From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 10/1/25 5:16 PM, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Not that I've tweaked. They just show up.
--
Linux Mint 22.2, Thunderbird 128.14.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 143.0.1
Alan K.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 01/10/2025 22:16, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

In a situation like the one you describe, the memory module is almost certainly not installed properly. Did you hear any clicks when you
pushed them in, and did the latches close automatically?

I am assuming that the memory module is compatible. They generally are.
A DR4 module installed in a DR4 slot will work, although there may be
some performance issues. However, it will be recognised if installed
properly. I'm surprised you didn't get BSD which would mean that they
are not installed properly and so the system is unaware of their existence.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In article <10bk88m$3at71$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Jack@invalid.invalid says...

On 01/10/2025 22:16, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

In a situation like the one you describe, the memory module is almost certainly not installed properly. Did you hear any clicks when you
pushed them in, and did the latches close automatically?

I am assuming that the memory module is compatible. They generally are.
A DR4 module installed in a DR4 slot will work, although there may be
some performance issues. However, it will be recognised if installed properly. I'm surprised you didn't get BSD which would mean that they
are not installed properly and so the system is unaware of their existence.

The memory is compatible. It's two DIMMs and both clicked
into place as they should.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 10/1/2025 6:18 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bk88m$3at71$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Jack@invalid.invalid says...

On 01/10/2025 22:16, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

In a situation like the one you describe, the memory module is almost
certainly not installed properly. Did you hear any clicks when you
pushed them in, and did the latches close automatically?

I am assuming that the memory module is compatible. They generally are.
A DR4 module installed in a DR4 slot will work, although there may be
some performance issues. However, it will be recognised if installed
properly. I'm surprised you didn't get BSD which would mean that they
are not installed properly and so the system is unaware of their existence.

The memory is compatible. It's two DIMMs and both clicked
into place as they should.

https://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_2.16-en.zip

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/QtXq3rXS/CPUZ-module-info.gif

Now, open an Administrator terminal window:

bcdedit

Then look in the output for a

removememory

truncatememory

{18b123cd-2bf6-11db-bfae-00e018e2b8db}

indicating that someone has configured the machine with
a "soft handcuff" on detected memory. You can have machines
where the OS was pre-configured (by the OEM) with a soft handcuff.
To be removed with an appropriate bcdedit command, to edit
the BCD file.

*******

You *never* run a computer, with new RAM, without a memtest run.
The Memtest indicator panel has your hardware details.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/sDHrtVJR/memtest86-plus.gif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MemTest86

https://www.memtest.org/

# Scroll to 50% of page. Looks like same advertising kit that CPUID is using.
# There is a USB stick installer that puts memtest on a USB stick for you.
# Seems my stick must be a few years old by the looks of it.

Two passes of memtest is plenty. This can take a couple hours
on the big machine (I used that machine, so I could keep typing on this machine).
The power supply on mine was overheating, due to poor cooling design on my part,
rather than excess heat from the memory test. The computer just needed
"more and more fans" :-/

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In article <10bkf83$mks2$1@dont-email.me>,
nospam@needed.invalid says...

On Wed, 10/1/2025 6:18 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bk88m$3at71$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Jack@invalid.invalid says...

On 01/10/2025 22:16, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

In a situation like the one you describe, the memory module is almost
certainly not installed properly. Did you hear any clicks when you
pushed them in, and did the latches close automatically?

I am assuming that the memory module is compatible. They generally are. >> A DR4 module installed in a DR4 slot will work, although there may be
some performance issues. However, it will be recognised if installed
properly. I'm surprised you didn't get BSD which would mean that they
are not installed properly and so the system is unaware of their existence.

The memory is compatible. It's two DIMMs and both clicked
into place as they should.

https://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_2.16-en.zip

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/QtXq3rXS/CPUZ-module-info.gif

Now, open an Administrator terminal window:

bcdedit

Then look in the output for a

removememory

truncatememory

{18b123cd-2bf6-11db-bfae-00e018e2b8db}

indicating that someone has configured the machine with
a "soft handcuff" on detected memory. You can have machines
where the OS was pre-configured (by the OEM) with a soft handcuff.
To be removed with an appropriate bcdedit command, to edit
the BCD file.

*******

bcdedit didn't show anything suspicious.
But cpu-z confirmed:16 GB :((

I did run several memory tests after installing the new
DIMMs - all reported nothing amis.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 10/1/2025 4:16 PM, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Are you sure that your motherboard can address more than 16 GB ?

Lynn

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Motherboard brand and model?

There are thousands of these, but you want us to guess yours. Nope.

Find a manual on it yet? That might tell you max RAM config.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

More info needed.

Old 16 GB ram in two or four slots.
New 64 GB in two slots?
- which two, if four.
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 10/1/2025 8:33 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bkf83$mks2$1@dont-email.me>,
nospam@needed.invalid says...

On Wed, 10/1/2025 6:18 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bk88m$3at71$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Jack@invalid.invalid says...

On 01/10/2025 22:16, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

In a situation like the one you describe, the memory module is almost >>>> certainly not installed properly. Did you hear any clicks when you
pushed them in, and did the latches close automatically?

I am assuming that the memory module is compatible. They generally are. >>>> A DR4 module installed in a DR4 slot will work, although there may be >>>> some performance issues. However, it will be recognised if installed
properly. I'm surprised you didn't get BSD which would mean that they >>>> are not installed properly and so the system is unaware of their existence.

The memory is compatible. It's two DIMMs and both clicked
into place as they should.

https://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_2.16-en.zip

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/QtXq3rXS/CPUZ-module-info.gif

Now, open an Administrator terminal window:

bcdedit

Then look in the output for a

removememory

truncatememory

{18b123cd-2bf6-11db-bfae-00e018e2b8db}

indicating that someone has configured the machine with
a "soft handcuff" on detected memory. You can have machines
where the OS was pre-configured (by the OEM) with a soft handcuff.
To be removed with an appropriate bcdedit command, to edit
the BCD file.

*******

bcdedit didn't show anything suspicious.
But cpu-z confirmed:16 GB :((

I did run several memory tests after installing the new
DIMMs - all reported nothing amis.

Run one DIMM, check amount.

Pull that out (with all power off, AC off at back or unplugged).

