DC7700 RAM limits

I have a HP DC7700 with the 0A54H motherboard.  It came with 1GB DDR2 PC2-6400(400MHz) memory stick.  I took 2 1GB DDR2 PC2-5300(333MHz) memory sticks out of an older PC and seems to work great.
I was looking at the specs for the DC7700 and it says I can install DDR2 PC2-6400 (800MHz).   I was wanting to add more but from what I understand 32bit OS cannot support over 4GB and 64bit OS can support up to 8GB. 
Would my HP 0A54H be able to handle 8GB if I installed 64bit OS?
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Hi:
Yes it can.
4 x 2 GB OF PC2-6400 memory for the CMT and SFF.  See page 10.
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12543_ca/12543_ca.pdf
Since any processor in that PC has at least an 800 MHz FSB, I would not install PC2-5300 memory, as it slows things down.

Similar Messages

  • Kontakt 4 - Does it get around Apple's Logic RAM limitations?

    I've read on another board that the new version of Kontakt (4) might be able to get around the 4GB RAM limitation Apple currently have operating in Logic. Is anyone using Kontakt 4 and can they confirm this? If so, what are the results of a like for like test comparing between between Kontakt 3.5 and 4?

    christianobermaier wrote:
    32bit applications can not address more than 4Gb RAM, plain and simple.
    EXS does spawn separate processes with their own memory allocation so Logic's is not affected by that. Konatkt can do this too. To sort out Play so it can do it as well is EastWest's business I'd say.
    While I'd love to see EW improve how PLAY works (and it sounds like they are trying), I'd also like to see Apple try and optimize Logic as well. While a 32 bit Logic can't use more than 4 gigs in theory, in real life use it's far less than that, and many users have found that the ceiling is even lower (and is reached even faster) with L9 than L8.
    Also, a 64 bit version of Logic would overcome the limitation as well.

  • Setting ram limits on individual programs/processes

    Is it possible to set ram limits on individual programs/processes?
    Specifically, can you limit the about of ram gunzip uses whenever it is run?

    That helps some, but the true desired effect is to do something similar to virtualizing memory -- I want to be able to say "process x is allowed to work within 512mb of memory," for example.
    Thanks for the pointer on setrlimit... It does kill the process if it hits the hard limit? The man page sounds almost like it does what I want, but I guess not.
    Last edited by mrbug (2008-09-29 00:25:57)

  • Bootcamp 3.1 ram limitation on x64

    Hi all, i'm using a 27" i7 iMac and running Windows 7 64bit via bootcamp 3.1
    Now i've 4gb ram on my mac, but i want to upgrade it to 8 or 16gb..
    I'm wondering is there any limitation on bootcamp ram limit? Is there any chance of Windows can't read 16GB ram?
    Thank you..

    Chart of features for various editions
    http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7skuscompare.asp
    I 'assume' you have Home Premium or above... so you would be fine (unless Apple's EFI is an issue) but it isn't a problem having up to 16GB.

  • Macbook Pro 17 inch RAM limitation?

    Hi, I am using MBP 17inch 2.5GHz core 2 duo. I wanted to upgrade my ram from 2GB to 4GB, so i bought 2x2GB Kingston ram, DDR2 667Mhz. But when i installed both, my computer does not start up! but when i replaced one of the new 2gb ram with the older 1gb ram, making a total of 3gb, my mac could start again. So my question is there a limit to the ram capacity??
    Hardware Overview:
    Model Name: MacBook Pro
    Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
    Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
    Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz
    Number Of Processors: 1
    Total Number Of Cores: 2
    L2 Cache: 6 MB
    Memory: 3 GB
    Bus Speed: 800 MHz
    Boot ROM Version: MBP41.00C1.B00
    SMC Version (system): 1.28f2

    I have exactly the same problem and i've heard that you need to upgrade the firmware version...
    The problem is that i don't know how to do that so i can't tell you that it works.
    Help's welcome

  • Ram limitations, 64 boot boot up

    Hi
    I've just be told on another thread that Mac Pro's from 2006 to early 2007 can't use more than 3gb of RAM and can't boot up in 64 bit mode.
    I have 5 gb of RAM which the computer knows about and is there in Activity Monitor, so I assume it's being used.
    However, I can't start up in 64 bit mode (I've been told to hold the 6 and 4 keys down when restarting).... Nothing happens, it just says in system infor that the 64 bit kernel isn't running (or something)....
    My Mac is a Mac Pro 1, 1 if that means anything to anyone!
    So is my beloved Mac a loser or not??

