How to fully utilize 4GB RAM?

[wyemarn]

I just upgraded to 4GB but using XP Pro 32bit so I get only 3.25GB in Windows. The problem is, I notice my memory usage rarely goes above 2GB. Is there any tweaks I can do so that Windows will utilize the amount of free memory?

I'm thinking of upgrading to a 64bit OS to fully take advantage of 4GB. Vista has been on my mind but the lack of EAX support really piss me off. Between Vista x86 and x64 which would be better for general usages and games? How about Win XP x64?

[naokaji]

xp 64 isnt worth it...

vista 32 vs. 64? i dont see the point in the 32 bit version.

i'd say go with home premium 64 bit, ultimate isnt worth it, except if you have a multisocket system. (all vista versions have multicore support, but only business, ultimate and the comming server version supports multisockets). rest is pretty much the same between home premium and ultimate anyway (except for the price).

[Serra]

Oh man, here we go again. I should just record this in my sig or something.

All because you only see 3.25GB does not mean that Windows doesn't recognize it. It's unusual, but when you have less than 4GB Windows shows it all to you then uses some for itself... then when you do have 4GB Windows instead proactively just cuts a section off for itself (varies in amount from system to system) and only displays what it leaves for your programs. So don't worry, you aren't being robbed, Windows just changes how it chooses to display your usable memory.

[wyemarn]

Oh man, here we go again. I should just record this in my sig or something.

All because you only see 3.25GB does not mean that Windows doesn't recognize it. It's unusual, but when you have less than 4GB Windows shows it all to you then uses some for itself... then when you do have 4GB Windows instead proactively just cuts a section off for itself (varies in amount from system to system) and only displays what it leaves for your programs. So don't worry, you aren't being robbed, Windows just changes how it chooses to display your usable memory.

Could you explain why when using 3GB or below, all the amount of memory will be displayed? Anyway I don't notice my OS is faster even though the 0.75GB is taken. Btw, I don't really care because I have more than enough RAM for now. Just want to fully utilize it because the amount of free RAM is wasted for the time being.

[Truckchase!]

In order for your OS to be able to talk to your hardware, it has to have mapped memory i/o ranges to all of it. Since with 32 bits you can only address a flat 4GB space, the hardware i/o ranges are mapped to the top of that 4GB barrier, regardless of if you have 4GB or not. Since those i/o ranges overwrite the same i/o ranges as approx 3.25GB and up (all depending on hardware of course) you loose the actual memory reference, and therefore it can't be utilized by windows or any 32bit OS for that matter.

[Tortel]

Erm, I need some help with this too. I just got another 2gb of ram, and its recognized by the BIOS, Memtest, and CPU-Z, but system properties shows 2gb.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/Tortel/hmm-1.jpg
I know it show about 3.5gb, but this is kinda odd.

[wyemarn]

Erm, I need some help with this too. I just got another 2gb of ram, and its recognized by the BIOS, Memtest, and CPU-Z, but system properties shows 2gb.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/Tortel/hmm-1.jpg
I know it show about 3.5gb, but this is kinda odd.

Windows XP automatically recognised my RAM. Maybe some bios settings.

[adamsleath]

How to fully utilize 4GB RAM?
run more programs simultaneously? :lol:

[alexio]

In order for your OS to be able to talk to your hardware, it has to have mapped memory i/o ranges to all of it. Since with 32 bits you can only address a flat 4GB space, the hardware i/o ranges are mapped to the top of that 4GB barrier, regardless of if you have 4GB or not. Since those i/o ranges overwrite the same i/o ranges as approx 3.25GB and up (all depending on hardware of course) you loose the actual memory reference, and therefore it can't be utilized by windows or any 32bit OS for that matter.
This is not a limitation of a 32bit OS but just a limitation of Windows XP 32bit. Windows Server 2003 (and maybe even Server 2000?) 32bit has no problem mapping 4GB of RAM.

If Vista 32bit (home edition) still has this limitation then mr. Gates should be shot :shakes:

[Tortel]

Well, I just messed with some settings, and with remapping off I can get 2.93gb. Still short of the 3.25-ish I was hoping for.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/Tortel/aha.jpg



This is not a limitation of a 32bit OS but just a limitation of Windows XP 32bit. Windows Server 2003 (and maybe even Server 2000?) 32bit has no problem mapping 4GB of RAM.


