Related
I just installed the JM2 firmware, and was surprised to see a new Samsung widget task manager (which is actually really good! =O).
However, once I opened the task manager and went to the 'Summary' tab, the RAM information lists it out of 326mb. For example, at the moment it's showing 258mb out of 326mb used...
Is there some separate ram locked away? As I thought the Galaxy S had 512mb...
So anyone know what the deal is with the 326mb listed instead of 512mb?
Need Froyo to address 512mb.
Next time, please use the search button. It's startin to be a pain to write this over and over again (and not just me.)
The device was taken apart to bits countless times, it does contain 512MB RAM.
Why can't you see it all? the software doesn't show it. YET. Remember that the original JF3 firmware only showd 256.
Pika007 said:
Next time, please use the search button. It's startin to be a pain to write this over and over again (and not just me.)
The device was taken apart to bits countless times, it does contain 512MB RAM.
Why can't you see it all? the software doesn't show it. YET. Remember that the original JF3 firmware only showd 256.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, apologies.
So does that mean currently the Galaxy S isn't actually using all its RAM due to the firmware not allowing it? Kind of strange, didn't know there was anything preventing the use of it at all since the Desire and Nexus One were happy enough with 512mb on Eclair.
Two queries though in relation to Pikas post -
I believe that this issue was uncovered over on GSM Arena. I think Samsung at the time assured everybody that the odd RAM results was just a firmware bug that would be resolved on release products.
So we have a release product where there are still problems with the memory and GPS.
Secondly, I thought it was the kernel that limits the memory to 256 through a Himem flag? Why is then that people are now seeing 326 and not 256? Is it a half way fix? Has the kernel changed?
Your question is not dumb at all.
No phone depends on Froyo to use more than 256mb of RAM.
Even if our phone have 512MB of Ram, we probably won't have so much available.
Many phone always have some ram used by the radio hardware.
I don't know if Samsung will be able to reduce radio (GSM, 3G etc) memory usage.
326MB is maybe the maximum we will get.
I bet we'll see 386-400~ after froyo.
The system is more memory efficient.
If it says 512 it should display 512.
The problem is that when you open the task manager it displays 258/386. I thought it was using the remaining RAM for VIDEO. If its not, then we should see a 512 no matter how much the OS consume. It can even be 500/512 but it should say 512.
I hope Samsung fixes this soon as they sold me a phone with no working LEDs and less RAM??!!
darcjrt said:
I hope Samsung fixes this soon as they sold me a phone with no working LEDs and less RAM??!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My sgs has working LEDs. The screen and the menu/back buttons. If yours are not working, the phone is broken.
Sent with my Personal Dis-organizer GT-I9000
What's wrong with 326mb ram my hero at most shows around 110 and I'm on froyo not to forget
MacaronyMax said:
What's wrong with 326mb ram my hero at most shows around 110 and I'm on froyo not to forget
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not the prob. In Samsung's task manager it's showing the entire phone has a MAXIMUM of 326mb RAM, and obviously much less free.
On Advanced Task Killer I usually have between 70-140mb free, not that much different from my old Hero.
As has been pointed out this may be due to the Galaxy S's use of 2 different types of RAM, with 128mb OneRAM. I can only assume this is dedicated to video.
This would then make sense for the 326mb RAM listed in most applications, with the extra 60mb or so locked away for Android (326mb + 128mb + Android reserved = 512mb).
Still kind of weird how Samsung has made the phone...I was trying my friend's new desire and it listed in Advanced Task Killer as usually having about 240mb free while mine had 100mb free.
I posted originally at [Q] Amount of RAM? under Galaxy S I9000 Q&A , but I guess its relevant to this post as well.
There is new information to indicate that perhaps Galaxy S doesn't have 512MB of RAM after all. Click on the above link .
Samsung Open-Source may hold the key..
Samsung have released the kernel source code for the GT-I9000, and it helps a little bit with trying to decipher what's going on.
From what I can tell, based on specs and previous posts, the SGS has 384MB of -normal- RAM, and 128MB of "OneDRAM".
OneDRAM is a dual-port memory, which means that multiple chips can be connected to it, and using it at the same time. For example, the phone main CPU and a graphics co-processor could both be sharing this memory and using it to communicate with each other. For more details on what OneDRAM is, I recommend trying google.
From what I can tell, the OneDRAM is used for a few things such as video memory, shared communication buffers with the phone hardware etc.
There are a few places that hint at where this memory may be going, the first of which is the kernel configuration:
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM = 16384
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_GPU1=8192
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_ADSP=1800
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC0=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC1=1024
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC2=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC0=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC1=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_TEXSTREAM=10240
=> These parameters describe approx 128MB of space that is being reserved at boot time for the GPU, DSP, Camera(s), and communicating with the phone hardware.
I'm not sure yet whether all of that memory comes out of OneDRAM or not (I haven't spent too long looking into it, and I'm not really much of a kernel guy).. however, it seems that linux-2.6.29/arch/arm/plat-s5pc11x/bootmem.c might offer a few more hints as to where it goes, if anybody's keen to look.
I seem to have gotten a little bit off-track, but basically, it seems that yes, the phone does have 512MB of RAM. It's just that some of it appears to be "locked away" for special use before anything else can get at it. This is probably because the coprocessor(s?) require blocks of contiguous physical memory, and achieving that would not be able to be guaranteed if standard memory allocation techniques were used. Maybe someone with more of a clue than I can help fill in some more of the blanks with the above...
Regardless, I don't think that the apparent discrepancy is anything to worry about. The SGS is an awesome phone, and that will remain the case whatever the amount of RAM it tells you is "free" (well, within reason I guess). Go and and enjoy it for what it is
Intratech said:
Need Froyo to address 512mb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
False.
With Froyo you'll be getting a total RAM of 304Mb.
You do know that basing a statement from what you see in pre-alpha/alpha firmwares is a really bad idea, right?
gundyman said:
Samsung have released the kernel source code for the GT-I9000, and it helps a little bit with trying to decipher what's going on.
From what I can tell, based on specs and previous posts, the SGS has 384MB of -normal- RAM, and 128MB of "OneDRAM".
OneDRAM is a dual-port memory, which means that multiple chips can be connected to it, and using it at the same time. For example, the phone main CPU and a graphics co-processor could both be sharing this memory and using it to communicate with each other. For more details on what OneDRAM is, I recommend trying google.
From what I can tell, the OneDRAM is used for a few things such as video memory, shared communication buffers with the phone hardware etc.
There are a few places that hint at where this memory may be going, the first of which is the kernel configuration:
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM = 16384
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_GPU1=8192
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_ADSP=1800
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC0=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC1=1024
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC2=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC0=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC1=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_TEXSTREAM=10240
=> These parameters describe approx 128MB of space that is being reserved at boot time for the GPU, DSP, Camera(s), and communicating with the phone hardware.
I'm not sure yet whether all of that memory comes out of OneDRAM or not (I haven't spent too long looking into it, and I'm not really much of a kernel guy).. however, it seems that linux-2.6.29/arch/arm/plat-s5pc11x/bootmem.c might offer a few more hints as to where it goes, if anybody's keen to look.
I seem to have gotten a little bit off-track, but basically, it seems that yes, the phone does have 512MB of RAM. It's just that some of it appears to be "locked away" for special use before anything else can get at it. This is probably because the coprocessor(s?) require blocks of contiguous physical memory, and achieving that would not be able to be guaranteed if standard memory allocation techniques were used. Maybe someone with more of a clue than I can help fill in some more of the blanks with the above...
Regardless, I don't think that the apparent discrepancy is anything to worry about. The SGS is an awesome phone, and that will remain the case whatever the amount of RAM it tells you is "free" (well, within reason I guess). Go and and enjoy it for what it is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, has anyone ACTUALLY confirmed we don't have 512MB of physical ram.. I've seen lots of guessing, but I haven't actually seen any proof yet. So has someone confirmed it by actually checking the hardware..
andrewluecke said:
But, has anyone ACTUALLY confirmed we don't have 512MB of physical ram.. I've seen lots of guessing, but I haven't actually seen any proof yet. So has someone confirmed it by actually checking the hardware..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has anyone actually confirmed that we DO have 512MB ?? I am yet to see any firmware reaching over 384MB, and all the evidence out there suggest otherwise . Samsung says it has 512MB RAM, but they never said all of that memory is available for Applications. So it could very well be 384MB regular RAM (available for Apps and system) while rest is reserved for specialized hardware. Technically that is still 512MB *RAM*, given that manufacturers have a tendency to overstate numbers and specs, I'm not going to take Samsung's word for it...
I hope at least some of that is being used by the OS.
PhoenixFx said:
Has anyone actually confirmed that we DO have 512MB ?? I am yet to see any firmware reaching over 384MB, and all the evidence out there suggest otherwise . Samsung says it has 512MB RAM, but they never said all of that memory is available for Applications. So it could very well be 384MB regular RAM (available for Apps and system) while rest is reserved for specialized hardware. Technically that is still 512MB *RAM*, given that manufacturers have a tendency to overstate numbers and specs, I'm not going to take Samsung's word for it...
I hope at least some of that is being used by the OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've never read where Samsung says they've used 512MB RAM, I've only read where people claim they've said (aka nothing official). So, we aren't even taking Samsung's word, we are taking a 3rd party's on the manufacturer's non-binding, private word is.
@
It's just that some of it appears to be "locked away" for special use before anything else can get at it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously, I'd prefer 512MB plus this 128 locked away separate, but this sounds like an elegant solution if correct. Also, it goes a long way to explain how the SGS can be pretty snappy in areas like gaming while maybe keeping other vital parts open and smooth like the 3G radio.
