4Gb RAM installed (2.93Gb usable)

Jonboy

Jonboy

Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Posts
42
Location
Worcestershire, England
I have just installed 2x2Gb DDR2 PC6400 matched memory modules into an Acer Revo R3610.
Previously the machine had one 2Gb module installed and showed 2Gb memory installed.

I am disappointed to see on Resource Monitor that 1097Mb has gone into Hardware Reserve. The popup says "Memory that is reserved for use by the Bios and some drivers for other peripherals".


The Bios does not have any options to retain or allocate memory to specific use.


How can I claim back my memory?
 
What Operating system are you running 32 or 64 bit?

Sure sounds like a 32 bit system which has a limit of around 3.2 gig of address space.
 
Does it show if any is dedicated to video?

If there is a option it the bios to turn off quick boot try turning it off rebooting and see if the ram counts up differently.(you can then turn it back on again)
 
After a quick look around, I'm seeing several comments suggesting that, even though the Revo R3610 was sometimes offered with 4GB, there's a BIOS/chipset limitation which results in ~3GB usable.

Also comments (2010-11) that Acer apparently had no intentions to fix it.
 
After installing the new Ram I played around with the advanced setting in msconfig > boot. Initially there were 4 processors on the drop down but this reduced to 2 and Maximum Memory kept going to Zero. It didn't appear to make any difference to the usable memory which dropped slightly from 3Gb showing initially. So I stopped playing with that and having updated some drivers I checked in Device Manager and it was showing 2 processors.

Following up Wrench97's last queries I revisited Msconfig and the option to set 4 processors was there again and Max memory 4096 Mb. Resulting in a return to 3Gb usable and in Device Manager 4 processors showing! I did think that it was a Quad core chipset but when i only had two showing and checked on the Intel website where I found reference to a Dual core, I thought myself confused. So it is a Quad core after all!

I have turned off Quick start and Quiet Boot and can see that 256Mb is going to the VGA on the bios notifications. Nevertheless it only returns 3Gb usable in Computer> Properties . This is confirmed in resource Moniutor where it says 1025 Mb is reserved by the Bios.

Maybe it's taking 256Mb off each processor?

Even more confused than before.

Cheers Andy
 
Leave MSConfig alone those settings are on a per thread basis, the bios passes the amount of usable memory to Windows on boot if the bios only passes 3 gig as usable that's all Windows will report and attempt to use. Since all the ram is reported as installed the ram is ok and working the problem resides in the bios if there are no updates to address it I would have to think it's a built in limitation of the motherboard.
 
I did check the bios version before memory upgrade. There doesn't appear to be any bios upgrade available for this model on the Acer support site. So that's a disappointing result and the first negative experience with this little desktop machine.

Many thanks

Andy
 
I don't see anything wrong here. According to these specs, that "nettop" device comes with 2Gb and only supports an additional 2Gb.

That said, you should still see both sticks in the BIOS - and apparently you do or you would not see more than 2Gb. And with a 64-bit OS, all 4Gb should be seen too - minus what has been stolen for... err, I mean what is being "shared" with your "integrated" graphics. And no doubt, graphics is where the vast majority of that missing 1G is going.

When you right-click on Computer > Properties, what does it say for RAM?

I agree to leave MSCONFIG alone. Sadly, it is often misused to make permanent changes and it was never meant for that purpose. It is primarily a troubleshooting tool, used to make temporary changes while troubleshooting. Permanent changes should be done at the individual file/program level or in the Registry. And for sure, you should leave the Number of processors and Maximum memory unchecked. Then the system will use all available.

BTW, does it really say 1025Mb? That is an odd amount. 1024 would make much more sense.
 
With the Advanced Settings unchecked in msconfig>boot the memory situation in Right Click Computer>Properties is showing Installed Memory (RAM): 4.00GB (3.00GB usable).

On the Resource Monitor via Task Manager the Memory distribution is showing

1127MB in use 1883MB available

Further breakdown is

Hardware reserve 1025 MB In use 1127MB Modified 61MB Standby 789 MB Free 1094 MB


Then a summary :

Available 1883 MB
Cached 850 MB
Total 3071 MB
Installed 4096 MB

So there it is.

