4GB Memory on my 32 bit CPU

Discussion in 'HP' started by SF-East Bay'r, Mar 22, 2009.

  1. I have a 32 bit HP dv9810us laptop that has 4GB as its max memory. I know
    that the 32 bit processor limits the OS to addressing about 3GB of RAM. If I
    added more memory to get to 4GB, would the built-in shared memory nVidia
    GeForce use any of the 4GB memory that the OS can't use ?
    Thanks.
    Tom
     
    1. Advertising

  2. * SF-East Bay'r:
    > I have a 32 bit HP dv9810us laptop that has 4GB as its max memory. I
    > know that the 32 bit processor limits the OS to addressing about 3GB of
    > RAM. If I added more memory to get to 4GB, would the built-in shared
    > memory nVidia GeForce use any of the 4GB memory that the OS can't use ?


    No.

    Benjamin
     
    1. Advertising

  3. rjn

    rjn Guest

    Benjamin Gawert <> wrote: >

    >> If I added more memory to get to 4GB, would the built-in shared
    >> memory nVidia GeForce use any of the 4GB memory that the OS can't use ?


    > No.


    That suggests that most IGP/UMA graphics, under
    32-bit Windows, effectively consume twice as much
    memory as you'd expect:
    * once to grab some from low memory for use,
    * and again to map it into high memory

    My latest build, with 4GB RAM, uses ATI IGP with 128MB
    sideport (dedicated graphics RAM on motherboard),
    and I set the BIOS to tell it to use only sideport.
    Windows XP/32 reports
    3.50 GB available. I was actually surprised.

    The OP might still get some benefit to installing 3GB,
    or 4GB if that's not much more expensive.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
     
  4. I have 3GB installed. I just wondered whether 4GB would make any difference.
    Tom

    "rjn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Benjamin Gawert <> wrote: >
    >
    >>> If I added more memory to get to 4GB, would the built-in shared
    >>> memory nVidia GeForce use any of the 4GB memory that the OS can't use ?

    >
    >> No.

    >
    > That suggests that most IGP/UMA graphics, under
    > 32-bit Windows, effectively consume twice as much
    > memory as you'd expect:
    > * once to grab some from low memory for use,
    > * and again to map it into high memory
    >
    > My latest build, with 4GB RAM, uses ATI IGP with 128MB
    > sideport (dedicated graphics RAM on motherboard),
    > and I set the BIOS to tell it to use only sideport.
    > Windows XP/32 reports
    > 3.50 GB available. I was actually surprised.
    >
    > The OP might still get some benefit to installing 3GB,
    > or 4GB if that's not much more expensive.
    >
    > --
    > Regards, Bob Niland mailto:
    > http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    > NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
     
  5. rjn

    rjn Guest

    "SF-East Bay'r" <> wrote:

    > I have 3GB installed. I just wondered whether
    > 4GB would make any difference.


    You might see as little as 128MB of that extra 1GB.
    I'm guessing that you'd get access to no more than
    256MB of it. The exact answer depends on your
    installed hardware and how it's configured.

    I'd suggest borrowing some RAM and trying it.
    Any web predictions, including mine, are unreliable.

    The real solution, of course, is a 64-bit OS.
    Your machine is a Turion64 and is apparently supported
    with Vista/64. I'm not sure I'd make that leap just to
    get an extra 1GB.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
     
  6. Barry OGrady

    Barry OGrady Guest

    On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:18:31 -0700 (PDT), rjn <> wrote:

    >"SF-East Bay'r" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have 3GB installed. I just wondered whether
    >> 4GB would make any difference.

    >
    >You might see as little as 128MB of that extra 1GB.
    >I'm guessing that you'd get access to no more than
    >256MB of it. The exact answer depends on your
    >installed hardware and how it's configured.


    If his computer supports PAE it may be possible for Windows
    to see the full 4 GB.

    I had a server with 8 gigs RAM running 32 bit Windows.
    By activating PAE Windows could see and use the full
    8 GB of RAM. PAE extends RAM addressing to 34 bits
    thus 16 gigs.

    Barry
    =====
    Home page
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
     
  7. * rjn:

    >>> If I added more memory to get to 4GB, would the built-in shared
    >>> memory nVidia GeForce use any of the 4GB memory that the OS can't use ?

    >
    >> No.