*EDIT* I'm reading now that new pressers have released more official information on newer Galaxy S models, still I've googled for them and even gone to Samsung site, still haven't viewed anything with my own eyes from Samsung.
Well, that's my point.. The problem I'm seeing is that I've seen quotes for OneNand and OneDRAM in many places, but it is based on random diagrams for other phones, or rumors... I'm simply interested in knowing the truth, but am growing increasingly concerned by the growing number of claims about this phone, which are being repeated, but after some research, many I've found seem to be based on information which isn't actually proof (and often, seems to be based on stuff such as "I heard the SGS has...".
As I said, SEMC was running around claiming it was OneNand (which isn't even RAM), using claims which I've never seen proven. OneDRAM seems more likely, and it would mean we basically have 512MB of RAM (oneDRAM seems as though it would be usable for normal RAM too), but I'd still like to know for sure..
alovell83 said:
I've never read where Samsung says they've used 512MB RAM, I've only read where people claim they've said (aka nothing official). So, we aren't even taking Samsung's word, we are taking a 3rd party's on the manufacturer's non-binding, private word is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung Captivate (scroll down to Memory section), is that enough proof for Samsung's claim ??
Does the froyo update make the full 512 mb ram available? I had heard earlier that only a part of it was available due to 2.1 limitations.
Sent from my GT-I9000 ADJF1 using XDA App
They were always available, ~300Mb for Programs and the rest for the system files... Why should that change?
I think what the OP meant was whether one had more memory for apps as ht tp:// developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html claims that the 2.6.32 kernel upgrade would bring "HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB".
At the moment, we do not have the full memory available in the Linux system:
Code:
$ adb shell
* daemon not running. starting it now *
* daemon started successfully *
$ free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 333420 329988 3432 0 34724
Swap: 0 0 0
Total: 333420 329988 3432
I do not know whether that is related to the graphics hardware taking some of the memory, or to the kernel version:
Code:
$ uname -r
2.6.29
Edit: What do you mean by 'system files'? The OS is stored on mass storage, right? And Dalvik and friends should appear as userspace processes taking up regular memory.
satta said:
I think what the OP meant was whether one had more memory for apps as developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html claims that the 2.6.32 kernel upgrade would bring "HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do understand that this does not compute, since there has always been more than 256MB available
Or has there?
I was wondering about the same thing, kernel 2.6.32.9 (JP3) also shows a little more than 300mb...
buddy01 said:
You do understand that this does not compute, since there has always been more than 256MB available
Or has there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey, I'm just quoting from an official AOSP site
Mine shows 30 mb available under advanced task killer. What am I missing?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
@satta yeah that's what I meant and that's what I had read. Cheers
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I've seen Desire have over 400MB of memory available for applications in a video with a some sort of task manager on..
Are you sure, max i got on my nexus one was 312MB in some rare cases, using it without closing apps at all, never got below 100MB... But my Galaxy's max is 170MB, is almost half what my nexus gave me, that kinda suck (don't know if it matter bu tit feels bad in my head )
Desire has 576MB memory.. N1 has 512MB
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Maximum free RAM i got from my sgs is 210mb, easily achieved by using Astro's process manager and killing all non-essential services.
why t.f. do you guys always want to have lots of fre ram? please read a little about android memory management... free ram is wasted ram!
FadeFx said:
why t.f. do you guys always want to have lots of fre ram? please read a little about android memory management... free ram is wasted ram!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So? We all still want our phones to be as future proof as we hoped they would be when we bought them. And we want the extra RAM simply because it's supposed to be there.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
FadeFx said:
why t.f. do you guys always want to have lots of fre ram? please read a little about android memory management... free ram is wasted ram!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As long as it doesn't go below that ~70mb when the phones actually start lagging
Might also want to take into consideration that the counterpart Desire used in this thread is also an android phone, sure too much free memory is wasted memory but too little usable memory = lag and if there isn't a lot to use in the first place then it won't take much for the phone to start lagging.
Some help in JG and onward firmwares but it's still quite funny that a simple user can make a fix to create a solution for the entire problem and Samsung hasn't either thought about this or taken it into consideration. (Mimocan is my hero <3)
edit: WOO my first post after actually following these forums for almost half a year, just registered recently
Hey,
Actually you do not need that much RAM. Im running on JG5, which IMO is the most stable and usable firmware out there. Has been running the phone for 3 days straight without any ATK like apps, and has not experience any lags.
Another thing is that, IMHO ATKs slow down the system.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
The current Samsung froyo builds do not support highmem. It is a kernel compile time config option. Samsung will hopefully enable it in later builds.
Highmem made a noticeable difference in performance on my nexus one.
ed10000 said:
So? We all still want our phones to be as future proof as we hoped they would be when we bought them. And we want the extra RAM simply because it's supposed to be there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nonsense. You are not entitled to more free ram in any way.
