i have 4 gig mem, only says i have 3.5 gig mem? what the?

BurntPopcorn

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2006
4
0
18,510
ok,
i got 4 gig of pc3200 dual channel memory, but in post only says i have 3.25 gig of mem? is there something tricky i have to do?
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
You are running Win32 (eg: Windows XP Pro) with 4 GB.

PCI devices need various ranges of the 32 bit address space for I/O, thus that address space can not be mapped to physical memory.

:arrow: You need Windows XP x64 Edition to get the most out of consumer systems with 3 - 4 GB. That or a server OS with PAE-36 bit (Physical Address Extention) enabled and working correctly.

================================================
Goto Device Manager

View menu

Resources by connection

Expand the Memory branch out (highlight it and press *)

Maximize to fit as much information as possible.

Screenshot it, and post to your webspace, then link the image in your reply.

Given those address ranges, and CALC.EXE with hex/decimal mode, should be able to enlighten a few ppl
================================================
 

knupxfon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
83
0
18,630
It's probably just your motherboard. Even though alot of motherboards state that they support up to 4gb, they will only read up to 3-3.5 gb of it. Look through your motherboard manual, it will most likely tell you this. I have a MSI K8N diamond Plus top of the line MB with 4x1gb OCZ platinum, but it only show up as 3 GB. You still need the 4th GB if you want to run dual channel. Has nothing to do with your operating system whatsoever, as the previous poster tried to explain. There is nothing you can do about it.
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
It's probably just your motherboard. Even though alot of motherboards state that they support up to 4gb, they will only read up to 3-3.5 gb of it. Look through your motherboard manual, it will most likely tell you this. I have a MSI K8N diamond Plus top of the line MB with 4x1gb OCZ platinum, but it only show up as 3 GB. You still need the 4th GB if you want to run dual channel. Has nothing to do with your operating system whatsoever, as the previous poster tried to explain. There is nothing you can do about it.

Firstly, this will affect systems with 4 x 1024 MB DIMMs, dual-channel or not, it will also affect Socket 754 platforms with 2 x 2048 MB DIMMs, and Socket 754 is single-channel by nature. It has affected workstation operating systems (lacking PAE-36) for years.

I can guarantee with Windows XP x64 Edition he'll see all 4 GB in System Properties and thus be able to address all of his physical memory. Versus now he only sees 3.25 GB in System Properties. (Assuming his platform as a whole supports x64 via EM64T or AMD64 extentions)

Various devices have used 'normally unused by memory' parts of the 32 bit address range for accelerated I/O for years, decades even. It is because now people have large amounts physical memory the range gets mapped to the devices for accelerated I/O, and thus can't be mapped to memory.

(eg: Some BIOS have an option to recover part of the range, or decicate part of the range for SLI use. SLI Performance is substantially higher when a wide range is dedicated to it for accelerated I/O purposes.)

The same will also apply to memory stats in Task Manager, Performance tab, and what WinVer.exe reports.

Motherboard manuals 'water down' explanations.

Since you claim to know what causes it, can you please also perform the above Device Manager check and screenshot the results ?, or are you affraid you might learn something ?

Heck, I run a Tyan K8WE, and only get 2.75 GB of my 4 GB under Win32, leaving 2 'lopsided' NUMA nodes aswell as being unable to physically address all my memory under Win32 (because of heaps of devices using said parts of the 32 bit address range). :p

Assuming you know how chipset platforms work, and know basic hex, refer to this image:
Device_Manager_Memory_Ranges_101.png


As you can clearly see from B000,0000 to FFFF,FFFF is in use by devices on the PCI bus, and system board more towards the end of the 32 bit address space.

Being able to map physical memory in the 'available' range from 0000,0000 to B000,000 = gives a maximum mapping range of 2,952,790,016 bytes to physical memory by the (32 bit) Operating System. (Perhaps minus that 256 KB range from A,0000 to D,FFFF at certain times)

2,952,790,016 bytes = 2.75 GB - The exact amount my System Properties window displays.

With less hardware (than my example above) using the address space typical desktop machines will commonly have between 3 GB to 3.5 GB 'available range' to be mapped to physical memory.