Use the second DIMM by itself, check amount.

The OS should be able to run on the one DIMM, for you to check.

Either your machine does not take high density RAM,
or something is amiss with the purchase. You could have
purchased a kit of two smaller DIMMs or something.

*******

It looks like I have been remiss, in assisting you.

I should have been asking for

Computer model number.
CPU model number (if you know it or the information is handy).

There are several limitations but:

1) DIMM density (an issue with address bits on chipset, versus address bits on DIMM)
2) Chipset has a memory map limitation and will not accept addresses above
8GB, or 16GB, or whatever.
3) As in (1), there is a limit as to what DIMMs you can use. My 4930K DDR3,
it could accept 8GB DIMMs, but not 16GB DIMMs. It might run a 16GB DIMM as
an 8GB DIMM for example.
4) The wrong SPD was soldered to the DIMM. One poster had that happen.
We figured that out, using the CPUZ text file and the SPD declaration table.

Anyway, pop me some info about the two items of info above,
and if you're in a rush, you can use the Crucial info page
and see if they recommend putting any big DIMMs in your machine.
When a computer model number is missing, it means the RAM is
soldered down and there is no SODIMM slot.

On my laptop, I can't even do a "recommend" for my own self,
due to the almost total lack of info on the web now. I think it takes
old style 4GB DDR3 SODIMMs, but those aren't exactly popping out of the
oven at the moment. I can likely only get my upgrade there, via Ebay.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 10/1/2025 8:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 10/1/2025 4:16 PM, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Are you sure that your motherboard can address more than 16 GB ?

Lynn

He is going to get us the model number so we can check.

I forgot to ask for this, previously.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

OK, so now we wait to figure out if

2x32
4x16

were installed.

Intel Z370 <=== PCH (not part of memory path!)
LGA1151 ?
Sample of a CPU that would work in it: Core i7-9700

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/191792/intel-core-i79700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz/specifications.html

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB <=== as a speculation then, a processor that new should work with 4x32GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666

We'll have to see what Jason has as a CPU, for more info and to run
the Intel search again.

The spread on the unit is this list. It's not clear if any other
processor generations run in there, and these should all be 4x32GB max.

Core i7-9700Intel
Core i7-9700KIntel
Core i9-9900KIntel
Core i5-9400Intel
Core i9-9900Intel

We will need the model number of the RAM now, to check out
that aspect of it. See what the module details have to offer.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 10/2/2025 1:21 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

OK, so now we wait to figure out if

2x32
4x16

were installed.

Intel Z370 <=== PCH (not part of memory path!)
LGA1151 ?
Sample of a CPU that would work in it: Core i7-9700

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/191792/intel-core-i79700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz/specifications.html

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB <=== as a speculation then, a processor that new should work with 4x32GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666

We'll have to see what Jason has as a CPU, for more info and to run
the Intel search again.

The spread on the unit is this list. It's not clear if any other
processor generations run in there, and these should all be 4x32GB max.

Core i7-9700Intel
Core i7-9700KIntel
Core i9-9900KIntel
Core i5-9400Intel
Core i9-9900Intel

We will need the model number of the RAM now, to check out
that aspect of it. See what the module details have to offer.

Crucial usually copies the manufacturer recommendation in terms of module types.
There aren't any 32GB modules listed. There are six product offerings for the R9.

https://www.crucial.com/compatible-upgrade-for/alienware/aurora-r9#tabs-DRAM-tab

16GBx2
16GBx1
16GBx2
16GBx1
8GB
8GBx2

Sometimes a BIOS is not prepared with code for a module type.
For example, the chips on my VIA 4Core board for Core2 processors,
the chipset maker claimed it supported 2x1GB DIMMs. When in fact
the evidence while standing in front of the thing, is it actually
supported 2x2GB DIMMs. Yet, the BIOS did not know how to set the
Tsu and Th for the 2GB DIMM type, so the modules would constantly
blow errors and I couldn't run the system that way. I could have
manually tested some settings choices, but I would have had a lot
of combinations of settings to test. Since the modules were borrowed
from another machine, it wasn't a big deal to put them back there.

That's not the problem in this case.

We'll need to see more detail about the modules themselves, to
see if there is a suspicious aspect to them.

The Intel side, may point at 32GB modules as being workable.
The evidence so far points at a density problem of some sort.
Or, the modules aren't really the size they claim to be.
A 32GB DDR4 for example, should be double sided. I don't
think a typical consumer module of that capacity can be
single sided.

8GB module SS and 1GB chips \
16GB module DS and 1GB chips \
SS and 2GB chips \___ Assumes x8 width chips
32GB module DS and 2GB chips / as a typical consumer type

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 10/2/2025 2:49 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 1:21 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

The pictures here are a little dark. If you take the motherboard
picture and bump up the brightness and contrast, you can almost
see the DIMM slots on the R9.

https://tavesper.tech/2020/05/alienware-aurora-r9-review/

It's water cooled and short-sheeted on VCore. Power supply seems
to be on a hinge of some sort. It's possible only the radiator
on the water cooling and the radiator fans, are the only cooling.

A Redditor reports problems on a RAM upgrade, with blowing errors.
And this is DDR4, which should "just work" too. I have three loads of DDR4 to test with here, and "not a squeak" in terms of issues. My DDR3 experience wasn't like that, and I had to drop the clock frequency and tune and that
took a week. All the RAM was detected on my DDR3 setup, but it did not really like having all slots filled, the machine was better behaved with sticks
on the ends of each of the four channels. The OPs symptoms aren't
like that, and a detection issue is more suspicious and reminds you
of "another time", like we'd traveled in a time machine a bit. How could
Dell have managed that I wonder, the Time Machine and cranky-ass setup ?

*******

https://www.dell.com/support/product-details/en-ca/product/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/drivers

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/mr1dzqVn/Aurora-R9-BIOS-offerings-R23-then-R26.gif

Release 1.0.4 is the last one that mentions anything to do with memory
and XMP tuning. Most of the other releases appear to be related to
security issues (like maybe Spectre/Meltdown microcode and the like,
although the release notes are just too terse for words.

I don't expect there would really be any symptom relief, merely
from a Dell BIOS update.

