If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
How can I tell what memory controller chipset I have?
I'm thinking about adding some memory to my system. It's an ASUS M3A and it's currently got 2 GB of memory. I was looking in the M3A Motherboard User Guide and it says: ================================================== ==================== If you install Windows 32-bit version operating system, we recommend that you install less than 3GB of total memory. If more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then below two conditions must be met: 1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. Chipsets later than Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, and AMD K8 CPU architecture support memory swap function. ================================================== ===================== I have an AMD processor - Phenom 9350e Quad Core, 2000 MHz - but I have no idea whether my memory controller supports memory swap functionality. I have an old version of Everest Home Edition (Version 2.20.405) and I don't see anything in there that mentions the memory controller chipset. It's not mentioned under Memory and the Chipset tab shows nothing at all. Do I need a different program to tell me this? If so, what program(s) will do this, with a strong preference for FREE programs. I'm running Windows XP SP3 32 bit. -- Rhino |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Rhino wrote:
How can I tell what memory controller chipset I have? I'm thinking about adding some memory to my system. It's an ASUS M3A and it's currently got 2 GB of memory. I was looking in the M3A Motherboard User Guide and it says: ================================================== ==================== If you install Windows 32-bit version operating system, we recommend that you install less than 3GB of total memory. If more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then below two conditions must be met: 1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. Chipsets later than Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, and AMD K8 CPU architecture support memory swap function. ================================================== ===================== I have an AMD processor - Phenom 9350e Quad Core, 2000 MHz - but I have no idea whether my memory controller supports memory swap functionality. I have an old version of Everest Home Edition (Version 2.20.405) and I don't see anything in there that mentions the memory controller chipset. It's not mentioned under Memory and the Chipset tab shows nothing at all. Do I need a different program to tell me this? If so, what program(s) will do this, with a strong preference for FREE programs. I'm running Windows XP SP3 32 bit. The memory controller is inside the processor itself. There is nothing for poor Everest to report. In my drawing here, I show the two channels of the memory bus, connected directly to the processor itself. The AMD770 is there mainly, to connect PCI Express to Hypertransport. http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...il.aspx?id=450 CPU ---- dual channel ---- 4 DIMMs (4x2GB DDR2 max) | Hypertransport Bus | Northbridge AMD770 --- PCI Express slot for video card | Hypertransport Bus | Southbridge SB600 --- SATA ports The way this works is: 1) Both a 32 bit and a 64 bit OS could access all the memory. 2) For the 32 bit OS to do it, PAE must be enabled. This translates a 32 bit address computed by the processor (a virtual address), into a 36 bit or more address for the physical memory. With such a scheme, no single program can use all the system RAM, but if you ran sixteen different programs, they might access all the RAM on a really big system (64GB). 3) Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, enable PAE on x32, but prevent the user from accessing 4GB worth of address space. This is called the "memory license", to protect their expensive server operating systems. This includes roughly 1GB of addresses for hardware buses. Leaving around 3GB for memory addresses. If you install 4GB of memory, it reports ~3GB. If you install 8GB of memory, it reports ~3GB. Some other OSes, would allow the x32 OS to do more than that. 4) Using this product, the memory above 4GB (on the x32 OS) can be used as a RAMDisk. If you install 8GB, your RAMDisk might be 4GB in size. The RAMDisk is capable of using PAE memory, or "low RAM", depending on the situation. And seems to be unable to access the first gigabyte in the hoisted area. http://memory.dataram.com/__download...v4_0_4_RC2.msi So even though Microsoft wants to stop you from enjoying RAM above 4GB, the RAMDisk product does allow it to be used. A 64 bit OS has no such restriction, and all 8GB can be used. The processor must support a 64 bit OS (it does), and then the addresses can be much larger than 32 