is limited to 32-bit DRAM access (Intel 945 and earlier), or the "memory hole" setting in the BIOS is disabled. Either way, performance shouldn't suffer, since the processor does the caching.

On my Asus board (in my signature), I had to enable "Memory hole at 15M-16M" to get both BIOS and Win64 to recognize all of my memory.

Socket 939|Dual-Core Opteron 185 @ 3.2GHz|A8N32-SLI Deluxe|4GB CL2 PC3200|SLI 8800GTS|1TB|PCIe X-Fi Titanium Pro|Win7 Ultimate x64


Report •

#11
January 6, 2010 at 01:03:58
I bring it up because the old formula was 512 K caches 128 meg of ram. So based only on that the 3 meg of L2 the OP has will cache less than a gig. I realize there are other considerations with newer technology so the old formula isn't as relevent. But I still feel it's possible to have too much of a good thing. If the system slows down after adding ram and if everything else checks out (a big 'if') then what else can it be?

I did find this:

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/threa...

where sometimes XP doesn't see the correct cache amount.

Ubuntu Cheeta, Ubuntu !


Report •


Ask Question