Windows uses 4 GB? Really?

C

Canyon

I’ve done a lot of research regarding this issue and frankly I’m getting a
migraine in the heat of the Southern Oregon 110 degree days! So I quit!!! I
bought 4 GB of RAM because I thought it would speed up my system a bit. My
motherboard happily stated in its manual that it supports 4 GB of RAM. This
crazy issue regarding more than 2 GB of RAM wasn’t readily available I had no
idea about it. So… I happily bought 4 GB of RAM and was proud of it! My
system seemed to boot a bit faster. Microsoft Office seemed to load a bit
faster. Games seemed to run even just a tad faster. I was happy though not
ecstatic. But I was shocked when I noticed that My Computer/Properties showed
only 3.00 GB! Where did my extra 1 GB of RAM go? I added 2 SLI eVGA 8600 GTS
512 DDR3 MB cards and the My Computer/Properties showed only 2.75 GB. Now I
was concerned. My system still seems to run faster than it did with 1 GB. But
I still wanted to know where my extra 1.25 GB of RAM went.

My system:
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe with nForce 4 SLI chipset.
AMD Athlon 64-FX 60
750 watt Silverstone power.
4 GB RAM DDR Corsair XMS
WD 200GB 7200 RPM HD
Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS Platinum

Is my chipset a 64 bit chipset? Or 32 bit?

What I found was that I am now more confused than before. Some info that is
posted here as reference seems to suggest that it is a Windows issue, but
others seem to suggest that it is also a hardware issue. Some seem to suggest
that in order to fully recognize 4 GB of RAM or more you need not only a 64
bit operating system but also a 64 bit computer hardware system. Not just a
64 bit CPU! I am confused!

I would like to know why when I added SLI video cards my usable RAM dropped
by 250 MB! It seems that the information appears to state that the more ram a
video card has the more “addressing†space it needs. Why! And why then does
this whole “addressing†issue with the upper 4th GB of RAM not become an
issue with 2 GB of RAM? This just doesn’t seem logical! Why would you
actually end up losing usable RAM with more than 2 GB of RAM? I’m confused!
So what if I did have 2 GB of RAM? Would my system slow down slightly? What
is this “addressing†issue and why doesn’t it occur at below 2 GB RAM?

Some people seem to think that it is rare for anyone to need more than 512
MB or 1 GB of RAM! WHAT? Who could anyone think this at this time in the
evolution of computers? Anyone who thinks the average computer user doesn’t
need more than 1 GB RAM ought to have their head examined. Most average home
computer users who have a 64 bit CPU are probably using a few if not many
games that require at least 1 GB of RAM! Hell! I don’t even think most people
could tolerate running Windows XP on 512 MB of RAM even though it will run!
Already some games are requiring 2 GB of RAM to run minimum!

The most significant piece of information I have found that was posted in
the 4 Gigs RAM thread by Tim Slattery:
http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsub/downloads/RAM_Allocation_w-WinXP_HP_MWP_x64.pdf Thanks!

Regardless… I have a migraine, It’s too hot, and I still have not got the
answer that is really important to me:

Is my 1.25 GB of RAM that Windows does not report being used at all in any
amount? Am I benefiting at all in any way from my extra 1.25 GB of RAM? Would
my system be any less effective with only 3 GB as everyone seems to convey
that 3 GB is all that is necessary?

That’s all I really want to know? Did I waste my money?

Thanks, stay cool! Buy from www.falcon-nw.com
 
S

Stephen Harris

Canyon said:
I’ve done a lot of research regarding this issue and frankly I’m getting a
migraine in the heat of the Southern Oregon 110 degree days! So I quit!!! I
bought 4 GB of RAM because I thought it would speed up my system a bit. My
motherboard happily stated in its manual that it supports 4 GB of RAM. This
crazy issue regarding more than 2 GB of RAM wasn’t readily available I had no
idea about it. So… I happily bought 4 GB of RAM and was proud of it! My
system seemed to boot a bit faster. Microsoft Office seemed to load a bit
faster. Games seemed to run even just a tad faster. I was happy though not
ecstatic. But I was shocked when I noticed that My Computer/Properties showed
only 3.00 GB! Where did my extra 1 GB of RAM go? I added 2 SLI eVGA 8600 GTS
512 DDR3 MB cards and the My Computer/Properties showed only 2.75 GB. Now I
was concerned. My system still seems to run faster than it did with 1 GB. But
I still wanted to know where my extra 1.25 GB of RAM went.