bits wide. From a practical perspective, in terms of cost/benefit, there are specific things the extra RAM might be useful for. If you run Virtual Machines at the same time as your regular OS, the memory comes in handy. For a lot of other usage patterns, your current 2GB total RAM is perilously close to the perfect configuration. Especially if you own a video card that has a lot of video RAM itself. The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. If you wish to install 4x2GB and use the remainder as a RAMDisk, be my guest. The RAMDisk is fast. Temporarily, I installed 6GB of RAM on my WinXP SP3 x32 system, and I was able to do this with the excess RAM. A tiny (2GB capacity), very fast "hard drive" :-) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif Such a "hard drive", can be used for your Photoshop scratch disk. No more delays! Other than that, for many users, such excessive RAM is useless. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Rhino writes:
I have an AMD processor - Phenom 9350e Quad Core, 2000 MHz - but I have no idea whether my memory controller supports memory swap functionality. Phenom's K10. The requirement was K8 or later so you're fine. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
On 2013-02-25 17:33, Paul wrote:
Rhino wrote: How can I tell what memory controller chipset I have? I'm thinking about adding some memory to my system. It's an ASUS M3A and it's currently got 2 GB of memory. I was looking in the M3A Motherboard User Guide and it says: ================================================== ==================== If you install Windows 32-bit version operating system, we recommend that you install less than 3GB of total memory. If more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then below two conditions must be met: 1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. Chipsets later than Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, and AMD K8 CPU architecture support memory swap function. ================================================== ===================== I have an AMD processor - Phenom 9350e Quad Core, 2000 MHz - but I have no idea whether my memory controller supports memory swap functionality. I have an old version of Everest Home Edition (Version 2.20.405) and I don't see anything in there that mentions the memory controller chipset. It's not mentioned under Memory and the Chipset tab shows nothing at all. Do I need a different program to tell me this? If so, what program(s) will do this, with a strong preference for FREE programs. I'm running Windows XP SP3 32 bit. The memory controller is inside the processor itself. There is nothing for poor Everest to report. In my drawing here, I show the two channels of the memory bus, connected directly to the processor itself. The AMD770 is there mainly, to connect PCI Express to Hypertransport. http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...il.aspx?id=450 CPU ---- dual channel ---- 4 DIMMs (4x2GB DDR2 max) | Hypertransport Bus | Northbridge AMD770 --- PCI Express slot for video card | Hypertransport Bus | Southbridge SB600 --- SATA ports The way this works is: 1) Both a 32 bit and a 64 bit OS could access all the memory. 2) For the 32 bit OS to do it, PAE must be enabled. This translates a 32 bit address computed by the processor (a virtual address), into a 36 bit or more address for the physical memory. With such a scheme, no single program can use all the system RAM, but if you ran sixteen different programs, they might access all the RAM on a really big system (64GB). 3) Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, enable PAE on x32, but prevent the user from accessing 4GB worth of address space. This is called the "memory license", to protect their expensive server operating systems. This includes roughly 1GB of addresses for hardware buses. Leaving around 3GB for memory addresses. If you install 4GB of memory, it reports ~3GB. If you install 8GB of memory, it reports ~3GB. Some other OSes, would allow the x32 OS to do more than that. 4) Using this product, the memory above 4GB (on the x32 OS) can be used as a RAMDisk. If you install 8GB, your RAMDisk might be 4GB in size. The RAMDisk is capable of using PAE memory, or "low RAM", depending on the situation. And seems to be unable to access the first gigabyte in the hoisted area. http://memory.dataram.com/__download...v4_0_4_RC2.msi So even though Microsoft wants to stop you from enjoying RAM above 4GB, the RAMDisk product does allow it to be used. A 64 bit OS has no such restriction, and all 8GB can be used. The processor must support a 64 bit OS (it does), and then the addresses can be much larger than 32 bits wide. From a practical perspective, in terms of cost/benefit, there are specific things the extra RAM might be useful for. If you run