Win XP 64 - 4 Gig memory

[The Borg]

Hi all,

I have a Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 nVidia nForce4 Ultra motherboard. I have decided to install win XP 64 so I can access 4 gig memory for later use of the machine as a server.

I installed 4 gig of Kingston hyperx memory. However, the mobo only recognises 3.25 gig or ram. The user manual says that due to standard PC architecture, a certain amount of memory is reserved for system usage, so the actual amount may be less.

While I can understand some of this, I cannot believe that I have to put up with a 0.75 gig loss. I have upgraded the BIOS to the latest F9 version.

Any suggestions please.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: The Borg
I installed 4 gig of Kingston hyperx memory. However, the mobo only recognises 3.25 gig or ram. The user manual says that due to standard PC architecture, a certain amount of memory is reserved for system usage, so the actual amount may be less.

Your current OS can only acess 4.0GB of address space. From that, you have to subtract address space for every component in your case, including USB ports, parralel printer ports, floppy ports, IDE ports, SATA ports, onboard audio, onboard network controllers, and the big one for gamers, your video card. That's the drawbacks of 32-bit Windows.*

Any suggestions please.

The only way around this limitation is to install a 64-bit version of Windows, unless you want to use Linux.


* The only 32-bit version of Windows this doesn't apply to is 32-bit Windows Server 2003.

 

[mxnerd]

There is no fix if you have only 4G. That's the way it is. No matter you use XP 32 bit or XP 64 bit. The upper portion of memory is reserved for system, I/O and Video, etc.

If you are running XP 64 bit, you should be running at least 6G (2x2G + 2x1G) or 8G (4 x 2G), then there should be no waste.

 

[The Borg]

OK, I am running 64-bit XP.

Why was there no reduction when I only had 2 gig memory? And why running 6 or 8 gig make it better - no waste?

 

[mxnerd]

2^32 = 4G
2^64 = 16T

The O.S. and program access the memory bottom up, the I/O, system, video occupies memory top down.

So if you are running 64bit O.S. The I/O, system, video occupies from 16T (tera bytes) downward, and that's a huge gap between 8G (most motherboards can support) and 16T.


The other question is, do you really need more than 3.25G?

Buying more than you needed is really a waste of money.

 

[pallejr]

Enabling memory remap in the bios is usually the way to go

 

[The Borg]

How do I do that?

 

[mxnerd]

Look for your motherboard manual and see if it has memory remap feature.

I wonder if it will work. My Abit IP35 does not has this feature.

I'm running 64bit XP and it can see all of 8G memory.

 

[pallejr]

When entered the bios, try hitting ctrl+f1 to get to the advanced bios setup

 

[Nothinman]

* The only 32-bit version of Windows this doesn't apply to is 32-bit Windows Server 2003.

Actually it's only the Enterprise and Datacenter versions of Win2K3, base Server only does 4G just like XP.

If you are running XP 64 bit, you should be running at least 6G (2x2G + 2x1G) or 8G (4 x 2G), then there should be no waste.

That sentence is so wrong and yet so funny. There is absolutely no reason that 6G should be considered the minimum for XP64.

Why was there no reduction when I only had 2 gig memory? And why running 6 or 8 gig make it better - no waste?

Because the addresses used by the hardware start at the 4G mark and work their way down no matter how much memory you have. But if your BIOS has a memory remap function there's no waste regardless of the amount of memory.

So if you are running 64bit O.S. The I/O, system, video occupies from 16T (tera bytes) downward, and that's a huge gap between 8G (most motherboards can support) and 16T.

Not true, the I/O range is always from 4G down because the system always starts up in 32-bit mode. The OS switches the CPU to long-mode at some point in the boot process.

Buying more than you needed is really a waste of money.

Extra memory is always used for the filesystem cache so it's never really wasted.

 

[mxnerd]

If you are running XP 64 bit, you should be running at least 6G (2x2G + 2x1G) or 8G (4 x 2G), then there should be no waste.

That sentence is so wrong and yet so funny. There is absolutely no reason that 6G should be considered the minimum for XP64.

So what's your recommendation?

I don't see how it's funny and wrong if buyer wants to save a little money by buying 6G if that's all he needs. I myself won't do that.

So if you are running 64bit O.S. The I/O, system, video occupies from 16T (tera bytes) downward, and that's a huge gap between 8G (most motherboards can support) and 16T.

Not true, the I/O range is always from 4G down because the system always starts up in 32-bit mode. The OS switches the CPU to long-mode at some point in the boot process.

