Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Showing results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: 4GB DDR2 on WinXP 32bit - question

  1. #21
    Master
    Jito463's Avatar
    Join Date
    24.05.2005
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    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).

  2. #22

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by obvious : 07.07.2007 at 23:24

  3. #23
    User
    lmgava's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.10.2005
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious View Post
    Nice article, thank you

  4. #24
    Master
    Jito463's Avatar
    Join Date
    24.05.2005
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    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.

  5. #25

    Default

    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.

  6. #26
    Master
    Jito463's Avatar
    Join Date
    24.05.2005
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    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).

  7. #27

  8. #28

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Master
    Jito463's Avatar
    Join Date
    24.05.2005
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    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.

  10. #30
    New User
    Join Date
    21.05.2005
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jito463 View Post
    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.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •