How does video card mem affect system RAM?

Gaze Upon These Numbers, and Weep Not......(Well you can maybe a little)..

I don't believe that your card uses system RAM to augment its onboard RAM.

The hardware address issue only comes into play when 4GBs of RAM is installed in a 32bit board or OS. All hardware is subtracted from total potential system addresses, (2 to the 32nd = 4GB), and the balance is then "available RAM". It has no bearing on this discussion.

I looked at the spec sheet on the 6200. The memory bandwidth is an astounding 3.2 Gbs...!

A new GTX-460 (768MB RAM) loafs along at about 86.4 Gbs. Its bigger brother with 1GB of RAM scurries along at 115.2 Gbs. Um, and that's a reference number, not overclocked.

I got "Invalid Post specified" following your "system vitals" link.

The GeForce 6200 seems to be of the non-problematic kind. But, you mention 512MB of RAM in your first post, yet you posted a CPU-Z image showing 384MB of RAM, so unless there's some confusion, part of the memory is gone. It may be that there's another reason for it, for example if you have 4x128MB sticks, one might have been unseated while installing the card, or perhaps has gone bad.

Good.

That was my thought. Glad you confirmed. (I may need to pay attention to that on another machine, though.)

Not so good, huh? But, well, it's providing great video, and from what we can determine to this point, it ought to be working well with this system, no? I mean, it is, but, no reason it should be slowing anything down.

In my first post, before I got into the particulars of my system, I was asking the question generally and using some round figures to exemplify.

Yes, the system is maxed out at 384MB. Sorry for the confusion.

Well, pretty much everything on that particular system happens at a leisurely pace, the transit of information through video memory being no exception. The video card is the most "fleet of foot", as it were.

I have no doubt the it provides good video for the purpose intended. One caveat though, as the children would be all too quick to point out, "you can't play "Crysis" on it". :rolleyes:

I've edited my first post to make the example specific to and consistent with my system.

Thanks.

Yes, granted--per current standards. In the day, with a 500MHz processor and 20GB disk, it was hot sh--.

Is that some sort of game or something?

I think so...:haha:

Well Solitaire seems to work just fine. :approve:

Not to mention the fact that, after playing it for 3 days straight on ecstasy, you won't have the slightest inclination to go out and shoot up your high school.

BTW, the updated graphics on "Spider Solitaire" in Vista and Windows 7 are truly spectacular.

True, assuming, if that describes me, I even have a high school to which to go.

Oh, I wasn't aware. I'll have to check it out. Thanks.

Actually that was a rather broad, satirical, generalization, comparing the mindset of those who play solitaire, with the mindset of those who play Crysis.

And here again, I can say, "I knew that", to the fact you're currently not enrolled in a high school. I think that the toying around with an original owner Gateway P-3 machine, was the giveaway there.

My turn to say, "I knew that." I was just further commenting that such a dazed, ecstasy-crazed mindset might not be a reliable attendee of any school.

I don't think that either one of us has been anywhere near a high school in sufficiently recent a period of time, to truly attest to the veracity of that statement.

Besides, "reliable attendee", doesn't really fit my construct. An "Infrequent, mentally, unstable, unreliable, casually tardy, enrolled, but disinterested in actually showing up, ecstasy crazed, video game addict", would be more in line with my own distorted imaginings.

I won't say I knew that.

If you've installed the latest drivers, try drivers from a few years ago. They're likely to be more lightweight and geared better towards older cards. I couldn't find any really old XP drivers on NVIDIA's site, but you can try the Windows 2000 drivers available there.

Hmm. I don't recall doing that. I thought I had been careful to reply to the intended person.

But... If I did, what's so horrible about that? If I have three posts containing different, additional information on the subject that appear consecutively in the thread, what's the difference if they are to someone else or to myself?

If it is something bad, please don't make it sound any worse than it is. I haven't posted anywhere in this forum except in this thread.

Thanks for looking. Where are the Windows 2000 drivers?

Just now I replied to you, then ET3D. Now to you again. Three posts appearing consecutively in the thread.

Please stop it.

What are you talking about?! Please explain yourself! I clicked on the quotation mark symbol at the extreme bottom-right of your message. The hover text says, "Quick reply to this message." I click on it and post my reply.

This is improper operation?