So that means I/O, system occupies the middle part (bold & highlighted) if I installed 8G?

0 ----------3.25G or 3.5G -------- 4G -------------------------8G

and why XP 64bit see 8386732K? and seems no I/O or system addresses occupied?

 

[Nothinman]

So what's your recommendation?

To buy as much memory as you need to use, buying 6G for no other reason than you're running XP64 is stupid.

I don't see how it's funny and wrong if buyer wants to save a little money by buying 6G if that's all he needs. I myself won't do that.

So you save money by buying more than what you really need? XP64 will run just fine on 2G, hell it'll probably run fine on 1G. The amount of memory that you buy is determined by the apps that you're running, not the OS.

So that means I/O, system occupies the middle part (bold & highlighted) if I installed 8G?

Yup. Your hardware still POSTs in 16-bit mode and boots up in 32-bit mode so there's no way the I/O range can be at the 16TB mark since the CPU isn't even setup to address that much yet.

and why XP 64bit see 8386732K? and seems no I/O or system addresses occupied?

That's what the memory remapping in the BIOS is for. It takes the memory used by the I/O space and moves it up above that range so both are usable.

 

[mxnerd]

So what's your recommendation?

To buy as much memory as you need to use, buying 6G for no other reason than you're running XP64 is stupid.

I don't see how it's funny and wrong if buyer wants to save a little money by buying 6G if that's all he needs. I myself won't do that.

So you save money by buying more than what you really need? XP64 will run just fine on 2G, hell it'll probably run fine on 1G. The amount of memory that you buy is determined by the apps that you're running, not the OS.

[/quote]

Apparently you misunderstood me. Of course I know XP 64 can be run on machine with as little as 1G. That's what I'm trying to tell the original poster and said that whether he really needs more than 3.25G that he currently has.

If the original poster only do Office, browsing and playing games, I don't see the reason he uses XP 64 and install more than 2G at all.

I'm running multiple VMware virtual machines, that's why I install more than 4G and running XP 64bit.


I checked the OP's motherboard manual, and did not see the motherboard has memory remapping feature.

 

[Nothinman]

Apparently you misunderstood me. Of course I know XP 64 can be run on machine with as little as 1G. That's what I'm trying to tell the original poster and said that whether he really needs more than 3.25G that he currently has.

You said "If you are running XP 64 bit, you should be running at least 6G (2x2G + 2x1G) or 8G (4 x 2G), then there should be no waste. " which seems pretty straight forward to me.

I checked the OP's motherboard manual, and did not see the motherboard has memory remapping feature.

If that's true then he's screwed unless a BIOS update adds that feature.

 

[mxnerd]

Found an article about memory remapping.

http://www.digitmemo.com/artic...on-and-solutionpart-3/



And sorry, 2^64 = 16 exabytes, not 16 terabytes.

XP 64bit supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB) of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory

 

[inhotep]

The Borg, if you are running XP64bit and only see 3.5GB RAM, I can think of two reasons.
1) 0.5GB could be allocated for your graphics memory. Do you have an integrated video card?
2) you may need a bios update from your motherboard company.

And for the more ram=wast of money question.. it's a vague question because it all depends what you use your machine for.
Of course more ram is better. I've just upgraded from 2GB to 6GB on my Vista 64bit Ultimate and noticed over all significant response boost.
In addition, with more ram you can use less virtual memory. I turned mine off so it won't use my hard disk to swap page files. Why? because I have enough RAM now. Keep in the amount of virtual memory is zero on my machine for my needs. Other people may need virtual memory with 6GBs. My machine is no longer bugged down by swapping files between RAM and virtual memory on hard disk. I can tell that it is now much faster alt-tab when playing resource demanding apps like games.

 

[Nothinman]

In addition, with more ram you can use less virtual memory.

No you can't, the amount of virtual memory is a constant. You really need to read up on memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: mxnerd
So what's your recommendation?

I don't see how it's funny and wrong if buyer wants to save a little money by buying 6G if that's all he needs. I myself won't do that.

I've run 32 bit and 64 bit Vista, on the same mobo/proccy, with varying amounts of RAM. No benchies, but my seat of the pants experience is as follows:

32 to 64 bit on 2GB of RAM - I didn't notice any difference in performance.