On an Asus, there might be five early BIOS updates where memory
tuning is done. They alternate between "stabilize" and "aggressive"
tunes on their more expensive setups. Usually by then, the labwork
from customer feedback is done. On low-popularity boards, you
could get as few as one BIOS update (like a very expensive WRX maybe),
which is why owning motherboards which are "popular" or "mainstream"
is in your best interest.

Summary: Not convinced the hammer approach will work on this one.
May have to play RAM roulette. Need more feedback from OP
and specific RAM info like the web page it was bought from
with model number details and so on.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 10/1/25 11:49 PM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 1:21 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

OK, so now we wait to figure out if

2x32
4x16

were installed.

Intel Z370 <=== PCH (not part of memory path!)
LGA1151 ?
Sample of a CPU that would work in it: Core i7-9700

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/191792/intel-core-i79700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz/specifications.html

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB <=== as a speculation then, a processor that new should work with 4x32GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666

We'll have to see what Jason has as a CPU, for more info and to run
the Intel search again.

The spread on the unit is this list. It's not clear if any other
processor generations run in there, and these should all be 4x32GB max.

Core i7-9700Intel
Core i7-9700KIntel
Core i9-9900KIntel
Core i5-9400Intel
Core i9-9900Intel

We will need the model number of the RAM now, to check out
that aspect of it. See what the module details have to offer.

Crucial usually copies the manufacturer recommendation in terms of module types.
There aren't any 32GB modules listed. There are six product offerings for the R9.

https://www.crucial.com/compatible-upgrade-for/alienware/aurora-r9#tabs-DRAM-tab

16GBx2
16GBx1
16GBx2
16GBx1
8GB
8GBx2

Sometimes a BIOS is not prepared with code for a module type.
For example, the chips on my VIA 4Core board for Core2 processors,
the chipset maker claimed it supported 2x1GB DIMMs. When in fact
the evidence while standing in front of the thing, is it actually
supported 2x2GB DIMMs. Yet, the BIOS did not know how to set the
Tsu and Th for the 2GB DIMM type, so the modules would constantly
blow errors and I couldn't run the system that way. I could have
manually tested some settings choices, but I would have had a lot
of combinations of settings to test. Since the modules were borrowed
from another machine, it wasn't a big deal to put them back there.

That's not the problem in this case.

We'll need to see more detail about the modules themselves, to
see if there is a suspicious aspect to them.

The Intel side, may point at 32GB modules as being workable.
The evidence so far points at a density problem of some sort.
Or, the modules aren't really the size they claim to be.
A 32GB DDR4 for example, should be double sided. I don't
think a typical consumer module of that capacity can be
single sided.

8GB module SS and 1GB chips \
16GB module DS and 1GB chips \
SS and 2GB chips \___ Assumes x8 width chips
32GB module DS and 2GB chips / as a typical consumer type

Paul

I like going to Kingston's web site and entering the
mobo's model number. They give you back what it can take.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In article <10bki2q$cq96$1@solani.org>, lynnmcguire5
@gmail.com says...

On 10/1/2025 4:16 PM, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Are you sure that your motherboard can address more than 16 GB ?

Lynn

It's and Aurora r9, 64 GB max.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 10/2/25 1:41 PM, Jason wrote:

Aurora r9

https://www.kingston.com/en/memory/search/model/100641/dell-alienware-aurora-r9-desktop?status=active&capacity=16&ranking=1r&chip_org=x8&compwidth=16gbit


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Service-Manual/system-board-components?guid=guid-238de792-1e85-4294-891f-ec985c8470ab&lang=en-us

I would approach the problem thusly:
(Assumes that you have four 16gb sticks)
Put one stick only in slot 1 and boot.
What does CPUZ say?
If 16 then put second stick in Dell's slot #2 (see pdf).
If cpuz says 32 gb then put stick #3 in slot 3.
If 48 gb then put stick #4 in slot 4.
If any of the above does not work then remove all ram and put
each stick in slot one, one at a time, and boot.
That will verify the ram is good.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 03/10/2025 02:09, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

I would approach the problem thusly:
(Assumes that you have four 16gb sticks)
Put one stick only in slot 1 and boot.

The best approach is to remove all the RAM modules and then reboot the
system. I know this will result in errors, but at least it will reset
the BIOS without any RAM.

Then, as you suggested, I will insert the RAM modules one by one to find
out which one is defective. Provided he takes proper precautions and
doesn't do anything foolish, there is no need to shut the box while he's
doing this.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 10/2/2025 11:12 PM, Jack wrote:

On 03/10/2025 02:09, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

I would approach the problem thusly:
(Assumes that you have four 16gb sticks)
Put one stick only in slot 1 and boot.

The best approach is to remove all the RAM modules and then reboot the system. I know this will result in errors, but at least it will reset
the BIOS without any RAM.

Then, as you suggested, I will insert the RAM modules one by one to find
out which one is defective. Provided he takes proper precautions and
doesn't do anything foolish, there is no need to shut the box while he's doing this.

This is a per-design call on motherboard designs.

Some motherboards reset the BIOS to default settings,
just by abruptly power cycling three times. Overclocker boards
have this feature.

A Dell product doesn't have to do that, an Asus/MSI/Gigabyte/Asrock
might do that.

If you're worried about machine response, a "teaser stick"
of RAM installed in a machine, will restore sanity. A poster
in another group, tried to install 2x48GB DDR5 with ECC, and
the machine did not like that. I had the poster pull the
2x48GB and install a single 8GB non-ECC UDIMM in the machine,
and BIOS operation was restored on power up. Any time there
is a "hardware inventory change", this info is stored in DMI
and every time you change the RAM config, the DMI is examined
for changes, and rewritten with the new information. On
a Dell, the BIOS log screen, will even show you the *history*
of hardware changes.

The OP knows whether the Alienware machine has some sort of
Dell BIOS in it, in terms of responses. Retail motherboards
have Award, AMI, Phoenix, Insyde as BIOS company choices and
the core part of those BIOS, the motherboard company does not
have the source code. Certain parts of a BIOS image are
assembled by motherboard company staff, to make the BIOS
we use. But parts of it can only be hacked, after a fashion.
RAM tuning still seems to be exposed on those four company BIOS
images, and the user can also modify the RAM settings. On a Dell
(like the one I've got), there is no setting for RAM and it
is all automated. An Alienware, from a history perspective,
is an "overclockers" machine and Dell knows it must have
a "memory control panel for editing stuff". The controls
should be there.

