3gb?

[za3zoo3]

hi guys

why amd 64 can only handle 3 gb of memory ?

 

[pickxx]

Um....i am not quite sure what you mean by this. The chip itself can handle more then 3GB with the proper OS. Most motherboards only have 3slots for RAM. With a 1GB dimm per slot, thats 3GB.
I think its more a limitation of the motherboard then the chip.

Also...what in the world are you doing that you need more then 3GB?

 

[za3zoo3]

thanks pickxx

yes i mean why the limit of all motherboard is 3gb and the intel 4 gb

lolz. i don`t anything just qes buut most way i need it cause i run more than 20 page @ mid to full graphic thats the case to need more gb to handle this tasks

 

[P4Man]

If you need that much memory, you probably want registered ram, so a socket 940+opteron should fit the bill. Up to 8 dimms or 16 GB per cpu. Want more ? Get a dual or quad system. A Quad opteron should be able to handle up to 64 GB, which seems enough for most uses I think.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Mephistopheles]

But on desktops, I cannot imagine that any mobo manufacturer would put more than 3 or 4 DIMMS, which is not enough to exceed 4GB, and even going much beyond 1GB adds tremendously to the price.

High-density DDR1 is extremely expensive (1GB DIMMS are expensive!).

However, DDR2 should enable higher densities in the future and within a reasonable price. Until then, I see no way of getting much more than, say, 3 or 4GBs (2GB reasonable max) with DDR1 on desktop mobos.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

 

[P4Man]

Hu ? What the hell makes you think DDR2 would be cheaper to achieve higher densities per DIMM ?? As it is, DDR2 costs 2-3x as much for otherwise comparable (performance and capacity) DDR1 DIMMs, and while I expect prices to drop over the next 12 months, I honestly don't see why it would ever be cheaper than DDR1, let alone substantially.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Mephistopheles]

What makes me think that? It's just that it is in theory easier to make DDR2 and it is technically possible to make higher-density chips.

Therefore, I suppose that once DDR2 enters mass production, DDR2 might enable increased RAM amounts of 2GB or 4GB on a desktop. DDR2 makes 2GB DIMMS possible...

I'm also thinking that DDR2 is way too expensive now because NOONE has adopted it yet, so there is too little production and it's not a mass product. Like DDR1, it was initially more expensive than standard SDRAM, but later on, much to everyone's surprise, there was a time in which DDR was <i>cheaper</i> than standard SDRAM!

Or am I way off here?...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

 

[P4Man]

> It's just that it is in theory easier to make DDR2 and it
>is technically possible to make higher-density chips.

Have you got a link for that ? AFAIK, DDR2 allows higher clockspeeds, but I've never read anywhere it would allow higher densities as DDR1. It may or may not (not sure) improve signaling thereby allowing perhaps more DIMMs (and/or longer traces), but even that I'm not sure about. Could just as well be the opposite.

>DDR2 might enable increased RAM amounts of 2GB or 4GB on a
>desktop.

There are already 2 GB DDR1 Dimms on the market. sure they are expensive as hell, but thats just demand/supply, not because there would be some limit to how dense you can make them. At least not that I'm aware off.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[blackphoenix77]

You won't need more than 2gb, 1gb is usually plenty.

<font color=blue>AthlonXP-M 2500+(12x211)</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Abit NF7-S</font color=green>
<font color=red>Kingston DDR400 2x256Mb</font color=red>