Every os uses a part of the ram for the kernel code and its buffers.
In addition the advanced graphics will need memory for its texture storage and graphic representation.
A froyo kernel will not make a major difference.
The sg has 512 memory today and it is using it as it should...
akselic said:
As long as it doesn't go below that ~70mb when the phones actually start lagging
Might also want to take into consideration that the counterpart Desire used in this thread is also an android phone, sure too much free memory is wasted memory but too little usable memory = lag and if there isn't a lot to use in the first place then it won't take much for the phone to start lagging.
Some help in JG and onward firmwares but it's still quite funny that a simple user can make a fix to create a solution for the entire problem and Samsung hasn't either thought about this or taken it into consideration. (Mimocan is my hero <3)
edit: WOO my first post after actually following these forums for almost half a year, just registered recently
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lagging is actually not caused by to less free ram, in android there is no such. the used ram is caused by apps that you opened and then exited again. if you open a new app that needs more ram than aviailable (actually with a little gap of some mb) the system will close apps that are not used anymore and only kept in ram for faster opening. the lag comes from bad i/o speeds of the nand (internal memory) where apps data is stored. on i7500 there is 192mb of ram and it works ok with froyo (thanx to drakaz and gaosp team!) only thing is that every app you open forces the app you opened before to be kicked out of ram what makes switching between apps makes somewhat a pain.
also free memory and usable memory is apples and pears, useable is all memory that contains no actually running in foreground app or service. and free memory is the rest that contains absolutely no information and thus WASTED
edit: btw i7500 is running well with 20mb free ram.
I often have no more than 30 MBs free, and not running THAT many apps. What is strange is that sometimes there is 70-80 MB free, and I have not done anyting. What happens in the background is a mystery... Any suggestions?
I've seen a lot of discussion on various Android/Droid forums on the web over the past month or two about the Bionic, and it having 512MB of RAM. A lot of people don't seem to mind, and some people have even said it doesn't matter because it's DDR2, which is faster than regular DDR.
Well, 512MB of RAM is not enough for a dual-core phone you plan to use for 2 years or more. Here's why, in a rather lengthy post that I also put on MyDroidWorld the other night. I've been on the XDA forums for a long time, though I don't post very frequently and I'm curious to see what people will think of my admittedly long post. So, here is why I think people should think long and hard about whether to buy the Bionic when it does come out, assuming it still ships with 512MB of RAM.
Caching.
Ok - let me explain. The single most important factor in performance of a computer is having enough RAM. When a computer runs out of RAM, it starts to use what's called a page file. It's basically a file on your hard drive that acts as additional RAM. Now, DDR3-1600 speed RAM transfers data at 12.8 gigabytes per second. Phenomenally fast. It also has a reaction time of around 5 nanoseconds, also ridiculously fast. When your operating system has to start using the page file because the physical RAM is full, the performance hit is EXTRAORDINARY. Even the best hard disk drives (not counting SSDs) like the latest Raptor from Western Digital cap out at around 155 megabytes per second for reading and writing, and it has a peak latency of 7 milliseconds for reaction time. 1 nanosecond is 1 million milliseconds, which makes the DDR3 RAM over a MILLION times faster reacting than the hard drive, and the transfer rate of the RAM over 80 times faster than the transfer rate of the hard drive.
In real-world terms, it's like you're talking about an ant versus a Porsche 911 Turbo. Most old computers that have long pauses or hang for several seconds doing even basic tasks, it's because they don't have enough RAM and it's caching stuff between the hard drive and the RAM.
Now, whenever Android runs out of RAM, (same with any operating system) it has to start using its page file, which means it starts using this monstrously slow flash memory as RAM. It's like merging onto a freeway that is gridlocked with traffic when you were going hundreds of miles per hour. The flash memory is a lot slower than the Raptor hard drive for data transfer rates, but it has a read time a lot faster; the best-performing ones are generally under 1 microsecond. 1 microsecond is a thousand times slower than 1 nanosecond. The write times are closer to hard drives, though; generally less than 1 millisecond, so like 10x faster than a hard drive but still 100,000 times slower reaction time to writing data than the RAM is.
What this means is, when your permanent storage is flash-based, it has a much faster reaction time than a hard drive but it's still dog-slow compared to RAM; so when Android runs out of RAM, it caches to the page file on the flash memory, and you'll have the same slowdown effect as you do on an old POS computer, but it's not as noticeable because flash memory reacts faster than disk-based hard drives.
The point of all of this is that, 1GB of DDR1 memory on a phone is FAR better than 512MB of DDR2 memory. The 1GB will prevent you from hitting that metaphorical brick wall of caching data to your flash memory when the 512MB won't. We already use 400MB, or more, of our 512MB of RAM on our existing phones just by turning it on and having a couple of widgets/services in the background above & beyond the stock ones. How do you expect to take advantage significantly higher-end applications and games, which also means (for games, primarily) that they take up more RAM, as well?