Virtual Machines at the same time as your regular OS, the memory comes in handy. For a lot of other usage patterns, your current 2GB total RAM is perilously close to the perfect configuration. Especially if you own a video card that has a lot of video RAM itself. The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. If you wish to install 4x2GB and use the remainder as a RAMDisk, be my guest. The RAMDisk is fast. Temporarily, I installed 6GB of RAM on my WinXP SP3 x32 system, and I was able to do this with the excess RAM. A tiny (2GB capacity), very fast "hard drive" :-) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif Such a "hard drive", can be used for your Photoshop scratch disk. No more delays! Other than that, for many users, such excessive RAM is useless. Paul Thanks very much for your quick and informative reply, Paul. I wish I could say I followed it all but I'd be lying. I'm a programmer, not a hardware guy. If I'm following you correctly, you're saying there's no point in adding more memory except to get a RAMDisk. I have nothing against RAMDisks and might benefit from one but my real goal was to be able to start a program that no longer wants to work for me. I periodically work with DB2, IBM's relational database, and find that I can't launch it any more. The underlying problem seems to be memory. (Go to http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...v9r5/index.jsp and type SQL1022C in the Search box; then click on SQL0122C in the results list for the full message.) I've successfully launched this same version of DB2 on this same computer several times but its been several months since the last time. I'm really not sure why I should be having problems with memory since the last time. I had the same 2 GB of memory then as now. Sure, there are probably a few more processes running this time than last but even after I used Task Manager to kill all but one of the biggest memory users in the system, I still can't launch DB2. Available memory was a full 1 GB at that point. That should be plenty according to the manual (search on "memory requirement" for confirmation). I thought putting more memory on the motherboard would help and was just trying to figure out the implications of that when I posted the first message in this thread. I think you're saying that would be counter-productive in this case, right? Any ideas on what would be productive? -- Rhino |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Rhino wrote:
On 2013-02-25 17:33, Paul wrote: Rhino wrote: How can I tell what memory controller chipset I have? I'm thinking about adding some memory to my system. It's an ASUS M3A and it's currently got 2 GB of memory. I was looking in the M3A Motherboard User Guide and it says: ================================================== ==================== If you install Windows 32-bit version operating system, we recommend that you install less than 3GB of total memory. If more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then below two conditions must be met: 1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. Chipsets later than Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, and AMD K8 CPU architecture support memory swap function. ================================================== ===================== I have an AMD processor - Phenom 9350e Quad Core, 2000 MHz - but I have no idea whether my memory controller supports memory swap functionality. I have an old version of Everest Home Edition (Version 2.20.405) and I don't see anything in there that mentions the memory controller chipset. It's not mentioned under Memory and the Chipset tab shows nothing at all. Do I need a different program to tell me this? If so, what program(s) will do this, with a strong preference for FREE programs. I'm running Windows XP SP3 32 bit. The memory controller is inside the processor itself. There is nothing for poor Everest to report. In my drawing here, I show the two channels of the memory bus, connected directly to the processor itself. The AMD770 is there mainly, to connect PCI Express to Hypertransport. http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...il.aspx?id=450 CPU ---- dual channel ---- 4 DIMMs (4x2GB DDR2 max) | Hypertransport Bus | Northbridge AMD770 --- PCI Express slot for video card | Hypertransport Bus | Southbridge SB600 --- SATA ports The way this works is: 1) Both a 32 bit and a 64 bit OS could access all the memory. 2) For the 32 bit OS to do it, PAE must be enabled. This translates a 32 bit address computed by the processor (a virtual address), into a 36 bit or more address for the physical memory. With such a scheme, no single program can use all the system RAM, but if you ran sixteen different programs, they might access all the RAM on a really big system (64GB). 3) Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, enable PAE on x32, but prevent the user from accessing 4GB worth of address space. This is called the "memory license", to protect their expensive server operating systems. This includes roughly 1GB of addresses for hardware buses. Leaving around 3GB for memory addresses. If you install 4GB of memory, it reports ~3GB. If you install 8GB of memory, it reports ~3GB. Some other OSes, would allow the x32 OS to do more than that. 4) Using this product, the memory above 4GB (on the x32 OS) can be used as a RAMDisk. If you install 8GB, your RAMDisk might be 4GB in size. The RAMDisk is capable of using PAE memory, or "low RAM", depending on the situation. And seems to be unable to access the first gigabyte in the hoisted area. http://memory.dataram.com/__download...v4_0_4_RC2.msi So even though Microsoft wants to stop you from enjoying RAM above 4GB, the RAMDisk product does allow it to be used. A 64 bit OS has no such restriction, and all 8GB can be used. The processor must support a 64 bit OS (it does), and then the addresses can be much larger than 32 bits wide. From a practical perspective, in terms of cost/benefit, there are specific things the extra RAM might be useful for. If you run Virtual Machines at the same time as your regular OS, the memory comes in handy. For a lot of other usage patterns, your current 2GB total RAM is perilously close to the perfect configuration. Especially if you own a video card that has a lot of video RAM itself. The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. If you wish to install 4x2GB and use the remainder as a RAMDisk, be my guest. The RAMDisk is fast. Temporarily, I installed 6GB of RAM on my WinXP SP3 x32 system, and I was able to do this with the excess RAM. A tiny (2GB capacity), very fast "hard drive" :-) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif Such a "hard drive", can be used for your Photoshop scratch disk. No more delays! Other than that, for many users, such excessive RAM is useless. Paul Thanks very much for your quick and informative reply, Paul. I wish I could say I followed it all but I'd be lying. I'm a programmer, not a hardware guy. If I'm following you correctly, you're saying there's no point in adding more memory except to get a RAMDisk. I have nothing against RAMDisks and might benefit from one but my real goal was to be able to start a program that no longer wants to work for me. I periodically work with DB2, IBM's relational database, and find that I can't launch it any more. The underlying problem seems to be memory. (Go to http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infoce...v9r5/index.jsp and type SQL1022C in the Search box; then click on SQL0122C in the results list for the full message.) I've successfully launched this same version of DB2 on this same computer several times but its been several months since the last time. I'm really not sure why I should be having problems with memory since the last time. I had the same 2 GB of memory then as now. Sure, there are probably a few more processes running this time than last but even after I used Task Manager to kill all but one of the biggest memory users in the system, I still can't launch DB2. Available memory was a full 1 GB at that point. That should be plenty according to the manual (search on "memory requirement" for confirmation). I thought putting more memory on the motherboard would help and was just trying to figure out the implications of that when I posted the first message in this thread. I think you're saying that would be counter-productive in this case, right? Any ideas on what would be productive? Adding memory would not be counterproductive. The OS will ignore anything it doesn't like. (There are even boot.ini options, to make the OS ignore more of the memory.) Like I said, install 4GB, reports 3GB. Install 8GB, reports 3GB. And that's in x32 Windows. Other OSes would do this differently. Intel PAE has been around for years, but it didn't become a strategic problem for Microsoft, until big memory DIMMs became available. This is where I got the information. This developer "hacked" the OS, such that x32 would run with more than 4GB. But the hack is not public domain, and there was no intention to damage Microsoft's interests financially. http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/w...nse/memory.htm You can shrink available address space, by using a "big" video card. That's a hardware way of causing a crisis. I use a 512MB video card in my current system, but they're available with up to 2GB of video memory onboard. If you buy such a card, a 64 bit OS is recommended. On a 32 bit OS, there's no address space left for system memory. There is even at least one video card, which has 4GB of memory onboard (a limited edition