Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Hardware Damage with 4 Gigs on 32 Bit OS

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
October 3, 2009 2:47:44 AM

I saw a really nice Xeon 3360 server with 4 Gigs of memory for around $1000 [1]. Even though the system is older and uses DDR 2, it appears to be capable of doing "almost" as well as the newer Xeon 5500 and i7 systems; unfortunately, the system comes with 4 Gigs of memory and I only have 32 bit Win XP Pro

If I run the above system with 4 Gigs of memory on 32 bit Win XP Pro, will I possibly damage my motherboard or achieve reduced throughput due to a memory imbalance becuase Win Xp 32 Pro only allows 3 of the 4 Gigs to be accessed? My thinking is that if only 3 of the four Gigs are accessed, then one of the two memory banks may be getting accessed more than the other and possibly subjected to more heat.



[1] - http://www.productshippingcenter.com/applications/Searc...

Best solution

a b } Memory
a b V Motherboard
October 3, 2009 3:41:52 AM

It will work completely absolutely perfectly fine with the memory it has. Every single thing you are thinking is completely off-base and your fears are unfounded. Install XP 32 bit without worry and have fun.
Share
October 3, 2009 4:07:46 AM

Ok, I think I will probably go with this Quad Core Xeon 3360 machine. The TDP on the Xeon 3360 is only 65W but yet it seems to benchmark "almost" as well as Intel's newer i7 and 5500 type processors.

My other thought was to get a Dual Core Xeon 3503 but the TDP on that turkey is a whopping 130W and it's floating point performance is about the same as the older and cooler 3360. Given two basically equivalent processors, I would rather have the one that emits less heat.

Thanks jitpublisher,

Shawn
m
0
l
Related resources
October 4, 2009 2:39:57 AM

Shadow70379:

I am aware of the PassMark chart that you refered me to and I dissagree. Spec.Org probably offers more through testing than PaskMark, but if we are going to go on what PassMark says, then the following applies:

1) The X5560 @ 2.80 GHZ has a score of 4,507 and the X3360 @ 2.83 GHZ has a score of 4,324, this means that the X5560 Nehalem is only ((4,507 / 4,324) - 1) * 100 = 4% percent faster than the X3360.

Given that the X5560 is 95W and retails at $1,250 on NewEgg.com and the fact that the 3360 is 65W and retails for $323 directly from Amazon, the expense heat and cost wise of the X5560 is hardly justified. For example while 5560 is only 4% faster than the 3360 and it cost "almost" 4 times as much and uses ((95/65) - 1) * 100 = 46% more power. Clearly, the X3360 is more cost effective.

2) You might ask why in the works someone would even consider getting a Nehalem 55XX processor when they can get an i7 that is faster and much cheaper. The reason is that the i7 does not support ECC. In today's computing world of systems with more than 4 Gigs of RAM, ECC is a must!
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/262949-30-need-regist...
But just in case you are gutzy enough to try more than 4 Gigs of memory without ECC, then we shall consider the cost effectiveness of the i7.

The i7 860 at 2.8 GHZ has a score of 5,343 with a TDP of 95W and retails at $284. As you can see the i7 860 is much cheaper than the X3360. In fact the, 3360 is ((323 / 284) - 1) * 100 = 13% more expensive than the i7 860 and accoding to Pasmark is (4,324 / 5,343) = 80 % as fast or 20% slower than the i7 860. Clearly, according to Passwmark the i7 is the better buy even if the i7 does run hotter, but in today's world, I don't think it is wise to run a computer without ECC...

BTW: If I remember right, the i7 and E5500 have much better multicore www.spec.org scores than the Xeon 3360, but unless you do CAD, Raytracing, Cubase/Cakewark music production or MPEG rendering via PowerDirector, your may not getting the most our of your multicore processor anyway...
m
0
l
October 4, 2009 2:52:00 AM

no harm done...do it
m
0
l
October 4, 2009 3:12:10 AM

shawn_eary said:
Shadow70379:

I am aware of the PassMark chart that you refered me to and I dissagree. Spec.Org probably offers more through testing than PaskMark, but if we are going to go on what PassMark says, then the following applies:

1) The X5560 @ 2.80 GHZ has a score of 4,507 and the X3360 @ 2.83 GHZ has a score of 4,324, this means that the X5560 Nehalem is only ((4,507 / 4,324) - 1) * 100 = 4% percent faster than the X3360.

Given that the X5560 is 95W and retails at $1,250 on NewEgg.com and the fact that the 3360 is 65W and retails for $323 directly from Amazon, the expense heat and cost wise of the X5560 is hardly justified. For example while 5560 is only 4% faster than the 3360 and it cost "almost" 4 times as much and uses ((95/65) - 1) * 100 = 46% more power. Clearly, the X3360 is more cost effective.

2) You might ask why in the works someone would even consider getting a Nehalem 55XX processor when they can get an i7 that is faster and much cheaper. The reason is that the i7 does not support ECC. In today's computing world of systems with more than 4 Gigs of RAM, ECC is a must!
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/262949-30-need-regist...
But just in case you are gutzy enough to try more than 4 Gigs of memory without ECC, then we shall consider the cost effectiveness of the i7.

The i7 860 at 2.8 GHZ has a score of 5,343 with a TDP of 95W and retails at $284. As you can see the i7 860 is much cheaper than the X3360. In fact the, 3360 is ((323 / 284) - 1) * 100 = 13% more expensive than the i7 860 and accoding to Pasmark is (4,324 / 5,343) = 80 % as fast or 20% slower than the i7 860. Clearly, according to Passwmark the i7 is the better buy even if the i7 does run hotter, but in today's world, I don't think it is wise to run a computer without ECC...

BTW: If I remember right, the i7 and E5500 have much better multicore www.spec.org scores than the Xeon 3360, but unless you do CAD, Raytracing, Cubase/Cakewark music production or MPEG rendering via PowerDirector, your may not getting the most our of your multicore processor anyway...
Dude since yyou know all this shouldnt you have known that the system would take the 4gb without issue, or are two different people posting ?
m
0
l
!