STICKEE DIS NAO.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should 32bit OS users avoid 4870X2?
- Thread starter Conman
- Start date
STICKEE DIS NAO.
After doing a bit more research, it looks like not all of the VRAM is reserved in addressable space, only a portion is. For example, my 4850 only consumes 256mb of address space, despite being a 512mb card. Ditto for the GTX 280 (source: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx "Device Manager reveals that 512MB of the over 2GB hole is for the video cards (256MB each), and it looks like the firmware has reserved more for either dynamic mappings or because it was conservative in its estimate: http://blogs.technet.com/blogfiles/...WindowsPhysicalMemory_878B/image_thumb_12.png " )
Something has to be in charge of mirroring that data. If its hardware, it wouldn't need reserved addressing. If its the driver, it does. I'm guessing its the driver that handles it.
Something has to be in charge of mirroring that data. If its hardware, it wouldn't need reserved addressing. If its the driver, it does. I'm guessing its the driver that handles it.
Here's a pretty clear explanation of the physical memory limitations we see with our prehistoric 32 bit OS's: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
To answer the specific question asked, XP 32 bit users have never really been able to take full advantage of 4 GB.
There's a specific example of exactly this case mentioned in the above article about 1/5 of the way down. He had 4 GB of RAM, and two 1 GB cards (GTX 280's). Now, ATIs drivers may handle it differently, but the total physical address space used for those two cards was only 512 MB (as seen by the OS). That's only half a gig and only 2.2 GB of system memory was remaining, so there must have been some other devices cutting out the remaining 1.3 GB hole (or he was mistaken and a full GB of the physical address space was taken by the video cards) but the impact is noticeable. Had he only had 2 GB of system memory, he wouldn't have noticed as the system memory would only account for 2 GB of the 4 GB available address space (of which 2.2 GB was available to the system RAM).
Basically though, it's best to go 64-bit. One of my current 32 bit systems has a 128 MB vid card, with 4 GB of system memory. It only reports that 3.5 GB of the system memory is available for use (by windows and other applications, though windows only allows 2GB of that to be used by applications. I'll be upgrading to a 512 MB card soon and will be able to see firsthand how it cuts into the available system memory.
To answer the specific question asked, XP 32 bit users have never really been able to take full advantage of 4 GB.
There's a specific example of exactly this case mentioned in the above article about 1/5 of the way down. He had 4 GB of RAM, and two 1 GB cards (GTX 280's). Now, ATIs drivers may handle it differently, but the total physical address space used for those two cards was only 512 MB (as seen by the OS). That's only half a gig and only 2.2 GB of system memory was remaining, so there must have been some other devices cutting out the remaining 1.3 GB hole (or he was mistaken and a full GB of the physical address space was taken by the video cards) but the impact is noticeable. Had he only had 2 GB of system memory, he wouldn't have noticed as the system memory would only account for 2 GB of the 4 GB available address space (of which 2.2 GB was available to the system RAM).
Basically though, it's best to go 64-bit. One of my current 32 bit systems has a 128 MB vid card, with 4 GB of system memory. It only reports that 3.5 GB of the system memory is available for use (by windows and other applications, though windows only allows 2GB of that to be used by applications. I'll be upgrading to a 512 MB card soon and will be able to see firsthand how it cuts into the available system memory.
Do you actually know what you're talking about or are you just making this up? If you do know what you're talking about, have you ever verified with some credible information to make sure that what you're saying is actually true?
It seems like you're just making stuff up and somehow believe that the BS you're spouting out is actually right.
So based on this and the wiki page, 32 bit os can support up to 4 gigs, but it only runs with 3 due to a memory hole. But i can have 3 gigs on 32 bit with the 4870 x2 being able to utilize all 2 gigs of its own memory.
On 64 bit i can pretty much have as much ram as i want, and be able to have the 4870 x2 utilizing all of it 2 gigs of memory.
Correct me if im wrong plz!