You can't have higher-quality graphics without needing more RAM, so when that new version of Angry Birds comes out this fall or something that requires two cores and looks amazing, but uses 250MB of RAM to run instead of the 80MB or whatever the regular one uses now, what do you think has to happen? That's right. Android has to cache that much extra data to your flash memory so it can unload it from the RAM, freeing the necessary space to load Angry Birds HD. This causes more of a delay as it's writing data, and will cause extra choppiness, etc. Another thing to keep in mind is that, as resolutions increase, so do the texture sizes for all applications and widgets that you use, assuming they support the new resolution. More size needed, which takes up more space in RAM.
Don't be fooled. When truly good and proper dual-core benchmarks come out, 1GB RAM dual-core phones will spank their 512MB RAM dual-core brethren for real-world performance in games, and other high-memory applications. Also, excessive caching greatly increases the chance of flash memory going bad. Not a common occurrence if it was fine when shipped, but still something to think about.
So, in summary, even though the performance hit from caching to flash memory isn't as bad as caching to hard disk drives, it's still a tremendous slowdown and it will matter for dual-core phones way more than for single-core ones. The average amount of RAM installed on dual-core desktop computers from Dell/HP/etc. was significantly higher than what the average was for the previous single-core generations were, and there are reasons for that. Primarily, the same reasons I just outlined. In simple terms, faster processors can do more things, which necessarily requires more RAM.
Sorry for the wall of text, I tried to be more concise but it kind of got away from me. I'm not buying a Bionic because it has 512MB of RAM. After owning it a year, it'll be having performance issues on top-end dual-core-required games that run just fine on phones like the Atrix.
I'm sorry because I know this is probably going to come across the wrong way, but WOW, you spent a lot of time writing that up, and too much time for me to read it alll, especially considering Motorola has pulled back on the Bionic and it's receiving "enhancements". I guess what I'm saying is why all the speculation/conjecture until we know the revised specs? Maybe it'll land with 8GB of DDR 6 RAM.
I'm hoping Motorola gives Verizon a phone that is higher end than the Atrix. Afterall Verizon has done much more than ATT in the way of supporting Moto..when they needed it. Anxious to see what Big Red winds up with.
Sent from my ERIS using XDA Premium App
I disagree that ram is the single most important factor of performance of a computer.
hard drives are the biggest bottleneck in a computer. this is why I use a vertex 3 ssd.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
gemro311 said:
I'm hoping Motorola gives Verizon a phone that is higher end than the Atrix. Afterall Verizon has done much more than ATT in the way of supporting Moto..when they needed it. Anxious to see what Big Red winds up with.
Sent from my ERIS using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I concur, really hope VZW pushes for a premier device
I disagree. Android isn't expanding as an OS at some breakneck pace and 512MB is definitely suitable for the near future. 1GB is absolutely not necessary for great performance in a phone. RAM is a bottleneck, but it is not something that magically allows for better performance if the device isn't hitting the pagefile anyway.
The way that Android manages applications will allow 512MB phones to be relevant for some time. The Bionic will be a solid phone for the next year, but there will always be something bigger and better next year. Phones aren't future-proof.
I was just checking out this thread and wanted to say maybe the reason that the atrix comes with 1gb of ram is because of the extra contraption that you can buy along with. It looks like a netbook but is not very well performing and who would even care to rely on it for anything I don't know.
gemro311 said:
I'm hoping Motorola gives Verizon a phone that is higher end than the Atrix. Afterall Verizon has done much more than ATT in the way of supporting Moto..when they needed it. Anxious to see what Big Red winds up with.
Sent from my ERIS using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I certainly hope Motorola makes the required improvements, but you also need to keep in mind Verizon approves and in many if not all cases specs the phones they want. They chose the specs, they had to live with the specs. I think once they saw what was coming they figured it was no longer premiere and wanted changes made.
Regardless of why its been pulled back the fact that it was is good, but if its going to take 4-5 months to get it out the door they should have just scrapped it altogether.
E30kid said:
I disagree. Android isn't expanding as an OS at some breakneck pace and 512MB is definitely suitable for the near future. 1GB is absolutely not necessary for great performance in a phone. RAM is a bottleneck, but it is not something that magically allows for better performance if the device isn't hitting the pagefile anyway.
The way that Android manages applications will allow 512MB phones to be relevant for some time. The Bionic will be a solid phone for the next year, but there will always be something bigger and better next year. Phones aren't future-proof.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, wait for Ice Cream and we'll see. Since the future Android version will also run in tablets, it is likely that it will have huge memory requirements.
