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
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB, forthe last time
I thought I had this figured out, but I guess not.
I have 4 GM RAM, two sticks, for my Intel i5 machine running 32-bit Windows 7. I have a video card by ATI Radeon that has (I think, pretty sure) 1 GB Video RAM. I don't think I have on-board video graphics card (Intel integrated graphics card) in any way disabled in BIOS (there may or may not be a setting for this, but I kept it at default which means it's probably on). I think the OS is smart enough to know that when I am using the Radeon video card, it should ignore the onboard integrated graphics card, but for reasons explained below it probably does not matter. So Physical Memory is 3061 says Windows Task Manager, since, I think (after surfing the net for about a half hour and seeing what looks like conflicting information), what happens is that your VRAM is subtracted from your 4 GB system memory RAM, so 4-1 = 3 GB (rounding). Therefore, if I buy a 2 GB Video RAM Card (I did not even realize they make these, but gamers use them), on this system, my available RAM (Physical Memory) would be 4-2 = 2GB, correct? Not that I plan to do so, just curious. In any event, since I don't do any heavy duty graphics, I don't care about video too much, but am wondering, short of upgrading to 64-bit (which I would never do, too much hassle), if there's any way to increase the system RAM to something closer to the 4 GB limit for 32-bit OS Win 7? I think (and hope) the answer is "no"--unless I'm some sort of hard core overclocker which I'm not. Under MSConfig.exe "Boot Advanced Options" there is a checkbox "Maximum Memory" but I don't want to touch that (it's unchecked at the moment) for reasons I read about 20 minutes ago but have since forgotten, however, my intuition tells me not to go there. RL Info from various screen scrapes and my system http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610 My system according to SiSoft diagnostics: On-board Devices Onboard IGD : Video Adapter (Enabled) --does disabling this free up RAM if I have a video card? Apparently not. Onboard LAN : Ethernet Adapter (Enabled) Onboard 1394 : Other (Enabled) ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series --not clear if this is 2x512 = 1024 VRAM, but apparently must be 1GB Logical/Chipset Memory Banks Total Memory : 512MB DDR3 Memory Bus Speed : 2x 400MHz (800MHz) Minimum/Maximum/Turbo Speed : 2x 250MHz (500MHz) - 2x 500MHz (1GHz) Channels : 4 Width : 32-bit Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 12.5GB/s Direct3D 11 Device(s) Interface Version : 10.01 CS - Compute Shader Support : No DP - Double (Floating-Point) Support : No Model : ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series Physical Memory : 1GB Texture Memory : 1.24GB --not sure why Texture memory exceeds 1024 MB, but not a concern of mine Direct3D 10 Device(s) Interface Version : 10.01 Library Version : 8.17.10.1129 Model : ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series Physical Memory : 1GB Texture Memory : 1.24GB Question: I have a Gigabyte motherboard with a Intel 2 quad Q8300 cpu & do I need to delete drivers before I install a new Radeon HD 6870 graffics card ? I'm also going to upgrade the PSU to a Seasonic 520 Watt modular unit.Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Answer: No, you should not delete the drivers for your on-board graphics (ever). Just install the graphics card, boot up your system with the monitor attached to the card. Windows will boot using basic VGA drivers. Go to AMD.com, download and install the latest drivers for your system. Reboot once more and you should be good to go. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
RayLopez99 wrote:
I thought I had this figured out, but I guess not. I have 4 GM RAM, two sticks, for my Intel i5 machine running 32-bit Windows 7. I have a video card by ATI Radeon that has (I think, pretty sure) 1 GB Video RAM. I don't think I have on-board video graphics card (Intel integrated graphics card) in any way disabled in BIOS (there may or may not be a setting for this, but I kept it at default which means it's probably on). I think the OS is smart enough to know that when I am using the Radeon video card, it should ignore the onboard integrated graphics card, but for reasons explained below it probably does not matter. So Physical Memory is 3061 says Windows Task Manager, since, I think (after surfing the net for about a half hour and seeing what looks like conflicting information), what happens is that your VRAM is subtracted from your 4 GB system memory RAM, so 4-1 = 3 GB (rounding). Therefore, if I buy a 2 GB Video RAM Card (I did not even realize they make these, but gamers use them), on this system, my available RAM (Physical Memory) would be 4-2 = 2GB, correct? Not that I plan to do so, just curious. In any event, since I don't do any heavy duty graphics, I don't care about video too much, but am wondering, short of upgrading to 64-bit (which I would never do, too much hassle), if there's any way to increase the system RAM to something closer to the 4 GB limit for 32-bit OS Win 7? I think (and hope) the answer is "no"--unless I'm some sort of hard core overclocker which I'm not. Under MSConfig.exe "Boot Advanced Options" there is a checkbox "Maximum Memory" but I don't want to touch that (it's unchecked at the moment) for reasons I read about 20 minutes