Hi,
I'm about to buy this device and i know it is a Diamond clone but i read in a lot of sites that it has only 128Mb of RAM and the Diamond has 192Mb!
Anyone with a MDA can please URGENTLY confirm this information?
*Thread moved*
Checked the device database and they state 192 meg : http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=1305&specs=t-mobile_mda_compact_iv_htc_diamond_200
Ta
Dave
eucurto said:
Hi,
I'm about to buy this device and i know it is a Diamond clone but i read in a lot of sites that it has only 128Mb of RAM and the Diamond has 192Mb!
Anyone with a MDA can please URGENTLY confirm this information?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
omg we all had this argument last year when the diamond cam out :| the diamond duz have 192 mb ram but 60 sumat megs are used by the GPU
Hello Everyone,
I just came up with an interesting idea, following a conversation with my friend. He said: the Diamond1 is still an awesome phone, but it doesn't have enough RAM for the newer Sense and Manila ROMs. I just said: why can't you just buy a DIAM500 which has 288 MB of RAM? He said, the DIAM500 is for CDMA networks, but he uses GSM.
But the idea is still there, if the engineers could fit 288 MB of RAM into the DIAM500 why can't we just change the RAM chips in the other Diamond variants, and have the same amount of RAM as the CDMA versions? We did the same with the HTC Universal, it looks possible.
First of all I am trying to get some pictures about the System Board of these two machines, to see if they are even comparable, or (would be ideal) almost the same.
Anyone has any thoughts, or pictures, please don't hesitate to write in this thread.
Thank you,
DOMy
Is there a massive diiference in performance between a phone with 576 mb ram e.g htc desire and a phone with 512mb ram eg. the google nexus one?
thanks
Cpt.Curry said:
Is there a massive diiference in performance between a phone with 576 mb ram e.g htc desire and a phone with 512mb ram eg. the google nexus one?
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only difference is that you get 64MB more RAM to hold a handful more applications in the background. The performance difference is only going to be appreciable if the applications that are being let go in that 64MB "buffer" take a long time to load up.
I've read before that they are identical, just reported differently.
512Mb RAM + 64Mb baseband.
Pretty sure I read it on here, but could be wrong.
Dont matter as the current kernels wont see more than appox 400 MB
Rusty! said:
I've read before that they are identical, just reported differently.
512Mb RAM + 64Mb baseband.
Pretty sure I read it on here, but could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1, and it's written in many places.
Yeah, the Desire doesn't have any more memory than the Nexus One. They just report it differently.
Using the program 'Android System' I noticed the dashboard shows a MAX of 325MB with X amount FREE. I understand there is some overhead for Video etc but 187MB?! I don’t think so... My next thought was that 2.1 only supports X amount of RAM and that when 2.2 comes out we will see closer to the full 512MB. Does anyone know if this is the case? Thanks in advance!
It has 512, but the phone is unable to use it all at present. The 2.2 update will come with a kernal update, which will allow full use of all 512mb. Unless some enterprising developers gets there first with a custom ROM...
It is interesting you report 325mb of RAM. I was fairly certain the 2.6.29 Kernal was limited to 256.
I can only see 199 with all the tools I have tried, but I don't know exactly how much is dedicated to the OS.
In 2.2 the phone is supposed to be able to use all 512... which means we will probably see 400 max available for programs.
Physically it has 512MB of RAM, but the system doesnt recognize all of it under 2.1
\It will be recognized in 2.2
Thanks for the info guys!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Dareoth said:
It is interesting you report 325mb of RAM. I was fairly certain the 2.6.29 Kernal was limited to 256.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
interesting, he reported 325 and joey reported 199
each around 58 lower than what the system would recognize (256 or 384)
so is it possible that the system uses about 58mb and there is some setting or secret firmware allowing him to recognize more?
I have the stock JF6 ROM... Nothing special just a few mods nothing RAM related. I just checked it again; 325MB. Are you guys using the 'Android System Info' app, maybe it/mine is reporting incorrectly!? Any ideas?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Since this is a Linux system you can get the real info from /proc/meminfo.
