Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4GB RAM + 2GB 4870x2 + Windows XP 32 Bit

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 8, 2008 7:37:38 PM

I've been reading the reviews of the 2GB 4870x2 and started wondering about the 4GB RAM cap on Windows XP 32 Bit.

How is adding a 4870x2 to a rig that has 4GB of RAM and a 32 Bit OS going to work?

I've done a lot of searching and am getting mixed answers.



August 8, 2008 7:41:17 PM

As far as I know...
With a 32 bit system 2^32 btyes of memory can be addressed by the processor (= 4 gigabytes)
Now that bandwidth is addressed to the system components first and the RAM last, so effectivly you'll only have 2 gigs of RAM available for your pc.
You'll need to upgrade to a 64 bit OS if you want the full 4 gigs to be addressed
August 8, 2008 7:46:46 PM

How much will show with Vista 32 bit OS?
Related resources
August 8, 2008 7:51:51 PM

na windows 32 will see 3.25 i run 4gig with 32bit windows know problem and if ur going to go with windows64 make it xp64 and not vista64
August 8, 2008 8:06:32 PM

Yeah but he has a larger graphics card memory than you rangers so yes that will only give him 2gb free memory. Though it will probably not matter much as the 2 gig of gpu ram is way faster anyway for gaming purposes. 2 gig will be fine in conjunction and you can use the other 2 gig in a second system or whatever.
August 8, 2008 8:17:31 PM

Would Physical Address Extension (PAE) do anything to help the situation?
August 8, 2008 8:41:11 PM

XP 64 is a dead OS with no support. If you go 64 bit, you want vista. Most of the performance complaints with vista will be moot anyway if you're packing 4gb of ram.
August 8, 2008 9:33:01 PM

apart having to put shortcuts for the games you install on the desktop and the drm vista is the dead os not xp64 Microsoft has even admitted it
August 8, 2008 10:01:33 PM

What the hell are you talking about Rangers?

You have issues putting shortcuts onto a desktop?

August 8, 2008 10:25:53 PM

HEMI_Engine said:
Would Physical Address Extension (PAE) do anything to help the situation?


PAE is disabled in windows XP due driver stability problems. It only works in windows server platforms.
August 8, 2008 11:02:39 PM

Hemi, with the os that you have 32bit what you see is what you get.
August 8, 2008 11:16:20 PM

spanner_razor said:
Yeah but he has a larger graphics card memory than you rangers so yes that will only give him 2gb free memory. Though it will probably not matter much as the 2 gig of gpu ram is way faster anyway for gaming purposes. 2 gig will be fine in conjunction and you can use the other 2 gig in a second system or whatever.



what are you trying to say if you've got a card with 2gig of mem you'll need 4gig, i dont get you
August 8, 2008 11:48:40 PM

I'm not sure here but won't the card only use 1gig of address space like a crossfire setup?

That said I would go with Vista 64. One of my machines with an 8800gtx 768mb, motherboard features, sound card etc. only nets out with a tick over 3 gig of ram with 4 gig installed.

I'm running 64bit Vista on my HTPC with 8gig of ram installed and it has been great. The only hiccup was finding a driver for the wireless card but otherwise perfect; it has yet to crash. My plan is to go Vista 64 bit when I upgrade the graphics card on my game machine. Off topic but I thought for sure my upgrade would be a gtx280 but the reviews were disappointing and now it's looking like a 4870x2.

a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2008 4:31:11 AM

It should only use 1 gig of address space, unless the card truly does share memory completely.
August 9, 2008 3:34:03 PM

I searched a little further, and as cjl said, the x2 will only require 1GB of address space. So I'll still get 2.5-3GB of RAM which is fine.

Now the hard part - waiting for this thing to launch. :) 

Thanks for the replies everyone. Greatly appreciated.

August 9, 2008 4:33:04 PM

Dooyas said:
What the hell are you talking about Rangers?

You have issues putting shortcuts onto a desktop?



no issues i just think when you install a game it should show up in the start menu

vista is for noobs
August 12, 2008 3:20:33 AM

The problem with vista is you pay money for a fast machine and vista robs you of several frames per second. So you waste money and resources on a really horrible OS. Most of my Chip and CAD stuff will not work on VISTA plus you have never tried working with video servers and vista. Open IE7 wait ten minutes for vista to time out. Vista asks if it is okay to run this program you answer yes. Wait ten more minutes. popup box apears asking for permision. Say yes ten minutes go by and it runs. You can only get this far by telling Vista that this is a trusted site hell its on your internal network and everything is golden shutting down your firewall. With XP you open IE and it runs, yea Video.