This is one of many reasons why Microsoft have been offering free upgrades from Windows XP Pro to Windows XP x64 Edition (in exchange for your old licence though - Downside is having WinXP x64 only may limit which applications you can run in some circumstances. eg: No more backwards support for 16 bit EXEs, some installers are 16 bit and not 'substitued automatically' by the OS for 32 bit ones yet, x64 driver support for hardware, etc, etc...).

However, on a whole WinXP x64 Edition is no-where near as bad as people say it is, and the address range available to it is substantial, we are unlikely to have this 'problem' again (similar to when we went from 24-bit to 32-bit memory addressing. Yes many 16-bit processors, even some early 32-bit ones, only had a 24-bit address range at one time for RAM, back in the days when 4 MB was 'a lot of memory'.)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension ; for a general overview of PAE (64 GB = 36 bit address range). Even though the Windows Kernel supports it, it has only (recently) combined with the NX/XD-bits to enable Enhanced Virus Protection to stop code inserted using Buffer Over-runs from executing.

The PAE 36-bit addressing feature is 'disabled' in the kernel on the 'workstation' versions of Windows. It is only used for NX/XD bit trickery (if available) once Service Pack 2 is added to Windows XP Pro/Home. (Some people may notice it says 'Physical Address Extension' in their system properties, when using 4 GB or less, and this is why.

ie: The 'workstation' versions of the Windows OS can't use PAE to map/address over 4 GB, or up to 64 GB, of RAM. They can however use it for other purposes as Microsoft deam fit (such as combing it with the NX-bit to gain security). Remember to bear in mind typically 768 MB of the address space is used for accelerated I/O, and this is already becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of total memory.
 

BurntPopcorn

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2006
4
0
18,510
well,
here is what i am gonna do, wait for vista, lol
guess ill have to live with it til then, lol
thanx for replies though guys, really appreciate it
 

knupxfon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
83
0
18,630
It still doesn't matter what operating system he has. It has something to due with the southbridge on the motherboards resource deployment. It is not an OS issue, it is a hardware issue.

Original poster, how much ram shows up in the BIOS?

Edit: I just noticed in the original post of this thread that the RAM is showing up as 3.25 during POST which is before the OS is even loaded. You sure did post alot of nonsense trying to prove an incorrect point.
 

BurntPopcorn

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2006
4
0
18,510
It still doesn't matter what operating system he has. It has something to due with the southbridge on the motherboards resource deployment. It is not an OS issue, it is a hardware issue.

Original poster, how much ram shows up in the BIOS?

Edit: I just noticed in the original post of this thread that the RAM is showing up as 3.25 during POST which is before the OS is even loaded. You sure did post alot of nonsense trying to prove an incorrect point.

what do you consider A LOT OF NONSENSE?

what? you are making that statement cause i originally said 3.5? oh, i didnt know college professers 8O of mathematics used these forums to correct people, oh wait, YOU ARENT :eek: lol get a life :p
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
The people spreading that fud should be hung and shot. You are just causing more confusion on other forums, and people who can't think and only repeat the words of others spread that FUD, and then they spread it to 7 more people, who each spread it to 7 more ppl, and so on. :p

Anyways..... One of the fighters against FUD is here now (again): 8)

Some 'smart' BIOS will display the total memory available to a 32-bit OS env at boot. They just subtract the ranges in use by PCI/AGP/PCIe/PCI-X/etc devices (including SLI ranges) and report that amount instead.

However when systems with those same 'smart' BIOS are booted into Microsoft Windows [XP x64 Edition / Vista x64 / Server (PAE-36 enabled) / Server 2003 x64 / etc] they will report 4 GB+ instead.

(eg: If you have 6-8 GB you can still only see 3.5 GB under WinXP Pro/Home, and need either a Server edition with PAE-36 support, or an x64 native version of Windows)

Contacting Soltek, Abit, MSI, Asus, etc, aswell as Microsoft, various PCI device & chipset manufacturers (such as SiS, Intel, nVidia, AMD, ULi/ALi, Via) you can confirm this information. Thankfully I've saved you the time by doing this already.... many years ago at that. :p
 

BurntPopcorn

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2006
4
0
18,510
hey,
thanx again, there is 4 gig in here, i know its here, just that the computer doesnt know its here *sigh* lol
again, i will wait for vista :)
 

HYST3R

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2006
463
0
18,780
hey tabris,

this is a lil off topic, but you mentioned something about 16bit extensions not being compensated for in x64.

but my question is, how does the WoW emulator work for x64, and will it also compensate for 16bit extensions or jsut 32bit ones?

and i think x64 rocks foo!
 
ok,
i got 4 gig of pc3200 dual channel memory, but in post only says i have 3.25 gig of mem? is there something tricky i have to do?

