4 gig of RAM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick
  • Start date Start date
R

Rick

I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?

Thanks,
Rick Hanson
 
Thanks Greg. I've got a 64-bit processor but only 32-bit vista. What problems can enableing PAE cause?
Rick
 
I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?

Thanks,
Rick Hanson
Click to expand...

If you spend five minutes browsing through this group you will find that
question answered several times.
 
I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
Click to expand...


All 32-bit versions of Windows (XP as well as Vista), even though they
have a 4GB address space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Your 3582MB is about the maximum you see, and is better than most
people with 4GB get.
 
Rick said:
I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
Click to expand...

The total memory address space of a 32 bit x86 design processor is
limited to 4 gb. Out of this total space has to be allocated for the
computer's ROM memory and for the video card memory.

Your result is an appropriate one for such a computer, with one
possible memory allocation being 2 mb for ROM, 512 mb for video, and
3582 for RAM, totalling 4096.

Hope this explains the situation.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
 
Ron said:
The total memory address space of a 32 bit x86 design processor is
limited to 4 gb. Out of this total space has to be allocated for the
computer's ROM memory and for the video card memory.

Your result is an appropriate one for such a computer, with one
possible memory allocation being 2 mb for ROM, 512 mb for video, and
3582 for RAM, totalling 4096.

Hope this explains the situation.
Click to expand...

Why does a 1 GB machine with a 512MB video card still report 1GB RAM and
not 512MB?
 
Travis said:
Why does a 1 GB machine with a 512MB video card still report 1GB RAM and
not 512MB?
Click to expand...

Figured it out just after hitting send, because it's still inside the
4GB address space D'OH!
 
Figured it out just after hitting send, because it's still inside the
4GB address space D'OH!
Click to expand...



No, that's not right. *Everything* is inside the 4GB address space.

Here's the correct answer: It's not system RAM that the video card is
sharing, it's the address space. Everything has to fit inside that 4GB
address space. With 1GB of RAM and 512mb video, the total is only
1.5GBm, which easily fits into the address space. But with 4GB of RAM
and 512MB video, the 4.5GB total doesn't fit, so part of the RAM
doesn't get address space to map to and can't be used.
 
No, that's not right. *Everything* is inside the 4GB address space.

Here's the correct answer: It's not system RAM that the video card is
sharing, it's the address space. Everything has to fit inside that 4GB
address space. With 1GB of RAM and 512mb video, the total is only
1.5GBm, which easily fits into the address space. But with 4GB of RAM
and 512MB video, the 4.5GB total doesn't fit, so part of the RAM
doesn't get address space to map to and can't be used.
Click to expand...

How does that differ from what I said above?
 
How does that differ from what I said above?
Click to expand...



Well, I didn't understand that that was what you meant, but if it was,
then I misunderstood you, and I apologize.
 
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

[snippety]
Well, I didn't understand that that was what you meant, but if it was,
then I misunderstood you, and I apologize.
Click to expand...

No probs, sorry if I wasn't clearer.
 
Back
Top