card), which would make it impossible to boot a 32 bit Windows OS. There would be no room for the ability to address system memory. The Asus MARS video card was the first one, but I noticed one announced just the other day, so they're still trying to do stuff like that. Only a Windows x64 need be used with that, for gaming. It has less of an issue with address space. ******* In terms of running out of resources, your database may need a large amount, but any utilities that attempt to reach the database may need some too. On older OSes, resources are chopped up and bounded. Paged pool has limits, such that with fragmentation and lack of recovery of resources, you could run out. A reboot can fix that temporarily. Programs can also run out of stack or heap. Only when an OS design "unlimits" how all kinds of memory are allocated, do starvation issues like this go away. To give an example of that, when the computer starts, the hardware storage cards, the ones with their own BIOS chips, get to share a 128KB region in low memory. Even if the computer has 4GB installed, the same 128KB region is made available. Some hardware storage cards can't load their BIOS code, because the available space is too small. And that's an example of a static allocation that is too small. All part of the "640K architecture". Just because something runs out of RAM, does not imply you're actually out of RAM. It just means a barrier was erected which prevented the program or process from getting what it wanted. One of the first OSes I worked on (written by our own developers), had the static stack/static heap problem. When writing programs, you were constantly adjusting stuff like that. And all because everything was done statically. I had to learn what a stack and what a heap was, to get my simple programs to run :-) On Unix, the OS can apply "quotas" to RAM. On my old SunOS or Solaris boxes, you could limit any single processor to say, 512MB. This would prevent a runaway process from taking all available memory. I don't think a Windows desktop has that feature (no quota for RAM on a per-process basis). On my WinXP x32 system, I've never had a program use more than 1.8GB. Which lines up with the 2GB/2GB split between virtual address space as set up by default for the OS. Your 2GB physical RAM machine, should not have been affected by that, and lines up pretty well with those limits. But your problem seems to be, even the current amount of RAM, is not being made available. And the config options for Windows, should not impact a 2GB installed machine, as far as I know. You can shoot yourself in the foot, with the /maxmem switch, but you have no reason to be adding a thing like that. Win98 also had a mechanism like this, in a different file, but there were legit reasons for ordinary users to be using such options. I had a 2GB machine, dual booting Win98, where the usage of such switches prevented Win98 from using more than 512MB (which is a comfortable limit for Win98 usage). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx I've also read articles like this, and played around with the tools, but didn't find this particularly helpful. This is still valuable information - make no mistake about that. But I didn't have any "Aha!" moments when trying this stuff. I remained as blind as I was before :-) "Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory" http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussi...7/3155406.aspx Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Paul wrote:
So even though Microsoft wants to stop you from enjoying RAM above 4GB, the RAMDisk product does allow it to be used. A 64 bit OS has no such restriction, and all 8GB can be used. The processor must support a 64 bit OS (it does), and then the addresses can be much larger than 32 bits wide. From a practical perspective, in terms of cost/benefit, there are specific things the extra RAM might be useful for. If you run Virtual Machines at the same time as your regular OS, the memory comes in handy. For a lot of other usage patterns, your current 2GB total RAM is perilously close to the perfect configuration. Especially if you own a video card that has a lot of video RAM itself. The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. If you wish to install 4x2GB and use the remainder as a RAMDisk, be my guest. The RAMDisk is fast. Temporarily, I installed 6GB of RAM on my WinXP SP3 x32 system, and I was able to do this with the excess RAM. A tiny (2GB capacity), very fast "hard drive" :-) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif Such a "hard drive", can be used for your Photoshop scratch disk. No more delays! Other than that, for many users, such excessive RAM is useless. Would using a ramdisk for the swapfile have any advantage in speeding up the system? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Bob F wrote:
