PDA

View Full Version : 4GB DDR2 on WinXP 32bit - question



MedicD
19.06.2007, 01:38
Hey, I just got this new pc, duo core 2 E6600, 4GB DDR2 800, EVGA 8800GTX 768MB GDDR3.

It's awesome, fastest thing I have ever used, but Windows can only see 2.75GB (bios sees all of it). I looked it up online and most posts agreed with each other that WinXP 32bit can only see about that much, never a full 4. The windows site says that you will never see that other ram you got...but...all the sites also say that windows reserves 1 or 2 GB. It never says if other programs have access to that extra 1.25GB or not, or if I will only be able to use 2.75GB forever :confused:

Kinlaadare
19.06.2007, 14:26
Shortly : it's 2.75 GB for everybody

little longer
If you want to have access to all your memory, you either need a windows 2003 (edition you want) or a x64 windows...
Vista 32bit edition has the same problem...

Jito463
19.06.2007, 16:37
It's a limitation of 32-bit operating systems, as Kinlaadare said. However, you should check your BIOS for a "memory remap" option to enable the full 4GB of RAM for Windows. Though again, you will not be able to take full advantage of it with a 32-bit OS anyway. Only 64-bit OS's can utilize greater than 4GB of RAM, and the 32-bit Windows can't really use more than 2GB technically (though certain apps can utilize the remainder).

MedicD
20.06.2007, 03:21
hey thanks for the answers, i appreciate it.

This may be a dumb question, but can you run 64-bit windows on a duo core 2? I know almost nothing about 64-bit stuff.

NetSoerfer
20.06.2007, 09:54
Yes, as Intel's website (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/specifications.htm) explains, All Intel® Core™2 Duo processors feature: [...] Intel® 64 architecture

Jito463
20.06.2007, 14:02
I forgot to mention, you can edit the boot.ini and make Windows allocate 3GB of the RAM for applications instead of 2GB. In the boot.ini, add /3gb to the command-line parameters. If you do switch to a 64-bit OS (either XP x64 or Vista x64), this is not necessary.

Nodens
25.06.2007, 06:20
It's a limitation of 32-bit operating systems, as Kinlaadare said. However, you should check your BIOS for a "memory remap" option to enable the full 4GB of RAM for Windows. Though again, you will not be able to take full advantage of it with a 32-bit OS anyway. Only 64-bit OS's can utilize greater than 4GB of RAM, and the 32-bit Windows can't really use more than 2GB technically (though certain apps can utilize the remainder).

There is a way for an application to address far more than the VAS limitation by using CreateFileMapping() http://msdn2.microsoft.com/En-US/library/aa366537.aspx

Jito463
25.06.2007, 20:24
Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see what you're talking about. Care to pinpoint the section you're referring to?

Nodens
26.06.2007, 06:12
Sorry mate, I didn't explain it all too well. You can allocate far greater sizes while not mapping it all at once. See this example here;)

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/10/211890.aspx

Jito463
26.06.2007, 06:28
I see what you're saying. I think we're both saying the same thing, just differently. Applications can be coded to use more than 2GB of RAM in a 32-bit OS, though the OS itself can still only use 4GB of RAM total.

Nodens
26.06.2007, 06:31
Indeed. Exactly like that:)

FISKER_Q
06.07.2007, 03:53
Windows XP can fine deal with up to 4GB memory, however that includes all memory.

This means your video card and whatever will go towards that limit.

Before SP1 though you could deal with a lot more memory, but since it might cause problem with programs it was removed again, so now you need a 64-bit version of windows to use more than 4GB.

Jito463
06.07.2007, 14:04
Umm, no. Video card RAM has NOTHING to do with system RAM. And SP1 made no changes in the amount of RAM Windows could handle, it's a 32-bit limitation. Please don't post if all you're going to do is spread crap.

FISKER_Q
06.07.2007, 22:16
Umm, no. Video card RAM has NOTHING to do with system RAM. And SP1 made no changes in the amount of RAM Windows could handle, it's a 32-bit limitation. Please don't post if all you're going to do is spread crap.

It isn't. Video Memory has to be addressed just as normal memory has to, as well as many other kinds of memory that needs to be addressed within windows.

With a normal 32-address space you can only address 4GB memory, and that's all kinds of memory.

