# Is my RAM being fully utilized, or could I use more? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 30, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515 "2011-01-30T16:26:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/1 "2011-01-30T16:26:58Z")
I might be willing to put down some $ to upgrade the RAM in my main computer, but I don’t want to do so if it won’t be used. Since I will have to toss the existing chips to upgrade, this is more expensive than just adding more. So how can I tell if the existing RAM is being fully used? Here’s what it says in Task Manager right now, and this is typical, even during video editing: Physical Memory (K) Total 3144108 (it’s 4GB nominal) Available 1978632 System cache 2213616 If there is that much “available,” does that mean that it is not being used by the currently running programs, and more would be wasted? Or does “available” mean something else? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/2 "2011-01-30T16:31:11Z")
Available is the unused portion. If your system is 32 bit, you can’t use more than 4 GB anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/3 "2011-01-30T16:39:05Z")
For a typical user, 4GB is plenty. Like runner pat says, unless you have a 64-bit OS installed (most people don’t), your computer can’t make use of more anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/4 "2011-01-30T16:49:53Z")
Win XP SP2 – the CP doesn’t say 32 or 64 bit. Can I assume it is only 32? I’m not a typical user, BTW. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/5 "2011-01-30T16:53:07Z")
I think XP Professional was the only XP-64 available. ---
**Author:** ![ramel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb8c5e/32.png) [@ramel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ramel)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/6 "2011-01-30T16:55:08Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Available is the unused portion. > > If your system is 32 bit, you can’t use more than 4 GB anyway. Wrong! > **[Physical Address Extension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension)** > > In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE), sometimes referred to as Page Address Extension, > is a memory management feature for the x86 architecture. PAE was first introduced by Intel in the Pentium Pro, and later by AMD in the Athlon processor. It defines a page table hierarchy of three levels (instead of two), with table entries of 64 bits each instead of 32, allowing these CPUs to directly access a physical address space larger than 4 gigabytes (232 bytes). > The page table structure used b... ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/7 "2011-01-30T16:58:48Z")
> [@ramel](#): > > Wrong! > > [Physical Address Extension - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) Read the article. > [@](#): > > To use PAE, operating system support is required. Intel versions of Mac OS X support PAE. The Linux kernel supports PAE as a build option and most major distributions provide a PAE kernel either as the default or as an option. FreeBSD and NetBSD also support PAE as a kernel build option. > > Microsoft Windows implements PAE if booted with the appropriate option, **but current 32-bit desktop editions enforce the physical address space within 4GB even in PAE mode.** According to Geoff Chappell, Microsoft limits 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB due to a licensing restriction[2], and Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich says that some drivers were found to be unstable when encountering physical addresses above 4GB.[3]. **Unofficial kernel patches for Windows Vista 32-bit are available[dubious – discuss] that break this enforced limitation, though the stability is not guaranteed.** Doesn’t sound like a viable solution. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/8 "2011-01-30T16:59:53Z")
> [@ramel](#): > > Wrong! > > [Physical Address Extension - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) Not Wrong! 32-bit client versions of Windows do not use any addresses above the 4 GiB barrier, whether or not PAE is enabled. 32-bit XP, Vista, and 7 will only ever “see” 4 GiB, and will only leave about 3.2-3.5 GiB available. To go over that you need a 32-bit server version, or a 64-bit version. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/9 "2011-01-30T17:11:12Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > I think XP Professional was the only XP-64 available. My version says “Professional,” but I don’t think it is 64 bit. Was XP SP2 ever 64? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/10 "2011-01-30T17:17:47Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > My version says “Professional,” but I don’t think it is 64 bit. Was XP SP2 ever 64? From Microsoft Support. > [@](#): > > Windows XP > If you have Windows XP, there are two methods to determine whether you are running a 32-bit or a 64-bit version. If one does not work, try the other. > Method 1: View System Properties in Control Panel > > 1. Click Start, and then click Run. > 2. Type sysdm.cpl, and then click OK. > 3. Click the General tab. The operating system is displayed as follows: > \* For a 64-bit version operating system: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Version \< Year\> appears under System. > \* For a 32-bit version operating system: Windows XP Professional Version \ appears under System. > Note \ is a placeholder for a year. > > Method 2: View System Information window > > 1. Click Start, and then click Run. > 2. Type winmsd.exe, and then click OK. > 3. When System Summary is selected in the navigation pane, locate Processor under Item in the details pane. Note the value. > \* If the value that corresponds to Processor starts with x86, the computer is running a 32-bit version of Windows. > \* If the value that corresponds to Processor starts with ia64 or AMD64, the computer is running a 64-bit version of Windows. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/11 "2011-01-30T17:32:39Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > From Microsoft Support. > [@](#): > > Windows XP > If you have Windows XP, there are two methods to determine whether you are running a 32-bit or a 64-bit version. If one does not work, try the other. > Method 1: View System Properties in Control Panel > > 1. Click Start, and then click Run. > 2. Type sysdm.cpl, and then click OK. > 3. Click the General tab. The operating system is displayed as follows: > > - For a 64-bit version operating system: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Version \< Year\> appears under System. > - For a 32-bit version operating system: Windows XP Professional Version \ appears under System. > Note \ is a placeholder for a year. That program brings up exactly the same screen as “system” in CP. In my case, “64” is absent from the General tab and the year is 2002. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/12 "2011-01-30T17:57:11Z")