We don't know currently, whether the OP has single-sided
16GB modules or double-sided 16GB modules. This is
termed "the density issue". The first formulation is
the "high density" DIMM case. The second module, double
sided RAM is the "low density" DIMM case. The Intel status
page for the 9700K indicates 128GB as max RAM, and this
implies double sided 32GB modules. This *should have*
allowed either type of 16GB module to work, whether
single sided (high density), or double sided (low density).

But given the Dell Corporation is working the controls here,
even though the BIOS has been through 26 revisions, they haven't
touched the memory compatibility behavior since release 4.
I examined the release notes for the revisions, to track
the changes, and most BIOS are issued for CVE prevention.
So whatever crappy "we don't know what we're doing"
RAM configuration behaviors, are unlikely to have ever
been fixed.

When the machine was released, maybe there were no 32GB modules
(high density) to test with. (My room is filled with such
modules here.) The CPU supports them. The BIOS
might not. With the "old" support then, only double sided
16GB modules are "guaranteed to work". If you buy a 16GB
module today, you have every right to expect a single
sided module (might not work) versus the double sided
module which would always have worked.

I have been through four generations of this behavior,
helping posters resolve density issues caused by idiots.
The high density modules show up in droves at the end
of machine life, and it causes the grief I have to fix
here as best I can.

In one case, Kingston stepped off the wagon and took
to drinking again. When you bought a certain Kingston
module, their contractor was filling the order with
a *mixture* of high density and low density modu7es.
Kingston never used to do this. The Kingston datasheet
calls out precisely one allowed RAM chip configuration.
The contractor is not allowed to violate what is printed
in that sheet. If a product is "low density" based on
the eng drawing of the module, the contractor *must ship*
the proper module design. So at some point Kingston
said "you know, we don't give a fuck about engineering",
and once they started mixing those modules and causing
grief, that's when Kingston went on my list of banned
recommendations for RAM. If the user is expected to
"sort modules into good and bad piles", who the hell
should be buying from them ?

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 10/3/2025 12:14 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 11:12 PM, Jack wrote:

On 03/10/2025 02:09, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

I would approach the problem thusly:
(Assumes that you have four 16gb sticks)
Put one stick only in slot 1 and boot.

The best approach is to remove all the RAM modules and then reboot the
system. I know this will result in errors, but at least it will reset
the BIOS without any RAM.

Then, as you suggested, I will insert the RAM modules one by one to find
out which one is defective. Provided he takes proper precautions and
doesn't do anything foolish, there is no need to shut the box while he's
doing this.

Here is a demonstration of a density problem on the Aurora R9.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Alienware/comments/10fjvge/2x32_gb_ram_not_working_aurora_r9/

"I bought 2x32 gb Corsair ddr4 ram cards ... <more detail snipped>
But when I put them in xmm3&1 the computer starts up as normal,
yet it only reads that I have 32 gb total ram when I should have 64 gb total.
"

That's what I expect from a density problem. Via a (suspected) missing
address bit on memory controller designs, you expect half the capacity
to be detected. It is half capacity on each rank, and therefore
half capacity all round when doing the arithmetic.

The Intel web site, for the LGA1151 CPUs typically stuffed in
the Aurora R9, lists 128GB as the RAM limit, which would then
assume a high density RAM module of 32GB capacity should work.
Since 32GB modules don't use 4GB chips, they come with 2GB chips
eight per side, sixteen chips total, that also allows determining that
a 16GB single sided DIMM should fully work too. Yet the Dell
product does not demonstrate this.

However, to add extra colour to the situation, the OP does not
even report half capacity. The OP reports something else.

The reason DIMMs can even do this, is there are two RAM
size detection methods. The SPD is first trusted as a declaration.
However, some pretty clever people, they kept the power-of-two
peek n' poke sizing detection of DIMMs, so even though the
DIMM says "my size is X", they run the old style size determination
(used when SPD declarations did not exist), and that routine
returns "your size is Y" and Y is the trusted answer and is used
for the remainder of the session (when the OS boots). The memory
map plan is based on the Y value, so there is zero chance
of a part of the address space going into lala land. This has
solved innumerable DIMM issues at startup, ensuring that
computers start, even when something weird is going on down
there.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or
your mobo's firmware needs an update.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

lynnmcguire5@gmail.com SAID ...

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but Windows still
reports only 16. There must be a setting somewhere.....

Are you sure that your motherboard can address more than 16 GB ?

It's and Aurora r9, 64 GB max.

You said you upgraded the RAM from 16 to 64. Sounds like you had 1
memory stick, and then added 3 more. Did the 3 you add match on brand
and model of the 1 you already had, or did you mix 3 different new ones
with the existing old 1? You may have to go back to the dealer to buy
another 1 that is the same as the 3 you added.

Also make sure the new memory sticks are fully seated in the slots along
their complete length.

According to:

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/alienware-aurora-r9-service-manual/installing-the-memory-modules?guid=guid-f3fcc2b6-bb4b-41c3-a34c-d4b75b35d62f&lang=en-us

the 64 GB configuration requires you have 16 GB memory modules in all 4
slots, and they must match on type. You can have 4 DDR, or 4 XMP, but
I'm not sure you can mix DDR with XMP (eXtreme Memory Profile, which
reports specs to the BIOS beyond SPD to let it determine best highest
memory clocking assuming you did not already overclock the mobo). I've
never bothered trying to mix-and-match different brands, models, and
types together, but rather get a complete set of matching sticks when
doing a new build. If you are using XMP sticks, there is a setting in
the BIOS as to which XMP profile to use (i.e., how aggressive the timing
the manufacturer claims the memory will handle reliably). My mobo only
does XMP 2, but newer mobos can do XMP 3. In the manuals for your mobo,
I did not see DDR5 where XMP 3 is available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_presence_detect#Intel_Extreme_Memory_Profile_(XMP)
https://www.pcgamer.com/what-are-xmp-profiles-and-how-do-i-use-them/

You identified your computer. Now identify the 1 stick you had, and the
3 sticks you added.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 2:49 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 1:21 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

The pictures here are a little dark. If you take the motherboard
picture and bump up the brightness and contrast, you can almost
see the DIMM slots on the R9.

https://i.postimg.cc/13HCxv1G/Alienware-Aurora-R9.jpg

Four slots (Black White Black White Lock-down tabs)
DIMM slots possibly labeled(left to right) or described in manual
A1 A2 B1 B2

With 2 DIMM chips - which the op seems to have stated

The question becomes which slots are those DIMMs inserted.
For many mobos - best dual channel compatibility for 2 DIMMs => A2 B2
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 10/2/2025 1:21 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

OK, so now we wait to figure out if

2x32
4x16

were installed.