Yes, more or less correct. In 32-bit OSes, the memory hole can reduce the size of the usable memory to be more or less than 3GB, but it usually hovers around the 3GB range (depending on chipset and other factors). Using a 64-bit OS, you will be able to use everything. Nevertheless, memory on the card itself will be unaffected using a 32-bit OS, as it is just mappable memory addresses that are being affected here. We're not mapping the video card to its own memory, so yeah, we have nothing to worry about there.
It isn't quite that simple because "Device_RAM" becomes much larger when more than 3GB of memory are installed. This is because, in addition to normally mapped memory addresses, system devices were also historically given a fake memory address above 3GB that is much larger than the normal amount of memory that the device would be given. This was done for what was, essentially, a compatability hack back in the olden days.
So, in other words, there is no way to know how big of a hole will be made by the device until... well, it is made by the device.
The reason why your system doesn't quite work is that we could have a system with up to 3GB of RAM and 2GB of video ram and there would be no problem. The memory hole would not exist. The system could use and allocate all 3GB of its memory.
Put simply so everyone can understand.
All hardware which has memory in it needs to have the memory mapped to addresses that the operating system can understand. A 32bit OS such as XP 32bit has a limit on the amount of memory they can address this limit is 4Gb (4096mb)
Lots of devices need their memory mapped by the OS so they can work, there's chips on the motherboard, chips in your video card, theres system RAM, most devices will need at least some address space reserved for them.
Everytime some space is reserved it's removed from the pool of 4Gb of addresses available.
System RAM is mapped LAST, this means the 4Gb pool of addresses is dished out to all other hardware first such as the video card, motherboard and all other devices that need addressable memory.
The RAM has to fit in to what is left, if you have more RAM than addressable memory left in the pool then you're shit outta luck, you wont be able to address it all.
Typically a system will use between 250 and 500mb of memory without a video card or RAM, depending exactly what devices you have installed, lets be on the safe side and call this 500mb, then minus your video card RAM which for this card is a further 2gb, this leaves you with 4 - 2 - 0.5 = 1.5Gb left. If you have 2Gb of RAM you're outta luck, you can only address 1.5Gb of that, 500mb is wasted.
It's possible this card only needs 1gb of address space since the 2gb is really just 1gb but mirrored (apparantly) I dont know the specifics on this, I was under the impression that the vRAM was shared on this card and that the crossfire instructions were done through a shared portion of the memory which is what made crossfire more efficient.
IMO wether its 1Gb or 2Gb is irrelvent, having only 2.5Gb of mappable memory isn't a whole deal better than having 1.5Gb left, one is a problem the other is borderline a problem. If it's not a problem now it will be very soon.
Anyone with a 4870x2 should be running 4Gb of system RAM total, end of story.
All hardware which has memory in it needs to have the memory mapped to addresses that the operating system can understand. A 32bit OS such as XP 32bit has a limit on the amount of memory they can address this limit is 4Gb (4096mb)
Lots of devices need their memory mapped by the OS so they can work, there's chips on the motherboard, chips in your video card, theres system RAM, most devices will need at least some address space reserved for them.
Everytime some space is reserved it's removed from the pool of 4Gb of addresses available.
System RAM is mapped LAST, this means the 4Gb pool of addresses is dished out to all other hardware first such as the video card, motherboard and all other devices that need addressable memory.
The RAM has to fit in to what is left, if you have more RAM than addressable memory left in the pool then you're shit outta luck, you wont be able to address it all.
Typically a system will use between 250 and 500mb of memory without a video card or RAM, depending exactly what devices you have installed, lets be on the safe side and call this 500mb, then minus your video card RAM which for this card is a further 2gb, this leaves you with 4 - 2 - 0.5 = 1.5Gb left. If you have 2Gb of RAM you're outta luck, you can only address 1.5Gb of that, 500mb is wasted.
It's possible this card only needs 1gb of address space since the 2gb is really just 1gb but mirrored (apparantly) I dont know the specifics on this, I was under the impression that the vRAM was shared on this card and that the crossfire instructions were done through a shared portion of the memory which is what made crossfire more efficient.