Before SP1 or SP2(I don't remember) you could address "more than 4GB" by using a PAE driver, unfortunately some software couldn't handle it, and even the software that could handle it would maximum be able to use 4GB of memory, regardless of how much memory you had.

If you want to read more about the subject there is:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

FISKER_Q
06.07.2007, 22:24
Oh and btw, in regards to MedicD's number, this is likely the scenario:

768 MB from the video adapter.
512 MB from the motherboard. (What it's used for i don't know, but most motherboards these days map 512MB ram, which if hitting the 4GB barrier makes the RAM accessible, lower)

I myself have 3,25GB memory free out of 4GB with a 256MB 7800 and, again the same 512MB allocated to the motherboard.

Jito463
07.07.2007, 15:10
Since you apparently don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you're completely unwilling to listen, I'm not going to bother responding. Good luck in your fantasy land.

FISKER_Q
07.07.2007, 15:21
Since you apparently don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you're completely unwilling to listen, I'm not going to bother responding. Good luck in your fantasy land.

Sure, i'm unwilling to listen, and so is Microsoft + assorted specialists apparently, besides the only thing you said to me was "that i shouldn't spread crap", which i did listen to.

So if i'm dreaming, then i guess i'll wake up tonight when i go to bed.

Novecento
07.07.2007, 15:54
@Fisker: lol

lmgava
07.07.2007, 18:20
512 MB from the motherboard. (What it's used for i don't know, but most motherboards these days map 512MB ram, which if hitting the 4GB barrier makes the RAM accessible, lower)


Hi Fisker, there is something about that here.

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspx


The motherboard assigned the ROMs and the hardware devices to the physical address space between 3.5GB and 4GB (occupying 0.5GB of address space). When you start plugging in your memory chips, then, they are assigned physical addresses starting at the bottom, and then skip over the address space that has already been assigned to the hardware and ROM, then resume.

On this imaginary system, then, the 0.5GB of address space used for hardware and ROMs causes that much memory to get shoved upwards, and it ends up above the 4GB boundary.

obvious
07.07.2007, 20:40
Umm, no. Video card RAM has NOTHING to do with system RAM. And SP1 made no changes in the amount of RAM Windows could handle, it's a 32-bit limitation. Please don't post if all you're going to do is spread crap.
You're completely wrong Jito463. 32bit windows of course has the 4GB limit. VGA (along with a whole bunch of other stuff) is addressed within this limit as you can see if you view "resources by connection" in device manager. This will reduce available memory unless it's hoisted above 4GB on a 64bit system.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/5498/resourcesbyconnectionzy2.th.jpg (http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=resourcesbyconnectionzy2.jpg)

Jito463
07.07.2007, 22:08
No, the amount of VGA RAM has nothing to do with the 4GB limitation in Windows. It's system RAM that's limited, not video card RAM. Video card RAM is addressed by the video card itself, and is not included in the system RAM count by Windows. What you're seeing is the fact that hardware devices USE system RAM, and that's why the max you can apply towards applications in a 32-bit environment is 3GB (since the remainder is dedicated to hardware).

obvious
07.07.2007, 22:19
You're funny. So what happens when a game wants to write some texture data to the graphics card? That's right, it will use an address range under 4GB which has been set aside by the BIOS for just such actions. The graphics address space is at the top of (but within) the 4GB range and is set aside before windows decides how much RAM it can address for other purposes. That's one reason why less then 4GB will show up in system properties unless there's a memory hole function in the BIOS + you're running a 64bit system + the driver supports being hoisted.

Ref: http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

If I had a video card with 512Mb or 768Mb of memory on it, it'd take up even more space in the 3Gb-to-4Gb memory map.......Power users with a hankerin' for dual graphics cards may be experiencing something of a sinking feeling, at this juncture. Yes, the 256Mb reserved for my little old graphics card means exactly what you think it means: Those two 768Mb graphics cards you can totally justify buying will eat one point five gigabytes of your 32-bit memory map all by themselves, cutting you down to a 2.5Gb ceiling before you even take the other reservations into account.