ago but have since forgotten, however, my intuition tells me not to go there. RL Info from various screen scrapes and my system http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610 My system according to SiSoft diagnostics: On-board Devices Onboard IGD : Video Adapter (Enabled) --does disabling this free up RAM if I have a video card? Apparently not. Onboard LAN : Ethernet Adapter (Enabled) Onboard 1394 : Other (Enabled) ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series --not clear if this is 2x512 = 1024 VRAM, but apparently must be 1GB Logical/Chipset Memory Banks Total Memory : 512MB DDR3 Memory Bus Speed : 2x 400MHz (800MHz) Minimum/Maximum/Turbo Speed : 2x 250MHz (500MHz) - 2x 500MHz (1GHz) Channels : 4 Width : 32-bit Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 12.5GB/s Direct3D 11 Device(s) Interface Version : 10.01 CS - Compute Shader Support : No DP - Double (Floating-Point) Support : No Model : ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series Physical Memory : 1GB Texture Memory : 1.24GB --not sure why Texture memory exceeds 1024 MB, but not a concern of mine Direct3D 10 Device(s) Interface Version : 10.01 Library Version : 8.17.10.1129 Model : ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series Physical Memory : 1GB Texture Memory : 1.24GB Question: I have a Gigabyte motherboard with a Intel 2 quad Q8300 cpu & do I need to delete drivers before I install a new Radeon HD 6870 graffics card ? I'm also going to upgrade the PSU to a Seasonic 520 Watt modular unit.Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Answer: No, you should not delete the drivers for your on-board graphics (ever). Just install the graphics card, boot up your system with the monitor attached to the card. Windows will boot using basic VGA drivers. Go to AMD.com, download and install the latest drivers for your system. Reboot once more and you should be good to go. The limitation in Windows, is "by license". There is effectively a memory license. The math involves working out an address space. The system bus address space, comes out of your 4GB space. It's allocated in 256MB chunks. So if you install a PCI card, it needs 1 byte of RAM, you lose 256MB right away. If several PCI cards need 257MB total, then the BIOS rounds up to a 512MB allocation. And this means, even if the video cards "go to zero", you still could not get exactly 4GB. As you describe above, the video cards subtract. And they subtract, because the RAM on the video card, needs to be addressed for one of the operating modes of the hardware. If you buy a 2GB video card, you would lose 1GB more than with the 1GB card you have now. The Intel graphics can use memory. You would check the BIOS, to see what settings are available. On some hardware, there was actually no "disable" option at all. And a user would dial down the static allocation to 32MB or so, and that would be about the best you could do. Some Intel processors, don't have that GPU, while others do. If the GPU is missing, it would be pretty strange for the BIOS to allocate memory to it. When it's missing, Plug and Play at the BIOS level, tell it not to bother. The integrated graphics can have both a static and a dynamic allocation. In some cases, over a gigabyte of system RAM can be allocated to the Intel GPU during game play. The memory is given back to the system when the game exits. So that's not quite as critical to your math. But if the hardware uses a static allocation, you'd adjust that as your OS needs suggest. If all the static allocation is being used for, is for a few frame buffers (triple buffering), then you wouldn't really need that much. The next size up, might be 128MB for Aero and compositing. Perhaps that could be done with a dynamic allocation. I'm not really sure of the details at that level. In any case, I think you can play with the BIOS settings, and reduce the wasted system memory. My system reports 3144748K and I have a 512MB video card. That's 3071MB. 4096-3071 = 1025. About 1MB is used for things like the 640K BIOS. That brings it to 1024. My video card, subtract 512MB, leaving 512MB wasted on two system busses. So then the question would be, why is it using two chunks. Is it really treated as two bus segments or sometbing ? Don't know. All I can say is, now that the baseline behavior is known, if I switched to a larger video card, the math will make it easy to predict the result. A 2GB video card, wouldn't leave me with very much. A 64 bit OS, gives it all back to you, except for that 1MB thing. Come to think of it, I've never bothered to check that. I have Windows 8 I could use for a test. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
On 13/12/2013 10:38 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