    I've got a 2007 MacPro with 16 GB of RAM. No it won't boot into the 64-bit kernel. No single instance of a 32-bit program can access more than 4 GB of memory. 64-bit programs have access to the entire 16 GB. However, not many 64-bit programs out there need access to more than 4 GB (although there are some out there). I do use BitVice (32-bit program) for compressing video for DVDs and it launches 8 instances and uses over 12 GB of RAM in doing so.
    I wouldn't say the older Macs are losers. By the time the older Macs do become 'losers' it'll be well worth upgrading to a newer Mac anyway.

  • RAM limitation / Hardware Reserved

    Been playing around with the 64bit win10TP and its great so far, except that in 'system properties'  it says "Installed memory (RAM): 8.00 GB (3.20 GB usable)"  is their a limit of ~4GB in the x64 TP, why is it showing this? 
    using amd A10 cpu, mobo supports up to 16GB (more details on request, if needed), cmd reports windows version 6.4.9841

    Hi cracksman,
    Hardware Reserved Memory that is reserved for use by the BIOS and some drivers for other peripherals.
    In your situation, the problem may occur because the system BIOS is outdated or incompatibility issue. If you have an older computer, the system may be unable to access all the installed RAM. In this case, you have to update the system BIOS to the latest
    version.
    To update the BIOS on your computer, visit the Web site of your computer manufacturer to download the BIOS update. Or, contact your computer manufacturer for help.
    Alex Zhao
    TechNet Community Support

  • Adobe Camera Raw - CPU or RAM?

    Hey All!
    Please read the whole post, but if you want to cut to the chase, my question is: for ACR conversions would I be better off with an (Windows) 8-core system and 6gigs of ram, or a 4-core system and 12 gigs of ram?
    I am a professional photographer who, after upgrading to some equipment that spits out serious file sizes, needs to upgrade his computer system.  I shoot almost exclusively RAW and I rely primarily on Adobe Camera Raw to convert my files and open them in photoshop.  While photoshop performance is a consideration, my biggest concern is to be able to open ACR images ridiculously quick.
    Right now, working off 21 megapixel images on my current system, it takes between 10 - 20 seconds to open/convert a single file into photoshop.  I'm aiming for a couple of seconds.
    My current system (please don't laugh ... I know its bad):
    XP 32-Bit
    dual-core 2.00GHz
    3G DDR2 Ram (with 3G switch enabled)
    5400 rpm Hard Drives
    Running CS4 and ACR 5.3
    Future Set Up Considerations:
    Vista 64-Bit
    Processor/RAM
    a) quad-core-Q9600 3.00 GHz with 8 gigs DDR2 (1150MHz)
    b) i7-920 2.66 GHz with 12 gigs of DDR3 (1600 MHz) - adds about $500 to price - worth it?
    c) 2 Xeon-quad-core-5530 2.40 GHz with 6gigs DDR3 (1600Mhz) - adds about $1000 to price - worth it?
    d) something AMD?!?!
    Hard Drives (7200rpm)
    2 for images storage (one as an internal backup)
    1 For operating system, applications, music, etc
    1 For scratch disk
    Basically, the question comes down to whether extra cores or extra ram will ultimately make the biggest difference in the ACR performance
    During my testing on my (sad) currently system, here are my conclusions (let me know what you think):
    Changing the 3G switch to allow the jump from 2 to 3 gigs of ram usage for applications makes no difference in performance
    When I am opening up ACR files both cores show 100% usage (will that continue over 4 or 8 cores?)
    Photoshop in general seems to be more CPU limited in my case than ram limited (most of the time is says 100% efficiency but things still take bloody long
    From some more experienced users, or users who have quad or octa core system or systems with insane amount of ram, I woudl really appreciate your feedback!
    Thanks for the long read!
    ~
    Justin