That depends on the motherboard, I had a Tyan S2466N-4M for a while and here's an excerpt from the manual:

Supports up to 4GB* of Registered DDR 200/266
*Note: The AMD-760 MPX requires a portion of memory to be reserved for PCI devices. Allocation for these devices is dependent on the number of PCI devices installed, and option ROM for each device. Common configurations will see 3.5GB to 3.8GB of available memory.


What mobo you got? Specs are always helpful with questions like this.
 

knupxfon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
83
0
18,630
It still doesn't matter what operating system he has. It has something to due with the southbridge on the motherboards resource deployment. It is not an OS issue, it is a hardware issue.

Original poster, how much ram shows up in the BIOS?

Edit: I just noticed in the original post of this thread that the RAM is showing up as 3.25 during POST which is before the OS is even loaded. You sure did post alot of nonsense trying to prove an incorrect point.

what do you consider A LOT OF NONSENSE?

what? you are making that statement cause i originally said 3.5? oh, i didnt know college professers 8O of mathematics used these forums to correct people, oh wait, YOU ARENT :eek: lol get a life :p



I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the other poster.
 

knupxfon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
83
0
18,630
ok,
i got 4 gig of pc3200 dual channel memory, but in post only says i have 3.25 gig of mem? is there something tricky i have to do?

That depends on the motherboard, I had a Tyan S2466N-4M for a while and here's an excerpt from the manual:

Supports up to 4GB* of Registered DDR 200/266
*Note: The AMD-760 MPX requires a portion of memory to be reserved for PCI devices. Allocation for these devices is dependent on the number of PCI devices installed, and option ROM for each device. Common configurations will see 3.5GB to 3.8GB of available memory.


What mobo you got? Specs are always helpful with questions like this.


Exactly what I was trying to say. I don't know what "FUD" is, but it's definately what the other poster is posting.
 

knupxfon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
83
0
18,630
The people spreading that fud should be hung and shot. You are just causing more confusion on other forums, and people who can't think and only repeat the words of others spread that FUD, and then they spread it to 7 more people, who each spread it to 7 more ppl, and so on. :p

Anyways..... One of the fighters against FUD is here now (again): 8)

Some 'smart' BIOS will display the total memory available to a 32-bit OS env at boot. They just subtract the ranges in use by PCI/AGP/PCIe/PCI-X/etc devices (including SLI ranges) and report that amount instead.

However when systems with those same 'smart' BIOS are booted into Microsoft Windows [XP x64 Edition / Vista x64 / Server (PAE-36 enabled) / Server 2003 x64 / etc] they will report 4 GB+ instead.

(eg: If you have 6-8 GB you can still only see 3.5 GB under WinXP Pro/Home, and need either a Server edition with PAE-36 support, or an x64 native version of Windows)

Contacting Soltek, Abit, MSI, Asus, etc, aswell as Microsoft, various PCI device & chipset manufacturers (such as SiS, Intel, nVidia, AMD, ULi/ALi, Via) you can confirm this information. Thankfully I've saved you the time by doing this already.... many years ago at that. :p


In some configurations, you may be right. I guess you didn't read his original post close enough. HE IS SEEING LESS THAN 4GB IN POST, WHICH IS BEFORE THE OS IS EVEN LOADED. IT IS NOT AN OS ISSUE. QUIT MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT. IT IS HIS MOTHERBOARD WHICH IS SEEING LESS THAN THE 4GB, WHICH IS CAUSING WINDOWS TO SEE LESS ALSO. I CANNOT MAKE MYSELF ANY MORE CLEAR. You should quit saying that i'm posting "FUD" or whatever the hell that is, when it's you that is the one posting it. I guess you're the one that should be hung and shot.
 

knupxfon

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
83
0
18,630
33893.jpg


33894.jpg




couple of pics to prove my point. There are plenty more MB's that do the same thing, just didn't feel like posting up an assload of pics.
 

snayven

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2008
1
0
18,510
Just to clear this up, and I am not computer tech, it is the operating system. My computer is the proof. I am Vista 64 bit on one drive and xp 32 on another.. If i boot into the xp, my computer sees 3.5 gig of ram.. or at least 3.5 is available. I can see this through a game that I play that shows me the memory avail and mem in use.

