A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 17th 16, 10:31 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.sys.hardware,alt.computer.hardware,alt.comp.hardware
Ant[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM?

Like I have 3 GB of RAM, but Windows show 2.5 GB. I was told because it
is a shared memory?

Thank you in advance.
--
"He was a musical ant. He was there for the song." --Rick (Rick Moranis
episode from The Muppets)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
  #2  
Old January 17th 16, 01:38 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.sys.hardware,alt.computer.hardware,alt.comp.hardware
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM?

Ant wrote:
Like I have 3 GB of RAM, but Windows show 2.5 GB. I was told because it
is a shared memory?

Thank you in advance.


You need an article on the "32-bit Windows memory license", which
isn't really a memory license as such, but is implemented
as an address space limitation. You have 4GB of addresses,
some addresses are reserved for bus address decodes, leaving
the rest. The video card memory needs to be decoded on
those busses as well. The bigger the onboard video card
memory, the more addresses needed. The remaining addresses,
are used to access your motherboard memory DIMMs. If there
aren't enough addresses left to access all of the memory
on your DIMMs, then you don't get to use it on 32-bit Windows.
Some portion of your motherboard DIMMs is then simply
inaccessible. There's no address available to get to
that chunk of memory. Windows then claims "2.5GB free".

WinXP actually has PAE enabled in SP3. And 32-bit Windows really
does have access to memory above 4GB. I know this, because
on the computer I'm typing this on, my DataRAM RAMDisk software
is using the top 4GB of my 8GB of RAM, as a RAMDisk, while
the bottom RAM, Windows claims "3.1GB free" or so. And this
works, because the "Windows memory license" only applies
to Ring 3 (applications) and not Ring 0 (kernel and drivers).
My RAMDisk is driver-level based, drivers run in Ring 0, and
since PAE is turned on, the upper memory is actually available.
But can only be used for a RAMDisk. Now, if I put the Windpws
pagefile on the RAMDisk, I can "outfox" Microsoft a tiny bit.
But just a tiny bit. I can run multiple programs, and actually
sharing 5GB of RAM over three programs if I want. (Swapping
happens at RAMDisk speeds.) But one program alone cannot have 5GB.
I ran my system that way for a few days, before taking that
setup apart. There were a few "glitches" that don't make the
method practical. I tested it, until the glitches in the scheme
showed up.

If you were using 64 bit Windows, you would discover
next to no penalty at all. Exceptions might include,
slightly less than optimal results on 8GB chipsets
with 8GB of DIMMs installed. Many other chipsets,
they made the address space large enough that it no
longer clips off the top of memory. For most users,
when they boot into 64 bit, they no longer seem
to care about those sorts of details :-)

Chipsets (or IMCs) that support more than 4GB of
memory properly, use "memory hoisting" to lift
some structurally inaccessible memory, to above
the 4GB mark. And that's part of the reason you
get to use all of it, with the 64 bit OS. There was
at least one (stupid) Intel chipset, where there
was no hoisting, you could install 8GB of DIMMs,
and the chipset prevented usage of any more than
4GB of that. Lucky you, if you bought one of those.
Only one specific Intel chipset was affected.

*******

A thorough treatment of graphics memory or address usage
would include a description of...

1) AGP GART (and that old setting in the BIOS)

2) Shared memory for Northbridge or CPU graphics
a) Static allocation for frame buffer
b) Dynamic allocation only while playing 3D games
c) Earlier designs that supported only static, and
the user had to decide how much to donate to the
GPU shared memory setting.

3) NVidia TurboCache on some $50 video cards.
With some cards having only TurboCache, some cards
having onboard as well as TurboCache, and so on.
What a mess.

But I'm not going to write those up. Because based
on your premise in the question, they don't apply
to you.

Paul
  #3  
Old January 17th 16, 01:38 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.sys.hardware,alt.computer.hardware,alt.comp.hardware
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM?

Ant wrote:
Like I have 3 GB of RAM, but Windows show 2.5 GB. I was told because it
is a shared memory?

Thank you in advance.


