bangaroo
Premium
join:2000-08-13
1 edit | reply to Duchess44
Re: Windows Vista and RAM
Not sure if this is of help or not, but I found a way to increase my recognized physical memory from 2519 to 3065 by changing my Bios setting from Switchable Graphics to Discrete Graphics.
I have a Lenovo T500 Thinkpad laptop with switchable graphics, which I guess is supposed to help with battery life. I also have a 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon 3650 graphics card.
I changed the following Bios setting.
Config > Display > Graphics Device > change to DISCRETE GRAPHICS
I also think I changed the following, but I don't quit remember for sure.
Config > Display > Graphics Device > OS Detection for Switchable Graphics > change to DISABLE
It took more than one reboot before all 546MB was recognized.
Switchable Graphics Enabled
Discrete Graphics Enabled
 |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
2 edits | reply to ztmike
Re: Windows Vista and RAm
I lost track of what exactly was being argued a while back.
My comments have been regarding the OP's original problem : not having enough RAM.
While a multitude of solutions exist, I believe what I suggested is best, because it maximizes the amount of usable ram on the machine at any given point versus ANY other suggestion, AND it's as performant and costs less.
While running idle two similar setups may in fact show the same amount of usable ram, when under load while gaming, the tendancy of the larger card to fill up MORE addressing space than the smaller card isn't desirable, which I why I suggest going with a 512. |
|
MHoltum
Premium
join:2001-02-26
Tempe, AZ
 ·surpasshosting
| reply to Duchess44
said by Duchess44  :I have been told I do not have enough RAM to run Windows Vista. I have Vista home premium (32-bit) and I have 2 gig of RAM. Could someone please tell me if I have enough or not? Vista came on my computer so I would assume that it came with enough to run the darn thing. Thanks!! My Vista Home Premium Dell computer has 2 Gig and is fine for anything I have done.
However I just built a quadcore with 6 gig and Vista really loves it.
More is better but IMO 2 is ok for most apps.
--
Sarcasm, confusing stupid people since 1869 |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
 ·Mediacom
2 edits | reply to ztmike
i gave one PAGES back no one wanted to hear it becouse of the "4GB Boggyman"
Ill restate it
Get 2x2GB of DDR2 800 or better
Get a GTS250 or 4850
BFG, eVGA, XFX for the nVidia card in that order
XFX for the ATi/AMD one
ok late edit for real
IF the 4GB limit worrys you that much Win7 RC1 is still there get it
and pre-order the upgrade for 50 bucks
/thread |
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| reply to Duchess44
Does every thread in this forum need to be drawn out like this?
No wonder no beginners come in here, you guys draw it out with stuff they don't understand with paragraphs that you can write a story about.
The guy is simply looking for a direct answer..now look at this thread. |
|
bangaroo
Premium
join:2000-08-13
3 edits | reply to Duchess44
I am a rookie at this and I am having trouble connecting all the dots, but isn't there some program/software that shows exactly how the 4G physical ram is being allocated?
Example
...100mb - BIOS
...250 mb - Video card
1,131 mb - all others listed
1,481 mb - Total used/allocated
2,519 mb- Cached and Free shown in Task manager
4,000 mb- Total Physical Ram |
|
Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
Toronto, ON | reply to Airwolf
While some come with DDR3. 
L. |
|
Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
Toronto, ON
| reply to Duchess44
said by Duchess44 :Ok ty. I have someone trying to tell me that the recommended is 3gb. I thought my comp ran just fine..including playing WoW.. I play WoW on a 8GB machine!
Leathal |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
4 edits | reply to longstreet
*facedesk*
read the MSDN
IT DOESNT NEED TO
it just pages what it needs via bank swiching
the GPU it self keeps track of whats in the framebuffer
then the driver maps a range in my case 256MB to the virtual address table
and any IO uses that range
works JUST like swap space which also doesnt need to be addressed just a range in the same way the GPU handles calls to the framebuffer
Before the video memory manager can manage the address space of the GPU, the display miniport driver must describe the GPU's address space to the video memory manager by using memory segments. The display miniport driver creates memory segments to generalize and virtualize video memory resources. The driver can configure memory segments according to the memory types that the hardware supports (for example, frame buffer memory or system memory aperture).
Commit limit on aperture segment
The amount of system memory that the video memory manager allows display miniport drivers to pin down (that is, the amount of system memory that display miniport drivers can memory map through an aperture segment) for GPU use at any given instant. The total amount of system memory that is allocated for the GPU might exceed the commit limit greatly; however, the video memory manager ensures that only up to a commit limit amount is actually resident in an aperture segment at any one time.
A linear aperture-space segment is similar to a linear memory-space segment; however, the aperture-space segment is only an address space and cannot hold bits. To hold the bits, system memory pages must be allocated, and the address-space range must be redirected to refer to those pages.
|
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
1 edit | reply to elios
What you are being shown and what it actually uses up are two different numbers.
Are you saying it won't address all of the VRAM when it needs it? |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
2 edits | reply to dave
AH HA
i found it!
»msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library···502.aspx
/thread
The driver is not required to specify all video memory resources that are available to the GPU in its memory segments; however, the driver must specify all memory resources that the video memory manager manages among all processes running on the system.
»msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library···469.aspx |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
3 edits | reply to Margolis
that needs to address directly it doesnt need to have direct access to the vram and by that logic it would have to map out ALL of swap file oh wait thats right it doesnt IT PAGES JUST LIKE THE GPU
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framebuffer
Mapping a memory range smaller than the framebuffer memory, then bank switching as necessary.
wile it CAN be mapped 1 to 1 this only done with cards with less then 512MB of ram on them
so unless you can back up your statements with memory ranges in the device manager which is it is 1 to 1 should have ranges adding up to the total on the card its useing bank switching
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_switching
see 4 ranges
frist one is A0000 to BFFFF this is less then 1 MB ~127KB
next is the big one D0000000 to DFFFFFFF this is 256MB
then the next is 32MB A000000 to BFFFFFF
the last is 16MB wide FD000000 to FDFFFFFF
even rounding up to 1MB on the frist one its only 305MB of address space in use if it was fully mapped it should be using 896MB but its using 1/2 that |
|
Margolis
Premium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to dave
1 |
|
Margolis
Premium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to elios
said by elios :the GPU has its own memory controler that does its OWN addressing it just has a range in which the CPU can hand off data to the os has to know where ALL memory it is using is. The video card may have it's own controller. but windows still has it addressed for it to be used.
As for where I got the number;
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit
of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | reply to Margolis
said by Margolis :sorry, but you need to do a bit of research. Sigh, I do this system programming stuff for a living. I have written Windows kernel code. I know how it works.
If the OS supports PAE, applications can be paged into RAM anywhere, without application change. Even above the 4GB line. This sounds awfully like an application "taking advantage" of PAE to me -- its memory accesses naturally are relocated through the PAE mechanisms. Though since "taking advantage" is not a concept defined in the processor reference manual, I suppose there is wiggle room there.
So, statement so far: applications can use physical memory above the 4GB line without modification.
Now, a regular application has access to only its 4GB of virtual address space (of which 2GB [or 3] belongs to it, and 2GB [or 1] holds the OS global address space [depending on /3GB switch]). The 4GB limit on virtual address space naturally imposes a limit on how much RAM can be accessed (but not on where that RAM is located in the physical address space).
An application that wants to access more than 4GB of RAM, despite the limitations of its address space, can use AWE to create a physical-memory-backed section of larger size than it can address, and then remap a window from its address space into the section.
So: an application using AWE can access a total of more than 4GB of memory.
Key distinctions to be made when talking about this:
1) Virtual versus physical.
2) "Above the 4GB line" versus "more than 4GB from one process"
It can be extended in virtual memory with PAE, yes. Nonsense. PAE is Physical Address Extension. It makes physical addresses larger. It does not change virtual addressing at all. PAE only changes the mechanisms the processor uses to translate virtual to physical. Without PAE, page tables deliver 20 bits of page frame number (i.e., 32 bits physical address). With PAE, page tables deliver 24 bits of page frame number (i.e., 36 bits physical address).