64 bit, changing from 2GB to 4GB of RAM - OS was noticably snappier. Not a big difference. But just enough that I noticed. Apps launched in the same time, games played the same - a few more FPS, but nothing major. But the real difference became apparent when heavily multitasking. Combinations which used to bog a little, such as gaming while I was waiting for a video to finish encoding, no longer had any user noticable performance impact. Almost to the extent that I almost imagined the computer actually ran better the more junk I made it do... I could game, run FRAPS to record what I was doing, and encode/decode a separate video, all at once. The only difference being that doing that beat the hell out of the hard drive - so I/O there suffered from lack of bandwidth. But the apps themselves ran perfectly well.

64 bit, changing from 4GB to 8GB - No noticable difference.


Based on my experience, I should think that 4GB of decent memory with some nice tight timings should be the sweet spot. If you do very heavy video editing and have apps that'll make full use, then more is better.

DDR2 prices being what they have been, though, I seel little reason to skimp...

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

In addition, with more ram you can use less virtual memory.

No you can't, the amount of virtual memory is a constant. You really need to read up on memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

Yes you can, by adjusting the size under System Properties. If you have more RAM that means you can use less virtual memories. You really start using memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes you can, by adjusting the size under System Properties. If you have more RAM that means you can use less virtual memories. You really start using memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

No, that changes the size of the pagefile not the available VM. There is always the maximum amount of VM available, on a 32-bit system that's 4G per-process and on AMD64 that's 256TB since AMD64 only does 48-bits virtual and 36-bits physical right now but can be extended without breaking compatibilty.

 

[The Borg]

inhotep: I have a 512 meg Radeon 1950 pro graphics card. maybe that is why it is using so much memory space.

I can only see 3.25 gig. bit frustrating. i could have got away with only getting an additional 2 x 512.

 

[trala]

I've been using Vista 64-bit mostly, tho I travel between OS's quite a lot What I can say about 4gb vs 8gb of RAM in Vista 64-bit: it DOES make a difference. A lot more activity seems to run straight through RAM, which is resulting in less hard drive access. See here for example: http://www.tomshardware.com/re...-workshop,1775-12.html

At first, when using Vista, you of course have to account for the indexing service running your hard drive like mad, but after a week or so it will start to wind down and you'll have less hard drive activity. I usually just turn the indexing service off right away.

That 6gb RAM recommendation is a little strange to me, because wouldn't you want to run in dual channel mode? You can't do that with 6gb. Then the 'gain' of 2gb is really a loss, if it results in not being able to run in dual channel mode. Either use 4gb or 8gb, and if you're using Vista 64-bit I would definitely recommend 8gb. I run 8gb of ddr2 800 from G.Skill and it works very well.

The Borg: it is kind of funny how your system behaves, it just sounds like you're running 32-bit, because the symptoms are exactly such. I know you said you're running 64-bit, I'm just saying that is exactly how 32-bit behaves. I have a 512 card and my system also says I have 3.25 gig while I have 8, when I run a 32-bit system.

 

[mxnerd]

As long as you run memory in pairs (same module, same speed), then you are in dual channel. Yes, it'w weird, but you can run 3GB (2x1G + 512Mx2) or 6GB (2x2G + 1G x2) in dual channel. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yes you can, by adjusting the size under System Properties. If you have more RAM that means you can use less virtual memories. You really start using memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

No, that changes the size of the pagefile not the available VM. There is always the maximum amount of VM available, on a 32-bit system that's 4G per-process and on AMD64 that's 256TB since AMD64 only does 48-bits virtual and 36-bits physical right now but can be extended without breaking compatibilty.

OK, we are not referring to the same thing then. I'm talking about the "Virtual memory" in Window's System Properties Advanced section, where you can manage it manually or automatically.
You can manually manage the paging file size for all drive; "custom size, system managed size or "no paging file."

Most users with 8GB of ram can set it to "No paging file." For gamers, this means you don't have the long wait alt-tab between games, apps and OS since memory is stored is the physical ram instead of swapping the pagefile between ram and the hard disk.

 

[Lorne]

Im 90% sure its a Memory remap issue in the bios, Wether it has the setting in it Im unsure of and it seems kind of odd if it didnt.

Also the BIOS always post what memory has been installed (depending wether MRM is set or active), Not whats left after IO has been allocated, Theres no such thing as waste durring posting.

The Borg, Check your Bios carefully for Memory remap, If you cant find it look for other other memory settings, Ive heard some MB MFG hiding such a setting as another command like "Set Memory hole at" because they were to lazy to edit the bios menu.
If you cant find any such setting then your hosed and the MB wont support more then 4G, If the bios doesnt see it during post windows wont see it wether 64bit or not.