Intel Z370 <=== PCH (not part of memory path!)
LGA1151 ?
Sample of a CPU that would work in it: Core i7-9700

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/191792/intel-core-i79700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz/specifications.html

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB <=== as a speculation then, a processor that new should work with 4x32GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666

We'll have to see what Jason has as a CPU, for more info and to run
the Intel search again.

The spread on the unit is this list. It's not clear if any other
processor generations run in there, and these should all be 4x32GB max.

Core i7-9700Intel
Core i7-9700KIntel
Core i9-9900KIntel
Core i5-9400Intel
Core i9-9900Intel

We will need the model number of the RAM now, to check out
that aspect of it. See what the module details have to offer.

Paul

I do not know details but why not do a simple test and remove old memory
stick and fill only the first slots with the new memory and see if
recognized. If OK try with old stick added back in last slot.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 10/3/25 9:17 PM, Zaidy036 wrote:

On 10/2/2025 1:21 AM, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 10/2/2025 12:29 AM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

Jason,
Is this the same Alienware Aurora R9 that you posted about on Sep 16?

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/alienware-aurora-r9-desktop/Alienware-Aurora-R9-Setup-and-Specifications/memory?guid=guid-b0024580-18d7-4e8e-b494-84193888b9ee&lang=en-us

OK, so now we wait to figure out if

2x32
4x16

were installed.

Intel Z370 <=== PCH (not part of memory path!)
LGA1151 ?
Sample of a CPU that would work in it: Core i7-9700

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/191792/intel-core-i79700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz/specifications.html

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB <=== as a speculation then, a processor that new should work with 4x32GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666

We'll have to see what Jason has as a CPU, for more info and to run
the Intel search again.

The spread on the unit is this list. It's not clear if any other
processor generations run in there, and these should all be 4x32GB max.

Core i7-9700Intel
Core i7-9700KIntel
Core i9-9900KIntel
Core i5-9400Intel
Core i9-9900Intel

We will need the model number of the RAM now, to check out
that aspect of it. See what the module details have to offer.

Paul

I do not know details but why not do a simple test and remove old memory stick and fill only the first slots with the new memory and see if recognized. If OK try with old stick added back in last slot.

I had a mobo once that 2 dead sockets.
--
Linux Mint 22.2, Thunderbird 128.14.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 143.0.1
Alan K.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 21:56:14 +0000, Jack wrote:

On 01/10/2025 22:16, Jason wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but Windows still
reports only 16. There must be a setting somewhere.....

In a situation like the one you describe, the memory module is almost certainly not installed properly. Did you hear any clicks when you
pushed them in, and did the latches close automatically?

I am assuming that the memory module is compatible. They generally are.
A DR4 module installed in a DR4 slot will work, although there may be
some performance issues. However, it will be recognised if installed properly. I'm surprised you didn't get BSD which would mean that they
are not installed properly and so the system is unaware of their
existence.

I had such a problem too. It turned out to be the wire to a case fan was preventing the latch from closing completely, so some of the contacts on
the RAM module weren't connected.
--
82 days until the winter celebration (Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions."
[Phyllis Schlafly]
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or
your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or
your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Four slots (Black White Black White Lock-down tabs)
DIMM slots as an example labeled(left to right) or described in manual
A1 A2 B1 B2

Two chips - are they installed in A2 B2 (i.e. the second and fourth slot)
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Wed, 10/8/2025 3:59 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or
your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Show me the web page of the RAM you bought.

Maybe you got a 4x4GB kit and not a 4x16GB kit,
as based on high density versus low density, that
almost never reports in error by a factor of 4.
It tends to be off by a factor of 2 in most cases.

I have a 64GB machine here. CPU is 3600 capable, I used
3200 RAM in it. XMP should not work with four sticks,
but the BIOS just snapped to attention and used the XMP
settings for all four sticks like it was nothing. A previous
DDR3 machine, put up much more of a struggle, costing
me a week of work to put right:

F4-3200C16D-32GVK \
DDR4-3200 16GBx2 \___ Two sticks in this package
CL16-18-18-38 1.35V /

F4-3200C16D-32GVK \
DDR4-3200 16GBx2 \___ Two sticks in this package
CL16-18-18-38 1.35V /

Total 64GB. Low density. Chips on both sides of the modules.

If you installed all four new sticks, the BIOS should
start using them in a non-XMP mode. Maybe they would run
at 1866 or so on the first POST. A good BIOS would also be able to automatically
select 2666 (out of the RAM 3200 capability), using the JEDEC
table. Using CPUZ, you can gather information on timing.

When you test one stick at a time, that should further enhance
your ability to identify what capabilities each stick alone has.
Then, if the symptoms point out something weird happens when
all four sticks are plugged in, that is an additional data point
to analyze and consider.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul wrote:

On Wed, 10/8/2025 3:59 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or >>> your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Show me the web page of the RAM you bought.

Maybe you got a 4x4GB kit and not a 4x16GB kit,
as based on high density versus low density, that
almost never reports in error by a factor of 4.
It tends to be off by a factor of 2 in most cases.

I have a 64GB machine here. CPU is 3600 capable, I used
3200 RAM in it. XMP should not work with four sticks,
but the BIOS just snapped to attention and used the XMP
settings for all four sticks like it was nothing. A previous
DDR3 machine, put up much more of a struggle, costing
me a week of work to put right:

F4-3200C16D-32GVK \
DDR4-3200 16GBx2 \___ Two sticks in this package
CL16-18-18-38 1.35V /

F4-3200C16D-32GVK \
DDR4-3200 16GBx2 \___ Two sticks in this package
CL16-18-18-38 1.35V /

Total 64GB. Low density. Chips on both sides of the modules.