MemTotal ~ 325MB as reported by the 2.6.29 kernel. As others have reported Froyo should see all 512. From http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html
2.6.32 kernel upgrade
HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB
SDIO scheduling and BT improvements
Code:
# cat /proc/meminfo
cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 333336 kB
MemFree: 3408 kB
Buffers: 372 kB
Cached: 63816 kB
SwapCached: 0 kB
Active: 130364 kB
Inactive: 146516 kB
Active(anon): 106464 kB
Inactive(anon): 106684 kB
Active(file): 23900 kB
Inactive(file): 39832 kB
SwapTotal: 0 kB
SwapFree: 0 kB
Dirty: 0 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages: 212704 kB
Mapped: 35116 kB
Slab: 12040 kB
SReclaimable: 2388 kB
SUnreclaim: 9652 kB
PageTables: 14684 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce: 0 kB
WritebackTmp: 0 kB
CommitLimit: 166668 kB
Committed_AS: 9151572 kB
VmallocTotal: 286720 kB
VmallocUsed: 88084 kB
VmallocChunk: 178180 kB
ctalbot said:
Since this is a Linux system you can get the real info from /proc/meminfo.
MemTotal ~ 325MB as reported by the 2.6.29 kernel. As others have reported Froyo should see all 512. From http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html
2.6.32 kernel upgrade
HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB
SDIO scheduling and BT improvements
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, I pulled up /proc/meminfo and get 333336 as well...
I wonder why the "running processes" app only shows a total of 199?
Just thought I'd try to resurrect this thread instead of starting another...
I've been doing a little googling, and I found on one of the original Korean teardowns of a GT-i9000 (intl. version of our Galaxy S). Link is here.
It would appear (at least based on their teardown) that the Galaxy S DOES NOT in fact have 512 MB of DDR memory. It does have a total of 512 MB of "RAM", just that 384 MB is DDR RAM, and the last 128 MB is OneNAND memory. Plus an extra 512 MB of non-storage NAND (aka, ROM in the traditional sense).
I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the OneNAND is somehow being used for radio and GPU, and the DDR is the "RAM" we see in Android. But it would seem clear from every teardown I could find, that the Galaxy S does not have 512 MB of DDR like we expect it too. Not nessecarily a good or a bad thing, it may just be that Samsung decided to design the Galaxy S a little bit differently than other current smartphones. I'm betting that the OneNAND is assigned and controlled entirely by the radio, and is already being used way before the Android kernel even gets going. Either way, until I see someone actually address all 512 MB of RAM with a kernel, I'm going to assume that there isn't actually 512 MB of DDR RAM in the thing.
People can feel free to disagree, but I think this is a reasonable solution for why Samsung claims that the Galaxy S has 512 MB of "RAM", but also why we are seeing significantly less user-addressable RAM from within Android. They are just being slightly deceptive by calling the OneNAND flash memory "RAM".
Thanks for trying to bring this post back! I agree with you, from every teardown and some gathered info; The captivate only has 384MB of OS RAM. (and that RAM may even be shared with the video) Kinda BS if you ask me; its like saying my PC has 9.5GB of RAM. Rather than stating that I have 8GB of OS RAM and 1.5GB of video RAM. Oh well... Please correct me if I am wrong!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Question: Why on Earth DOESN'T this device use all 512MB from teh get-go?
PhrProfess said:
Question: Why on Earth DOESN'T this device use all 512MB from teh get-go?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that is the question isn't it? Perhaps as time goes by devs will be able to recover (or perhaps reallocate) even more of that RAM towards OS use. Seems sort of unlikely to recover the OneNAND though, as it's probably controlled by mostly proprietary low-level code.
My thoughts are still that the kernels for ALL the galaxy variants are designed to support the 384 megs of ram that the fascinate has. Yes, the fascinate only has 384 megs of ram( as per the Samsung website). We may have 512 physical ram but the cookie cutter kernel is only using 384. This would have saved Samsung some QA time-- or maybe that kernel mad the most stable memory allocation configuration.
ipxnsv said:
My thoughts are still that the kernels for ALL the galaxy variants are designed to support the 384 megs of ram that the fascinate has. Yes, the fascinate only has 384 megs of ram( as per the Samsung website). We may have 512 physical ram but the cookie cutter kernel is only using 384. This would have saved Samsung some QA time-- or maybe that kernel mad the most stable memory allocation configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, probably not though. Why would Samsung design their "cookie cutter kernel" based on one of the least popular design variants? That wouldn't really make much sense from a efficiency standpoint would it?
Either way, I think this has more to do with the physical hardware on board than the way the kernel is addressing it. If anything, I think Verizon didn't want to perpetuate the lie that Samsung has had going with all the other carriers, and just decided to fess up that the Galaxy S only has 384 MB of traditional DDR RAM.