    Hey Zeno!
    Thanks for the reply.
    I would have to disagree thought that it is hard drive limited at this moment.  Take a look at my task manager:
    It was running about 5% before I started converting pictures, and then as soon as I started converting the pictures, both cores hit 100% (with little gaps between pictures), and then back to 5% after they were done.  You can also see the ram alocation being increased with each picture that is opened.
    So basically, I am wondering if going to a quad core will have all 4 CPU's hit 100%, thus coming close to doubling the speed.  Or if I go i7 then with hyper threading it'll go to 8 effective cores.  Or if I go to dual Xeon processors I'd have 8 cores and with hyperthreading effectively 16 cores.
    I am wondering if anyone has experience with a quad core or octacore system that might be able to share some insight.
    But I would agree that probably for now 6Gs of ram is probably plenty.
    I also don't understand when you said:
    "same goes with the CPU, the more cores you have the less benefit you get out of adding more of them"
    Could you elaborate.  Its just that it takes about 15-20 seconds to convert a single file, and space that out even over 50 photos, that is still 15 minutes of wasted time.  Just trying to get the best I can without wasting needlessly.
    Thanks a ton!
    ~
    Justin

  • More than 2GB Ram on Qosmio G20 (PQG20E)?

    I tried to install 4GB Ram on an G20-106 but not even the BIOS would load. Newest BIOS-version (v1.40) is running. Is there really a 2GB Limit on this machine, and if so, why?

    Hi mate,
    yes, the machine is only able to handle 2GB of RAM because its an chipset limitation. The chipset is an 915PM from intel and you can read about the limitation when clicking on the following link: http://www.intel.com/Products/Notebook/Chipsets/915PM/915PM-overview.htm
    and checking the "Technical Documents" where the Datasheet states also a RAM limitation of 2GB.
    Hope I was able to clarify your mind. :)
    Greets

  • Limitations of Quicktime files (.mov and h.264) in Windows 64-bit.

    It was recently brought to my attention (yes, I'm late to the party) that any file that requires the Apple Quicktime process for playback (decoding) is severely limiting my otherwise powerful system.  The Quicktime process is a 32-bit process, which limits your editing functionality to 4GB of RAM—even if you have 32GB or more installed!
    I'm starting this new thread because the thread on which this was brought to my attention wasn't directly related to these issues.
    A few of my questions:  Why do so many cameras create .MOV or .MP4 files that require QuickTime components?  64-bit QuickTime X has aparently been available on the Mac for quite a while, yet I presume they won't allow anyone else to develop a 64-bit codec for Windows, so why hasn't someone sued Apple for monopoly, anti-trust, conflict-of-interest, etc?  And most importantly, in a world where DSLRs and off-board ProRes recorders abound, are Windows users really stuck with no option but to transcode the footage before heavy use in Premiere?  The Atomos recorders provide the option of using DNxHD, however, if I understand correctly, that codec still requires Quicktime (I've not tested this bit).  Is there a matrix available that shows camera / recorded format / requires quicktime / 8- or 10-bit / 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, etc? 
    To my fellow Windows 64-bit editors, how do you keep your sanity when editing "natively" in Premiere .MOV, .MP4, ProRes or DNxHD with the 4GB RAM limitation?  And what camera / off-board recorder do you prefer to avoid both a long transcoding session AND get right to work with native 64-bit codecs?
    Thanks in advance!
    === Systems === 
    Desktop              |   Laptop
    i7-2600K             |   i7-3630qm
    GTX460 (1GB)   |   GTX670mx (3GB)
             Windows 7 64-bit
             16GB RAM