So its just a limitation of XP that I cant get any more? Thats kinda disappointing :(

[momoceio]

Vista 32 bit also doesn't fully map the 4gigs...no 32bit OS can natively support more than 4gigs. Do the math 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 so the OS can only that much virtual address space. The reason you don't see the full 4 gigs is because some of it is mapped to I/O resources such as the PCI slots (this is a x86 limitation) and the amount Windows reports back depends on the devices you are using and your motherboard usually. ie: If you're using a video card with 512mb of RAM the most you'll see is 3.5gigs. The only way a 32bit OS uses more than 4gigs is with some ghetto hardware and software hacks like PAE and AWE...

Read up here for more info.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

[Tortel]

ie: If you're using a video card with 512mb of RAM the most you'll see is 3.5gigs.


Exactly. I should have at least 3gb or so, but its showing about 2-2.9gb, despite the fact that I only have 4.5gb of RAM + vRAM total

[momoceio]

Well, the video card isn't the only device that has memory space addressed to it. The BIOS ROM, PCI slots (which most likely also included integrated audio, NIC, etc) also have memory spaced addressed to them..

[wyemarn]

run more programs simultaneously? :lol:

Tried to do that but still much left. Even running Prime blend still left me with 1.4gigs of ram to play with. I notice that the max amount of RAM can be allocated for a program is 1GB. I heard there is no way to disable file paging. Is it true? Just wish Windows can load the whole thing up into the memory.

[momoceio]

You wouldn't want to get rid of the Pagefile even if you could...it's a good thing actually. Linux has been using SWAP (aka Pagefile) forever...

[FullMoon]

You want Vista 64 bit and turn memory remap on.
I get 2 Gig in XP Pro and 4 Gig in Vista 64 bit.
Also if you shop around on ebay you can get a good deal on Ultimate.
I got Vista Ultimate Retail box for $150 on ebay :-)

[wyemarn]

The reason I'm reluctant to install Vista is because I will lose EAX support for most of my games. I'm using 5.1 speakers and without EAX it would be meaningless.

[momoceio]

You can get EAX for Vista...but f**king creative charges $10 for the "software" to enable it now...lame

Also only supports some of the newer cards..

http://www.soundblaster.com/alchemy/

[adamsleath]

i'd say go with home premium 64 bit
my current thinking, but when do you use more than 3gb anyway?

it's only when you run out of ram that you should worry imo.


I notice that the max amount of RAM can be allocated for a program is 1GB - do any programs you run use more than this? and where / how have you noticed this? just curious.


...and as a question; at what point of ram use (>3gb?, >4gb?) would a 64bit os become 'necessary'?


Windows 2000 and 32-bit XP allocates 2GB for user-mode processes, and 2GB to kernel-mode processes. This allocation only becomes a problem when you start using close to 2GB of RAM. If you get close to that, you can put the /3GB switch in your BOOT.INI. That will change your allocation to 3GB/1GB user/kernel.

Regardless, some space in the range from 3GB to 4GB is mapped for access to your PCI/PCI-X/PCI-Express cards.

PAE on 2000 and 32-bit XP increases your addressable memory to 36 bits, or 64GB (16GB on older implementations). This is a memory window hack (like EMS in the DOS days) implemented in Xeons and Opterons. This goes into the BOOT.INI as well.

In 32-bit land, you can go with NUMA for large memory access. NUMA works in 64-bit as well, but 64-bit doesn't really have the same adressing limitations. Even 32-bit apps running on 64-bit benefit, as EACH PROCESS has access to its own 32-bit address space - that's 4GB per program. Not too shabby, in other words.

Two of my machines have over 4GB of RAM (one has 8GB, and the other 12GB)... they're both servers. My desktops have between 512MB and 2GB each. FWIW, I can run Vista (32-bit) fine on 1GB with Visual Studio, and tons of other programs running. 64-bit Vista seems to want more like 2GB in my experience. I can't comment on gaming requirements, though.