Shammyh said:
Yea, probably not though. Why would Samsung design their "cookie cutter kernel" based on one of the least popular design variants? That wouldn't really make much sense from a efficiency standpoint would it?
Either way, I think this has more to do with the physical hardware on board than the way the kernel is addressing it. If anything, I think Verizon didn't want to perpetuate the lie that Samsung has had going with all the other carriers, and just decided to fess up that the Galaxy S only has 384 MB of traditional DDR RAM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because ALL variants have AT-LEAST 384 megs of ram. Easier going down, than up.
Verizon has crippled thier devices in the past; the htc touch pro... The verizon version has 192MB vs 288MB for the ATT version, also the verizon version has no accelerometer. Kinda off subject there but anyways, I still wish we knew more about how the memory is being allocated on the captivate!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Shammyh said:
Just thought I'd try to resurrect this thread instead of starting another...
I've been doing a little googling, and I found on one of the original Korean teardowns of a GT-i9000 (intl. version of our Galaxy S). Link is here.
It would appear (at least based on their teardown) that the Galaxy S DOES NOT in fact have 512 MB of DDR memory. It does have a total of 512 MB of "RAM", just that 384 MB is DDR RAM, and the last 128 MB is OneNAND memory. Plus an extra 512 MB of non-storage NAND (aka, ROM in the traditional sense).
I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the OneNAND is somehow being used for radio and GPU, and the DDR is the "RAM" we see in Android. But it would seem clear from every teardown I could find, that the Galaxy S does not have 512 MB of DDR like we expect it too. Not nessecarily a good or a bad thing, it may just be that Samsung decided to design the Galaxy S a little bit differently than other current smartphones. I'm betting that the OneNAND is assigned and controlled entirely by the radio, and is already being used way before the Android kernel even gets going. Either way, until I see someone actually address all 512 MB of RAM with a kernel, I'm going to assume that there isn't actually 512 MB of DDR RAM in the thing.
People can feel free to disagree, but I think this is a reasonable solution for why Samsung claims that the Galaxy S has 512 MB of "RAM", but also why we are seeing significantly less user-addressable RAM from within Android. They are just being slightly deceptive by calling the OneNAND flash memory "RAM".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Galaxy S has the c111a application processor (hummingbird), which includes... 4Gb NAND + 3Gb DDR + 1Gb OneNAND.
I don't know exactly how that's divvied up, but it does have 512MB there for RAM.
384 sounds like no gingerbread for us
XGX5309 said:
The Galaxy S has the c111a application processor (hummingbird), which includes... 4Gb NAND + 3Gb DDR + 1Gb OneNAND.
I don't know exactly how that's divvied up, but it does have 512MB there for RAM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point exactly. 512 MB ROM, 384 MB DDR RAM, and 128 MB OneNAND.
OneNAND != DDR.
In phone specifications CPU-Z and Antutu say only 1258MB RAM, not 1536MB (1,5Gb)...
It's only me the unluck guy?
donP73 said:
In phone specifications CPU-Z and Antutu say only 1258MB RAM, not 1536MB (1,5Gb)...
It's only me the unluck guy?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mine says 1387MB
RaLq said:
Mine says 1387MB
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyway, better than mine.
I wrote to Samsung Customer Service and they replied me that a quote of RAM is reserved for OS...
Why - then - we all have different amounts of total RAM?
Mine also says 1258mb. SM-G800F rooted stock Rom
Well first of all, anything related to sizes in computer world is not exact since someone decided that 1mb is 1000kb not 1024kb. So if a device has example 1,5GB ram, it's never really exactly 1,5GB.
Then secondly the system reserves some amount of the ram to use, so a phone will never have 1,5GB free ram if it's marketed having 1,5GB ram.
Edit: Thirdly, you have to compare the ram usage to a same phone with same firmware, settings, apps and updates to get real information.
leripe said:
Well first of all, anything related to sizes in computer world is not exact since someone decided that 1mb is 1000kb not 1024kb. So if a device has example 1,5GB ram, it's never really exactly 1,5GB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@leripe: It only applies to data storage devices, not ram.
RAM: 1.5Gb = 1536 Mb = 1572864kb = 1610612736b
DISK: "1.5Gb" ~ 1500000000b ~ 1464844kb ~ 1431Mb < 1,4Gb
But rest is right. Most of the ram is reserved for other hardware, ex GPU.