My system:
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe with nForce 4 SLI chipset.
AMD Athlon 64-FX 60
750 watt Silverstone power.
4 GB RAM DDR Corsair XMS
WD 200GB 7200 RPM HD
Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS Platinum

Is my chipset a 64 bit chipset? Or 32 bit?

What I found was that I am now more confused than before. Some info that is
posted here as reference seems to suggest that it is a Windows issue, but
others seem to suggest that it is also a hardware issue. Some seem to suggest
that in order to fully recognize 4 GB of RAM or more you need not only a 64
bit operating system but also a 64 bit computer hardware system. Not just a
64 bit CPU! I am confused!

I would like to know why when I added SLI video cards my usable RAM dropped
by 250 MB! It seems that the information appears to state that the more ram a
video card has the more “addressing†space it needs. Why! And why then does
this whole “addressing†issue with the upper 4th GB of RAM not become an
issue with 2 GB of RAM? This just doesn’t seem logical! Why would you
actually end up losing usable RAM with more than 2 GB of RAM? I’m confused!
So what if I did have 2 GB of RAM? Would my system slow down slightly? What
is this “addressing†issue and why doesn’t it occur at below 2 GB RAM?

Some people seem to think that it is rare for anyone to need more than 512
MB or 1 GB of RAM! WHAT? Who could anyone think this at this time in the
evolution of computers? Anyone who thinks the average computer user doesn’t
need more than 1 GB RAM ought to have their head examined. Most average home
computer users who have a 64 bit CPU are probably using a few if not many
games that require at least 1 GB of RAM! Hell! I don’t even think most people
could tolerate running Windows XP on 512 MB of RAM even though it will run!
Already some games are requiring 2 GB of RAM to run minimum!

The most significant piece of information I have found that was posted in
the 4 Gigs RAM thread by Tim Slattery:
http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsub/downloads/RAM_Allocation_w-WinXP_HP_MWP_x64.pdf Thanks!

Regardless… I have a migraine, It’s too hot, and I still have not got the
answer that is really important to me:

Is my 1.25 GB of RAM that Windows does not report being used at all in any
amount? Am I benefiting at all in any way from my extra 1.25 GB of RAM? Would
my system be any less effective with only 3 GB as everyone seems to convey
that 3 GB is all that is necessary?

That’s all I really want to know? Did I waste my money?

Thanks, stay cool! Buy from www.falcon-nw.com

http://en.allexperts.com/q/PC-hardware-CPU-1023/Windows-XP-memory-limit.htm
Question:
"I have install total 4GB memory on my motherboard. However, it can only
recognize around 3.1GB or less. My friend's SLI board even less than
3GB. What's up? How should I do to recognize 4GB totally?

Answer:
If you installed total 4GB memory, the system will detect less than 4GB
of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical
functions, such as:

- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices

Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will
result of different total memory size.
e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources,
resulting of less memory free for other uses.

On a SLI system, since PCI-Ex graphic cards will occupy around 256MB,
another 256MB will be occupied after you install a 2nd PCI-Ex graphic
card. Hence, 2.75GB memory left only if two SLI cards installed on
A8N-SLI Premium while 3.0GB memory left with one graphic card without
other add-on devices.

This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XP 32-bit version
operating system.

If you install Windows XP 32-bit version operating system, we recommend
that you install less than 3GB of total memory. If more than 3GB memory
is required for your system, then below two conditions must be met:

1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is
used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel
Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, and AMD K8 CPU architecture can support the
memory swap function.

2. Windows XP Pro X64 Ed. (64-bit) or other OS which can address more
than 4GB memory."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/

"The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that
are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver
compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the
total available memory to 3.12 GB. See the "More information" section
for information about potential driver compatibility issues.

If a computer has many installed devices, the available memory may be
reduced to 3 GB or less. However, the maximum memory available in 32-bit
versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB.