Just for giggles, new 64-bit Windows versions support a minimum of 16TB (yes, terabytes), with a 8TB/8TG user/kernel split. Each app has a 128GB address pool
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/212211-31-windows-vista

[wyemarn]

You can get EAX for Vista...but f**king creative charges $10 for the "software" to enable it now...lame

Also only supports some of the newer cards..

http://www.soundblaster.com/alchemy/

Don't want to start a flame war here but that's the lamest thing a company can do to their customers. Btw, not all games are supported with Alchemy if I'm not mistaken.

[momoceio]

my current thinking, but when do you use more than 3gb anyway?

it's only when you run out of ram that you should worry imo.

- do any programs you run use more than this? and where /how have you noticed this? just curious.

Do you game? lol..I think BF2 uses more than a gig at times

[momoceio]

Don't want to start a flame war here but that's the lamest thing a company can do to their customers. Btw, not all games are supported with Alchemy if I'm not mistaken.

You're right, thank god most games are going to OpenAL now...eff EAX. Now we wont' have to rely on Creative anymore. :rolleyes:

[wyemarn]

- do any programs you run use more than this? and where / how have you noticed this? just curious.


Try using Prime blend. In Amoung of memory to use, it's automatically set to 1750MB. When Prime in running and I checked in Task Manager, prime process is only using around 1000MB of memory, not 1750MB. I guess that is the limit.


You're right, thank god most games are going to OpenAL now...eff EAX. Now we wont' have to rely on Creative anymore. :rolleyes:

Just browsed Creative forums and found out someone has managed to get Alchemy working for Audigy series. Did you try that out?

[Serra]

I've never seen the technical explanation for why it cuts off the amount displayed, but the fact remains that XP 32-bit does use that chunk of memory for itself. I never said it would be any faster or load anything extra in, but you're not losing it per se. Going to a 64-bit OS to be *shown* it is just unnecessary.

[momoceio]

Well, XP isn't really using it as much as your hardware is. It's used by the x86 architecture to assign addressing to hardware components.

[Truckchase!]

This is not a limitation of a 32bit OS but just a limitation of Windows XP 32bit. Windows Server 2003 (and maybe even Server 2000?) 32bit has no problem mapping 4GB of RAM.

If Vista 32bit (home edition) still has this limitation then mr. Gates should be shot :shakes:

Only if you use PAE, which doesn't apply to desktop, and, in fact, most server platforms, as it incurrs a large performance penalty. This is indeed a 32bit OS limitation, and while there are hacks to work around it in some OSs, (there actually was in XP as well until it was removed due to desktop people trying to use it) this issue exists, in full, on EVERY 32 bit platform.

[Truckchase!]

Don't want to start a flame war here but that's the lamest thing a company can do to their customers. Btw, not all games are supported with Alchemy if I'm not mistaken.

Totally off topic here, so this is all I'll say to this point, but as much as I dislike Creative they have every right to charge you for this. They didn't remove directsound3d from Windows, MSFT did. They have no obligation to provide you with a dsound3D -> OpenAL mapper. Future OS support is in the hands of the game developers, not Creative, and MSFT has a share being that they yanked the 3d sound carpet out from underneath already released games.

Sorry about off topic, this is just such a common misconception that it has to be addressed.

[wyemarn]

Would my system config run faster in Vista x64? I have found some workaround for my Audigy so hardware wise I'm all clear for Vista. I'm playing quite a number of games. I've read somewhere that Conroe will run slower in Vista x64 because some features is not supported in 64bit. Will this affect games and daily usage?

[Truckchase!]

Would my system config run faster in Vista x64? I have found some workaround for my Audigy so hardware wise I'm all clear for Vista. I'm playing quite a number of games. I've read somewhere that Conroe will run slower in Vista x64 because some features is not supported in 64bit. Will this affect games and daily usage?

I've got vista x86 vs. x64 benchmarks @ home that I'll post in a new thread, but to save the drama, there is no more than a 2% difference between the two in any given game that I tested.

[adamsleath]

Do you game? lol..I think BF2 uses more than a gig at times

bf2 was the reason i 1st went to 2gb...back in 2005....:rolleyes: