• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows not making use of my 4GB RAM.

Recommended Posts

Bryan84    1

the 32B shows 3.12GB usable. While the 64B still shows the same 3.12GB usable. Although on both it shows 4GB installed. I am just about to hit "Enter" to format again. Probably will wait for a next reply before I decide. GreyWolfSC what you think? :)

If you're already seeing > 3GB on an x86 OS then your chipset should be able to see at least that on an x64 OS no matter what the specs state. :)

The image in your original post shows 4.00GB installed (3.12 GB usable) so the chipset is seeing 4GB. Shared memory like "system" video memory could still be eating some of your RAM.

Yeah so you think I should just stay with my x64 OS instead of downgrading back to x86 eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK    797

Personally I'd just stick with 64 bit cause it will still work fine with 3 gigs of ram, probably just as well as 32 bit. But its your preference :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan84    1

Cause I am disturbed by what Robotic said:

Look on the bright side though, at least you can run 64-bit applications now, but the downside is you'll probably have less RAM to use than when using a 32-bit OS due to the bigger memory footprint required for the 64-bit OS LOL, not laughing at you Bryan84 but at the irony of it.

So it's not true? But then again, probably downgrading now will save me lots of compatibility problems (if there is to be) for applications. After all x64 is of no use to me now due to the hardware limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan84    1

Okay never mind. I've made up my mind. Back to 32-Bit. Just hope what I went through will be a good experience for others who may face the same dilemma as I do. :)

I appreciate everyone who responded and advised! :)

Neowin rocks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pharos    24
Okay never mind. I've made up my mind. Back to 32-Bit.

Yeah, best thing you could do, really. 64-bit uses a bit more memory, and you won't be able to go past 3.12GB EVER.

64-bit does not give you performance benefits on most everyday apps (yet), and your Core 2 Duo actually performs a little bit better under 32-bit due to something called Macro Ops Fusion, which doesn't work on 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
powerade01    0
32 bit needs to die already. Good to see that you're making the switch to x64. (Y)

I disagree. The majority of users do not need 64 bit and/or 4GB+ RAM.

BTW, its seems your OS detects that your system is ready for 64 bit and it actually is. The problem is that your chipset is only limited to address 32bits of memory.

Im not sure about this but you might want to try to contact Intel; they MAY have a firmware update that allows you to adress 64 bits of memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145

There's no real reason to go back. By installing the 64-bit version you've gained a marginal performance boost, and now have the option of running both 32-bit and 64-bit software (which, depending on what the software is, will perform better). The ability to use more memory isn't the only reason to go 64-bit. I guess it has to be up to you. 64-bit Windows does use a few percent more RAM, and 32-bit software does run a few percent slower in it than it would in 32-bit Windows, but at the same time, what you potentially gain with 64-bit software might cancel that out. It's all up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darrian    254

32-bit software runs slower in 64-bit Windows? Since when? The only disadvantage of running 64-bit Windows is that if you have a tiny hard drive it takes up about 1GB more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor    1,105

There is a slight overhead of swapping the CPU in and out of 32bit mode, and handling data back and forth between 32bit and 64bit processes (like the kernel)

It's only a very slight overhead though, same as the slight increase in memory usage (that is, it's so slight it really doesn't matter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darrian    254

I know, mathematically, it's slower. It's not in an amount of time anybody is really going to perceive unless they have a really slow CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145
32-bit software runs slower in 64-bit Windows? Since when? The only disadvantage of running 64-bit Windows is that if you have a tiny hard drive it takes up about 1GB more.

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit kernel (internally by providing thunks for the kernel and kernel-mode functions (like most of Win32)).

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit Windows environment (internally by running the 32-bit NT API (ie ntdll) and all 32-bit system libraries on top of the emulated kernel.)

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit registry (internally by redirecting or reflecting the calls to places in the 64-bit registry.)

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit file system (internally by redirecting calls to places in the 64-bit file system.)

People get hung up on the fact that x64 processors can switch into 32-bit mode (which in itself has overhead), and forget that there's more to emulating 32-bit Windows. The overhead is more than just "mathematical", and can amount to several percent in both memory use and speed. Personally I consider this to be marginal and unimportant, but it's still real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK    797

Its utterly negligible in my experience and in evey benchmark I've seen. 32 bit apps run just as fast for all intents and purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kfawcett    0

You might want to check and make sure that you do not have maximum memory limited in your system configuration.

Hit your windows key or the start button, type 'system configuration' and then press enter.

Select the Boot tab then select advanced options. Make sure that you do not have the 'Maximum memory' box checked.

Also check and see if the BIOS on your motherboard has the ability to do memory remapping. If so, for your 64bit OS, turn it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145

I think it has been established that his motherboard just does not support it, meaning there's nothing he can do. Personally I think he should just keep the x64 version now that he's installed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sammy2    8

I thought I saw some info saying win7 makes 32bit system use up to 16GB of ram ?

So upgrade to win7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145
I thought I saw some info saying win7 makes 32bit system use up to 16GB of ram ?

So upgrade to win7

Are you aware that you are in a thread about Windows 7, in the Windows 7 subsection of the forum, and that the guy is having problems with Windows 7, because the OS can't magically make the hardware do something it doesn't support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kfawcett    0

Sammy2,

No matter what operating system you run if it's 32bit it cannot support more than 4GB of RAM.

By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TokiToki    13
No matter what operating system you run if it's 32bit it cannot support more than 4GB of RAM.

You are incorrect here. Some 32-bit operating systems have the ability to support more than 4GB of RAM because of Physical Address Extension (PAE). In the Windows world, this is only supported in the Server OS. For example, Windows 2000 Datacenter, which is a 32-bit OS, supported 32GB of RAM. 32-bit Linux will support more than 4GB of RAM using a PAE kernel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145

As will OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, and every other modern OS. This is purely a Windows issue, and boils down to the fact that the Windows world is closed-source. The open source world had the advantage that they could (for the most part) simply update the drivers to be PAE aware. No such luxury on Windows, where the drivers are binary and there's virtually zero chance of a vendor bothering to do anything after the product has launched. So how do you fix the compatibility issues? You introduce artificial limits in Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic    0
Cause I am disturbed by what Robotic said:

No real need to be disturbed, it's not a massive amount of difference. For instance with a fresh install 32-bit and 64-bit 7 build 7100 with 4GB RAM I got a difference of ~150MB in usage. 64-bit can be a little bigger because of support for WOW64 32-bit applications.

Since you went to the trouble of installing 64-bit it might have been worth giving it a couple of days to see how well it would have worked for you, there can be more to using 64-bit than just using it for more memory. As far as 32-bit goes though you should find 3GB is plenty for most situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kfawcett    0
you?re right that Physical Address Extension (PAE) can be used to address more than 4GB from 32-bit OSs?this is true of some Linux distributions and many 32-bit Windows OSs. Here?s the catch: applications have to be written specifically to take advantage of PAE, and the only applications that do that are very specialized tools or server applications like SQL Server, which don?t typically require that much RAM when running on a desktop OS. So, PAE won?t make your Photoshop or video editing app any faster, and it isn?t nearly as useful as it sounds. While 64-bit Windows Vista isn?t perfect, it will give you access to your full address space, and you?re bound to have far fewer application compatibility problems (and get more out of your memory) than you would with 32-bit Linux and PAE.
source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zivan56    22

As I said, your chipset only officially supports 2GB. Be thankful that ~3.1 is actually usable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
It has almost nothing to do with your motherboard.

It has all to do with your CPU.. you can't just stick any CPU onto any regular motherboard, so YES, technically your motherboard will support 64bit? but it all has to do with your CPU... and that is a 64bit processor.

Now stop stalling and format!

That is completely wrong.

It has everything to do with his motherboard. A Lakeport chipset cannot support more than 32-bit addressing, even though it will run a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
It does. The usable portion of the virtual address space of a 32-bit process running on 64-bit Windows is 4GB. On 32-bit (and 16-bit, for that matter) Windows, it's 2GB.

Correct. But only for applications with the LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE bit set.

This is just virtual address space though, not physical memory. They are two different things. You can allocate as much memory as you want.

No you can't. You can only allocate as much as you have addresses for in the virtual address table.

Virtual address space doesn't even have to point to memory, it can point to other resources as well, including files on disk. It's all up to the programmer.

Correct. But a 32-bit process can only allocate or map up to 2GB worth of data (which can be a mix of physical memory, page file space, memory mapped files, etc) on a 32-bit OS (or in the common case on a 64-bit OS). If it has the LWA flag, the limit is 4GB. If it's a 64-bit app, the limit is 8TB (for now).

If you're already seeing > 3GB on an x86 OS then your chipset should be able to see at least that on an x64 OS no matter what the specs state. :)

The image in your original post shows 4.00GB installed (3.12 GB usable) so the chipset is seeing 4GB. Shared memory like "system" video memory could still be eating some of your RAM.

Again, this is not correct. The chipset only supports a 32-bit physical address space. It doesn't matter if you run a 64-bit OS, the result is exactly the same because there's still a 32-bit bottleneck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
64-bit does not give you performance benefits on most everyday apps (yet), and your Core 2 Duo actually performs a little bit better under 32-bit due to something called Macro Ops Fusion, which doesn't work on 64-bit.

I wouldn't be on that making a significant difference. You probably get a bigger benefit from the optimizations in the AMD64 instruction set (and the optimizations the compiler can do around the extra GPRs and such). The graphics stack benefits from this in tight drawing loops, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.