This also explains why 1Gb graphics cards haven't hit the consumer market yet. Nobody yet needs anything like that much memory on one card for any desktop computer purpose, but some people would still be very happy to pay for such a card just for the pose value. It'd eat the whole of the fourth gigabyte of their system memory, though. And then they'd probably demand their money back.

lmgava
08.07.2007, 10:54
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Nice article, thank you :)

Jito463
08.07.2007, 14:02
Ok, you're not understanding the point. Your video card could have 8MB of RAM on it, and you'd still only be able to use up to 3GB max out of 4GB for applications. The amount of video card RAM has nothing to do with the limitation, it's an inherent limitation in a 32-bit environment.

obvious
08.07.2007, 15:27
The OP only had 2.75GB showing in Windows XP 32Bit which has nothing at all to do with how windows then goes on to partition that space for user/kernel mode use but anyway....
32-bit Windows can't really use more than 2GB technically
Bullshit:- By default, in a 4GB configuration, 2GB is reserved for applications and 2GB for the kernel/executive. I make that >2GB in total.

I forgot to mention, you can edit the boot.ini and make Windows allocate 3GB of the RAM for applications instead of 2GB. In the boot.ini, add /3gb to the command-line parameters.
Bullshit:- the only effect this has is to reduce availble kernel memory unless apps explicitly use IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. 99 times out of a hundred it's completely pointless and in fact counterproductive.

Umm, no. Video card RAM has NOTHING to do with system RAM....Please don't post if all you're going to do is spread crap.
Bullshit:- already covered multiple times. Please dont post if all you're going to do is spread crap.

Since you apparently don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you're completely unwilling to listen, I'm not going to bother responding. Good luck in your fantasy land.
more crap spreading

Video card RAM is addressed by the video card itself, and is not included in the system RAM count by Windows.
Major Bullshit alert.

Ok, you're not understanding the point. Your video card could have 8MB of RAM on it, and you'd still only be able to use up to 3GB max out of 4GB for applications. The amount of video card RAM has nothing to do with the limitation
OK, we're off the bullshitometer here. The max user mode space would be 2GB with or without the /3GB switch as detailed above.
You wade in here and slag off someone who's actually giving good information and then go on to give a load of false and/or misleading BS yourself. As I said earlier, you're funny.

Jito463
08.07.2007, 20:00
I'm not the one spreading misinformation. I've been working on and with computers for 15 years now. I work on them for a living.

Video card RAM is NOT ADDRESSED AS SYSTEM RAM.

Whether you have 8MB of VC RAM or 2GB of VC RAM, the system can still address 4GB max, and no more. Of which, a maximum of 3GB can be addressed by applications (normally 2GB, but 3GB is possible with certain workarounds that I mentioned before).

obvious
08.07.2007, 20:08
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3509/bullshitfh3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

mwb1100
08.07.2007, 20:08
Hey everybody! Here's a link to a good overview of the inability of x86 32-bit processors from being able to use the entire physical 4GB of RAM in a system:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html
Note that there are also good links to more information.
Pretty much everything is covered - Virtual vs. Physical addressing, PAE, memory mapping of video RAM, the effect of x64 processors, motherboard support.
Please read this and we can all stop the pointless sniping.

Jito463
08.07.2007, 20:13
Pointless is right. I'm not posting in this thread anymore, as it appears I'm not getting through anyway. I have better things to do with my time.

FISKER_Q
08.07.2007, 20:22
Pointless is right. I'm not posting in this thread anymore, as it appears I'm not getting through anyway. I have better things to do with my time.
No you're not getting through, and you know why?

You're counter-arguments are that "we are spreading crap", you are unable to provide any factual arguments backed up by just one source to prove your point.

And we already established that you meant something else than the original poster did.

Had you come to this thread without resorting to namecalling and other derogatory remarks, provided some sources to your claims, this would've been a totally different story.

But you didn't.

obvious
08.07.2007, 20:23
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.
Video card RAM is ADDRESSED AS SYSTEM RAM.
What a knob-end.

lmgava
08.07.2007, 20:24
Hey everybody! Here's a link to a good overview of the inability of x86 32-bit processors from being able to use the entire physical 4GB of RAM in a system:

Yup, thank you, but it's the same ;) posted by Fisker_q in this same thread :

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showpost.php?p=88687&postcount=14

No problem anyway, better post it some more time maybe, just to be sure any people interested in this matter get the facts as they are :D

I will repeat my previous link too

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspx

Cheers !

mwb1100
08.07.2007, 20:41
Yup, thank you, but it's the same ;) posted by Fisker_q in this same thread :
http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showpost.php?p=88687&postcount=14

Heh... you're right, I missed that. There's an awful lot of noise in this thread, and I guess the useful bits got obscured.