WORKAROUND
For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4 GB
of memory installed, the computer must meet the following requirements:
• The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space. Chipsets that
have this capability include the following:
• Intel 975X
• Intel P965
• Intel 955X on Socket 775
• Chipsets that support AMD processors that use socket F, socket 940,
socket 939, or socket AM2. These chipsets include any AMD socket and CPU
combination in which the memory controller resides in the CPU.
• The CPU must support the x64 instruction set. The AMD64 CPU and the
Intel EM64T CPU support this instruction set.
• The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature. The memory
remapping feature allows for the segment of system memory that was
previously overwritten by the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)
configuration space to be remapped above the 4 GB address line. This
feature must be enabled in the BIOS configuration utility on the
computer. View your computer product documentation for instructions that
explain how to enable this feature. Many consumer-oriented computers may
not support the memory remapping feature. No standard terminology is
used in documentation or in BIOS configuration utilities for this
feature. Therefore, you may have to read the descriptions of the various
BIOS configuration settings that are available to determine whether any
of the settings enable the memory remapping feature.
• An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used."

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Spec.aspx?ProductID=2758
"Memory

1. 4 x 1.8V DDR2 DIMM sockets supporting up to 16 GB of system
memory (Note 1)
2. Dual channel memory architecture
3. Support for DDR2 1066 (Note 2)/800/667 MHz memory modules

Note 1) Due to Windows XP 32-bit operating system limitation, when more
than 4 GB of physical memory is installed, the actual memory size
displayed will be less than 4 GB."

SH: I felt the memory video was the most exciting of the six videos.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb469930.aspx
"Sysinternals Video Library
The Sysinternals Video Library is a set of six DVDs that cover essential
Windows troubleshooting topics. Each video is personally presented by
Mark Russinovich and David Solomon. The complete set is available for
order at a discounted price and the first video, Tour of the
Sysinternals Tools, is _free for download_.
http://www.solsem.com/Video/TourofSysinternalsTools.wmv "

The episode on tracking down memory leaks is especially thrilling!
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/0e18b180-9b7a-4c49-8120-c47c5a693683.aspx


http://www.solsem.com/videolibrary.html#memory
"Troubleshooting Memory Problems

Discover the real meaning behind the key memory performance counters to
understand process and system memory usage, solve user and kernel memory
leaks, and properly size your paging file.

Click _here_ to view a free four minute sample.

This 120 minute (2 hour) video is divided into the following modules:

1. Overview of Memory Management
2. Process Memory Usage
3. Paging Lists
4. Paging Files
5. Memory Leaks "

SH: Nonetheless, there is hope if you have Windows XP Pro 32-bit.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

"Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have
always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space
that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is
usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to
the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows
executive software.

The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT
Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first
versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual
address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB.
In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the
availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP
Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003. ...

The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited
to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the
physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used,
the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB
switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel
required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that
the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently
and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to
explicitly change this setting.

The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an
application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process
header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional
virtual address space above 2 GB.

The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited
to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The
following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini
file to enable application memory tuning:

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT="????" /3GB


SH: I think shifting the extra 1GB of memory to applications
will in some situations result in fewer disk writes and
retrieval from data stored on the disk which is more efficient.

So there is a software 64-bit OS and a x64 hardware requirement.
More drivers, the problem, are becoming available for 64-bit.
There is an issue about optimizing their performance.
4 gigs of memory should show up in the Bios, check it.
Also the Bios will often have an option which shows how much
Ram memory is diverted to the video card and so possibly changed.

You didn't mention your version Operating System, so since you
have a nice system, I took a chance and provided the boot.ini
switch information in case you have Windows XP Pro.

With Windows, Home is not where the heart is,
Stephen
 
P

Pegasus \(MVP\)

Canyon said:
I've done a lot of research regarding this issue and frankly I'm getting a
migraine in the heat of the Southern Oregon 110 degree days! So I quit!!!
I
bought 4 GB of RAM because I thought it would speed up my system a bit. My
motherboard happily stated in its manual that it supports 4 GB of RAM.
This
crazy issue regarding more than 2 GB of RAM wasn't readily available I had
no
idea about it. So. I happily bought 4 GB of RAM and was proud of it! My
system seemed to boot a bit faster. Microsoft Office seemed to load a bit
faster. Games seemed to run even just a tad faster. I was happy though not
ecstatic. But I was shocked when I noticed that My Computer/Properties
showed
only 3.00 GB! Where did my extra 1 GB of RAM go? I added 2 SLI eVGA 8600
GTS
512 DDR3 MB cards and the My Computer/Properties showed only 2.75 GB. Now
I
was concerned. My system still seems to run faster than it did with 1 GB.
But
I still wanted to know where my extra 1.25 GB of RAM went.