But by default, PAE is off in windows 32, unless you are are running the Server versions. Nonsense. PAE is on in my 32-bit XP Pro systems with 2GB RAM.
(The reason PAE is on even in small-memory systems is that you have to have PAE on in order to get no-execute support. The 4GB physical limit in XP is not due to lack of PAE, it is an artificial limit due to Microsoft marketing/support policy).
And that 4GB of address range is all address, not just system. Indeed. But as I keep saying, there is no intrinsic reason why memory on a video board needs to even have an address on the bus, all of the time. It's a matter between a board and the drivers. (I also say I don't know what current implementations actually do). |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
| reply to Margolis
ill post this screen shot AGAIN since you missed it
note the BIGGEST RANGE IS ZOMG 256MB then a 128MB then a few 32MB an 16MB
and then add up to much less then 892MB thats on the card
go look for your self on your 1GB card it wont be using all 1GB becouse thats just bad way to use ram in a32bit system
the GPU has its own memory controler that does its OWN addressing it just has a range in which the CPU can hand off data to
and were did you get this 4.2GB number the hardlimit is 4GB of address space FULL STOP
yes with PAE you can have 36bit addressing
but most consumer drivers dont use it
go look in your device manager your self add up the ranges i be it comes to less then 1GB |
|
Tychicus
Children are our most precious resource
Premium
join:2002-01-18
Helena, MT
clubs:
| reply to Duchess44
Duchess in my humble opinion just get as much RAM as your motherboard can handle since RAM is about the cheapest upgrade you can do at this point in time.
Also go to crucials web site and it will auto detect the RAM your motherboard can use here is a link
»www.crucial.com/systemscanner/
I would then go to someplace like newegg and get some which will probably be a lot cheaper however Crucial does warrenty thier stuff.
--
Team Discovery |
|
Margolis
Premium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO
·Charter Pipeline
2 edits | reply to elios
said by elios :vram is not directly addressed its paged with a hole 256 to 512MB in size any other "loss" is do the other stuff in your PC using address space if it was the case that ram was mapped 1:1 and you had 512MB card you would have less tehn 3.5GB becouse other hardware needs ranges too it would be more like 3.2 or less the size of the hole is set in BIOS on my system its 256MB + ~128MB for other IO that it uses when i was in XP left me with 3.25GB out of 4GB and this is with 896MB card vram is mapped just like system memory. windows has limited address space. It does not go by a "hole" as you keep saying. That may have been how agp memory was mapped to virtual space, but not pcie. with a 512mb card and 4GB you would have ~3.5GB usable in most cases. The bios and other things needing address space are insignificant. 32bit windows can access ~4.2GB of memory, minus your your 896MB and assorted others you end up with ~3.2GB, what you see. I boot my computer up in xp 32, with a 1GB video card, it sees 3.1GB system. |
|
Margolis
Premium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to dave
said by dave : The vistaclues web site is clueless. Here's why. Here’s the catch: applications have to be written specifically to take advantage of PAE. Utterly, utterly untrue. sorry, but you need to do a bit of research. Vistaclues is absolutely correct according to microsoft. Applications have to be written using the Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) application programming interface (api). If they don't, they can't take advantage of PAE. The 4GB video card works because of PAE and the drivers using the correct api. You need to watch what you are calling "silly statements". the fact remains that 32 bit windows has only 4GB of address space, no matter how you slice it. It can be extended in virtual memory with PAE, yes. But by default, PAE is off in windows 32, unless you are are running the Server versions. And that 4GB of address range is all address, not just system.
»www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pl···mem.mspx
»www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
»msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library···85).aspx |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
| reply to Margolis
vram is not directly addressed its paged with a hole 256 to 512MB in size any other "loss" is do the other stuff in your PC using address space
if it was the case that ram was mapped 1:1
and you had 512MB card you would have less tehn 3.5GB becouse other hardware needs ranges too it would be more like 3.2 or less
the size of the hole is set in BIOS on my system its 256MB + ~128MB for other IO that it uses when i was in XP left me with 3.25GB out of 4GB and this is with 896MB card |
|