IMO wether its 1Gb or 2Gb is irrelvent, having only 2.5Gb of mappable memory isn't a whole deal better than having 1.5Gb left, one is a problem the other is borderline a problem. If it's not a problem now it will be very soon.
Anyone with a 4870x2 should be running 4Gb of system RAM total, end of story.
It very well could be less than 1GB, actually. My 4850 only reserves 256mb of address space (half its VRAM), and the GTX 280 only reserves 256mb as well. So the X2 may only reserve ~512mb (256*2), not the full 2gb (or even 1gb).
If someone had the card they could very easily verify this...
Nuby1Canuby
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 754
Good idea kllrnohj. What do other people see in Control Panel - System for memory? I see 3327 MB with Vista 32 bit, 4 Gigs and a 4870. I'd be interested in what other people see with 1 Gig cards and the 4870X2 under 32 bit operating systems.
Wow. Just wow. If there's anything more amusing than ignorance, it's arrogant ignorance.
It's already been explained in excruciating detail over and over in this thread so I won't try for a thorough explanation. But maybe a short explanation in even shorter increments will be more your speed?
32-bit Windows can address 4GB of memory. Let's assume you have 4GB of RAM installed.
Video RAM is taken out of that 4GB addressable limit. For the OP's benefit, let's say the video RAM is 2GB.
This leaves 2GB that the OS can address. Since you have 4GB RAM installed that means 2GB of that is unaddressable and therefore unusable.
This doesn't mean the vidcard is using system RAM, just taking up addressable space.
Again, this does NOT mean the vidcard is using that 2GB of system RAM. It's just using up the available addresses, which prevents the OS from being able to use it.
OMFG if i needed daydreaming i would jump to The Inquirer
STOP right now all the mabojambo and someone please ( [H] hear me!!!) put a single 4870X2 on a XP32bits machine and look for available memory
Dear god, NO site has mentioned any memory issue with the 4870X2 so far. where they all biased towards ATI or did they simply forget to look at system memory?
Just my 2 cents: my 3,2GB of available memory may become 2,7GB (most likely) or go all the way down to 1,7GB still the gaming performance will go skywards with a 4870X2
STOP right now all the mabojambo and someone please ( [H] hear me!!!) put a single 4870X2 on a XP32bits machine and look for available memory
Dear god, NO site has mentioned any memory issue with the 4870X2 so far. where they all biased towards ATI or did they simply forget to look at system memory?
Just my 2 cents: my 3,2GB of available memory may become 2,7GB (most likely) or go all the way down to 1,7GB
still the gaming performance will go skywards with a 4870X2OMFG if i needed daydreaming i would jump to The Inquirer
STOP right now all the mabojambo and someone please ( [H] hear me!!!) put a single 4870X2 on a XP32bits machine and look for available memory
Dear god, NO site has mentioned any memory issue with the 4870X2 so far. where they all biased towards ATI or did they simply forget to look at system memory?
Just my 2 cents: my 3,2GB of available memory may become 2,7GB (most likely) or go all the way down to 1,7GB
I already asked one of my friends who have 4870X2 to try it but it seems that everyone has 64bit Vista
Nuby1Canuby
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 754
I already asked one of my friends who have 4870X2 to try it but it seems that everyone has 64bit Vista
I was afraid of that. There must be someone out there with a 1 Gig video card.
Parja
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2002
- Messages
- 12,670
ignore
honestjohn
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 864
I don't have my HD 4870X2 yet, but this subject came up on another foru a few weeks ago. I did some testing back then with a few different cards I own under Vista 32 Home Premium using a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R Motherboard with 4GB of DDR2 and this was the result .....
7300LE 128MB = 3.5 GB usable/visible system ram
HD2600XT 256MB = 3.5 GB usable/visible system ram (borrowed from friend)
HD4870 512MB = 3.5 GB usable/visible system ram
As you can see the amount of available system ram did not change between cards. So I believe the amount of available system RAM is reduced per card / PCI-E Slot, not by the amount of VRAM on the card itself. So when using an X2 I would wager I would still see 3.5GB. In the same thread 32-bit OS Crossfire users were seeing 3GB more or less, which would also go along with what I was saying. 2 cards, system ram reduced by twice the amount of a single card.
