DudeBoyz

I'm just curious if there is any benefit at all upgrading from 2 to 3 gig of RAM in XP.

Is 3 gig the max it can properly/optimally handle?

Lelisevis

If you have it laying around then i'd put it in but I wouldnt go out of my way to buy more. XP 32-bit can handle upto 4gb I believe after sp1 or 2 however you'lll notice very little difference and you'll have to closely monitor your motherboard settings to make sure it doesnt raise the timings in particular 1T to 2T.
If we were discussing 3GB and vista 32-bit i'd say yes definitely throw the max 4gb at it if you can. I've only got hauppauge on and half a dozen open ie windows and it's at 59% of 2GB

On a side note 64-bit OS of either flavour can handle more than 4GB RAM

DudeBoyz

So XP Home/Pro maxes at 4 gig theoretical. The rest is up to the specific config of the MB and hardware.

I may just slap it in and try.

Thanks

GutterPunk

Hey Dude,

I wanna say that it is technically 3Gig of actualy ram usage, with 1Gig put aside for something else. I remember reading it on technet. This is for vista, I don't know if its the same for xp. hmmmmmm /ponder

__________________
Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig!
---------------

Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~
Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

Zelig

Remember dual channel is good, and you have to be running an even number of sticks to get dual channel.

32-bit versions: 4GB max. Any video cards, sound cards, etc. are mapped to the upper regions of this space, so if you have an SLI setup with 1GB of memory total, you automatically lose 1GB of your 4GB of ram. Any individual program is limited to 2GB, virtual memory is also limited to 4gb.

64-bit versions: PCI MMIO hole often must be enabled in the BIOS to enable remapping of hardware addresses past the 4GB range. 128GB max for non-home versions of Windows, either 8GB or 16GB max for home versions. If your motherboard and hardware supports the ram, everything is usually fine and dandy in the OS.

__________________
--

Vampyromaniac

If that is the case, why doesn't 3GB physical RAM become 2GB? Or 2GB become 1GB?

__________________

DudeBoyz

Thank you very much. It sounds as though 2 gig is going to be a trouble-free zone and is probably the best option - the "Sweet Spot", as it were.

I have a matched pair of 512 meg DDR400's that are in a "tinker" machine I'm goofin' with. Having just moved all my stuff from one case to a new case, I thought "Hrm. I do have 2 slots left on the MB for more memory. Maybe I should try this thing..."

Just don't know if it will be worth it or goof anything up. I'm not sure if I will try it. Maybe it's just not worth the potential hassle.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

temeteus82

you might find this useful : http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx

__________________

DudeBoyz

Great link - thank you.

Edit: It's a bummer that XP Home is not included in the expanded support.

Zelig

Hardware addresses are mapped to the top of the 4GB range, it doesn't matter how much physical ram you have. So, for example, if you have 2GB, your video cards still take the address space that would be in use from 3.5-4GB were it installed.

Also, I'm not sure if it's clear from my previous post, but the 2GB per program limit is for a single program, more than this can be split between multiple 32-bit programs. This limit still exists when running 32-bit programs in an x64 OS. This limit is 3GB per application when using the /3GB switch.

__________________
--

Judas

DON'T DO IT..

i ran several months with 3gb and even 4gb dual channel mode ram in my machine.

It actually sevearly dropped performance in several things, even the system seemed to perform slightly worse.

And if your using Windows XP 32bit, the resulting ram will only me 2.75-2.83gb of recognized ram making it even less worthwhile. Now running say 2.5gb of ram, the performance remained relatively @ par.... (2x1gb kit + 2x256mb kit).... i played with 2x1gb kit and a 2x512mb kit, plus 4x1gb kit (2kits). Windows XP x64 showed better results then xp 32bit with more then 2gb installed, however the performance was still poorer then sticking with just 2gb of ram.

I think the memory controllers in the AMD cpu and the Intel northbridges need a little bit more tuning for more memory OR the operating system could be the culprit, i haven't tried Vista 64 bit with more then 2gb, but Vista 32bit doesn't see any more then 2.75-2.83 gb either..... so i would assume the performance would probably degraded again anyways.

__________________

Vampyromaniac

I think I get it now. But now I'm pissed they didn't think to create 2 separate address spaces: one for Memory, and one for all other devices. 4GB each.

__________________