Can the paging file size be limited by the chipset/Bios?

codyw1996

Honorable
Sep 7, 2013
51
0
10,640
My neighbor threw out an old socket LGA775 PC, so I claimed it for my own. I cleaned it up, upgraded the CPU and memory with parts that I had lying around, and then I installed Windows 7 Ultimate X64.

I am now playing around with the computer, and benchmarking it with some modern games to see what it can do.

It has a 4 gigs of 800mhz memory, but a game I am trying to run (Rust alpha even though I know it will be terribly slow) consumes all of it. All 3.22 gigs that the chipset, or BIOS will allow me to allocate. (The onboard GPU reserves 512MB of it, even though I'm not using it)

The game is set to the absolute lowest graphical settings, and I am 100% sure that it will be unplayably slow even though I have paired the computer with a decent modern graphics card. However, that has nothing to do with the question I am asking here, so please, there is no reason to let me know that what I am doing is pointless. I do have a capable gaming machine to run Rust correctly. Thanks.

I set the paging file to the system recommended size of about 4 gigs, but the extra memory doesn't show up in Task manager. The pagefile.sys file is the correct size however.

I thought that the Paging file was a sort of high level (operating system level) construct not affected by low level software, or hardware.

Again, the CPU, and operating system are 64 bit. The chipset in question is Ati's RC410.
 
Hello... NO... HD size, typically the default Windows sets is about the size of your physical RAM memory... you can set it to what you want or turn it off too. 4GB of RAM and HD will make a slow Windows response, unless you are using a SSD OS drive and Pagefile.sys.
adding 4 more GB would be much smoother for all things you run.
 

codyw1996

Honorable
Sep 7, 2013
51
0
10,640
Yes, I know that I can disable it, but I want it to be enabled and functional, but it is currently not.

I have managed to get Rust to run on some of my other systems, by using this method.

I had a laptop with a max of 4 gigs, and I managed to run Rust just fine by increasing the paging file size, which in turn increased the total amount of "physical memory" that showed up in task manager. (I know it is not really physical memory, but that is what windows 7 calls the field)

So why is the total amount of memory not increasing along with the paging file size in this machine that I am testing now?

 

codyw1996

Honorable
Sep 7, 2013
51
0
10,640
There is no option in the bios to disable the internal IGP. This is a cheap OEM board, unfortunately. I have set the first display device to PCIe. That is all that it really allows me to do.

The 'commit' field in Task Manager is over 8GB proving that the page file is working.
I suppose I was mistaken when I mentioned that the 'physical memory' field had increased in size on my laptop after enabling the paging file.

This also means that the size of the paging file had not been a factor when I had managed to launch Rust on my laptop. I suppose 4GB is enough to simply launch the game, whilst 3.22GB is simply not enough.
 

codyw1996

Honorable
Sep 7, 2013
51
0
10,640


You were too lazy to read the details of my question, and then assumed I didn't know the difference between virtual and physical memory. All while simultaneously failing to answer my question.

You deserve this -1.
 

Tradesman1

Legenda in Aeternum
Question being is pagefile limited by chipset was already answered, where you said things like

"I set the paging file to the system recommended size of about 4 gigs, but the extra memory doesn't show up in Task manager."

"So why is the total amount of memory not increasing along with the paging file size in this machine that I am testing now?"

__________________

is what I was responding, to - increasing your pagefile does nothing to total amount of memory. Was just trying to explain by saying what it is....excuse me for trying. I wasn't assuming as you infer, it was based on the statements you made

 

codyw1996

Honorable
Sep 7, 2013
51
0
10,640


In the Windows XP version of the task manager (that I am more familiar with), the graph that was (apparently) renamed "memory" in Windows 7, used to be called "PF Usage". That's why I was confused about the field named "memory" in the Windows 7 (Vista and later) version of the task manager. I was confused because it was renamed, not because I don't know the difference between physical and virtual memory. I don't even know why i'm bothering to reply to you. I doubt that you'll even read this. Whatever.