7300LE 128MB = 3.5 GB usable/visible system ram
HD2600XT 256MB = 3.5 GB usable/visible system ram (borrowed from friend)
HD4870 512MB = 3.5 GB usable/visible system ram
As you can see the amount of available system ram did not change between cards. So I believe the amount of available system RAM is reduced per card / PCI-E Slot, not by the amount of VRAM on the card itself. So when using an X2 I would wager I would still see 3.5GB. In the same thread 32-bit OS Crossfire users were seeing 3GB more or less, which would also go along with what I was saying. 2 cards, system ram reduced by twice the amount of a single card.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,494
Good for you.
Heh, my system shows only 3.25GB of system memory with the specs in my sig with Vista x86 and a HD4850 512MB card. I think other factors are involved such as other hardware and devices installed/connected on the system itself resulting in shared/taken memory allocations other than just the video card itself.
What does C has to do with any hardware? that is the best you can come up with? the only thing you can brag about C to the others is probably the silly thing "pointer" or "pointer to pointer" or "pointer to pointer to pointer".
C wont get you closer to hardware level, it can not even manipulate the cpu register and some basic cpu instructions, that is why i had to write the bootstrap loader in assembly when writing my mini OS.
QFT!
so at the end.. computer with 32bit OS should only have
system memory + video card memory + other device memory = 4gb?
if exceeded, any extra 4gb+ is unusable?
1 more question..
how about dual channel memory? my vid card has 512mb
i want to remove 1gb of stick now.. that i dont seem to need it anymore.. would I be able to use this "dual channel" for 3GB?
and no, reason for removing is not just have 3gb.. i want to put it in other computer.
system memory + video card memory + other device memory = 4gb?
if exceeded, any extra 4gb+ is unusable?
1 more question..
how about dual channel memory? my vid card has 512mb
i want to remove 1gb of stick now.. that i dont seem to need it anymore.. would I be able to use this "dual channel" for 3GB?
and no, reason for removing is not just have 3gb.. i want to put it in other computer.
I think dual-channel only works with 2 or 4 sticks. 3 would drop back to single channel.
I already asked one of my friends who have 4870X2 to try it but it seems that everyone has 64bit Vista
Just have them look in the device manager to see how much address space it is using.
Device Manager: View->Resources By Type: Expand "Memory" section. Post all the sections of RAM the card uses. This works in XP and Vista, both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
On 64-bit operating systems, with the memory hole gone, the video card will probably have close to 1MB of mapped memory instead of 512MB-1GB or whatever. So it doesn't quite work out. Otherwise, I'd be having 7.5 or 7.25GB of RAM available rather than the (almost) 8GB that I have now.
Everyone please read this: if you have a 32-bit OS, this problem can be solved by doing the following: ONLY HAVING 3GB OF RAM IN YOUR SYSTEM AT A TIME. If you don't exceed that, the memory hole won't exist, and you'll be able to use everything fine. The problem only exists when you exceed that and memory hole memory addresses show up in system memory.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,116
To keep dual channel you usually need 2 sticks of ram of similar size per bank. If you have 4x1gb sticks and remove one you normally loose dual channel. 2x1gb and 2x512mb is the way you would have to go to get dual channel and 3gb of ram on a system.
honestjohn
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 864
Good for you.
Heh, my system shows only 3.25GB of system memory with the specs in my sig with Vista x86 and a HD4850 512MB card. I think other factors are involved such as other hardware and devices installed/connected on the system itself resulting in shared/taken memory allocations other than just the video card itself.
Good for you too. I wasn't waving a flag saying "look at me, I have 3.5GB of usable RAM", and yes, it varies from system to system. I also didn't say other "factors" weren't involved because those "factors" have already been discussed at great length. I was focusing on the one factor which was creating much of the confusion and is what this thread is all about.