Jito463
09.07.2007, 14:59
I think I see where the confusion lies now. Yes, the I/O mapping for the VC RAM must be mapped to system RAM, but it's not the actual RAM itself that's included. It's the I/O calls for the RAM.

obvious
09.07.2007, 15:04
Finally :rolleyes:

I've rarely seen anyone back down so slowly.

lmgava
09.07.2007, 15:18
Finally :rolleyes:
I've rarely seen anyone back down so slowly.

Well, it seem to me something is still missing, but I don't suggest anyone to hold his breath for that.

If you know what I mean.

Jito463
10.07.2007, 05:29
What are you talking about? This is what I was saying all along. That certain parts of RAM are reserved for hardware by the OS, hence why only a certain amount of RAM can be allocated to applications. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough, and for that I'm sorry if I was unclear. But I never said anything contradictory. I've been adamant about one point this whole time. System RAM and VC RAM are independant. I/O points mapped to System RAM does not mean the same thing as VC RAM mapped to System RAM.

obvious
10.07.2007, 10:50
What am I talking about? Try http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showpost.php?p=88778&postcount=25

Yay, I haven't given one of these out yet this year. Have a "bullshitter of the year" award. You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. It's not funny any more. It's sickening. I wish this forum had an ignore button. I dont post here often but when I saw the level of bullshit you were spreading WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TELLING OTHERS NOT TO SPREAD CRAP, I had to say something.

lmgava
10.07.2007, 11:48
What am I talking about?

I believe he was addressing me, switch the view to the threaded mode to confirm this.
I'm glad I'm not holding my breath, as I said.


I wish this forum had an ignore button.

User control panel -> Buddy/Ignore list

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/profile.php?do=editlis

;)

Jito463
10.07.2007, 13:30
Ok, I think this thread has gone as far as it's going to go. But Obvious, I've said the exact same thing the whole time. You apparently didn't understand what I was saying. I'm sorry you apparently don't get it.

You can say what you will about me, but I've been consistent throughout. Since you've obviously got your mind set about me, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

lmgava
10.07.2007, 14:14
You apparently didn't understand what I was saying. I'm sorry you apparently don't get it.

No Jito, you didn't understand.

Every person here talked about how the 32bit OS 4 GB limit is further reduced by adding (for example) a 256, 512, or 1GB video card. So the RAM on the card have an impact on how much RAM you get available in your OS.

STOP. WE WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT THIS.

You continuosly posted things like


"No, the amount of VGA RAM has nothing to do with the 4GB limitation in Windows."

Yes. We know that. No one is telling the amount of video RAM is the *cause* of the 4 GB limit. We are telling the amount of video RAM furtherly reduce that 4 GB value.




"Your video card could have 8MB of RAM on it, and you'd still only be able to use up to 3GB max out of 4GB for applications."

That's a little more of 3 GB, but anyway.
The point is not this, it's that if you have a SLI configuration, for example, with two 512 MB card, you lost 1GB of your system RAM to that. We are simply telling that.

You missed that and started to say "you are spreading crap" (he was not), "the amount of VGA RAM has nothing to do with the 4GB limitation in Windows" (TRUE, and so ?? We know that thank you).

Furthermore "Since you apparently don't have a clue what you're talking about ..."

You were wrong there too. You didn't (again) understand what he was saying.


"I think I see where the confusion lies now."

Me too.

YOU didn't understand. YOU don't understant, and YOU (probably) will not understand.



"I'm not posting in this thread anymore, as it appears I'm not getting through anyway. I have better things to do with my time."

This was 3 post ago and you missed 3 occasions to apologize to FISKER_Q. You didn't understand his post (he was correct on both issues) and you started to say people was spreading crap.

Jito463
10.07.2007, 15:12
*sigh*

I have several comments to make about your own incorrect "assumptions", but I think it's time this thread died. I've had my say, and have nothing to apologize for.

lmgava
10.07.2007, 15:23
but I think it's time this thread died.

Wouldn't be nice ? But you lied to us before.

Try stop posting.

casperog
13.07.2007, 15:04
GOODLUCK !! i hope there advice helped