Saying Vista doesn't matter if you have a fast machine is bogus because under XP the same machine will run even faster. Instant upgrade by "Downgrading your machine"
BTW it is free as long as you own vista ultimate or vista for business.
Call microsoft and they will boost the speed of your machine by letting you install XP pro

Kgrach
a b U Graphics card
August 12, 2008 5:54:36 AM

As much as people like to complain, Vista really isn't slow (unless you're trying to run it on a min spec system). It is actually quite fast on ,my laptop, and when I dual booted for a while initially, it actually ran faster than XP did on the same machine.
August 12, 2008 6:06:35 AM

64bit all the way...finally!
September 12, 2008 11:04:53 PM

Anyone still paying attention to this thread? It has been some time since i upgraded and I am feeling like a fossil, so I was wondering if anyone could help me sort something out.

I have Win XP32 (MCE), I just upgraded to 4gb RAM (too cheap to just go to 3gb) and I was gifted with a 4870x2 by an associate(!). Currently, windows is showing 3.25gb of memory in system properties and dxdiag, and showing 1gb video memory (the card has two gb).

Now, I understand XP32 is limited in the amount of memory it can address, and I believe I understand that since the video card is effectively two cards in one, it only needs to address the memory on the first card.

That all said, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a few tweaks or setting to make this setup run optimally. I'm considering springing for Vista, but I would prefer not to if at all possible. And this is by all accounts more graphics horsepower than I strictly need, so I'm not looking for fine tweaks to get an extra frame or two, I just want to make sure i don't need to set something in my Bios or anything that I am missing to get the whole setup to work optimally.

By the by, my 3dmark score, which I am not obsessed with, I was just playing, was surprisingly low. I want to make sure that I am not missing a switch I can flip to get things working better. I suspect that my little Pentium D 820 has officially become the bottleneck here.

Heck, while I am asking, does anyone want to advise what kind of performance increase I might see from dropping a pentium D 9xx in there? Will the smaller chip and the extra cache make much of a difference,let alone a bit extra core speed? (I know that it is simply way too much video card for the mobo, but I'm not ready to build a whole new system around it just yet, but I have seen the higher pentium D's for around $100, and if it will make a notable difference, I am willing to do that.

Thanks in advance for any advice!
September 12, 2008 11:46:18 PM

kgrach said:
The problem with vista is you pay money for a fast machine and vista robs you of several frames per second. So you waste money and resources on a really horrible OS. Most of my Chip and CAD stuff will not work on VISTA plus you have never tried working with video servers and vista. Open IE7 wait ten minutes for vista to time out. Vista asks if it is okay to run this program you answer yes. Wait ten more minutes. popup box apears asking for permision. Say yes ten minutes go by and it runs. You can only get this far by telling Vista that this is a trusted site hell its on your internal network and everything is golden shutting down your firewall. With XP you open IE and it runs, yea Video.

Saying Vista doesn't matter if you have a fast machine is bogus because under XP the same machine will run even faster. Instant upgrade by "Downgrading your machine"
BTW it is free as long as you own vista ultimate or vista for business.
Call microsoft and they will boost the speed of your machine by letting you install XP pro

Kgrach


You are aware that this is false right? Vista runs just as fast as XP, and when running games with AA in average it runs about 5-10% faster, madshrimps.de got a review on it if you want to look it up.

And to the guy above, you'd be wasting your money by getting another Pentium D, right now you can either OC that Pentium D and make the best out of your situation, or get an E5200 ($85) and GA-EP35-DS3L ($85), OC them, and unlock the true potential of that card.
September 13, 2008 12:41:58 AM

I believe (and this has been difficult to confirm, so I could be wrong) that the best I can do processor-wise is about a D 960. The 945 chipset supports better but (I should have mentioned this), it's a Dell, and i have been led to believe that the Bios will not support anything higher. This has been ridiculously difficult to confirm so if anyone can correct that, I would be happy to hear it =)

The situation with the memory should "just work" though, right?

The D 960 gets me about another 400mhz processing and doubles the cache size... not bad, I'm just not sure if I should expect the difference to be noticeable.

This was the first pre-configured system I'd ever bought... did me well at the time, but I'm finally regretting it =/

Thanks for the response though... hadn't really considered OCing the processor...

Thanks! =)
!