My system:
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe with nForce 4 SLI chipset.
AMD Athlon 64-FX 60
750 watt Silverstone power.
4 GB RAM DDR Corsair XMS
WD 200GB 7200 RPM HD
Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS Platinum

Is my chipset a 64 bit chipset? Or 32 bit?

What I found was that I am now more confused than before. Some info that
is
posted here as reference seems to suggest that it is a Windows issue, but
others seem to suggest that it is also a hardware issue. Some seem to
suggest
that in order to fully recognize 4 GB of RAM or more you need not only a
64
bit operating system but also a 64 bit computer hardware system. Not just
a
64 bit CPU! I am confused!

I would like to know why when I added SLI video cards my usable RAM
dropped
by 250 MB! It seems that the information appears to state that the more
ram a
video card has the more "addressing" space it needs. Why! And why then
does
this whole "addressing" issue with the upper 4th GB of RAM not become an
issue with 2 GB of RAM? This just doesn't seem logical! Why would you
actually end up losing usable RAM with more than 2 GB of RAM? I'm
confused!
So what if I did have 2 GB of RAM? Would my system slow down slightly?
What
is this "addressing" issue and why doesn't it occur at below 2 GB RAM?

Some people seem to think that it is rare for anyone to need more than 512
MB or 1 GB of RAM! WHAT? Who could anyone think this at this time in the
evolution of computers? Anyone who thinks the average computer user doesn't
need more than 1 GB RAM ought to have their head examined. Most average
home
computer users who have a 64 bit CPU are probably using a few if not many
games that require at least 1 GB of RAM! Hell! I don't even think most
people
could tolerate running Windows XP on 512 MB of RAM even though it will
run!
Already some games are requiring 2 GB of RAM to run minimum!

The most significant piece of information I have found that was posted in
the 4 Gigs RAM thread by Tim Slattery:
http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsub/downloads/RAM_Allocation_w-WinXP_HP_MWP_x64.pdf
Thanks!

Regardless. I have a migraine, It's too hot, and I still have not got the
answer that is really important to me:

Is my 1.25 GB of RAM that Windows does not report being used at all in any
amount? Am I benefiting at all in any way from my extra 1.25 GB of RAM?
Would
my system be any less effective with only 3 GB as everyone seems to convey
that 3 GB is all that is necessary?

That's all I really want to know? Did I waste my money?

Thanks, stay cool! Buy from www.falcon-nw.com

Many people believe that adding memory will speed up a PC.
This is not necessarily true. Having more memory helps when
running several concurrent memory-hungry applications, because
it reduces the need to swap out data into the paging file (which is
slow because it is disk-based). When you run a single application
then there is little or no swapping, hence no improvement in speed
even if you add more memory. On the other hand, having lots and
lots of RAM may give you warm feeling deep inside.
 
H

HeyBub

Canyon said:
I've done a lot of research regarding this issue and frankly I'm
getting a
migraine in the heat of the Southern Oregon 110 degree days! So I
quit!!! I
bought 4 GB of RAM because I thought it would speed up my system a
bit. My
motherboard happily stated in its manual that it supports 4 GB of
RAM. This
crazy issue regarding more than 2 GB of RAM wasn't readily available
I had no
idea about it. So. I happily bought 4 GB of RAM and was proud of it!
My
system seemed to boot a bit faster. Microsoft Office seemed to load a
bit
faster. Games seemed to run even just a tad faster. I was happy
though not
ecstatic. But I was shocked when I noticed that My
Computer/Properties showed
only 3.00 GB!

The place to which odd memory goes
I bet is heaven where angels glow,
And numbers planted, thrive and grow, prosper, bloom, and more
But as for contentment, well,
I fear it goes straight to hell
And that's the tale I have to tell,
Your choice: Abort, retry, ignore.
 
J

John John (MVP)

Let's see if I can explain this in a few short paragraphs.

The processor works with data, it brings in data, processes it and
returns data. Every bit of data comes in to the processor from a memory
address and every bit leaving the processor goes to a memory address. A
32-bit processor has 4,294,967,296 memory addresses. This is the
processor's addressable memory range or the Address Space, with these
memory addresses the processor can directly access four gigabytes of
memory.

So what's the problem? The processor has enough addresses for 4GB of
RAM, why isn't it using all of it? The problem is that if the processor
gave all the addresses to the RAM it would have none left for other
things, anything and everything that needs to talk to the processor
would have to do it through the RAM or the processor would have to dump
RAM addresses to talk to other devices!

