25% of my RAM chip is broken? Pic Inside to see what I mean!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by vader1990, Oct 18, 2009.

  1. vader1990 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #1
    Hi,

    I have the Late 2008 UMBP with 2GB RAM, 2.4Ghz, etc. For some reason, iFreeMem and Activity monitor only see 1.75 GB of ram and not the full 2.00 GB??? And I notice it too, when the computer starts to lag...

    Anything I can do?

    I've been thinking about upgrading to either 4GB or 8GB, but low on cash right now, so not going to for at least the summer....

    thanks much!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. ipodlover77 macrumors 65816

    ipodlover77

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    #2
    mine says 1.75gb too. it also says i have 233mb free, which im curious on what im using thats taking up so much memory. damn, that 4gb upgrade may come sooner than expected.
     
  3. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #3
    That happens because when you're in 9400 (low power GPU) mode, the GPU uses 256 MB of ram as 'shared graphics ram'. Only the higher end Macbook Pro's have the higher power 9600 discrete GPU which has it's own memory.

    Basically, the GPU doesn't have any ram of it's own, so it takes some of the systems.
     
  4. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #4
    I have a feeling it's related to the integrated nVidia 9400M being given a portion of the system RAM. eh, beat by a sammich.
     
  5. vader1990 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #5
    Wait, so this means my computer will run faster, and be less choppy if I switch to the 9600?????? Like I'm running Eclipse [Java], and Safari, and I'm getting straight owned!!! Like my computer is hanging a lotttttt....will these hangs go away with the 9600?

    Thanks for any insight into this!!!
     
  6. ipodlover77 macrumors 65816

    ipodlover77

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    #6
    to add on to that, will it become less choppy and run faster when upgraded to the 4gb of ram?
    i mean noticeable speed, not just a tad bit bump up.
     
  7. monoxera macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #7
    Yea it would increase your perfomance when you switch to 9600.


    ipod lover, not really. 4gb isn't needed unless you do heavy intensive apps that require lotsa memory like photoshop
     
  8. felt. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    even using the 9600m you lose 256mb ram due to the 9400m shared memory being reserved for openCL in snow leopard. the upgrade from 2gb to 4gb ram is obvious..the price is right, 8gb..not so much unless you really need it (most don't) . regarding the hangs the latest performance update addressed an issue which caused that
     
  9. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #9
    Looking at that RAM chart, you would most likely benefit from 4GB.
     
  10. vader1990 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #10
    Ok, switching to the 9600 did help a good bit, the system is a lot more responsive, though it does run hotter, and the battery life is considerably shorter. However, it still only says 1.75GB in Activity monitor...
     
  11. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #11
    There is another topic that talks about this. Basically since the 9400M is the chip by default, it will always take a portion of the RAM I believe. When you change over to the 9600 GT in the System Preferences the changes will take effect though not be shown.
     
  12. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #12
    An upgrade to 4gb is strongly recommended by me if you're running Eclipse a lot. That IDE likes its RAM fresh and strong in the morning :(

    Edit: Although, if you wait 6 months to a year, the 4gb chips will probably be cheaper and you could jump directly to 8gb.
     
  13. NC MacGuy macrumors 603

    NC MacGuy

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Location:
    The good side of the grass.
    #13
    Get the extra RAM. You don't have a real Pro machine without it.;)

    Safari is a hog that needs constant feeding so if you're running anything with your browser open, doomed for RAM shortage.
     
  14. copykris Suspended

    copykris

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Location:
    home
    #14
    this thread of course brought to you by the guy who thinks 0.25 is 25% of 2.00

    brilliant
     
  15. n19htmare macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #15
    haha I was thinking how long it would take for someone to notice the flaw in the OP's math.

    25% of 2000MB is 500MB OP.

    I'm surprised you "noticed" a different from a 256MB decrease in ram. Somthing ELSE is wrong if you're getting choppy performance from Eclipse and safari.
     
  16. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #16
    Or... You are assuming things and the OP was referring to a ram stick (1gb).
     
  17. Scottyk9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #17
    Based on your Page in / out information, I would also suggest that more RAM would improve performance. The "rule of thumb" I have heard is that page outs should ideally be 10% or less of page ins.
     
  18. copykris Suspended

    copykris

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Location:
    home
    #18
    yeah that's why he called it 'ram-chip' --i mean this guy obviously knows what he's talking about
     
  19. Eddyisgreat macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #19
    a wha?
     
  20. copykris Suspended

    copykris

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Location:
    home
    #20
    or you could, you know, read the thread title
     
  21. Scippy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #21
    Does it really matter?
    I think we all got the jist of what the OP was trying to say.
     
  22. GeekAtBirth macrumors member

    GeekAtBirth

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    #22
    Why does mine say 2 GB?
     

    Attached Files:

  23. vader1990 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #23
    you're still on Leopard [10.5.8], mine was the same as yours, until I upgraded to SL [10.6.1 specifically], and now it says 1.75GB...

     
  24. GeekAtBirth macrumors member

    GeekAtBirth

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009

Share This Page