Andy
 
And if you run dxdiag and check the Display tab, what does it say for memory there? How about on the System tab?
 
On the Display Tab it says: Approx. Total Memory 1519 MB
On the System Tab it says: Memory 4096 MB

Under DirectX Features it shows
Direct Draw Acceleration: Enabled
Direct 3D Acceleration: Enabled
AGP Texture Acceleration: Enabled


Checking Screen Resolution> advanced settings it says
Total available Graphics memory 1535 MB
Dedicated Video memory 256 MB
System Video memory 64 MB
Shared System Memory 1215 MB

I am not sure that this accounts for my missing memory? I particular the 1025MB that is shown as hardware reserve on Resource Monitor. The numbers don't add up?
 
The numbers don't add up?
Click to expand...
They do to me.

4096 is clearly right as 1024 x 4 = 4096 proving that your full 4Gb is properly recognized.

256 + 64 + 1215 = 1535

1535 ~ 1519 (where ~ means approximately).

Sadly, there is nomenclature inconsistencies in the computer industry when it comes to how many bytes are in a kilobyte. In mathematics, 1 kilo = 1000. But in digital (binary math) electronics, 1 kilo = 1024. And to make matters worse, marketing weenies have stepped in to make it more confusing. For example, hard drive makers use 1000 because then they can claim (advertise) more Gb per drive.

RAM makers, however, use 1024. System Monitors/Information tools use whatever the programmer wants to use. The developers may use 1000 or they may use 1024 - there is no established standard - hence confusion and differences in published specs - which may explain some of the tiny differences between dxdiag and your Display Advanced Settings readings.

Also, I should note that today's integrated solutions often come with a little bit of dedicated graphics RAM on the motherboard too. That is, in addition to large chunks of system RAM stolen... err, I mean "shared" by the integrated graphics solution, it may have a small chunk of dedicated graphics RAM too. That may be some or all of the 64 and 256 values.

Anyway, IMO, all your RAM is being recognized and used. I will also add that when it comes to Memory Management and the efficient use of RAM, the PhDs and super computers at Microsoft have it figured out. That is, unless you too are a PhD in Computer Systems Engineering, let Windows manage your memory - "ALL" your memory to include your "virtual" memory which is made up of System RAM plus your Page File. Don't mess with the default settings. Let Windows manage it all - even if you have gobs of RAM installed.

Windows 7 is NOT XP. We (all of us) must NOT assume what was good for XP is good for W7 (or W8). It probably isn't.

And finally, this is a "netbook" computer. Not a notebook or PC, or a PC replacement. Therefore, as a netbook, it has "dedicated features" (which vary by each maker) and which consume "dedicated resources". And they have very limited customization capabilities - by design.
 
Digerati said:
... by design.
Click to expand...
^ this part is the crux, these designs are effectively spinoffs from the 2Gb RAM limited Atom netbooks/nettops that were intended by Intel to boost their low-end PC market/sales and make headway into newly emerging markets. The Windows version intended to match this design/market was also restricted, Windows 7 Starter, though the most basic/cheapest versions were also offered with Linpus/Linux and many were also available with XP.

From mid-2009 onwards, OEMs began selling netbooks that exceeded the restrictions put in place by Intel, many of these were probably like yours, a rehash, combining the old hardware with some improvements.

It's probably only when you get to the complete redesigns that you can expect full utilisation of the hardware.
 
... by design.
^ this part is the crux
Click to expand...
Exactly!

It's probably only when you get to the complete redesigns that you can expect full utilisation of the hardware.
Click to expand...
Ummm...maybe, but I personally don't believe that will ever happen because sales of netbooks/nettops have never met expectations or hopes. They don't do anything well. They don't work as good hand held devices because smartphones do that well. They don't work as notebook replacements because they are not flexible and don't have the horsepower/system resources. And they don't replace PCs because nothing replaces a PC (in spite of what notebook - and netbook - marketing weenies would like us to believe). They don't really have a place, no niche market. Even tablets typically offer more horsepower and higher resolutions displays. :(
 
Back
Top