Your computer is not only made up of RAM, the processor has to work with
other hardware devices, it has to send and get data to and from some
of those other devices. Remember, the processor gets and returns data
to memory addresses, the 32-bit processor has a 4GB address range.

For example, the BIOS and system board will reserve and use a bit less
than 1 megabyte of address space directly at the processor, when the
processor needs to talk with the BIOS or motherboard it will do so
directly by using their reserved addresses, the addresses reserved by
and given to the system board cannot be used by the RAM. This
(oversimplified) example shows why a 32-bit processor cannot use all of
the RAM when 4GB is installed.

So now you may be thinking that 1 megabyte of memory addresses being
lost to the system board is a far cry from what your Windows
installation is seeing and reporting. Well, you see, most PCI devices
can communicate directly with the processor. These devices also reserve
exclusive memory addresses directly at the processor, if the processor
needs to talk to the video card it will do so at the addresses reserved
by the video card, the addresses where the video card is listening.
Your other PCI devices like sound cards, controller cards and so on also
reserve addresses directly at the processor, the processor can send and
receive data directly to and from these devices.

These devices can reserve a lot of address space, a high end sound card
can reserve 100 megabyte or more of Address Space. A video card with
512MB of on board memory has to have a way of sending the data in that
memory to the processor when needed, if all the memory addresses were
used by RAM the processor would have none left to satisfy the needs of
other devices. That is why addresses are reserved for exclusive use by
the PCI devices, the addresses that are reserved for these devices are
in turn not available for RAM addressing. The amount of memory address
space used by these devices can be as little as a few hundred megabytes
and all the way up to 1GB and more.

It is important to note that the other devices do not use RAM, they
reserve or use addresses at the processor and in turn these addresses
are not available for the RAM, the RAM is in fact deprived of the
addresses and the RAM without address space goes unused. To overcome
this address shortage problem (newer) Intel 32-bit processors make use
of Physical Address Extensions (PAE) which widens the address width to
36-bits and greatly increases the available memory address space. The
use of PAE and 36-bit addressing allows the processor to access 64GB of
RAM, the RAM that was previously unaddressed can now be addressed.

The catch is that the PCI devices keep their addresses in the lower 4GB
address range and the previously unavailable address space for the RAM
is shifted *above* the 4GB arena. The problem is that to access the RAM
above the 4GB arena the operating system has to fully support this PAE
feature, if it doesn't it cannot access the RAM in the space above the
4GB boundary. Raymond Chen has explained this very well here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspx

Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP 32-bits and
Vista 32-bits do not make full use of this /PAE feature, they are unable
to use RAM addressed above the 4GB boundary. You need Windows 2000
Advanced Server or better to be able to fully use this /PAE feature.

The only other way around the problem is to use 64-bit processors and
64-bit operating systems.

To see how much memory addresses are reserved and used by hardware
devices look in the Device Manager and view "Resources by Connection".
Expand the Memory tree and you will see the memory map. On 32-bit
servers or on number crunching workstations where RAM usage is very
demanding hardware selection is important. The server should only have
necessary hardware installed in it, superfluous unused devices should be
removed from the server and the video adapter should not have oodles of
memory, most servers only display text and basic stuff, there is usually
no need to stick a 512MB video adapter in a server, nor is there usually
any need for sound cards.

John
 
K

Ken Blake

I've done a lot of research regarding this issue and frankly I'm getting a
migraine in the heat of the Southern Oregon 110 degree days! So I quit!!!
I
bought 4 GB of RAM because I thought it would speed up my system a bit. My
motherboard happily stated in its manual that it supports 4 GB of RAM.
This
crazy issue regarding more than 2 GB of RAM wasn't readily available I had
no
idea about it. So. I happily bought 4 GB of RAM and was proud of it! My
system seemed to boot a bit faster. Microsoft Office seemed to load a bit
faster. Games seemed to run even just a tad faster. I was happy though not
ecstatic. But I was shocked when I noticed that My Computer/Properties
showed
only 3.00 GB! Where did my extra 1 GB of RAM go?


There are two issues here:

1. First, the idea that adding more RAM will speed up your system is true
only up to a point. If more RAM eliminates the need to page, or reduces it,
then it will speed up your system. But if you already have enough RAM to not
use the page file, adding more RAM does nothing for you.