Since you brought it up though, other factors which effect the amount of usable RAM include the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges and PCI-Express video cards. The BIOS normally only takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address of 4GB. Then each of the other items I referred to are allocated address ranges below the BIOS address range.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 13,965
What happens if your devices collectively require 1.5GB of address space and the "memory hole" comes back? Will your advice then be to not install more than 2GB of RAM to avoid the memory hole again? It doesn't matter if you limit the amount of memory you can use, or the OS does, you're still limited by the 32bit address space.
Nope. The card will still have reserved addresses, and it will still be listed in the device manager. Your physical RAM will simply be mapped around the reserved addresses, hence why you still have all your RAM. The memory hole is actually still in the same spot, it is your physical RAM's addresses that have been shifted, not the video cards. Again, instead of making a wild guess that is wrong, how about you just take the 30 seconds to look yourself?
That is ridiculous. Given how crazy cheap RAM is, it is far better to have 4gb in dual channel than 3gb in single channel. Sure, you won't be able to access some RAM, but since 4gb is like $60-70, who cares?
Also, MEMORY HOLES WILL ALWAYS EXIST - THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE. The OS can work around it, but it will *ALWAYS* be there. You just don't have enough RAM to max out the free spaces around the holes. Hell, the range 0xA0000 to 0xBFFFF has been reserved for the video card since the 16-bit days - and its still there.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
you do know that you can have 3gb in dual channel too...
thanks for the info.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
you can have dual channel but only if you have 1024mb x2 and 512mb x2.
I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. All modern motherboards can bump the memory hole to a higher memory address. I don't know why you don't think they can. You can't map memory addresses "around" reserved ram and still keep all of your memory. Explain to me that one.
I mean, just type "memory hole remapping" into Google. Do it now please. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass; don't know why a computer science student would really need to pull stuff out of his ass to begin with though.
And of course it will still have memory addresses reserved; the difference is that the memory addresses will be at most a few megabytes, not in the 512MB range.
Like the guy below you posted, you can have 3GB in dual channel (two 1GB sticks and two 512MB sticks). And the reason why you don't want to go for 4GB is because the memory hole might deduct your memory to like 2.75GB (as many people have had happened to them) and you would be better off with 3GB. Also, even if it still gives you like 3.25GB, do you really want to pay extra for 256MB?
No, didn't think so.
Of course that memory range is still there. Like you said, that's the memory address that's been reserved since the 16-bit days. It's the higher-level memory address that we are talking about, not that one. Even then, those will still be there but will be much smaller. Go into your device manager and right-click on your video card. Guess what you will notice? There is more than one mapping for your video card. On 32-bit systems with more than 3GB of RAM, one of these is going to be very large.
You're still not explaining to me how the os can "work around it" with it still being there. If you have a memory range reserved for the video card that is 512MB in size, how can you work around it and still have that ram as ram allocated for system memory? You're really not making any sense.
Also, memory holes aren't impossible to eliminate, they just require that we move to a completely different platform (non-x86).
If you don't have more than 3GB of memory installed, your devices won't collectively require 1.5GB of address space in the first place (more in the tens of megabytes, if even that many).
This made me laugh
I have several friends who are studying computer science, and all of them constantly pull stuff out of their ass... sure they know some stuff, but they make up a lot of crap too.I'm an Aerospace Engineering student, but there's no friggin way I'd trust me to design an aircraft... thats why I'm still a student (I do however design parts for a light weight open wheeled race car, but my degree only gave me maybe 25% of what I needed to know for that, the rest came from my own research and help from other designers).
I always laugh at people who use an education to justify something
In 1st year I convinced a lecturer he was wrong about something, I've seen heaps of tutors say things wrong (many of which are masters or PhD level), and I myself have been wrong many times even within the field I'm studying.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,494
Yeah, going to dual-channel increases the bus width from 64-bit to 128-bit without increasing the clock speed.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,494
Thanks for posting this. I was being lazy and didn't want to list the other factors involved.