By the way, my Acer Liquid A1 can't be officially upgraded to Froyo because it only has 256Mb. Later Liquid models with 512Mb are upgradeable. At the time I bought it, 512Mb seemed unnecessary because the Nexus One operating system only supported 256Mb, having the other 256Mb wasted. This was only 12 months ago...
galaxyjeff said:
I was just checking out this thread and wanted to say maybe the reason that the atrix comes with 1gb of ram is because of the extra contraption that you can buy along with. It looks like a netbook but is not very well performing and who would even care to rely on it for anything I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are on to something here. I think I read somewhere that the atrix only uses 512 mb when not connected to the dock. I have the inspire which has 768 mb, and I came from the captivate which was 512 mb, and I done know if is the ram or what but this phone performs way better than the captivate. Even when I bought the inspire, right out the box stock, preformed much better than a captivate overclocked with an ext4 filesystem kernel. Not that this is empirical evidence, but hey.
Sent from my HTC Desire HD using XDA Premium App
cryptiq said:
I'm sorry because I know this is probably going to come across the wrong way, but WOW, you spent a lot of time writing that up, and too much time for me to read it alll, especially considering Motorola has pulled back on the Bionic and it's receiving "enhancements". I guess what I'm saying is why all the speculation/conjecture until we know the revised specs? Maybe it'll land with 8GB of DDR 6 RAM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I lol'd. But seriously 512 MB of RAM is more than enough... It's a PHONE not a high end desktop system. I play tons of games on my x2 and with alot of crap in the backround open, and I notice zero performance hits. If you are spending all day monitoring your RAM on your phone and trying to measure FPS loss, load time differences, etc. I suggest that you try to pick up a new hobby ASAP, OCDing will be the end of you. Best of luck!
Edit: I wouldn't worry about it either! Bionic probably won't come out anyways, and if it does, another phone with 1GB to satisfy your OCD probably will be out by then.
As of now, I feel ALL future top tier smart phones need to come equipped with at least 1GB of DDR2. The G2x, for example, will most likely have issues running a custom ice cream rom. And people will be upset.. especially after putting up with all of the other various problems that particular phone has.
OP, I don't agree entirely with your explanation of the use of caching by the OS - for all 3 major computer OSes, no matter how much excess RAM you have, they will start caching data to the hard drive, whether you like it or not. Obviously if you run out of RAM, it has to do so, but it'll even do it long before you've hit that cap - just because it determines an application has gone "inactive". Now I haven't read up on Android enough to know whether this is 100% true for it, too, but considering it's running a linux kernel, I would imagine so. So just like the 8GB of RAM in my desktop doesn't necessarily help for everyday computing needs, 1GB vs 512mb on the Bionic may not make a huge difference.
raptordrew said:
OP, I don't agree entirely with your explanation of the use of caching by the OS - for all 3 major computer OSes, no matter how much excess RAM you have, they will start caching data to the hard drive, whether you like it or not. Obviously if you run out of RAM, it has to do so, but it'll even do it long before you've hit that cap - just because it determines an application has gone "inactive". Now I haven't read up on Android enough to know whether this is 100% true for it, too, but considering it's running a linux kernel, I would imagine so. So just like the 8GB of RAM in my desktop doesn't necessarily help for everyday computing needs, 1GB vs 512mb on the Bionic may not make a huge difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i beg to differ
my captivate; even though its a single core...is still quite capable at most everyday tasks...only thing lacking is the RAM
my phone will slow to a crawl after entering twitter, switching to pulse and then going back to my homescreen....
not to mention my launcher keeps getting killed by android as it keeps running out of RAM
droid_does said:
i beg to differ
my captivate; even though its a single core...is still quite capable at most everyday tasks...only thing lacking is the RAM
my phone will slow to a crawl after entering twitter, switching to pulse and then going back to my homescreen....
not to mention my launcher keeps getting killed by android as it keeps running out of RAM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to lol at this one. Absolutely none of those issues have to do with amount of RAM. In fact the launcher problem has nothing to do with RAM at all.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
While I appreciate other people who have the same amount of passion for phones as I do, I just have two words to say about anyone saying phones with 512 mb ram will not get Ice Cream Sandwich. Nexus S.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
mb02 said:
I have to lol at this one. Absolutely none of those issues have to do with amount of RAM. In fact the launcher problem has nothing to do with RAM at all.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it does as android keeps killing it to free up more RAM to use......
droid_does said:
it does as android keeps killing it to free up more RAM to use......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea the task manager is killing the apps to keep ram freed up, as in stopping unused processes etc. That's just the aggressive working of the management software that would run just the same if you even had 8GB of ram.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
timothymilla said:
While I appreciate other people who have the same amount of passion for phones as I do, I just have two words to say about anyone saying phones with 512 mb ram will not get Ice Cream Sandwich. Nexus S.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember when everyone thought Gingerbread would require a 1GHz processor as a system requirement, which was later debunked?
http://www.talkandroid.com/23041-so...ngerbread-update-due-to-1ghz-cpu-requirement/
Nobody can say what will and will not get updated for sure, although I will venture to say that it's HIGHLY likely the Nexus S will be getting 2.4, you're right.
zetsumeikuro said:
I lol'd. But seriously 512 MB of RAM is more than enough... It's a PHONE not a high end desktop system. I play tons of games on my x2 and with alot of crap in the backround open, and I notice zero performance hits. If you are spending all day monitoring your RAM on your phone and trying to measure FPS loss, load time differences, etc. I suggest that you try to pick up a new hobby ASAP, OCDing will be the end of you. Best of luck!
