| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 79235 | 2007-05-13 10:56:00 | Windows XP does not recognise 4GB Ram (shows 3.25GB) | george12 (7) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 549512 | 2007-05-13 10:56:00 | Hi, I have a PC here with 4GB DDR2-800 Ram in an Intel DQ965GFEKR motherboard that supports up to 4GB of DDR2-800 (what I have). It supports 8GB of DDR2-667 and lower. Windows XP Pro 32 bit sees 3.25GB, while the Intel Hardware Monitor and BIOS see the full 4GB. I have been Googling around and know that I need to enable/disable some memory options in the BIOS. But there are none! I think my BIOS needs to be somehow unlocked to enable advanced options but I haven't worked it out yet...... Under chipset options, I have 4 things to play with and they are all basic fool-proof settings. There's nothing about overclocking, memory options, etc. Any ideas? |
george12 (7) | ||
| 549513 | 2007-05-13 11:07:00 | XP 32 bit only picks up that much no matter what... if you want the full 4GB, you need a 64bit OS Just because the mobo supports it DOES NOT mean that the OS supports it |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 549514 | 2007-05-13 11:10:00 | XP 32 bit only picks up that much no matter what... if you want the full 4GB, you need a 64bit OS Just because the mobo supports it DOES NOT mean that the OS supports it Thanks for that. Ram is cheap so I'll just leave it there and hope the guy doesn't mind. Computers with 4GB of Ram is a bit of a learning curve for me :p. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 549515 | 2007-05-13 11:14:00 | No problem :) Well there is that additional 256MB over 3GB if I am not mistaken and plus I doubt that the mobo will run dual channel at all with an uneven number of RAM sticks which means a reduction in performance and by the looks of the amount of RAM, this was built with performance in mind :nerd: |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 549516 | 2007-05-13 11:20:00 | shared video ? | beama (111) | ||
| 549517 | 2007-05-13 11:26:00 | MS 32bit server versions cope with much more than 4G Quote from another forum "The restriction to 3 GB or so in XP is motivated by code in the OS that attempts to work around bugs in the crappy drivers typically associated with consumer hardware. Server systems are expected to have a more reliable set of drivers." |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 549518 | 2007-05-13 11:30:00 | shared video ? That mobo does have intergrated, but the max RAM it can have according to Wikipedia is 256MB, provided it is the GMA 3000 (which I am pretty sure it is) and not the GMA X3000 which is able to use 384MB, but the GMA 3000 still leaves 512MB unaccounted for then... ;) EDIT: I have just noticed a small flaw in one of my above posts... "you need a 64bit OS" should read "you need XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit to take full advantage of the full RAM (for desktop OSes)" there, much sounder :p |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 549519 | 2007-05-13 11:41:00 | Part of the 4G physical address space is used for PCI stuff so you never get to use it all on a desktop MB chipset. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 549520 | 2007-05-13 12:50:00 | And under XP almost nothing in the way of applications can or will use that much RAM anyway. | godfather (25) | ||
| 549521 | 2007-05-13 20:19:00 | Quote from another forum "The restriction to 3 GB or so in XP is motivated by code in the OS that attempts to work around bugs in the crappy drivers typically associated with consumer hardware. Oooh. A MS fanboy! Blame the hardware people, not the mighty MS. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||