I thought I had this figured out, but I guess not. I have 4 GM RAM, two sticks, for my Intel i5 machine running 32-bit Windows 7. I have a video card by ATI Radeon that has (I think, pretty sure) 1 GB Video RAM. I don't think I have on-board video graphics card (Intel integrated graphics card) in any way disabled in BIOS (there may or may not be a setting for this, but I kept it at default which means it's probably on). I think the OS is smart enough to know that when I am using the Radeon video card, it should ignore the onboard integrated graphics card, but for reasons explained below it probably does not matter. So Physical Memory is 3061 says Windows Task Manager, since, I think (after surfing the net for about a half hour and seeing what looks like conflicting information), what happens is that your VRAM is subtracted from your 4 GB system memory RAM, so 4-1 = 3 GB (rounding). Therefore, if I buy a 2 GB Video RAM Card (I did not even realize they make these, but gamers use them), on this system, my available RAM (Physical Memory) would be 4-2 = 2GB, correct? Not that I plan to do so, just curious. First of all, the reserved RAM is not just composed of your video card memory space. Other peripherals that need direct access to memory, such as network cards, could reserve some space in here too. Also the Windows OS itself uses some of this. Second of all, since you're asking about video memory, you should know that not all of the graphics card's RAM is going to be visible to the system at the same time. Some graphics cards these days can have 8GB of RAM, which would be larger than a 32-bit system's entire addressable limit. However, these graphics cards present their memory to the system address space in small chunks known as an aperture window, AGP aperture, video aperture or aperture size, etc. Even with PCI-E video cards the same concept can still apply. What happens is that no matter how large your GPU RAM is, it will be presented to your system in a fixed size, such as 64MB, 128MB, 256MB, etc. The video driver will know the size of the GPU's RAM, and the aperature window of the system RAM, and it'll slide the GPU's RAM into view of the system, within the fixed window. So the entire 8GB of GPU RAM will slide in and out of view of the system by that 64/128/256MB/etc. at a time. In a 64-bit system, you wouldn't need to use an aperture, as the whole GPU RAM could be mapped into the system space with no problems. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:34:38 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
[amazing stuff on aperture] That was very informative, thanks. I note on Amazon the 8 to 12 GB video cards cost $4-6k each--why? Is it bitcoin mining that's driving the prices of these cards to such high levels? I would think so. RL Here is an example: http://www.amazon.com/NVIDIA-900-520.../dp/B00CA5MLCS Nvidia Quadro K6000 12GB GDDR5 PCIe 3.0 x16 GPU Kepler Graphics Processing Unit Video Adapter 900-52081-0050-000 699-52081-0500-200 by nVidia Be the first to review this item Price: $4,799.00 Only 1 left in stock. Ships from and sold by Compeve. Ordering for Christmas? Based on the shipping schedule of Compeve, choose Expedited at checkout for delivery by December 24. See Compeve shipping details. Memory: 12GB GDDR5 384-bit Graphic bus: PCIe 3.0 x16 NVIDIA CUDA Parallel Processor Cores: 2880 Display connectors: DVI-I, DVI-D, 2x DP 3 new from $4,700.00 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB, for the last time
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:41:44 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99
wrote: I note on Amazon the 8 to 12 GB video cards cost $4-6k each--why? Is it bitcoin mining that's driving the prices of these cards to such high levels? I would think so. - Vidboards are becoming increasingly obsolete, I think, taking the place of various niche marketing for PCs doubling or augmented as for what dedicated game boxes perhaps otherwise need connotate. Although there was a period known as the 'Make or Break 'Em,' placed by terms of pre-assembled, brandname PCs (HP, Dell, et al), that comported ability to broadly engineer a PC accounted a focus on playing games from a core business appeal to subseqent vendor outlet's ability to successfully market PCs;- that was then eclipsed by core industrial terms by marketing abstracts which, to the best of my knowledge, still maintain a broadest MB base (along with recent core CPU support subsequent for video, as provided by both Intel/AMD), (sic) given provision for direct onboard video chipset support, as is presently carried voer a brunt of marketing within MB appeal and supportive sales, regardless of such provisions for PCI-E to then pretty much relegated is absolute terms, for video cards that are now niche items concerning a fringe entertainment purposes, which, ipso facto, cannot seriously purport to be within the greater relm of processing abilities computers generally have to impact. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
RayLopez99 wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:34:38 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote: [amazing stuff on aperture] That was very informative, thanks. I note on Amazon the 8 to 12 GB video cards cost $4-6k each--why? Is it bitcoin mining that's driving the prices of these cards to such high levels? I would think so. RL Here is an example: http://www.amazon.com/NVIDIA-900-520.../dp/B00CA5MLCS Nvidia Quadro K6000 12GB GDDR5 PCIe 3.0 x16 GPU Kepler Graphics Processing Unit Video Adapter 900-52081-0050-000 699-52081-0500-200 by nVidia Be the first to review this item Price: $4,799.00 Only 1 left in stock. Ships from and sold by Compeve. Ordering for Christmas? Based on the shipping schedule of Compeve, choose Expedited at checkout for delivery by December 24. See Compeve shipping details. Memory: 12GB GDDR5 384-bit Graphic bus: PCIe 3.0 x16 NVIDIA CUDA Parallel Processor Cores: 2880 Display connectors: DVI-I, DVI-D, 2x DP 3 new from $4,700.00 NVidia cards are ****-poor for BitCoin mining. There is the equivalent of some arithmetic function (bit_shift ???) that BitCoin needs, that is not