Edit: I wouldn't worry about it either! Bionic probably won't come out anyways, and if it does, another phone with 1GB to satisfy your OCD probably will be out by then.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
512 mb is not enough for a dual core 4G phone it just isnt. the thunderbolt has 768 mb and its only single core and 4G and let me tell you it would be way faster with the 1024 mb of ram i cant imagine how laggy the bionic would be if you start doing anything with it! the 512 ram will be ate up in no time! i sure hope verizon reconsiders and adds more ram or i probably wont use this device as my daily phone either keep the thunderbolt with more ram which is sad cause it has been out for awhile now and the droid x also has 512 ram and it has been out for a year and they cant make improvements?? and they are going to want $299+++ for this phone ON CONTRACT! it better have more than 512 ram or it aint worth a lick! rip this phone open and put my own ram in it!
i thought the cappy had 512 mb of ram... why do all the roms have like 341? im confused >.< either i looked at 3 faulty spec sheets for the captivate or we arent utilizing the full ram potential for the captivate. would someone explain the truth on this matter to a captivate noob like me?
i could be wrong but i believe the 341 is available to use ram, while the rest is being used by the phone to function.
nehal51086 said:
i could be wrong but i believe the 341 is available to use ram, while the rest is being used by the phone to function.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that would make sense, but that makes the specs misleading... i traded my HD2 for a cappy because the spec sheet said 512mb of ram and the HD2 only has 411 available to the OS when running android from nand because the rest is dedicated to winmo only (which sucks massively), and i wanted more ram lol, guess i should have looked harder into things, but regardless the captivate is "better" in very many areas, but RAM is literally my deciding factor for so many things lately (like t-mobile with the sensation or sprint with the evo 3d, i would say evo 3d because it has 256mb or so more ram)
This question has been asked and answered several times....
the phone does have 512mb of ram. Like the person above me said the phones os and graphics take up a portion of the ram. All computers and smart phones work the same way.
As a side note android handles ram very well. You don't need to manage it at all by freeing it up. free ram is wasted ram as the os will have to load it back up anyways
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
crystalhand said:
This question has been asked and answered several times....
the phone does have 512mb of ram. Like the person above me said the phones os and graphics take up a portion of the ram. All computers and smart phones work the same way.
As a side note android handles ram very well. You don't need to manage it at all by freeing it up. free ram is wasted ram as the os will have to load it back up anyways
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i know this very well, free ram can be considered wasted ram, unless you need 200mb or so free for a tegra class game, but i think android handles ram awesomely to an extent but can be improved by implementing autokiller memory optimizer in a knowledgable and appropriate way that doesnt hurt optimizations android already has in place, zipaligning, increasing the dalvik heap size, etc... can all be done, im not asking about how android handles ram or anything, and im sorry i didnt know the question had been asked several times i am brand new to the captivate today, literally, and was doing not but seeking information i didnt understand or know, thank you for the explaination though i appreciate it, and im glad to know that my new captivate will utilize the left over 171mb of ram for something unlike my HD2 that couldnt access the last 100mb because it was designated to winmo only. i had an idea that was the case and i was just clarifying to myself because i kept reading rom changelogs stating "enabled more ram now 341mb available" or something along the lines of that and thought to myself "there should be more available already" lol
I honestly think 341MB is enough.
341 MB is alot. But something is taking all that up too. On a fresh boot, half of it is used, and I have 140~170 MB. Its even worse on GB. Most ive gotten is 100 MB free.
So if the half of the 341 plus the mysterious 171 MB that is nowhere to be found, I dont get whats using the other 171 that is not part of the 341. Lol confusing
Same happens to me. Who knows, lol
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
I think its the user interface graphics, like scrolling quality is good because that ram is dedicated to things
like that
Sent from cyanogen mod 7
As I previously read, out of the 512 MB of our O2X's, some 128-140 MB are reserved for the Tegra chip-set, and the rest of 380 MB are available to Android and applications.
With Froyo, there were usually 180-200 MB of memory free after booting/killing all apps, and like 90-130 MB free after normal usage. I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly, in the running apps screen, the sum of the used/available memory summed up to about the previous stated 380 MB.
After applying the GB update, after booting/killing all apps there are only 140 MB free and about 60 MB after some usage. If I go to Manage Apps -> Running apps, the sum of the used and available memory is around 310-320.