If you installed all four new sticks, the BIOS should
start using them in a non-XMP mode. Maybe they would run
at 1866 or so on the first POST. A good BIOS would also be able to automatically
select 2666 (out of the RAM 3200 capability), using the JEDEC
table. Using CPUZ, you can gather information on timing.

When you test one stick at a time, that should further enhance
your ability to identify what capabilities each stick alone has.
Then, if the symptoms point out something weird happens when
all four sticks are plugged in, that is an additional data point
to analyze and consider.

Paul

On Oct 1, Jason indicated:
Upgraded from 16 to 64 and also stated in his second reply(same day)
"It's two DIMMs and both clicked into place as they should"

i.e. If it now was four sticks the second two sticks would have to be 48 GB(which would be quite odd, unusual, etc.)
Thus, it appears only two sticks(not four)

Was your 'if you installed four sticks' comment just for explanation if
there were 4 sticks(even though only two dimms with 64 GB total were in
use)?

I still would like to know which slots(of the 4 available)those 'two'
sticks are installed.
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 10/9/2025 1:00 PM, ...winston wrote:

Paul wrote:

On Wed, 10/8/2025 3:59 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or >>>> your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Show me the web page of the RAM you bought.

Maybe you got a 4x4GB kit and not a 4x16GB kit,
as based on high density versus low density, that
almost never reports in error by a factor of 4.
It tends to be off by a factor of 2 in most cases.

I have a 64GB machine here. CPU is 3600 capable, I used
3200 RAM in it. XMP should not work with four sticks,
but the BIOS just snapped to attention and used the XMP
settings for all four sticks like it was nothing. A previous
DDR3 machine, put up much more of a struggle, costing
me a week of work to put right:

-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package
-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package
-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a Total 64GB. Low density. Chips on both sides of the modules.

If you installed all four new sticks, the BIOS should
start using them in a non-XMP mode. Maybe they would run
at 1866 or so on the first POST. A good BIOS would also be able to automatically
select 2666 (out of the RAM 3200 capability), using the JEDEC
table. Using CPUZ, you can gather information on timing.

When you test one stick at a time, that should further enhance
your ability to identify what capabilities each stick alone has.
Then, if the symptoms point out something weird happens when
all four sticks are plugged in, that is an additional data point
to analyze and consider.

-a-a-a Paul

On Oct 1, Jason indicated:
-aUpgraded from 16 to 64 and also stated in his second reply(same day)
"It's two DIMMs and both clicked into place as they should"

i.e. If it now was four sticks the second two sticks would have to be 48 GB(which would be quite odd, unusual, etc.)
Thus, it appears only two sticks(not four)

Was your 'if you installed four sticks' comment just for explanation if there were 4 sticks(even though only two dimms with 64 GB total were in use)?

I still would like to know which slots(of the 4 available)those 'two' sticks are installed.

If it is 2x32GB installed, instead of 4x16GB installed, that seems to be
OK if you look at the 9700 processor information on Intel.com . If you
believe Intel, there shouldn't be any "density issues" if the limit
really is 128GB as Intel claims.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/186604/intel-core-i79700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz/specifications.html

Launch Date Q4'18
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666
Sockets Supported LGA1151

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901211828/https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186604/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

... 128GB

On the day it was released, the stated limit was ... 64GB. And after
twenty some odd BIOS releases, you don't expect the RAM code in
the Dell to have been updated. Not on a contracted BIOS.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181009013131/https://ark.intel.com/products/186604/

... 64GB

It's if you believe Dell/Alienware on this, that the processor has a 64GB
limit and you don't believe the Intel-listed 128GB limit, that you
end up in <unknown> territory.

It is possible for a BIOS to not have support for a certain density of
memory. That happened on my Asrock 4Core board. Even the *manufacturer*
of the chipset, listed the wrong limit. But because the BIOS did not
properly support the density of chip involved, using the higher
capacity RAM kept throwing errors. Which is not something Jason is
reporting. No sign of a "half-assed support" for the 32GB stick.

If the BIOS insists on policing a 64GB limit (address map plan), or pretending DIMMs
above 16GB in capacity do not exist, what symptoms can we expect ?
That is part of the question. It's one thing for a technical failure
at a hardware level (missing address bit causes 1/2 sized module report).
It's quite another to make up random symptoms by poorly crafted
BIOS code.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul wrote on 10/9/2025 1:57 PM:

On Thu, 10/9/2025 1:00 PM, ...winston wrote:

Paul wrote:

On Wed, 10/8/2025 3:59 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or >>>>> your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Show me the web page of the RAM you bought.

Maybe you got a 4x4GB kit and not a 4x16GB kit,
as based on high density versus low density, that
almost never reports in error by a factor of 4.
It tends to be off by a factor of 2 in most cases.

I have a 64GB machine here. CPU is 3600 capable, I used
3200 RAM in it. XMP should not work with four sticks,
but the BIOS just snapped to attention and used the XMP
settings for all four sticks like it was nothing. A previous
DDR3 machine, put up much more of a struggle, costing
me a week of work to put right:

-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package
-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package
-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a Total 64GB. Low density. Chips on both sides of the modules.

If you installed all four new sticks, the BIOS should
start using them in a non-XMP mode. Maybe they would run
at 1866 or so on the first POST. A good BIOS would also be able to automatically
select 2666 (out of the RAM 3200 capability), using the JEDEC
table. Using CPUZ, you can gather information on timing.

When you test one stick at a time, that should further enhance
your ability to identify what capabilities each stick alone has.
Then, if the symptoms point out something weird happens when
all four sticks are plugged in, that is an additional data point
to analyze and consider.

-a-a-a Paul

On Oct 1, Jason indicated:
-aUpgraded from 16 to 64 and also stated in his second reply(same day)
"It's two DIMMs and both clicked into place as they should"

i.e. If it now was four sticks the second two sticks would have to be 48 GB(which would be quite odd, unusual, etc.)
Thus, it appears only two sticks(not four)

Was your 'if you installed four sticks' comment just for explanation if there were 4 sticks(even though only two dimms with 64 GB total were in use)?