When I boot into Vista 64 bit. My computer sees 4 gig and so does the game. I do not know the exact reasoning for this, although the arguments made prior to this post seem to have that covered.

Anyway, I just wanted to write this to let you know that it is NOT the motherboard. :)
 

rockyjohn

Distinguished
knupxfon - you should make sure you are right before being so arrogant in denouncing others. I suggest reading these posts from windows.com (guess whose website?).

This one explains how SP1 did not overcome memory limit in XP (seems most everyone but you already knows it is there):

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx?query=memory%204GB&dg=&cat=en-us-ms-winxp&lang=en&cr=US&pt=&catlist=B0DE109D-10E1-4C3C-BCC9-8EB7A22FC6A0&dglist=&ptlist=

Or this one that states the memory limitation is still in 32bit Vista

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx?&query=memory+4GB&lang=en&cr=US&guid=&sloc=en-us&dg=microsoft.public.windowsupdate&p=1&tid=fdd94d43-a47a-4e79-b0fb-5ae91edf909a&mid=fe14b2eb-1159-49cb-879c-314bb764b1b6

You should apologize for attacking someone and saying they looked like an idiot. Childish name calling has no place here and only shows your own immaturity. But since you are also wrong, the only one looking like an idiot here is you. Did you ever stop to think who makes up the standards for how the mobos and OS work together? Do you think each of the mobo manufacturers tells Microsoft how to build to make the OS? Or did you apply a little common sense - if in the mobo, why did not any mobo manufacturer overcome the limit for his boards and have a huge marketing advantage for that board?
 

TheTeZ

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2008
25
0
18,530
i was pretty sure that a 32bit windows wont recognize a full 4 gigs, and anything more than that is a waist... untill you get a 64x or a linux o.s.
 

Dareda

Distinguished
Apr 15, 2009
1
0
18,510
I came across this problem as well. I just ran that CPU-Z program and it does display that I have 4 gigs - 4096 mbytes. Windows displays it as 3.25 GB of Ram.

So my question is... do my programs / windows / etc actually use all 4 gigs? Or is it completely shut out and locked at 3.25? Or is it really using all 4 gigs and just can't display that it's using all 4 gigs.

Thanks.
 
Second time I posted this *today*. The average is something like 3 times a week, for the last year.


< Really Wishes People Would Learn to Use the Search Function >



In a computer all bytes in the memory system need a unique name. This is called an address. For example, if you have 2 GB of main memory, then there are 2147483648 bytes of RAM in your machine, each of which require an address for the operating system to communicate to it. To give these all an address you need 31 bits to do it. Now, if/when you have 32 bits, you can name 4 GB (2 bytes to the 32nd power = 4GB).

This is why the total addressable space available in a 32 bit OS is 4GB – the OS runs out of addresses and cannot communicate/locate any more bytes of memory because of that.

You may think ”Hey, 4GB of address space… 4GB of RAM… What’s the problem” The problem is that memory isn’t the only thing needing an address. If you install a total of 4GB worth of RAM, the system will detect/use/display less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:

- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices

Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will result of different total memory size. e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources, resulting of less memory free for other uses.

This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XP/Vista 32-bit version operating systems. Again, this is a limitation of the Operating System not having enough address space to allocate to the system *and* the RAM. Not allocating address space to devices renders them inoperable. Not allocating addresses to RAM simply results in the unaddressed section not being used in an otherwise fully functional computer. Therefore the OS designers assign RAM last.



If you install a Windows operating system, and if more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then the below conditions must be met:

1. A memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, AMD K8 and newer architectures can support the memory swap function.

2. Installation of Windows XP Pro X64 Ed. (64-bit), Windows Vista 64, or other OS which can provide more than 4GB worth of address space.