My question is: why is there less memory available in GB? Has LG increased the graphics memory from 128 MB to 192 MB? If yes, is it possible to change this allocation? Or is there a ROM that uses less graphics memory?
Maybe GB reports available memory differently, but it's definitely noticeable that there's less RAM available. If switching from browser to another app, with Froyo the page loaded was kept in memory, however with GB the page always has to be reloaded even if the switch lasted like 20-30 seconds.
Edit: I'd like to use less graphics memory and have more RAM so my apps run faster.
No the Vram is the same. The phone still has 380 mb ram to use for the OS and apps. Also free ram is wasted ram since apps are not cached so they will not launch faster.
taxas said:
No the Vram is the same. The phone still has 380 mb ram to use for the OS and apps. Also free ram is wasted ram since apps are not cached in for they will launch faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And therefore taskplanners are also not needed ;-)
KillerbeeNL said:
And therefore taskplanners are also not needed ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not completely true. Android kills automatically unneeded processes, that's true, but sometimes it happens that an app remains in background and uses the 100% of the CPU, so i use the task killers to terminate it.
Try Super charger, very efficient and not as resources consuming than apps. Search the dedicated thread.
And I don't think there is a way to free graphical memory. I don't think it's software driven but physical...
The only thing that had been made is to free the reserved memory for OTA LG service, that leaves you some more memory, but only available in some roms.
Striatum_bdr said:
Try Super charger, very efficient and not as resources consuming than apps. Search the dedicated thread.
And I don't think there is a way to free graphical memory. I don't think it's software driven but physical...
The only thing that had been made is to free the reserved memory for OTA LG service, that leaves you some more memory, but only available in some roms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its possible to give the GPU less memory, different defs have done it (i.e benee). But as far as i know most of them removed that tweak since it was causing alot of bugs.
And yes, free ram are most likely wasted ram.
Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk
If ya want to change vram look at this: https://raw.github.com/gist/1170959/73e5f41b1ad8b3bb65c8bd22d422a4fd877204a3/CarveoutMemory
It contains a little info about the things you need to change. Some skills required though
kiljacken said:
If ya want to change vram look at this: https://raw.github.com/gist/1170959/73e5f41b1ad8b3bb65c8bd22d422a4fd877204a3/CarveoutMemory
It contains a little info about the things you need to change. Some skills required though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi kiljacken !
I remember that you've made some times ago a kernel with 64mb more of ram...
Also for the stock rom...
butI can't find it anymore...
Any help?
Thanks for the replies guys!
It seems like if possible, it's very complicated to change the video memory allocation, so I'll leave it like that.
hey all!
i have question like that! im working on electronic factory and have no problems with solder out and in BGA chips even the smallest ones! now the question! if i will solder out the ram chip and solder back in 1GB ram chip of the same tipe and company(i have acces to all the part available on the market)?
oleg1981 said:
hey all!
i have question like that! im working on electronic factory and have no problems with solder out and in BGA chips even the smallest ones! now the question! if i will solder out the ram chip and solder back in 1GB ram chip of the same tipe and company(i have acces to all the part available on the market)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How small is the solder required? Would be amazing if we could upgrade.
Sent from my LG-P990 using Tapatalk
oleg1981 said:
hey all!
i have question like that! im working on electronic factory and have no problems with solder out and in BGA chips even the smallest ones! now the question! if i will solder out the ram chip and solder back in 1GB ram chip of the same tipe and company(i have acces to all the part available on the market)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm very unsure. I am sure though, that both kernel and boot image changes would be needed to run with the added memory
i think it's impposible to change the graphic memory size, maybe RAM hack? if you want to free RAM just use supercharger, i already used that and my free ram about 117-130 MB
It's completely possible, it's something that's controlled by the kernel.
Such kernels already were in the spring which reduced video memory by 64 Mb
Rusty! said:
It's completely possible, it's something that's controlled by the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so if I'm understanding correct if i will solder in new memory chip all i will need is to find how to change the ram value from 372 to 872?
oleg1981 said:
so if I'm understanding correct if i will solder in new memory chip all i will need is to find how to change the ram value from 372 to 872?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suppose if LG's programmers were careful enough not to hard-code any values, the phone should detect the memory like a computer detects new RAM. However ROMs which target multiple devices with different RAM, like CM, shouldn't have such issues...
I would LOVE 1GB ram! What would such ram cost?
Guys, RAM amounts are hardcoded into the kernel, so a custom kernel would be needed to use the ram. IF it's even possible to use such amounts of RAM. There migth be limitations in the bootloader, which will cause problems, but kernel changes should be enough. If you try it on your device I would be glad to provide a kernel that supports that amount of RAM, but I don't think it's doable. AFAIK the RAM is tightly packed in the device with many other components. It might even be built into the SoC making it impossible to change. But IDK, feel free to try what you want, but remember it's your device that gets destroyed if something goes wrong.
Do it OP!
Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk