1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Althlon 64 Motherboard w/3GB?

Discussion in 'AMD Thunderbird' started by Mr. E. Mann, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. Mr. E. Mann

    Mr. E. Mann Guest

    Hi,

    I'm planning on putting together an athlon 64 system when I get my tax
    return and I'm looking for a good motherboard that will accept 3GB or ram
    (or more). I know windows doesn't really allow a program to accessmore than
    2GB of ram, but I hear XP pro can access more with certain setup. Either
    way, I use a program that will use all 2GB of ram allowed it, so having 3GB
    will allow windows to load all of it's bloat outside of that 2GB program
    limit. Does that make any sense?

    Ok, my real question... I have found motherboards that claim they alow 3GB
    of ram, but I've also read that some will not allow you to actually use 3GB
    of ram? If they can't use 3GB of ram, why would they allow you to install
    3GB? This makes no sense to me.

    What I am looking for is a board that supports the Athlon 64 3400, Sata,
    onboard Lan, usb 2.0, Firewire, 6 channel sound, etc. Basically all the
    bells and whistles. This whole 3GB thing has me a bit confused.

    Thanks for any help. Hope this made sense.
    Mr. E. Mann, Jan 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mr. E. Mann

    Arthur Buse Guest

    On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:40:41 GMT, "Mr. E. Mann" <>
    wrote:

    >I know windows doesn't really allow a program to accessmore than
    >2GB of ram, but I hear XP pro can access more with certain setup.


    I cannot help with most of your questions, but I know that Windows 98
    runs into problems when more than 512 MB of memory is fitted.

    I have 768 MB fitted. I have set Win 98 to only use 700 MB. It works
    well when re-booted, but after a while I get the symptom of not being
    able to open a DOS prompt window.


    Like you, I believe that Windows XP can handle more memory, but cannot
    quote specifics.
    --
    Arthur.
    Arthur Buse, Jan 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mr. E. Mann" <> wrote in
    news:Xns947AC7F892248fishfarts@68.6.19.6:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm planning on putting together an athlon 64 system when I get my tax
    > return and I'm looking for a good motherboard that will accept 3GB or
    > ram (or more). I know windows doesn't really allow a program to
    > accessmore than 2GB of ram, but I hear XP pro can access more with
    > certain setup. Either way, I use a program that will use all 2GB of
    > ram allowed it, so having 3GB will allow windows to load all of it's
    > bloat outside of that 2GB program limit. Does that make any sense?
    >
    > Ok, my real question... I have found motherboards that claim they alow
    > 3GB of ram, but I've also read that some will not allow you to
    > actually use 3GB of ram? If they can't use 3GB of ram, why would they
    > allow you to install 3GB? This makes no sense to me.


    Win NT 4 and later can handle normally 4GB of memory,
    but with the PAE boot switch up to 64GB.

    (PAE is supported on Windows 2000 Datacenter Server; Windows 2000
    Advanced Server; Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Editon; and Windows
    Server 2003, Datacenter Edition.)

    A single process (task) can normally access 2GB,
    but with the /3GB boot switch it can access 3GB.

    (This parameter is fully functional on Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0,
    Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 3, Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced
    Server, Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows XP, and Windows
    Server 2003.)

    --
    Peter Strömberg
    C2K2 C2K3 ISCCIV02 ISCCIV03
    Peter Strömberg, Jan 25, 2004
    #3
  4. Arthur Buse <> wrote in
    news::

    > I cannot help with most of your questions, but I know that Windows 98
    > runs into problems when more than 512 MB of memory is fitted.
    >
    > I have 768 MB fitted. I have set Win 98 to only use 700 MB. It works
    > well when re-booted, but after a while I get the symptom of not being
    > able to open a DOS prompt window.


    <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912>
    <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304943>


    --
    Peter Strömberg
    C2K2 C2K3 ISCCIV02 ISCCIV03
    Peter Strömberg, Jan 25, 2004
    #4
  5. Mr. E. Mann

    Ben Pope Guest

    Mr. E. Mann wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm planning on putting together an athlon 64 system when I get my tax
    > return and I'm looking for a good motherboard that will accept 3GB or ram
    > (or more). I know windows doesn't really allow a program to accessmore
    > than 2GB of ram, but I hear XP pro can access more with certain setup.
    > Either way, I use a program that will use all 2GB of ram allowed it, so
    > having 3GB will allow windows to load all of it's bloat outside of that
    > 2GB program limit. Does that make any sense?
    >
    > Ok, my real question... I have found motherboards that claim they alow 3GB
    > of ram, but I've also read that some will not allow you to actually use
    > 3GB of ram? If they can't use 3GB of ram, why would they allow you to
    > install 3GB? This makes no sense to me.


    If there are 3 slots for convenience, and each slot can address up to 1Gig
    then the board will allow 3 Gig to be installed. It's possible that less
    than that can be addressed in total due to limitations elsewhere... I was
    under the impression that 32bit systems can address 2^32 bytes, or 4Gigs,
    but that there is a reserved space above 3Gigs for mapping I/O... much like
    the option in the BIOS for memory hole at 63-64Meg (the 16bit address space
    limit).

    > What I am looking for is a board that supports the Athlon 64 3400, Sata,
    > onboard Lan, usb 2.0, Firewire, 6 channel sound, etc. Basically all the
    > bells and whistles. This whole 3GB thing has me a bit confused.
    >
    > Thanks for any help. Hope this made sense.


    Essentially if you want to use the advantages of a 64bit system capable of
    addressing lots of RAM, you'll need an OS that is 64bit too, which
    essentially leaves you with leaked test versions of the appropriate Windows
    or any semi-recent distribution of Linux, for the moment, at least.

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
    Ben Pope, Jan 25, 2004
    #5
  6. Mr. E. Mann

    B Guest

    It is both a matter of hardware and software. Hardware motherboard
    manufacturers have built in system limits or normally 3-4 gb or less but
    this will change somewhat when Microsoft releases its 64 bit version of the
    operating system and that is explaned here:

    Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems is designed for use on
    high-performance PCs. This means new customers will be able to extend beyond
    the 4-gigabyte physical memory limit of 32-bit computing.

    regards

    B


    "Mr. E. Mann" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns947AC7F892248fishfarts@68.6.19.6...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm planning on putting together an athlon 64 system when I get my tax
    > return and I'm looking for a good motherboard that will accept 3GB or ram
    > (or more). I know windows doesn't really allow a program to accessmore

    than
    > 2GB of ram, but I hear XP pro can access more with certain setup. Either
    > way, I use a program that will use all 2GB of ram allowed it, so having

    3GB
    > will allow windows to load all of it's bloat outside of that 2GB program
    > limit. Does that make any sense?
    >
    > Ok, my real question... I have found motherboards that claim they alow 3GB
    > of ram, but I've also read that some will not allow you to actually use

    3GB
    > of ram? If they can't use 3GB of ram, why would they allow you to install
    > 3GB? This makes no sense to me.
    >
    > What I am looking for is a board that supports the Athlon 64 3400, Sata,
    > onboard Lan, usb 2.0, Firewire, 6 channel sound, etc. Basically all the
    > bells and whistles. This whole 3GB thing has me a bit confused.
    >
    > Thanks for any help. Hope this made sense.
    B, Jan 25, 2004
    #6
  7. Mr. E. Mann

    Arthur Buse Guest

    On 25 Jan 2004 10:54:07 GMT, "Peter Strömberg" <>
    wrote:

    >Arthur Buse <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> I cannot help with most of your questions, but I know that Windows 98
    >> runs into problems when more than 512 MB of memory is fitted.
    >>
    >> I have 768 MB fitted. I have set Win 98 to only use 700 MB. It works
    >> well when re-booted, but after a while I get the symptom of not being
    >> able to open a DOS prompt window.

    >
    ><http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912>


    Says that Windows 98 runs into problems when more than 512 MB of
    memory is fitted. Mine is fairly stable when restricted to 700 MB.
    Needs re-booting if I have problems. I could restrict it further and
    have fewer problems.

    ><http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304943>



    Says that Windows 98 & Windows ME will not run nor install if more
    than 1.5 GB of memory are fitted. Thanks, Peter, I had never heard of
    that.

    I think I found another symptom of having too much memory. I could not
    filll in text boxes on web pages. Ironically, this prevented me doing
    a proper search for the original poster's question.

    Microsoft once claimed that Windows 95 can use 2GB but I think they
    lied.
    <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q181/5/94.asp&NoWebContent=1>

    Mr E. Mann (original poster):

    The 32-bit architecture of present CPUs limits them to 4 GB of RAM
    (e.g . Pentium, Athlon Tbred). Windows XP, being a 32-bit operating
    system will be limited to 4GB of memory. It can use at least 2GB of
    memory.

    At the bottom of page 16 of a Word document on the Windows NT homepage
    it says that Windows NT Server is capable of addressing 4GB, split
    into 2 GB for user space and 2 GB for system space.

    http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/docs/tsarchitecture.doc

    Windows XP is based on Windows NT, so I expect the same memory limit.

    The Athlon 64 can address thousands of GB. There is a beta (test)
    version of Windows XP 64-bit. I expect there will be a final retail
    version available by Christmas. And a Service Pack full of bug fixes
    early next year. :)

    Windows 2000 Advanced Server uses something called Physical Address
    Extensions (PAE) and is able to address 8GB and Windows 2000
    Datacenter Server uses PAE to address 32GB. Sounds like good old
    memory paging to me.

    --
    Arthur.
    Arthur Buse, Jan 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Mr. E. Mann

    Mr. E. Mann Guest

    Thanks Everyone!

    I didn't know people were still using win98. ;')

    "B" <> wrote in
    news:bv0s9v$980$:

    > It is both a matter of hardware and software. Hardware motherboard
    > manufacturers have built in system limits or normally 3-4 gb or less
    > but this will change somewhat when Microsoft releases its 64 bit
    > version of the operating system and that is explaned here:
    >
    > Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems is designed for
    > use on high-performance PCs. This means new customers will be able to
    > extend beyond the 4-gigabyte physical memory limit of 32-bit
    > computing.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > B
    >
    Mr. E. Mann, Jan 25, 2004
    #8
  9. "Arthur Buse" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:40:41 GMT, "Mr. E. Mann" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I know windows doesn't really allow a program to accessmore than
    > >2GB of ram, but I hear XP pro can access more with certain setup.

    >
    > I cannot help with most of your questions, but I know that Windows 98
    > runs into problems when more than 512 MB of memory is fitted.
    >
    > I have 768 MB fitted. I have set Win 98 to only use 700 MB. It works
    > well when re-booted, but after a while I get the symptom of not being
    > able to open a DOS prompt window.
    >
    >
    > Like you, I believe that Windows XP can handle more memory, but cannot
    > quote specifics.
    > --



    In Windows 98 try the following addition to your SYSTEM.INI file:

    [vcache]
    MaxFileCache=512000


    I have 1 GB of Ram and don't have any Ram associated problems with Win98SE.



    --
    callsignviper


    The truth is out there. You just have to look in the right places and ask
    the right questions.
    callsignviper, Jan 26, 2004
    #9
  10. "Mr. E. Mann" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns947B989A523D1fishfarts@68.6.19.6...
    > Thanks Everyone!
    >
    > I didn't know people were still using win98. ;')
    >



    It is estimated that in excess of 50 MILLION enterprise customers are still
    using Windows 98 with several MILLION still using Windows 95 for certain
    applications.


    Those numbers don't even attempt to account for all the non-enterprise
    customers still using those operating systems.


    Supposedly that is one of the reasons M$ extended Win98 support into 2006
    when it was supposed to have ended about 2-3 weeks ago.


    --
    callsignviper


    The truth is out there. You just have to look in the right places and ask
    the right questions.
    callsignviper, Jan 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Mr. E. Mann

    Ben Pope Guest

    callsignviper wrote:
    > In Windows 98 try the following addition to your SYSTEM.INI file:
    >
    > [vcache]
    > MaxFileCache=512000


    I seem to recall a fix like this... I think cacheman does this. To be fair
    I don't think you'll need a filecache of half a gig... it was my
    understanding that Win98 wasn't very good at releasing RAM from the
    filecache when required for applications.

    In Windows 2000 a similar thing happens... but the filecache can use ALL of
    available RAM (it does on my system), but due to W2Ks better memory
    management it can just drop the data and replace it with other data when
    required.

    I recommend cacheman as an essential for any Win9x user.

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
    Ben Pope, Jan 26, 2004
    #11
    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. Frank Berryman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Frank Berryman
    Jan 1, 2005
  2. Carl T Boylin

    AMD Althlon XP 2000 & EPOX 8KT3A+Pro

    Carl T Boylin, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: Overclocking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    273
  3. gg
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    304
  4. rms
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,003
  5. Wes Newell

    Re: How did I kill it - Althlon XP-M Overclock

    Wes Newell, Oct 27, 2008, in forum: AMD Overclocking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    935
    Wes Newell
    Oct 27, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page