This should get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_address
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_address
Then take the 30 goddamn seconds to look in the device manager and learn some shit. I *GAVE* you the method needed to determine exactly what memory addresses are reserved, why do you continue to ignore it? Here, I'll post a screenshot of mine since you are unable to look yourself
Well would you look at that. All the reserved addresses are UNDER THE 4GB MARK ON A 64-BIT SYSTEM. And whats that? Holy shit! The video card is reserving 256mb of addressing space! THE SAME AMOUNT AS IN A 32-BIT SYSTEM. The specs are in my sig - the system has 4GB installed, all of which are accessible.
Yes, I would. On newegg, cheapest 2x1gb + 2x512mb combo would cost $73 (inc shipping). The cheapest 2x2gb set is $70 (inc shipping). So 4GB is cheaper than 3GB in dual channel. I'd gladly waste a part of that last stick of RAM to save money, especially since when/if the comp runs 64-bit, it'll have more RAM and still has 2 slots open for future upgrades.
Sorry, I didn't think I'd have to explain address translations to a fellow computer science student
Memory holes exist regardless of the platform. Memory mapping is one of (if not the) fastest and easiest solutions.
The amount of reserved addressing space is independent of the amount of RAM installed. Installing more than 3gb will not increase the amount of reserved addresses.
This is getting way too muddied with FUD and rubbish.
The fact is that 32bit OS's are limited and that's a problem now, and if it's not a problem now for you personally then it will be very soon.
Do the smart thing, invest in 4Gb of RAM and a 64bit OS, RAM is cheap as chips and a 64bit OS isn't more expensive than the 32bit version. Vista x64 will lap up 4Gb of RAM and give you a much smoother user experience.
The fact is that 32bit OS's are limited and that's a problem now, and if it's not a problem now for you personally then it will be very soon.
Do the smart thing, invest in 4Gb of RAM and a 64bit OS, RAM is cheap as chips and a 64bit OS isn't more expensive than the 32bit version. Vista x64 will lap up 4Gb of RAM and give you a much smoother user experience.
honestjohn
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 864
Thanks for posting this. I was being lazy and didn't want to list the other factors involved.
No problem. Anytime .....
All except if you already have a working 32 bit operating system its hard to part with the money required to buy a 64 bit one.
All except if you already have a working 32 bit operating system its hard to part with the money required to buy a 64 bit one.
AND give up your old devices that have worked flawlessly the last 2 years: webcams, fax-modems, videocapture boards.
Serieously: NO ONE has a 4870X2 installed on a 32bits machine?
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 13,965
AND give up your old devices that have worked flawlessly the last 2 years: webcams, fax-modems, videocapture boards.
Serieously: NO ONE has a 4870X2 installed on a 32bits machine?
What makes you think that your device would cease to work just because you switched to 64 bit? This isn't 2005. Drivers availability has improved 100 fold for XP x64, and Vista is even better.
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
That's true, I use Vista Ultimate 32-Bit and since I installed Service Pack 1, it uses up to 600MB of RAM, even in the worst case scenario when I'm copying files, it never exceeds the 700MB threshold, but before Service Pack 1, it would chew 1GB of RAM just for fun, and if you use the Superfect feature, it will borrow that unused RAM and give it back instantly, it's memory and cache management is much better than the one in XP, I remember when my XP computer was on for more than 2 days, hard disk trashing would ocurr simply when I opened My Computer, in Vista, the performance is always the same no matter how much the PC is on, and even feels much faster than when I used XP considering I have a single core CPU. Also I configured Vista's services and when my PC boots, including the Creative Volume Panel and the CCC, Intel RAID Monitor, it only runs 39 process at the end, nice! But when I had 4GB of RAM, it would only show 3.11GB, funny enough I think that's more of a BIOS or CPU Memory Address limitation than an OS limitation because when I moved the AGP Aperture Size to 64MB, It would increase the RAM amount shown in the Vista's Property Page, it would show 3.24GB, seems that once I got 4GB, it would take instantly the missing MB of RAM for I/O, Addressing etc..
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
10+ for that post, the situation which I had 4GB of RAM and would show only 3.24GB it was because of my 512MB of VRAM, plus 128MB of AGP Aperture Size and the other devices.
Could someone calculate how much space address is using my card? Thanks!!