    strypesinpost wrote:
    ...Have you read this yet?
    http://blogs.adobe.com/VideoRoad/2012/12/premiere-pro-and-quicktime-an d-nikon-oh-my.html
    Just now.  Yet, it seems to contradict my own findings.  The article says:  "In the case of Canon DSLR files, there’s something in the file header. Premiere Pro can recognize that the clips came from a Canon camera, and bypass QuickTime. This enables Premiere Pro to have smooth playback of DSLR files..."
    The test I conducted was between files from a Canon 7D in their original format vs. an AVI file I transcoded from those originals using GoPro Studio (formerly Cineform).  I load up a project and timeline with the original 7D files and then scrub the heck out of the timeline, back and forth.  I have Task Manager open in order to monitor my RAM usage.  I simply could not get past roughly 4GB.  Once I deleted all the original .MOV files from the project, retaining only the transcoded .AVIs, the project cut like butter.  The harder I scrubbed the timeline, the higher my RAM usage soared until it gradually, and gracefully came close to maxing out.  Lol.  Is there a better test I should run?
    The other test I ran was a project where I took a single talking head clip of approximately 5 minutes in length.  Nothing too taxing for the hard drive, and something that *should* be easy enough to play completely from RAM, once it played through once or twice.  I cut this clip and staggered a few tracks on top of eachother.  No effects, no transparency.  The cumulative effect was a cuts-only edit, but on the timeline my tracks looked like stairs, etc (perhaps the stairs weren't necessary).  The primary goal here was to watch how the system performed with a simple cuts-only project where Peremiere was repeatedly asked to access the same file from random locations in the file.   The .AVI version of this project, again, played flawlessly.  The .MOV version played even worse than I was expecting, since cuts-only 7D footage is usually not SO hard on the system (even if it is limited to 4GB RAM).  The .MOV project couldn't keep up.  Period.  As soon as the file needed to "jump back" on itself, the refresh rate became intolerable.
    So is the 7D an exception to the rule stated in that article?  It definitely seems to be limited to 4GB of RAM!  If it isn't, why am I seeing this?
    Also, is it possible that the footage from the 7D may not *REQUIRE* Quicktime to decode, but since Quicktime is found on my system, the 7D files default to using it anyway?
    I've not tested my GoPro footage so thoroughly, but I believe it's limited in the same way.  After a transcode to AVI in GoPro Studio, even 2.7K footage plays slick as a whistle.  Not so when I don't transcode.
    Further thoughts?

  • 13'' dual-core with 16gb ram vs 15'' quad-core 8gb ram -- ram vs cores?

    Hello.  I am at a point between choosing a 13'' dual-core i5 with 16gb ram vs the 15'' quad-core with 8gb ram - both retinas.
    I will be using photoshop and illustrator while uploading/downloading large files constantly.  After much headscratching I almost decided on the 13'' i5 because from my experience, RAM limitations is where I usually run into problems, and don't see the extra price of i7 worth it when it is still a dual-core.  For the same price I can get a 15'' quad, but will be stuck with 8gb ram.
    I don't care about the screen size, I have good eyes and the weigth trade-off makes this a non-issue.
    I'm thinking about down the road, as either of these I'm sure will be fine solutions.  I'm just wondering where does the edge really come in this case?  Ram or processor / cores?
    Thanks.

    Thanks for your reply tjk, of course with 16gb on the 15'' for $200 more  I'd have easier time, but in this case I am comparing a refurbished - the lowest 15'' 16gb I could find would cost $500 more, I just can't do it. 
    I should make clear that this particular comparison between 13''w/16 and 15''w/8, they are the same price (the 13 being new) - which is why I'm stuck.
    To rephrase - for the same price - which will I regret less in 4 years?
    As a side note, I can't believe I'm even thinking about paying this much money for something that is not upgradeable, but that's another discussion entirely.

  • Why is 4GB of RAM impossible for pre-santa rosa machines?!

    ok, i know that older MBP's have an Intel 945PM chipset and i also know about the whole memory overlapping thing. BUT if the Intel chipset can handle 4GB of RAM is this a software issue or a hardware issue? and since OS 10.4.10 is a 32-bit system does that mean if i were to upgrade to leopard, which is 64-bit, this whole RAM issue would fix itself?
    MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.10)   2.33GHz CPU, 2GB RAM

    hey buddy didn't you read the top? i know about the memory overlapping thing! if the board can handle 4 gigs and the cpu has no problem with it. then why can't you have 4 gigs?
    "a number of items that must be stored in physical RAM space, and when RAM reaches 4 GB, there is some overlap. "
    -Inside the MacBook Pro’s 3GB RAM limitation
    ok, well what is setting the number of items that must be stored in the physical RAM space? and is it possible to assign these functions a different space? instead of being between 3GB and 4GB, can't you move it to 4GB to 5GB?

