AMD 64x2 4400+ 4G ram apprears only 2G on XP SP2

[Guest]

Hello!

I just purchased AMD 64x2 4400+ system with 4G of ram. I wanted to evaluate
the x64 version of XP, which turned not to be suitable to our CAD development
purposes due to the driver incompatibility.

This system had no problems recognising the entire 4G address space (as the
bios does recognise it during the boot time).

Once turning our back to the x64 for the time being (preparing to come back
at the Vista versions), we moved back to the standard 32 bit version of
Windows XP, which after SP2 is supposed to well support the 4G ram with /PAE
and other optional or automatic switches.

However our current system gets recognised as having only 2G of physical
memory. No matter what /3G or /PAE switches are on the "boot.ini", or even if
the entire virtual memory (ie. the page file) is disabled, the amount of
memory remains 2G.

We are using MSDN shipped XP with initally provided SP2 and are quite
helpless for the situation. Our system is very standard: AMD 64x2 4400+ with
Asrock 939S56-M motherboard with 4x 1G DDR memory sticks (all the same brand,
dual channel enabled). Geforce 6600 GT with 256M ram (should it matter).

The bios recognises the full 4G as did the initial XP 64x installation, but
the 32bit XP steadily reports the physical memory only at 2G.

Br,

Kalle

 

[Mike O'Donnell]

Hello!

I just purchased AMD 64x2 4400+ system with 4G of ram. I wanted to
evaluate
the x64 version of XP, which turned not to be suitable to our CAD
development
purposes due to the driver incompatibility.

This system had no problems recognising the entire 4G address space (as
the
bios does recognise it during the boot time).

Once turning our back to the x64 for the time being (preparing to come
back
at the Vista versions), we moved back to the standard 32 bit version of
Windows XP, which after SP2 is supposed to well support the 4G ram with
/PAE
and other optional or automatic switches.

However our current system gets recognised as having only 2G of physical
memory. No matter what /3G or /PAE switches are on the "boot.ini", or even
if
the entire virtual memory (ie. the page file) is disabled, the amount of
memory remains 2G.

We are using MSDN shipped XP with initally provided SP2 and are quite
helpless for the situation. Our system is very standard: AMD 64x2 4400+
with
Asrock 939S56-M motherboard with 4x 1G DDR memory sticks (all the same
brand,
dual channel enabled). Geforce 6600 GT with 256M ram (should it matter).

The bios recognises the full 4G as did the initial XP 64x installation,
but
the 32bit XP steadily reports the physical memory only at 2G.

Br,

Kalle

Were you able to ever get a resolution to this problem? I'm having the same
issue. I've recently built a new system with an AMD Athlon64x2 4400 on an
Asrock 939 Dual SATA. Fresh install of XP pro with SP2. I have four 1G
sticks of DDR. Bios, SiSandra, etc. all see 4G. Windows sees 2.00G
exactly. I removed one stick, bios showed 3G in single channel mode, XP
reports 2.5G. Removed 2nd stick, replaced with 512M. Bios shows 3G dual
channel, XP shows 2.00GB

I realize due to the 4G addressing in 32bit XP, I'll never see the full 4G,
but it would be nice to get more than 2..

Mike O.

 

[Guest]

Were you able to ever get a resolution to this problem? I'm having the same
issue. I've recently built a new system with an AMD Athlon64x2 4400 on an
Asrock 939 Dual SATA. Fresh install of XP pro with SP2. I have four 1G
sticks of DDR. Bios, SiSandra, etc. all see 4G. Windows sees 2.00G
exactly. I removed one stick, bios showed 3G in single channel mode, XP
reports 2.5G. Removed 2nd stick, replaced with 512M. Bios shows 3G dual
channel, XP shows 2.00GB

I realize due to the 4G addressing in 32bit XP, I'll never see the full 4G,
but it would be nice to get more than 2..

Mike O.

Hi!

