sbeeze316 wrote:
64bit os's coreect this problem and i believe have a maximum of 16gb (at the very least) adressable
It's actually way more (~16 Petabytes). Just don't pull a Bill Gates and say that's more then we will ever need.
| MysteryByte Computers http://mysterybyte.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| 4gb of ram in 32bit vista http://mysterybyte.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=596 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | ronedogg [ Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 4gb of ram in 32bit vista |
anyone have a clue how to make vista reconize all 4gb of ram i got. it posts in the bios as 4gb but only 3325mb in vista its self. im running m2n-e sli 4200+ am2 4x1gb sticks of ddr2 800 mhz |
|
| Author: | sbeeze316 [ Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
sp1 will report the 4gb but you will still only be able to use 3.2gb of the 4gb. 32bit os's only support 4gb of ram max but that inludes video ram and other various memory in the system so the max addressable by 32bit windows would be 3.2gb. 64bit os's coreect this problem and i believe have a maximum of 16gb (at the very least) adressable. so if you wanna use the 4gb get vista 64bit. |
|
| Author: | Flama22 [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sbeeze316 wrote: 64bit os's coreect this problem and i believe have a maximum of 16gb (at the very least) adressable
It's actually way more (~16 Petabytes). Just don't pull a Bill Gates and say that's more then we will ever need.
|
|
| Author: | sbeeze316 [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeah i figured it was a crazy amount i couldn't remember the specific limitation of 64bit. |
|
| Author: | Flama22 [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
sbeeze316 wrote: yeah i figured it was a crazy amount i couldn't remember the specific limitation of 64bit.
It should be 2^64 except the number I get in Windows Calculator (Scientific Mode) doesn't match up with what Wikipedia says.  The Wikipedia nerds must know something I don't...
|
|
| Author: | sbeeze316 [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would trust you calculations before some crap on wikipedia 
|
|
| Author: | David [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Finding a single motherboard that will support all that is your real problem... Go go cluster! |
|
| Author: | sbeeze316 [ Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
theres alot of socket 771 boards that have all the things gamers would want but there so gad damn expensive.. the thing that interests me most is there are tremedous advantages to running 2 physical cpu's vs a multi core cpu. mainly being that intels quads are what some call "fake quads" which isn't meant as an insult, but all current intel quads are 2 dual cores crammed together so they are crippled by communicating with each other over the fsb rather then directly. Nehalem chips at the end of the year correct this problem by putting all cores on a single piece of silicon and giving them a dedicated memory controller, which is what gave the athlon 64 such great performance back in the day. now if your running 2 physical cpu's they act independantly with there own memory controllers, add in 2 xeon quads and your cooking with serious heat. if only i had $500us for skulltrail..... 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|