Paul wrote: So even though Microsoft wants to stop you from enjoying RAM above 4GB, the RAMDisk product does allow it to be used. A 64 bit OS has no such restriction, and all 8GB can be used. The processor must support a 64 bit OS (it does), and then the addresses can be much larger than 32 bits wide. From a practical perspective, in terms of cost/benefit, there are specific things the extra RAM might be useful for. If you run Virtual Machines at the same time as your regular OS, the memory comes in handy. For a lot of other usage patterns, your current 2GB total RAM is perilously close to the perfect configuration. Especially if you own a video card that has a lot of video RAM itself. The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. If you wish to install 4x2GB and use the remainder as a RAMDisk, be my guest. The RAMDisk is fast. Temporarily, I installed 6GB of RAM on my WinXP SP3 x32 system, and I was able to do this with the excess RAM. A tiny (2GB capacity), very fast "hard drive" :-) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif Such a "hard drive", can be used for your Photoshop scratch disk. No more delays! Other than that, for many users, such excessive RAM is useless. Would using a ramdisk for the swapfile have any advantage in speeding up the system? I've tried it, and it works :-) In this case, there's only one problem with the concept. The RAMDisk software, when I tested, wasn't 100% stable when providing that service (holding pagefile.sys). I had a couple incidents, where applications didn't work right. I had to suspect my experiment and put things back. Performance wise, it's every bit as good as you would imagine. You can use all the regular RAM on the system, and there's no sign the system is swapping. Whereas, without pagefile.sys on RAMDisk, my system slows to a crawl if stuff needs to be swapped out (like, using an image editor). Which is the reason I was testing this in the first place. The properties of the software, slowly improve with time. One version of that RAMDisk that I tested, immediately crashed as soon as I tried an HDTune benchmark run. That bug is fixed, and HDTune runs fine. Now, if only the pagefile.sys can be housed without incident. That would be cooler still. As the testing I was able to do, showed it made a big difference. If you had 8GB of RAM, there'd be no "hard drive light stuck on for 30 seconds" in WinXP x32. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Paul writes:
The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. That's what I thought too but observation indicates otherwise. My 32bit XP SP3 installation won't boot any more (motherboard upgrade led to stop 7B) but when it was still working, a video card (Nvidia GTX670) with 2 GB was fine. In fact, XP saw 3.5 GB RAM out of 8 which was more than with my previous 1.25 GB video card. As far as I know simply not all of the graphics memory is mapped to the address space. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What memory controller chipset do I have?
Anssi Saari wrote:
Paul writes: The RAM on the video card, uses address space as well, and can cause some of your system RAM to be inaccessible. Your system doesn't have SLI or Crossfire perhaps, but if you jammed a 2GB video card in there (such things exist), then you'd have no address space remaining, in your Microsoft x32 OS. That's what I thought too but observation indicates otherwise. My 32bit XP SP3 installation won't boot any more (motherboard upgrade led to stop 7B) but when it was still working, a video card (Nvidia GTX670) with 2 GB was fine. In fact, XP saw 3.5 GB RAM out of 8 which was more than with my previous 1.25 GB video card. As far as I know simply not all of the graphics memory is mapped to the address space. What happens, may depend on whether you've set PNP OS to "yes" or "no". Mine is always set to "No", meaning the BIOS does the planning. Now, maybe the BIOS code is clever, but I haven't seen any evidence of that to date. I think if you do PNP OS set to "yes", there might be some other possible outcomes. I can't say I've had occasion to try it. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel 82801 HR/HH/HO Sata Raid Controller and Intel P965 Chipset | Dim | Intel | 6 | January 13th 07 05:18 PM |
1GB DDR 400Mhz Memory and memory controller questions. | Red | General | 2 | June 9th 05 04:28 PM |
Memory configuration vs. Chipset | Ted Carter | General | 4 | January 23rd 04 04:32 AM |
P4P 800 Deluxe - which Controller Chipset to use for SATA??/ | cvj | Asus Motherboards | 1 | December 31st 03 11:04 PM |
Asus P4B533 memory problems - MB doesn't support PC2700 or PC3200 DDR memory due to chipset limitations | [email protected] | Asus Motherboards | 2 | December 29th 03 03:10 PM |