Yes I had also contacted AsRock and after investigating the problem, they
provided custom version of BIOS (with memory hole option) to try out that
solved the problem.

Now I got almost exactly 3G total for Windows use (physical memory in task
manager).

See this thread on AMD processor support forums for more info. There was an
user that I think has the same motherboard version as you, and he got also
the solution from AsRock to the problem.

I hope this helped.

Br,

Kalle

 

[Mike O'Donnell]

Hi!

Yes I had also contacted AsRock and after investigating the problem, they
provided custom version of BIOS (with memory hole option) to try out that
solved the problem.

Now I got almost exactly 3G total for Windows use (physical memory in task
manager).

See this thread on AMD processor support forums for more info. There was
an
user that I think has the same motherboard version as you, and he got also
the solution from AsRock to the problem.

I hope this helped.

Br,

Kalle

Thank you very much. I'll send an email this evening to Asrock, hopefully
they'll have it available that way. Did you use email, or call them to get
this resolved?

Mike O.

 

[Guest]

Hi!

I emailed the european support. Sorry it seems that the forum link never
made to my post:

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?s=43621e03b120b17ba4fa39ff8bfa8c7c&showtopic=62821&st=0&#entry585166

I hope it's properly put now.

Seems like high memory graphic adapters take quite a chunk of memory after
all, but still 3 gigs out of total 4 feels like victory after getting used of
2.

Br,

Kalle

 

[Mike O'Donnell]

Hi!

I emailed the european support. Sorry it seems that the forum link never
made to my post:

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?s=43621e03b120b17ba4fa39ff8bfa8c7c&showtopic=62821&st=0&#entry585166

I hope it's properly put now.

Seems like high memory graphic adapters take quite a chunk of memory after
all, but still 3 gigs out of total 4 feels like victory after getting used
of
2.

Br,

Kalle

After seeing your link, I realize I had seen the thread on the AMD forum. I
think I saw it when looking for something else (prior to searching for the
memory issue). Also, since it was for a different board, I think I didn't
read it as closely as I should have...

I emailed the main support, and also the European site last night. This
morning the BOTH responded with a bios "modified for personal/internal use"
that has the memory hole enable/disable feature. Sounds like this is a
pretty common request to them.

It's interesting, in the one response (from the Asrock.com.tw), they say
that the BIOS default is for 64 bit processor and 64 bit O/S and that you
need to change from the default setting to use a 32 bit O/S. I understand
what they're saying, but I am curious as to why it needs a "custom" bios for
that feature. I don't know why they wouldn't give that option in the
standard bios (I asked them in my reply this morning).

I'm going to try the BIOS change tonight.

Thanks again for your information.

Mike O.

 

[Mike O'Donnell]

After seeing your link, I realize I had seen the thread on the AMD forum.
I think I saw it when looking for something else (prior to searching for
the memory issue). Also, since it was for a different board, I think I
didn't read it as closely as I should have...

I emailed the main support, and also the European site last night. This
morning the BOTH responded with a bios "modified for personal/internal
use" that has the memory hole enable/disable feature. Sounds like this is
a pretty common request to them.

It's interesting, in the one response (from the Asrock.com.tw), they say
that the BIOS default is for 64 bit processor and 64 bit O/S and that you
need to change from the default setting to use a 32 bit O/S. I understand
what they're saying, but I am curious as to why it needs a "custom" bios
for that feature. I don't know why they wouldn't give that option in the
standard bios (I asked them in my reply this morning).

I'm going to try the BIOS change tonight.

Thanks again for your information.

Mike O.

It worked! When I installed the BIOS, and disabled the memory hole, XP now
sees 2.9G. Interestingly, with this BIOS, even if I enable the memory hole,
I see 2.5G.
I mentioned to Asrock tech support that I was surprised that this was only
available as a "custom" bios, not in the public download area. They said it
will probably show up in the next version release.

Mike O.