present on the NVidia cards. If you check the BitCoin ratings page for cards, it doesn't really matter what NVidia card you select, it does poorly. As a result of the accident of ATI supporting a necessary (more efficient) way of doing it, BitCoin runs better on ATI. And I don't think it's a coding issue, as those guys would love to extend the "useful card" list, so more cheap cards could be uncovered. It turns out, BitCoin isn't a big user of video card memory, so selecting a "large" card would be totally unnecessary. BitCoin is doing math in parallel, the same calc over and over again, kinda like "cracking a password". Some mid-range cards actually turned out to the most cost effective, and it actually drives up the used price for those cards on Ebay, because they all end up in mining rigs. BitCoin also doesn't use a lot of bus bandwidth, so you might be able to connect a video card via a x1 slot. And nobody doing serious mining, will be using video cards for long, as there is a new generation of FPGA or custom silicon out there, which will crush video cards (in the sense, of not wasting electricity). There is a box now, with a number of chips in it, selling for $35000, which will be shipping soon. And that should cause the percentage of mined coins from video cards, to drop. Just a matter of finding $35000 in your "loose change drawer" :-) ******* The above Kepler is a compute engine. It runs GPGPU code. The buyer, buys one of those, so the entire problem can be loaded into GPU memory. Apparently, the "fully enabled" cards, such as the one above, have a caching scheme, to try to reduce the latency of access to the video memory. And that's important when solving problems with one of those cards. Also, those cards would have more FP64 units available, which are also a valued commodity inside the GPU. I think there are more FP32, and they're not as nice for math. Retail cards for gamers, the FP64 ratio is poor. Anandtech probably has some articles, if you're interested. And I have no idea, what problem space, justifies a $4700 card. While scientists love stuff like that, they can't usually afford the cash. Maybe the NSA is analysing your email with one of those, for naughty words. Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
On 12/17/2013 12:41 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:34:38 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote: [amazing stuff on aperture] That was very informative, thanks. I note on Amazon the 8 to 12 GB video cards cost $4-6k each--why? Is it bitcoin mining that's driving the prices of these cards to such high levels? I would think so. RL Here is an example: http://www.amazon.com/NVIDIA-900-520.../dp/B00CA5MLCS Nvidia Quadro K6000 12GB GDDR5 PCIe 3.0 x16 GPU Kepler Graphics Processing Unit Video Adapter 900-52081-0050-000 699-52081-0500-200 by nVidia Be the first to review this item Price: $4,799.00 Only 1 left in stock. Ships from and sold by Compeve. Ordering for Christmas? Based on the shipping schedule of Compeve, choose Expedited at checkout for delivery by December 24. See Compeve shipping details. Memory: 12GB GDDR5 384-bit Graphic bus: PCIe 3.0 x16 NVIDIA CUDA Parallel Processor Cores: 2880 Display connectors: DVI-I, DVI-D, 2x DP 3 new from $4,700.00 Were Not these cards primarily intended for almost real time rendering of video content?? Like maybe used for video projects for digital effects? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
On Saturday, 14 December 2013 11:38:26 UTC+8, RayLopez99 wrote:
Question: I have a Gigabyte motherboard with a Intel 2 quad Q8300 cpu & do I need to delete drivers before I install a new Radeon HD 6870 graffics card ? I'm also going to upgrade the PSU to a Seasonic 520 Watt modular unit..Any advice will be greatly appreciated. If you lookup the Intel technical documents for Bearlake chipset (probably what you have for Q8300 CPU), Reserved memory is a multiple of 64 MiB and at least 512 MiB. The operating system does not matter. Almost every mainboard I have from that LGA775 era shows 768 MiB reserved, so 3 and a quarter GiB of useable RAM with 4 GiB plugged in. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
VRAM, Win7 32 bit, Maximum Physical Memory of 4 GB becoming 3GB,for the last time
On 17/12/2013 12:41 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:34:38 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote: [amazing stuff on aperture] That was very informative, thanks. I note on Amazon the 8 to 12 GB video cards cost $4-6k each--why? Is it bitcoin mining that's driving the prices of these cards to such high levels? I would think so. RL No, I don't think cryptocurrencies are really as popular as the media is trying to make them sound to be. These are professional GPU's, used in workstations and servers mainly for calculations rather than videos. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Physical memory | Campino | AMD x86-64 Processors | 1 | March 29th 11 10:01 AM |
Does the addressable physical memory range depend on which slots are occupied by the memory? | Lighter | General | 4 | October 10th 06 01:24 AM |
maximum number of physical disks in RAID 10 | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 10 | October 5th 06 09:32 PM |
memory mapped IO: device registers mapped to virtual memory or physical memory? | Olumide | General | 13 | February 9th 06 10:44 PM |
available physical memory | BLOCKSTER | Dell Computers | 2 | January 1st 04 03:49 AM |