Solved: Slow refresh rate/s

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

logoff

Thread Starter
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
50
Hello,
I'm wondering if anyone has similar conditions?
Below a snapshot of my system although I get different values for RAM and HD size when seeing BIOS values and Vista's
built in system analyser.
I do have 4GB RAM and 310 GB hard drive.

Tech Support Guy System Info Utility version 1.0.0.2
OS Version: Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium, Service Pack 2, 32 bit
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz, x64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6
Processor Count: 2
RAM: 3038 Mb
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3470, 256 Mb
Hard Drives: C: Total - 293488 MB, Free - 212117 MB;
Motherboard: Sony Corporation, VAIO
Antivirus: Microsoft Security Essentials, Updated and Enabled

If I use U-tube for whatever, it starts then pauses when it has to catch up if you know what I mean!
I'm on a wireless link running typically at 65 Mbps. Some tubes I can pause and let the video progress in front then press play and normally OK.
Why does my system report 3k something MB Ram? and a smaller hard drive?
I would have thought my set-up would be very fast, am I missing something??
Your views please..
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
215
What's the model number of the computer?

Is 4 GB memory and 310 GB disk space the values you got from BIOS or does it say so in the computer documentation?

As far as the memory goes, it seems to me that you are using a 32-bit version of Windows. The 32-bit version cannot address 4 GB (4096 MB) of memory. For that you would need to upgrade to a 64-bit version of Windows. The 32-bit version can only address up to approximately 3.5 GB or 3500 MB of memory.

As for the issues with YouTube (U-tube), it may not be hardware related at all. It may have to do with the web browser you're using and/or the Adobe Flash Player version installed on the system.

It happens to me too that a YouTube clip stops at some point and I have to wait for the buffer to build up before it can continue. This is normal. This depends on the resolution you choose for the video, where 240p and 480p may not have that problem or it will happen only sometimes while when you switch to 720p or 1080p you may see this happen more often. Again, this is pretty much normal. It's really up to you if you want to watch a video instantly and uninterrupted, where you would have to choose a lower resolution. Or if you accept the fact that you will have to wait a few seconds for the video to buffer before you click to play it in a high resolution. It's really a personal preference. For some very long videos, or videos in 1080p resolution you may need to let it buffer for several minutes before you click play in order to watch it without interruptions.

You may also notice that this problem is more common with some videos while not so much with others, even if they are the same length and resolution. I don't know why this is but it might have to do with things like how popular the video is - how many people are watching it - and/or what server/disk it is hosted on. I know they are using virtual storage but you still have to balance the massive load/requests somehow.

Also, I have noticed that most of the videos I am watching will freeze up for no reason at all, even when I have a long buffer headroom. I started noticing this when I got the Flash Player version 10 or version X, or some build of that major version. It would only freeze for 1 second or 2, and then continue. So make sure you have the latest version of Flash Player. You may also wan to try other web browsers. I am using Firefox 3.6.24 at the moment.
 

logoff

Thread Starter
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
50
Thanks for the advice. Model no of laptop, Sony vaio, VGN-FW21E Yes it's the BIOS that reports those values. I have the latest flash player also. I am running at highest res so will do some tests at lower resolutions. It's not a major issue just curious if others have same probs. So some of my RAM is effectively dormant as my op system is 32 bit.
Thanks for the advice.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
215
Well, not necessarily. Your RAM memory may not be dormant because of the 32-bit operating system.

If you ask for the official Microsoft statement they will tell you that the physical memory limit on 32-bit Windows Vista is 4 GB. This may be true, but only in theory, and theory and real world situations don't always match up.

So if you start asking around you will get different answers from Vista 32-bit users who also have 4 GB of memory. They will tell you that they have anywhere from 2.8 GB to 3.58 GB at their disposal.

This has to do with a lot of technicalities, it has to do with the way the operating system handles memory. So the maximum physical memory available to the end-user will vary between different computers. Even if thou they use the same amount of RAM and the same operating systems, and the same version. They can still be configured differently, depending on which model it is and what components it uses the manufacturer may configure it differently which sets it apart from other models and/or other brands.

But the main thing is: in practice, you can not have 4 GB at your disposal with a 32-bit Windows system. The highest value I have ever seen is 3.58 GB, and the lowest I have seen is 2.8 GB.

If you want full explanation of why this is, have a look in the MSDN library. Here, knock yourself out: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx

I first started using the 32-bit version of Windows Vista. I had four Corsair RAM sticks with 1 GB each, so 4 GB total. And I remember quite clearly that the maximum amount of memory I had to my disposal in Windows was in the 3.5 GB range. It was like 3533 MB or something. I never had more than that, it never reached the 3.6 GB mark.

I currently use the 64-bit version of Vista, and at the time of this writing I am using about 25% of physical memory and the total amount reported by Vista is 4093 MB. When I was using 32-bit version it was reporting about 3500 MB total.

The VGN-FW21E is a 2008 model. It has 4 GB of memory running at 800 MHz. The Radeon HD3470 is a good graphics processor, but it has only 256 MB which is not much by today's standards. But as this is a laptop computer, it uses shared graphics memory. What this means is that the total graphics memory is greater than 256 MB, because it takes some reserved memory from the main memory, and according to some sources the shared graphics memory is 1144 MB.

You have 4096 MB main memory.
You have 256 MB graphics memory.
You have 1144 MB shared graphics memory.
You have 1144 - 256 = 888 MB reserved memory.
You have 4096 - 888 = 3208 MB remaining main memory.

So it looks like a 32-bit operating system just enough for this configuration. And the 3208 MB seems to be the maximum amound of main RAM memory you can have at your disposal. It's close enough to the reported 3038 MB. And this number can not be compared to the 4 GB or 4096 MB reported by BIOS, because that's the amound installed memory, and this is what you can actually use.

As to the difference between reported disk capacity of 293488 MB and 310 GB, this may have to do with the conversion between the SI prefix and the binary prefix.

The 293488 MB is 286 GB. If you go from 310 GB (gigabyte) to GiB (gibibyte) you get about 288 GiB. The 2 GiB difference between these two values is neglect-able (not important). So yeah, this seems to be the case here. The two values you got are expressed in two different ways, but they are about the same.

You can read more about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_60027
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
http://www.hardwarebook.info/Binary_Prefixes
http://wolfprojects.altervista.org/articles/binary-and-decimal-prefixes/
 

logoff

Thread Starter
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
50
Thanks for all that, the reading will probably take me right through X-mas! This though is not a bad thing as I'm a humbug at chrissy time. I'll mark this thread as complete, thanks again.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top