    >
    > That suggests that most IGP/UMA graphics, under
    > 32-bit Windows, effectively consume twice as much
    > memory as you'd expect:
    > * once to grab some from low memory for use,
    > * and again to map it into high memory


    Nope. This is only true for dedicated gfx memory as it is necessary to
    directly address it. Shared memory gfx is fed from the actual system
    memory which already is located in the address space and hence mirroring
    it into the I/O space is not necessary.

    Benjamin
     
  8. Robert Miles

    Robert Miles Guest

    Your header says you're using the Windows Mail program, which only
    runs under the Vista versions of Windows. 32-bit Vista can use 4 GB
    of memory, but with about 0.5GB reserved for the use of the Vista
    operating system (mainly to reach peripherals such as graphics boards),
    and not the programs you tell it to run, even if more memory is installed.
    Some of the other 3.5 GB may be needed to hold what you intend to
    send to the graphics board.

    You might want to ask in the following newsgroup whether your
    nVidia board implements its memory it a way that makes it also usable
    as non-graphics memory and whether doing this messes up the graphics:

    alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia

    There's a possibility that you may want to switch to a 64-bit version of
    Vista to be able to use both the entire 4 GB or more and the graphics
    board at the same time, but check whether any programs you want
    to run that didn't come as a part of Vista will run under 64-bit versions
    of Vista; there's a good chance some of them won't and some of them
    may require you to upgrade to a 64-bit version first. 64-bit versions of
    Vista are likely to need at least 0.5 GB or reserved space as well, but
    are able to place it at a higher address than 32-bit programs can reach
    directly. Many 32-bit programs are able to run under 64-bit versions
    of Vista, though.

    Robert Miles

    "SF-East Bay'r" <> wrote in message
    news:sQyxl.14910$...
    >I have 3GB installed. I just wondered whether 4GB would make any
    >difference.
    > Tom
    >
    > "rjn" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Benjamin Gawert <> wrote: >
    >>
    >>>> If I added more memory to get to 4GB, would the built-in shared
    >>>> memory nVidia GeForce use any of the 4GB memory that the OS can't use ?

    >>
    >>> No.

    >>
    >> That suggests that most IGP/UMA graphics, under
    >> 32-bit Windows, effectively consume twice as much
    >> memory as you'd expect:
    >> * once to grab some from low memory for use,
    >> * and again to map it into high memory
    >>
    >> My latest build, with 4GB RAM, uses ATI IGP with 128MB
    >> sideport (dedicated graphics RAM on motherboard),
    >> and I set the BIOS to tell it to use only sideport.
    >> Windows XP/32 reports
    >> 3.50 GB available. I was actually surprised.
    >>
    >> The OP might still get some benefit to installing 3GB,
    >> or 4GB if that's not much more expensive.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards, Bob Niland mailto:

    >
     
  9. rjn

    rjn Guest

    Barry OGrady <> wrote:

    > If his computer supports PAE it may be possible for Windows
    > to see the full 4 GB.


    Any x86-64 computer has to have PAE, because it's
    a stepping stone from 32-bit boot to 64-bit execution.

    Poking around the web, I see claims that, for XP32
    (less clear for Vista), if the CPU has NX bit support,
    PAE is on by default. This might explain why I see
    3.5 GB on my XP32. The OP might already be in PAE,
    and might get to use more of that last GB.

    > I had a server with 8 gigs RAM running 32 bit Windows.
    > By activating PAE Windows could see and use the full
    > 8 GB of RAM. PAE extends RAM addressing to 34 bits
    > thus 16 gigs.


    Only Windows Server will support more than 4GB, per
    various sources. Desktop is limited to 4GB. This may be
    due to MS licen$ing desires, or to reduce the risk of
    driver/ap incompatibility with >32bit memory space.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
     
  10. * rjn:
    > Poking around the web, I see claims that, for XP32
    > (less clear for Vista), if the CPU has NX bit support,
    > PAE is on by default. This might explain why I see
    > 3.5 GB on my XP32. The OP might already be in PAE,
    > and might get to use more of that last GB.


    Windowsxp and Vista support PAE but still are hard limited to 4GB memory
    address space. PAE is only used for the NX bit.

    Benjamin
     
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Yousuf Khan

    Microsoft 4GT: 4GB in 32-bit Winapps

    Yousuf Khan, Jun 23, 2004, in forum: Intel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    251
    Yousuf Khan
    Jun 23, 2004
  2. Doug
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    505
    J. Clarke
    Aug 16, 2005
  3. jhajny
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,243
  4. Davy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    910
  5. Spin
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,199
    M.I.5¾
    Mar 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page