4gigs posting, only 2.2 recognized in windows.

zooairz

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2006
83
0
18,630
System:
OS: WinXP pro

Mobo: evga 680i

Ram: 2x 2gigs XMS 1066 5-5-5-15 (stock) Dual channel kits, "SLI Certified, EPP,..."
(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145033)

CPU: qx6700, (video editing)
GPU: evga 800gtx (2) in SLI (games)
PSU: 1000w

I am new to the whole SLI thing.

SLI enabled ram in the bios, whatever that means. Speed link is also enabled to the 2 gtx's, whatever that means.

The 4 gigs is posting just fine at either 800 or 1066, depending on what I try. I seem to be able to notch up my cpu to about 3.0ghz and frankly, I leave the rest as it is.

Windows is only recognizing 2.2 gigs of the 4 though. Is it getting used by something else like the graphics cards? I have not used memtest yet, nor looked at it with CPU-Z but there have been no problems installing or working otherwise. I just wanted to get the most out if it, especially the video rendering.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
 
Edit your boot.ini file and add the /3GB command line paramater. Google "boot.ini /3gb" for correct usage. 32 bit windows uses at leat 1 gig for memory addressing for hardware leaving 3 gig for applications. XP 64 bit can utilize 4+ gig no problem.
 

zooairz

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2006
83
0
18,630
Thanks for the note on the /3GB for the boot.ini. That was helpful but I can't seem to confirm if it worked or not.

I added the switch to the ini file but there is no change in the recognized RAM. That being said, however, I read on MS's website that it uses 1gb for what it wants and leaves the left over 2.2 gigs of RAM for whatever. That total 1+2.2 is the 3, but maybe I misunderstood. If anyone has a thought, great.

Thanks again.
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
Windows XP supports 4 GB of RAM, if 0 bytes are used for I/O acceleration.
With Dell Pentium D systems I've been able to map 3.50 GB of 4.00 GB as memory - it is not 'that hard'.


Can you please MSN folder share me, or post an image (not image-shack - you can MSN folder share instead) of your Device Manager in the following layout:

Device_Manager_Memory_Ranges_101.png


I suspect your SLI Aperture is using 1 GB, and the remaining 1280 MB is being mapped by other PCI/PCIe devices, thus it can not be mapped to memory.

:arrow: Quite simple, if you know hex and how the PCIe / PCI bus(es) work, but so few people actually understand it for some reason.

Get MSN Live! Messenger here: http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
 

zooairz

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2006
83
0
18,630
Thanks for the offer. I will send this stuff off when I get home from work at about 11:00pm on Weds 13 Dec 06 (Virginia, USA GMT +5). That should be about 3:00pm Thursday 14 Dec 06 your time.

The only hex I know is when comparing two savegames to another, finding the gold and changing it to what I want. :D I also use to own a VIC20 (20 years ago,) and would record programs on tape. Not much programming/hex after that. :?

Not to waste time or confuse the issue but:

(1) Is windows indeed using the RAM for something, I just cant see it as usable?

(2) Am I basically getting the most performance and speed in the current configuration (with I/O acceleration including the EVGA mobo and EVGA GPU 'speedboost') thus no need to change the apertures etc.?

I will still send the stuff, but my objective is the most speed for games yet use the ram if available for video/audio editing. (If that helps.)

I am interested in what you are thinking.

Thanks again for your time.
 

niz

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2003
903
0
18,980
Thanks for the offer. I will send this stuff off when I get home from work at about 11:00pm on Weds 13 Dec 06 (Virginia, USA GMT +5). That should be about 3:00pm Thursday 14 Dec 06 your time.

The only hex I know is when comparing two savegames to another, finding the gold and changing it to what I want. :D I also use to own a VIC20 (20 years ago,) and would record programs on tape. Not much programming/hex after that. thing you need. :?

Not to waste time or confuse the issue but:

(1) Is windows indeed using the RAM for something, I just cant see it as usable?

(2) Am I basically getting the most performance and speed in the current configuration (with I/O acceleration including the EVGA mobo and EVGA GPU 'speedboost') thus no need to change the apertures etc.?

I will still send the stuff, but my objective is the most speed for games yet use the ram if available for video/audio editing. (If that helps.)

I am interested in what you are thinking.

Thanks again for your time.

>> I also use to own a VIC20 (20 years ago,) and would record programs on tape.

Oh wow .me too :)

>> Is windows indeed using the RAM for something, I just cant see it as usable?

Nope. you cant represent a number larger than approx. 3 gigs using only 32 bits. So in a system that uses 32-bit addressing, the cpu can't access addresses higher than that because it can't ask for them. So this means the OS isn't using that extra memory for anything as it cant even access it.