You need an article on the "32-bit Windows memory license", which
isn't really a memory license as such, but is implemented
as an address space limitation. You have 4GB of addresses,
some addresses are reserved for bus address decodes, leaving
the rest. The video card memory needs to be decoded on
those busses as well. The bigger the onboard video card
memory, the more addresses needed. The remaining addresses,
are used to access your motherboard memory DIMMs. If there
aren't enough addresses left to access all of the memory
on your DIMMs, then you don't get to use it on 32-bit Windows.
Some portion of your motherboard DIMMs is then simply
inaccessible. There's no address available to get to
that chunk of memory. Windows then claims "2.5GB free".

WinXP actually has PAE enabled in SP3. And 32-bit Windows really
does have access to memory above 4GB. I know this, because
on the computer I'm typing this on, my DataRAM RAMDisk software
is using the top 4GB of my 8GB of RAM, as a RAMDisk, while
the bottom RAM, Windows claims "3.1GB free" or so. And this
works, because the "Windows memory license" only applies
to Ring 3 (applications) and not Ring 0 (kernel and drivers).
My RAMDisk is driver-level based, drivers run in Ring 0, and
since PAE is turned on, the upper memory is actually available.
But can only be used for a RAMDisk. Now, if I put the Windpws
pagefile on the RAMDisk, I can "outfox" Microsoft a tiny bit.
But just a tiny bit. I can run multiple programs, and actually
sharing 5GB of RAM over three programs if I want. (Swapping
happens at RAMDisk speeds.) But one program alone cannot have 5GB.
I ran my system that way for a few days, before taking that
setup apart. There were a few "glitches" that don't make the
method practical. I tested it, until the glitches in the scheme
showed up.

If you were using 64 bit Windows, you would discover
next to no penalty at all. Exceptions might include,
slightly less than optimal results on 8GB chipsets
with 8GB of DIMMs installed. Many other chipsets,
they made the address space large enough that it no
longer clips off the top of memory. For most users,
when they boot into 64 bit, they no longer seem
to care about those sorts of details :-)

Chipsets (or IMCs) that support more than 4GB of
memory properly, use "memory hoisting" to lift
some structurally inaccessible memory, to above
the 4GB mark. And that's part of the reason you
get to use all of it, with the 64 bit OS. There was
at least one (stupid) Intel chipset, where there
was no hoisting, you could install 8GB of DIMMs,
and the chipset prevented usage of any more than
4GB of that. Lucky you, if you bought one of those.
Only one specific Intel chipset was affected.

*******

A thorough treatment of graphics memory or address usage
would include a description of...

1) AGP GART (and that old setting in the BIOS)

2) Shared memory for Northbridge or CPU graphics
a) Static allocation for frame buffer
b) Dynamic allocation only while playing 3D games
c) Earlier designs that supported only static, and
the user had to decide how much to donate to the
GPU shared memory setting.

3) NVidia TurboCache on some $50 video cards.
With some cards having only TurboCache, some cards
having onboard as well as TurboCache, and so on.
What a mess.

But I'm not going to write those up. Because based
on your premise in the question, they don't apply
to you.

Paul
  #4  
Old January 17th 16, 05:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM?

On 01/17/2016 03:31 AM, Ant wrote:
Like I have 3 GB of RAM, but Windows show 2.5 GB. I was told because it
is a shared memory?

Thank you in advance.



If your machine has on-board video, there is a BIOS option as to how
much RAM you want to assign to it.

If you have added a video card of your own, there is no need to assign
RAM to the ob-board card so you can go into the BIOS settings and adjust
assigned RAM down to zero.
  #5  
Old January 17th 16, 05:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM?

On 01/17/2016 03:31 AM, Ant wrote:
Like I have 3 GB of RAM, but Windows show 2.5 GB. I was told because it
is a shared memory?

Thank you in advance.



If your machine has on-board video, there is a BIOS option as to how
much RAM you want to assign to it.