I still would like to know which slots(of the 4 available)those 'two' sticks are installed.

If it is 2x32GB installed, instead of 4x16GB installed, that seems to be
OK if you look at the 9700 processor information on Intel.com . If you believe Intel, there shouldn't be any "density issues" if the limit
really is 128GB as Intel claims.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/186604/intel-core-i79700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz/specifications.html

Launch Date Q4'18
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 128 GB
Memory Types DDR4-2666
Sockets Supported LGA1151

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901211828/https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186604/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

... 128GB

On the day it was released, the stated limit was ... 64GB. And after
twenty some odd BIOS releases, you don't expect the RAM code in
the Dell to have been updated. Not on a contracted BIOS.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181009013131/https://ark.intel.com/products/186604/

... 64GB

It's if you believe Dell/Alienware on this, that the processor has a 64GB limit and you don't believe the Intel-listed 128GB limit, that you
end up in <unknown> territory.

It is possible for a BIOS to not have support for a certain density of memory. That happened on my Asrock 4Core board. Even the *manufacturer*
of the chipset, listed the wrong limit. But because the BIOS did not
properly support the density of chip involved, using the higher
capacity RAM kept throwing errors. Which is not something Jason is
reporting. No sign of a "half-assed support" for the 32GB stick.

If the BIOS insists on policing a 64GB limit (address map plan), or pretending DIMMs
above 16GB in capacity do not exist, what symptoms can we expect ?
That is part of the question. It's one thing for a technical failure
at a hardware level (missing address bit causes 1/2 sized module report). It's quite another to make up random symptoms by poorly crafted
BIOS code.

Paul

I think were on the same page now
=> Two sticks not four

Now, since we know that the BIOS reports 16GB with the new(two) sticks(installed), it still leaves my earlier question unanswered
- Which slots are those two sticks installed.
With only two sticks, they should be in the 2nd and 4th slot.
Once verified in those slots, then see what the BIOS reports.
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Mon, 10/13/2025 9:21 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

Paul wrote on 10/9/2025 1:57 PM:

On Thu, 10/9/2025 1:00 PM, ...winston wrote:

Paul wrote:

On Wed, 10/8/2025 3:59 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or >>>>>> your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Show me the web page of the RAM you bought.

Maybe you got a 4x4GB kit and not a 4x16GB kit,
as based on high density versus low density, that
almost never reports in error by a factor of 4.
It tends to be off by a factor of 2 in most cases.

I have a 64GB machine here. CPU is 3600 capable, I used
3200 RAM in it. XMP should not work with four sticks,
but the BIOS just snapped to attention and used the XMP
settings for all four sticks like it was nothing. A previous
DDR3 machine, put up much more of a struggle, costing
me a week of work to put right:

-a-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package
-a-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package
-a-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a-a Total 64GB. Low density. Chips on both sides of the modules. >>>>
If you installed all four new sticks, the BIOS should
start using them in a non-XMP mode. Maybe they would run
at 1866 or so on the first POST. A good BIOS would also be able to automatically
select 2666 (out of the RAM 3200 capability), using the JEDEC
table. Using CPUZ, you can gather information on timing.

When you test one stick at a time, that should further enhance
your ability to identify what capabilities each stick alone has.
Then, if the symptoms point out something weird happens when
all four sticks are plugged in, that is an additional data point
to analyze and consider.

-a-a-a-a Paul

On Oct 1, Jason indicated:
-a-aUpgraded from 16 to 64 and also stated in his second reply(same day) >>> "It's two DIMMs and both clicked into place as they should"

i.e. If it now was four sticks the second two sticks would have to be 48 GB(which would be quite odd, unusual, etc.)
Thus, it appears only two sticks(not four)

Was your 'if you installed four sticks' comment just for explanation if there were 4 sticks(even though only two dimms with 64 GB total were in use)?

I still would like to know which slots(of the 4 available)those 'two' sticks are installed.

If it is 2x32GB installed, instead of 4x16GB installed, that seems to be
OK if you look at the 9700 processor information on Intel.com . If you
believe Intel, there shouldn't be any "density issues" if the limit
really is 128GB as Intel claims.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/186604/intel-core-i79700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz/specifications.html

Launch Date-a Q4'18
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type)-a 128 GB
Memory Types-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a DDR4-2666
Sockets Supported-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a LGA1151

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901211828/https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186604/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

... 128GB

On the day it was released, the stated limit was ... 64GB. And after
twenty some odd BIOS releases, you don't expect the RAM code in
the Dell to have been updated. Not on a contracted BIOS.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181009013131/https://ark.intel.com/products/186604/

... 64GB

It's if you believe Dell/Alienware on this, that the processor has a 64GB
limit and you don't believe the Intel-listed 128GB limit, that you
end up in <unknown> territory.

It is possible for a BIOS to not have support for a certain density of
memory. That happened on my Asrock 4Core board. Even the *manufacturer*
of the chipset, listed the wrong limit. But because the BIOS did not
properly support the density of chip involved, using the higher
capacity RAM kept throwing errors. Which is not something Jason is
reporting. No sign of a "half-assed support" for the 32GB stick.

If the BIOS insists on policing a 64GB limit (address map plan), or pretending DIMMs
above 16GB in capacity do not exist, what symptoms can we expect ?
That is part of the question. It's one thing for a technical failure
at a hardware level (missing address bit causes 1/2 sized module report).
It's quite another to make up random symptoms by poorly crafted
BIOS code.

-a-a-a Paul

I think were on the same page now

Two sticks not four

Now, since we know that the BIOS reports 16GB with the new(two) sticks(installed), it still leaves my earlier question unanswered
-a- Which slots are those two sticks installed.
With only two sticks, they should be in the 2nd and 4th slot.
-aOnce verified in those slots, then see what the BIOS reports.

I think Jason has the manual for the Aurora R9, showing
the preferred end-of-bus slot numbers.