Thank you, **runner pat**! I’ve wondered often what my system was and now I know it’s a 32 bit one. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/13 "2011-01-30T17:58:38Z")
unless you went out and specifically requested the x64 version of Windows XP, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that you have it. it was minimally supported by Microsoft and is crap to use (lots of drivers for consumer hardware detect it as Server 2003 and might not install.) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/14 "2011-01-31T06:10:50Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > unless you went out and specifically requested the x64 version of Windows XP, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that you have it. it was minimally supported by Microsoft and is crap to use (lots of drivers for consumer hardware detect it as Server 2003 and might not install.) Part of that is because it is Server 2003 with a name change. ---
**Author:** ![Waterman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b2d939/32.png) [@Waterman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waterman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/15 "2011-01-31T08:06:50Z")
Several points to be made now that it is established that the OP is running 32-Bit XP: [ul]Your motherboard may not support more than 4 GB of physical RAM. You need to determine whether or not your motherboard will support a 64-Bit OS and exactly how much physical memory it will support.[/ul] [ul]If the answer to the above questions are yes (and yes), **and you are using your computer for CPU intensive applications (Photoshop, CAD, #D, video editing, etc)** then you need to make the decision whether you want to upgrade the OS and add memory.[/ul] My guess is that your computer sounds like it is probaly 5+ years old is probably not a good investment to upgrade. Better buying a new computer. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/16 "2011-01-31T10:09:00Z")
> [@Waterman](#): > > and you are using your computer for CPU intensive applications (Photoshop, CAD, #D, video editing, etc) Nitpick: memory-intensive, not CPU-intensive. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/17 "2011-01-31T14:04:04Z")
> [@Waterman](#): > > Several points to be made now that it is established that the OP is running 32-Bit XP: > [ul]Your motherboard may not support more than 4 GB of physical RAM. You need to determine whether or not your motherboard will support a 64-Bit OS and exactly how much physical memory it will support.[/ul] > [ul]If the answer to the above questions are yes (and yes), **and you are using your computer for CPU intensive applications (Photoshop, CAD, #D, video editing, etc)** then you need to make the decision whether you want to upgrade the OS and add memory.[/ul] The MB goes up to 8 at least, as I bought it for that. > [@](#): > > My guess is that your computer sounds like it is probaly 5+ years old is probably not a good investment to upgrade. Better buying a new computer. I built the computer exactly one year ago with mostly new parts, but I probably used an OS that was sitting around for a while. I don’t like major upgrades, so maybe it’s time to build another one – not as a replacement, but another unit. I frequently have tasks that cannot be run simultaneously on one machine (my video editor doesn’t allow concurrent execution and can only do one task at a time, so that’s a bottleneck), so 2 is better. > [@Quartz](#): > > Nitpick: memory-intensive, not CPU-intensive. Video editing is highly CPU intensive. The only activity on my computer that pegs the CPU meter to 100% for long is video rendering; nothing else comes close. I have a question (for anyone) about the “available” number on the Task Mgr display. Does this mean “unallocated to programs right now” memory? If so, then I never seem to use most of it. ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/18 "2011-01-31T16:39:01Z")
Look at the Commit Charge to the left of the Physical Memory list. Total = Amount in use right now Limit = Memory available including your swap file Peak = The most memory used since the last system boot Peak will be the interesting number for you. ---
**Author:** ![Waterman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b2d939/32.png) [@Waterman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waterman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2011, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/19 "2011-02-01T07:37:40Z")
FWIW I have been toying with the idea of upgrading to a 64-bit OS (Windows 7) and adding 4 GB of RAM (for a total of 8 GB) at an ~ cost of $250-$300. The only drawbacks are having to do a clean install of the OS and having to go through the sheer joy of reinstalling all of the apps. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2011, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515/20 "2011-02-01T08:35:16Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Video editing is highly CPU intensive. The only activity on my computer that pegs the CPU meter to 100% for long is video rendering; nothing else comes close. True, but adding memory will not help that. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-my-ram-being-fully-utilized-or-could-i-use-more/569515.md?page=2)