If you have added a video card of your own, there is no need to assign
RAM to the ob-board card so you can go into the BIOS settings and adjust
assigned RAM down to zero.
  #6  
Old January 18th 16, 10:18 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.sys.hardware,alt.computer.hardware
Ant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my video card's VRAM?

Interesting. I am using PAE and have no onboard video. Oh well, thanks
anways.

You need an article on the "32-bit Windows memory license", which
isn't really a memory license as such, but is implemented
as an address space limitation. You have 4GB of addresses,
some addresses are reserved for bus address decodes, leaving
the rest. The video card memory needs to be decoded on
those busses as well. The bigger the onboard video card
memory, the more addresses needed. The remaining addresses,
are used to access your motherboard memory DIMMs. If there
aren't enough addresses left to access all of the memory
on your DIMMs, then you don't get to use it on 32-bit Windows.
Some portion of your motherboard DIMMs is then simply
inaccessible. There's no address available to get to
that chunk of memory. Windows then claims "2.5GB free".


WinXP actually has PAE enabled in SP3. And 32-bit Windows really
does have access to memory above 4GB. I know this, because
on the computer I'm typing this on, my DataRAM RAMDisk software
is using the top 4GB of my 8GB of RAM, as a RAMDisk, while
the bottom RAM, Windows claims "3.1GB free" or so. And this
works, because the "Windows memory license" only applies
to Ring 3 (applications) and not Ring 0 (kernel and drivers).
My RAMDisk is driver-level based, drivers run in Ring 0, and
since PAE is turned on, the upper memory is actually available.
But can only be used for a RAMDisk. Now, if I put the Windpws
pagefile on the RAMDisk, I can "outfox" Microsoft a tiny bit.
But just a tiny bit. I can run multiple programs, and actually
sharing 5GB of RAM over three programs if I want. (Swapping
happens at RAMDisk speeds.) But one program alone cannot have 5GB.
I ran my system that way for a few days, before taking that
setup apart. There were a few "glitches" that don't make the
method practical. I tested it, until the glitches in the scheme
showed up.


If you were using 64 bit Windows, you would discover
next to no penalty at all. Exceptions might include,
slightly less than optimal results on 8GB chipsets
with 8GB of DIMMs installed. Many other chipsets,
they made the address space large enough that it no
longer clips off the top of memory. For most users,
when they boot into 64 bit, they no longer seem
to care about those sorts of details :-)


Chipsets (or IMCs) that support more than 4GB of
memory properly, use "memory hoisting" to lift
some structurally inaccessible memory, to above
the 4GB mark. And that's part of the reason you
get to use all of it, with the 64 bit OS. There was
at least one (stupid) Intel chipset, where there
was no hoisting, you could install 8GB of DIMMs,
and the chipset prevented usage of any more than
4GB of that. Lucky you, if you bought one of those.
Only one specific Intel chipset was affected.


*******


A thorough treatment of graphics memory or address usage
would include a description of...


1) AGP GART (and that old setting in the BIOS)


2) Shared memory for Northbridge or CPU graphics
a) Static allocation for frame buffer
b) Dynamic allocation only while playing 3D games
c) Earlier designs that supported only static, and
the user had to decide how much to donate to the
GPU shared memory setting.


3) NVidia TurboCache on some $50 video cards.
With some cards having only TurboCache, some cards
having onboard as well as TurboCache, and so on.
What a mess.


But I'm not going to write those up. Because based
on your premise in the question, they don't apply
to you.


Paul


--
Quote of the Week: "Applied mathematics will always need pure mathematics, just as anteaters will always need ants." --Paul Halmos
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How come RAM is taken away for video cards? Because of my videocard's VRAM? Ant[_3_] Nvidia Videocards 5 February 13th 19 07:25 AM
Is there a VRAM tester for ATI Radeon HD video cards? Ant[_3_] Ati Videocards 2 October 5th 11 12:09 AM
Video died, but it's not a dead videocard, or monitor Larry Roberts Homebuilt PC's 6 March 7th 07 03:22 AM
Do ATI video cards handle heat better than NVIDIA video cards? [email protected] Ati Videocards 8 July 13th 06 04:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.