If you drop this picture into your photo editor and adjust
the brightness and contrast, you can see the sticks in this
picture, are in the preferred location for having 2 sticks installed.
This is likely the appearance of the box, as shipped.

https://tavesper.tech/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AuroraR9_TAV-6.jpg

( https://tavesper.tech/2020/05/alienware-aurora-r9-review/ )

V S Water-Cooled D D D D Basic machine layout, viewed
C i CPU Block i i i i with PSU hinged outward for
o n m m m m maintenance work
r k m m m m
e

And this is where you would put a matched pair of DIMMs.

V S Water-Cooled _ D _ D Each DIMM is on the end of a channel.
C i CPU Block _ i _ i
o n _ m _ m
r k _ m _ m
e

In modern times, you don't need to match the DIMMs. Each slot could
have a different size. This is called Intel Flex Memory support. But
for the best uniform speed of the memory, it helps to install in
matched pairs.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul wrote:

On Mon, 10/13/2025 9:21 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

Paul wrote on 10/9/2025 1:57 PM:

On Thu, 10/9/2025 1:00 PM, ...winston wrote:

Paul wrote:

On Wed, 10/8/2025 3:59 PM, Jason wrote:

In article <10bojr4$1qajp$1@dont-email.me>,
ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> wrote:

I upgraded my deskside machine from 16 GB to 64, but
Windows still reports only 16. There must be a setting
somewhere.....

What does the BIOS/UEFI report as installed?

If it's still 16 then you've either got a faulty mobo or RAM modules, or
your mobo's firmware needs an update.

BIOS also reports 16 GB...I share your suspicion. BTW, max
memory for this model is 64 GB.

Show me the web page of the RAM you bought.

Maybe you got a 4x4GB kit and not a 4x16GB kit,
as based on high density versus low density, that
almost never reports in error by a factor of 4.
It tends to be off by a factor of 2 in most cases.

I have a 64GB machine here. CPU is 3600 capable, I used
3200 RAM in it. XMP should not work with four sticks,
but the BIOS just snapped to attention and used the XMP
settings for all four sticks like it was nothing. A previous
DDR3 machine, put up much more of a struggle, costing
me a week of work to put right:

-a-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package >>>>> -a-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a-a F4-3200C16D-32GVK-a-a-a \
-a-a-a-a-a DDR4-3200-a 16GBx2-a-a-a-a \___ Two sticks in this package >>>>> -a-a-a-a-a CL16-18-18-38 1.35V-a-a /

-a-a-a-a-a Total 64GB. Low density. Chips on both sides of the modules. >>>>>
If you installed all four new sticks, the BIOS should
start using them in a non-XMP mode. Maybe they would run
at 1866 or so on the first POST. A good BIOS would also be able to automatically
select 2666 (out of the RAM 3200 capability), using the JEDEC
table. Using CPUZ, you can gather information on timing.

When you test one stick at a time, that should further enhance
your ability to identify what capabilities each stick alone has.
Then, if the symptoms point out something weird happens when
all four sticks are plugged in, that is an additional data point
to analyze and consider.

-a-a-a-a Paul

On Oct 1, Jason indicated:
-a-aUpgraded from 16 to 64 and also stated in his second reply(same day) >>>> "It's two DIMMs and both clicked into place as they should"

i.e. If it now was four sticks the second two sticks would have to be 48 GB(which would be quite odd, unusual, etc.)
Thus, it appears only two sticks(not four)

Was your 'if you installed four sticks' comment just for explanation if there were 4 sticks(even though only two dimms with 64 GB total were in use)?

I still would like to know which slots(of the 4 available)those 'two' sticks are installed.

If it is 2x32GB installed, instead of 4x16GB installed, that seems to be >>> OK if you look at the 9700 processor information on Intel.com . If you
believe Intel, there shouldn't be any "density issues" if the limit
really is 128GB as Intel claims.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/186604/intel-core-i79700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz/specifications.html

Launch Date-a Q4'18
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type)-a 128 GB
Memory Types-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a DDR4-2666
Sockets Supported-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a LGA1151

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901211828/https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186604/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

... 128GB

On the day it was released, the stated limit was ... 64GB. And after
twenty some odd BIOS releases, you don't expect the RAM code in
the Dell to have been updated. Not on a contracted BIOS.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181009013131/https://ark.intel.com/products/186604/

... 64GB

It's if you believe Dell/Alienware on this, that the processor has a 64GB >>> limit and you don't believe the Intel-listed 128GB limit, that you
end up in <unknown> territory.

It is possible for a BIOS to not have support for a certain density of
memory. That happened on my Asrock 4Core board. Even the *manufacturer*
of the chipset, listed the wrong limit. But because the BIOS did not
properly support the density of chip involved, using the higher
capacity RAM kept throwing errors. Which is not something Jason is
reporting. No sign of a "half-assed support" for the 32GB stick.

If the BIOS insists on policing a 64GB limit (address map plan), or pretending DIMMs
above 16GB in capacity do not exist, what symptoms can we expect ?
That is part of the question. It's one thing for a technical failure
at a hardware level (missing address bit causes 1/2 sized module report). >>> It's quite another to make up random symptoms by poorly crafted
BIOS code.

-a-a-a Paul

I think were on the same page now

Two sticks not four

Now, since we know that the BIOS reports 16GB with the new(two) sticks(installed), it still leaves my earlier question unanswered
-a- Which slots are those two sticks installed.
With only two sticks, they should be in the 2nd and 4th slot.
-aOnce verified in those slots, then see what the BIOS reports.

I think Jason has the manual for the Aurora R9, showing
the preferred end-of-bus slot numbers.

If you drop this picture into your photo editor and adjust
the brightness and contrast, you can see the sticks in this
picture, are in the preferred location for having 2 sticks installed.
This is likely the appearance of the box, as shipped.

https://tavesper.tech/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AuroraR9_TAV-6.jpg

I posted a better picture on Oct 3 2025 in this thread
https://i.postimg.cc/13HCxv1G/Alienware-Aurora-R9.jpg
Which shows the 2nd and 4th slot for two chips.

Rather than you or I continuing this 'where is it/where it should be'
maybe Jason(the op) can inform us on the slots used for the two chips. :)

And this is where you would put a matched pair of DIMMs.

V S Water-Cooled _ D _ D Each DIMM is on the end of a channel.
C i CPU Block _ i _ i
o n _ m _ m
r k _ m _ m
e

Paul

--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2