Like all the other posts say, you need to use a 64 bit OS to even access it. You already have a processor with 64-bit support so thats the only thing you need to upgrade.

Update: my bad. 32 bits allows upto 4gb addressing. Its just that some hardware registers ar emapped into memory so need to use some of the 4GB, and also windows has a badly-implemented design which locks more away. Linux doesn't.
 

zooairz

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2006
83
0
18,630
Niz,

Good to know, thank you.

1)
I fear implementing winxp x64 for incompatibility issues and I have no experience nor the time for Linux. I like Linux of what I have seen but life demands more time than I can use to play with that sort of thing. MS's website has a lot of info about using winxp x64, virtualization and dual booting but again, that is probably not worth the time for me.

you cant represent a number larger than approx. 3 gigs using only 32 bits. So in a system that uses 32-bit addressing, the cpu can't access addresses higher than that because it can't ask for them

I believe you. Here is a quote from MS's website that I do not fully understand :

from:(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 (which I have) and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003. (Bold only for note, nothing more.)

So, windows xp pro recognizes 4gb of 'virtual space'. Somehow this /3GB in the boot file was made to let the system have more.

In non-nasty way, is there a good functional way to use this for the RAM I have or change that virtual memory to my hard memory? (Only if it would increase performance. I don't want to slow down a link to the GPU's, if that makes sense.)

2)
Can the BIOS/MOBO use the RAM for this I/O accleration business, unrelated to the OS?

Or do I have to face the fact that there is no use for the extra ram at all in my current state of affairs? (except a backup pair)


Thanks for your thoughts.
 

zooairz

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2006
83
0
18,630
Hawkeye22,

I will do that in a few, I was in the middle of doing this stuff and tried to back up my drive and it all went to the land of "Please Insert System Disk".

Reformatting will be my first job and I will visit this stuff again on the flip side.

To All,

Thank you all for you help,

You guys are great.

Jer
 

zooairz

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2006
83
0
18,630
For the rest of the forum, I am just going to dump 2 gigs of ram and not worry about the maddness.

Rodney,

I remember thinking that a disk drive was way out of my league. That would be the disk drive that was about 16" long, weighed 10lbs.+ and of course had the 5" disks. 8O :)

Thanks again to all.
 

niz

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2003
903
0
18,980
Check your bios for a setting called "memory hole" remapping or something to that effect. Try turning it on too.

no, thats a workaround for an old operating system called OS/2. I'm surprised that they even still put that option in BIOS's. You should always have that option disabled for any modern OS.
 

Mondoman

Splendid
...
you cant represent a number larger than approx. 3 gigs using only 32 bits. So in a system that uses 32-bit addressing, the cpu can't access addresses higher than that because it can't ask for them
Actually, the number is *exactly* 4 gigs. So, you would think up to 4 GB RAM should be OK, right?
However, there are other components besides RAM that use some of that 4GB of possible memory addresses. Memory-mapped I/O takes up a lot and so forth. Every address occupied by something other than RAM cannot be used to address RAM, so it's a zero-sum game. When Windows starts up, the RAM it "sees" is limited by how much memory address space is left free. This varies according to the specific hardware and settings on your board, but is typically roughly 3GB. On your system, it's currently 2.2GB. Your RAM is physically fine, but there's not enough free address space under Win XP to access more than about half of it.

As mentioned, 64-bit OSs are designed to take advantage of the greater-than-32-bit address space of modern hardware, so running a 64-bit OS should allow all 4GB RAM to be used by the OS.

Even on Win XP, you may be (likely can) inactivate some of the other components or change the amount of address space they use by changing settings in the BIOS and Device Manager, without significantly affecting the functionality of your system, and thus free up more address space to be used to address more of your RAM.

...
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.
All this says is that each program is limited to 2GB of memory, because the other 2GB of address space is reserved for use by the Windows OS. The /3GB boot switch just changes this to 3GB per program and 1GB for Win OS. This switch does nothing to help in your case, and may hurt things -- take it out if you have already inserted it.


2)
Can the BIOS/MOBO use the RAM for this I/O accleration business, unrelated to the OS?
No, since it can't be addressed, it can't be used.

Or do I have to face the fact that there is no use for the extra ram at all in my current state of affairs? (except a backup pair)
Yes, but someone (e.g. TDP) knowledgeable in the details of what your MB/graphics card/etc use in the memory map may be able to come up with settings to modify/shut down enough items to get you to the neighborhood of 3GB usable RAM.