For almost everyone running a mix of normal business applications under
Windows XP, as much as 4GB of RAM is overkill. Even 2GB is almost certainly
overkill and performance with any more than something in the range of 512MB
to1GB will likely be just as good as having any more than that. Only if you
run applications doing particularly memory-hungry tasks, such as
photo-editing or video editing, is it likely that more than 1GB will do
anything at all for you.

2. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.


Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.
 
G

ghm

John said:
Let's see if I can explain this in a few short paragraphs.

Phew, that was a lengthy one. I feel a question coming up... you say
other devices takes up memory addresses. Wouldn't it be possible for
them to take up space in the dedicated I/O space instead?
 
C

Canyon

I assumed this was a Windows XP only forum so I didn't see the need to state
my operating system, but:

I am using Windows XP Home 32 bit SP2

My lengthy migraine inducing question generated some lengthy migraine
REDUCING answers (after I sorted through them all ;) ); I seem to be getting
a little more confident in my understanding as to why this issue is an issue,
but I still don't understand why these things were designed this way. I don't
remember the days when my Commodore 64 was king that this being an issue.
Then again, the processing power back then could hold a candle to today’s
systems. But from what I understand of how the Commodore 64 was designed I
don't think this would have ever been an issue if the Commodore would have
remained king. Heck! Macintosh computers I don't think have this issue, but I
don't know much about them; maybe I'm wrong.

My system:
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe with nForce 4 SLI chipset. AWARD Bios ver. 1805
750 watt Silverstone power.
AMD Athlon 64-FX 60
4 GB RAM DDR Corsair XMS 400 mhz
2x eVGA 8600 GTS 512 MB DDR3 in SLI
WD 200GB 7200 RPM SATA HD
Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS Platinum ex
Windows XP Home 32 bit SP2

I still am not 100 % sure if my system is 64 -bit capable if I ran a 64 bit
OS? Is my mother board and chipset 64-bit?

Also I still don't understand a few things:

One, if in fact a system with only 1 GB of RAM is sufficient then why do
most games require 1 GB of RAM and are even going for 2 GB RAM these days
(Crysis, Assassin’s Creed)? Plus the two big names in gaming rigs, Alienware
and Falcon Northwest only build systems with 4 GB minimum. I trust their
judgment pretty well. If one only needs more than 1 GB RAM for photo editing
and video editing then why do these games require at least 1 GB or even 2 GB
and why are the gaming rigs designed with 4 GB RAM?

All I know is that when I installed 4 GB RAM in my system I saw a minor to
moderate speed boost. I know that more RAM isn't necessarily the end all and
be all of speed boosts. But I do know that it helps to a point and most
likely doesn't hurt, except for the waste of money after a certain point. My
Office programs load quite a bit faster, my Paint Shop Pro runs a lot faster,
and a few of my newer games seem to run a little faster if not moderately
faster. I haven't tried my system with only 3 GB or 2 GB so I don't know what
the performance boost is with 4 GB over 2 or 3 GB from my initial 1 GB. From
what I understand Windows needs quite a bit of RAM to run smoothly and thus
there is less for the games to run. So the more RAM the system has available
the better the games can run. Is this true or would I still see no
performance boost with 2 GB vs. 3 or 4 GB RAM?

Next question:

I still don't understand why if my system had only 2 GB of RAM and
everything else was the same that Windows would see and use the full 2 GB RAM
and people seem to still state that I would not see a noticeable performance
difference? I don't understand this if for instance my 2 video cards require
addressing space. Don't they still need the addressing space and as such
gobble up 225 MB of my 2 GB of RAM therefore only leaving 1.75 GB RAM for the
OS and programs? Or does the addressing issue miraculously not occur with 2
GB or less? Or am I confused again?

And lastly: I still don't know if I got a clear answer as to whether my
extra 1.25 GB of RAM with my 4 GB system is actually a benefit at all in any,
even minute, way?

Thanks
 
J

John John (MVP)

ghm said:
Phew, that was a lengthy one.

The paragraphs were short... ;-)
I feel a question coming up... you say
other devices takes up memory addresses. Wouldn't it be possible for
them to take up space in the dedicated I/O space instead?

That is not without its own share of problems, I/O space use is
constrained. There has been a push to reduce I/O Resource Usage:

I/O Resource Usage Reduction
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/connect/PCI/IO-rsc.mspx

John
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top