  • 4GB RAM on MacBook Pro 15 ?

    I can put 4GB Ram on MacBook Pro 15 even if Activity Monitor and other similar applications will reveal that only 3 GB of SDRAM has been addressed for use by the computer ? you see apple doc : http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304662
    I would want put 4GB Ram on my new MBP.
    TY, Max Vigilante

    actually it's true. it's not the motherboard, it's the intel chipset. there was an interview with a tech spokesperson from apple about this on anandtech I believe.
    while you can physically put 4GB into the slots, the intel chipset will only be able to address slightly more than 3GB of it. apple made the decision to be reasonable about this and state that the max RAM for these machines is 3GB so that customers are not wasting their money on buying 4GB. other manufacturers are either not being so honest about it, or they haven't even bothered to pay any attention to the intel spec on the core 2 duo chipset. if your dell is reporting that it actually has the full 4GB (and it is indeed a core 2 duo machine) then it's just giving you a reading of what chips are installed, nothing more. any system profiling app that can really look into what amount of RAM is actually addressable will show that the full real amount is less than 3.7GB (or less than that I can't remember). the information is all there at intel if you want to go get it from the horse's mouth.
    there is absolutely nothing about OSX that limits it to less than 4GB. it makes no sense to assume that.. the OSX installed on MBPs is identical to the OSX on other machines like mac pros, which can support well and truly more than 4GB RAM as there is no chipset limitation in the xeons.
    anyway as I said, this info is all out there in the public domain, you can even email support at intel and ask them to explain exactly why the core 2 duo chipset (in any machine, mac or PC or otherwise) has this RAM limitation.

  • SQL Server 2014 Standard, but only 2 GB RAM used

    Hello,
    I just installed MS SQL Server 2014 Standard Single x64 on a Windows 8 PC. It was bought to replace the Server Express because the RAM limitation of Express.
    I set min server memory to 500 MB and max server memory to 28672 MB. PC has 32 GB Ram.
    Now I start a very crazy procedure/query that is running for hours.
    The problem is now that task manager shows:
    - SQL Server Management Studio (32 Bit): 0% CPU and 135,4 MB RAM
    - SQL Server Windows NT - 64 Bit: 60% CPU and 2.032,6 MB RAM
    If I use: SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_process_memory  I get:
    physical_memory_in_use_kb : 2124632
    memory_utilization_percentage : 100
    So why is there Management Studio 32 Bit if I installed it through MS SQL Server 2014 Standard Single x64 installation?
    And much more important: Why is only 2 GB RAM used if 32 GB are there and 28 GB should be used?
    kind regards
    Peter

    Hello,
    Could you try to enable Lock Pages in Memory option for the SQL Server service account?
    http://www.sqlcoffee.com/Tuning05.htm
    Hope this helps.
    Regards,
    Alberto Morillo
    SQLCoffee.com

  • JUST ONE MORE RAM QUESTION

    can someone do a quick test for me...
    1. can someone open up safari and iMovie together and see how much RAM the 2 use together
    2. then, see how much they take up separately
    3 also, for another RAM test, can someone open up both the apps. in iWork (not the microsoft package) and see how much RAM the two take up together, and then separately
    4. then the same thing with Front Row
    thanks, i'm just really trying to decide whether to get the Core Solo with 1 GB of RAM or the Duo with 512 mb of RAM, and those are the main apps. i will use
    also, if you have front row running, can you do other things at the same time?

    Get the solo with 1GB, then upgrade the chip later, costs will be down quickly with the next 64 bit core comin out, and have an even faster duo Yonah down the line as well. Your apps will run fine with 1GB of RAM, I recommend at least 1GB for either the DUO or the Solo. Even the in store mini demos are runnning 1GB I hear, Duo or Solo. With memory creeps, doesn't matter if you have 1 or 2 CPUs, you're still bound to RAM limits.
    My personal experience with the solo at 512 was it was unbearable just doing nominal tasks, went to 2GB and she smokes on anything, I imagine 1GB will be good as well.
    Can't wait to toss my new Seagate Momentus in there, then a Merom chip down the road. Which by then, a 2.0 Duo Yonah will be 250.

Maybe you are looking for