Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disappearing RAM!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Disappearing RAM!

    Okay, I need your help! I recently got 4GB ram to put into my comp, they're dual channel, and I installed them per the motherboard's instructions...

    On startup, through the checks, it recognizes all 4 GB, but when windows starts, it only says I have 2.5GB...

    I'm running Windows XP Home edition, all updates installed...

    what do you guys need to know to help me?
    Carpe Jugulum : Go for the throat.

  • #2
    32bit systems won't read the whole amount of RAM, though it should be reading at least 3GB. The only way I know to get all 4GB read is to get either XP-64, or to get Vista Home Premium and up, the 64bit version.
    Ba'al: I'm a god. Gods are all-knowing.

    http://unrelatedcaptions.com/45147

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh, good to know...

      I should've thought about that... Haha.

      Thanks!
      Carpe Jugulum : Go for the throat.

      Comment


      • #4
        Quoth Broomjockey View Post
        32bit systems won't read the whole amount of RAM, though it should be reading at least 3GB. The only way I know to get all 4GB read is to get either XP-64, or to get Vista Home Premium and up, the 64bit version.
        You pretty much answered that. 32bit systems will read anywhere between 2.5 and 3. It won't always read up to 3. 64bit is nice... but, sometimes you might be forced to run a 32bit program in compatibilty mode, and that may be with glitches.

        I guess I just wouldn't worry about it as long as your computer is running at a speed that is comfortable to you.
        When will the fantasy end? When will the heaven begin?

        Comment


        • #5
          Graphics card could subtract from the amount of ram reported potentially as well. Cheaper graphics cards steal ram for their own use.

          They take it a gunpoint and send ransom notes to the processor....
          Bark like a chicken!

          Comment


          • #6
            Quoth Skeksin View Post
            Graphics card could subtract from the amount of ram reported potentially as well. Cheaper graphics cards steal ram for their own use.
            I've never heard of a desktop card that does that. The only ones I've heard of that appropriate RAM are integrated graphics cards in laptops.
            Ba'al: I'm a god. Gods are all-knowing.

            http://unrelatedcaptions.com/45147

            Comment


            • #7
              My parents have one in their desktop - it's integrated into the motherboard.

              Rapscallion

              Comment


              • #8
                So still an integrated card then. It's been a long time since I've seen a desktop with one, I forgot they even existed.
                Ba'al: I'm a god. Gods are all-knowing.

                http://unrelatedcaptions.com/45147

                Comment


                • #9
                  There are desktop cards that share memory also - nVidia's 6200 with the TurboCache feature, for example. It seems to me that I remember more than that card sharing memory...

                  Yes, on a brief Google search, there's also the 7200GS, 8400GS, and Quadro that have that feature. I don't know if there's any cards from ATI that do the same, though.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The TurboCache (and their ilk) cards don't "steal" memory as such. They "borrow" it only when needed for large textures and suchlike - they have enough on-board to run the framebuffer and so on by themselves. The driver does the borrowing dynamically, so it still gets counted as available for the OS.

                    However, genuine "integrated graphics" chipsets still exist for cheap machines, whether desktop or laptop. Most of them are the Intel ones, but ATI and NV do some too and are noticeably better than Intel's.

                    2.5GB sounds quite plausible for a 32-bit OS to max out at. Especially if it's a Home Edition *spit*.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Quoth Chromatix View Post
                      2.5GB sounds quite plausible for a 32-bit OS to max out at. Especially if it's a Home Edition *spit*.
                      The Home/Business editions (of whatever OS your talking about) doesn't much matter. It has to do with 32 or 64-bit CPU AND Operating System.

                      I stole the below explanation from this thread since it explained it pretty well and only a bit technical:

                      Memory is a block of registers (storage devices) in a very long row:

                      Code:
                      ADDRESS 1
                      ADDRESS 2
                      ADDRESS 3
                      ADDRESS 4
                      etc..
                      In order to access Address X, the CPU needs to store the value of X in a register in the CPU and tell the memory to read the contents of the address stored in that register.

                      Registers in x86 PCs are limited to 32 bits, which means the biggest number that can be stored in that register is 2^32, or 4,294,967,296; which means that the CPU can access up to "ADDRESS 4,294,967,296" which is the 4th GB of data.

                      The problem is that the CPU also access I/O devices (printer, USB, keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc.) by assigning them an address as well. So it reserves half a GB or so of the memory addresses to talk to the I/O devices... So you have 4GB - ~0.5GB -> 3.5 GB (on Windows it is 3.2GB).

                      This is the only reason x64 was invented.
                      Unless you have both a 64-bit CPU and a 64-bit OS, you cannot use anything beyond that 4GB barrier, and you'll only see roughly the 3.5GB in Windows.

                      If you go fully 64-bit, it can handle like 128GB.


                      Eric the Grey
                      In memory of Dena - Don't Drink and Drive

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Quoth Eric the Grey View Post
                        If you go fully 64-bit, it can handle like 128GB.
                        IIRC most consumer motherboards at this time will only support up to 8GB regardless of how many bits your OS is. I can't remember where I read that though.

                        The video card memory also subtracts from the 4GB absolute limit since it needs to be addressed as well. If you've got a video card(s) with lots of RAM (I have 2x512MB cards, some people have 2x1GB) it can subtract quite a lot. If I run a 32-bit OS on my system I only see 2.25GB LOL.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Quoth clowninasack View Post
                          The video card memory also subtracts from the 4GB absolute limit since it needs to be addressed as well. If you've got a video card(s) with lots of RAM (I have 2x512MB cards, some people have 2x1GB) it can subtract quite a lot. If I run a 32-bit OS on my system I only see 2.25GB LOL.
                          That's one I've never heard before. I always thought VRAM was addressed seperately. There's my new thing for today.

                          As for the 8GB on consumer boards, there's actually a large number of them that can take up to 16GB now. Most of them are higher-end, yes, but there's a number of mid-range boards that do have the ability.
                          Ba'al: I'm a god. Gods are all-knowing.

                          http://unrelatedcaptions.com/45147

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            And with the new motherboards and processors from Intel it's going to be even more now that they're getting rid of the FSB .

                            To get top speed from the DDR3 it has to matched in banks of 3, so decent motherboards will have 6 RAM slots (like this one Mmmmm)
                            Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling. Dr Cox - Scrubs

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X