Yes it would, because of the change in SP1, which shows installed amount instead of usable amount.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista 64 bit not using 4gb
- Thread starter srbarcena
- Start date
Yes it would, because of the change in SP1, which shows installed amount instead of usable amount.
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
Yup, you have to check Task Manager to see usable amount.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,721
It has a huge purpose. All your doing is hurting yourself now because you have less free memory available for applications. You WANT processes not being used to be paged because that frees up the memory for programs you are currently using. How in any way, is that bad? Considering Vista also has SuperFetch, which uses all your free memory for caching of commonly used files, to load applications faster, you're doing nothing good by disabling page file. Even if you had 8GB of ram, let files be paged and have even more ram for apps.
No wonder you're having problems with the ram. If you're disabling page file, god only knows what else you tweaked or adjusted that shouldn't of been changed.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,721
I think you're confused. Virtual memory is a way of saying your page file + system memory = Virtual memory. I have 4GB of ram installed and it says I have 8.16 GB of Virtual memory.
Why don't you pull out a stick of ram and boot with just 2GB. Then put the other 2 GB in and boot.
Are you sure your running them in matching(color) dimm slots?
Why don't you pull out a stick of ram and boot with just 2GB. Then put the other 2 GB in and boot.
Are you sure your running them in matching(color) dimm slots?
lol yeah im not dumb. are you saying to try booting with just two gigs and see what happens then add the other two to go to four or swap them
This is starting to look very similar to a problem I had a long time ago. You're 100% sure that this is the 64bit version of the OS? Sounds like a dumb question (your screenshot shows it's 64bit), but the OS is acting like a 32bit one.
Either that, or you've gotta change your motherboard, because it's not giving you the option to use all the memory, when it should clearly be compatible. If I were you, I'd do what bigdogchris said and try the memory separately to see if it helps.
Either that, or you've gotta change your motherboard, because it's not giving you the option to use all the memory, when it should clearly be compatible. If I were you, I'd do what bigdogchris said and try the memory separately to see if it helps.
Take that one out and boot with the other one. If it works and reports as it should, put them both in at the same time.
It could be entirely possible that the memory modules are not compatible with the board (too many devices on the memory chip). The amount of memory that Vista is reporting might be from the SPDs, but might not be the actual memory that is available to the OS due to the incompatibility.
This is just a guess, so go ahead and install the memory and let us know how it goes. That'll give us a better idea what to do next.
ok so my dimm slots are labeled 0-2-1-3 0 and 1 are in dual channel mode and so are 2 and 3
ram was in dimms 0 and 1. took out stick in dimm 1 and booted. posted above post an hour ago. took out stick in dimm 0 and put the stick that was in dimm 1 in dimm 0 booted with same results. both places show 2 gigs as installed and available. took ram out of dimm 0 and put into dimm1 to see if it was a dimm issue. same results. ram is currently in slots 2 and 3 to test those out. any ideas?
ram was in dimms 0 and 1. took out stick in dimm 1 and booted. posted above post an hour ago. took out stick in dimm 0 and put the stick that was in dimm 1 in dimm 0 booted with same results. both places show 2 gigs as installed and available. took ram out of dimm 0 and put into dimm1 to see if it was a dimm issue. same results. ram is currently in slots 2 and 3 to test those out. any ideas?
I agree.
If he cant enable memory remapping he should try different MoBo (if possible) and RMA his current MoBo.
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
Still looks like, from your system information screen shot, that you have a memory remapping option problem.
Clicking through all the bios shots on Hard's review of a 680i board, I also don't see a memory remapping option. Woe be to non-intel chipset motherboard owners
Call up EVGA and ask for support on the memory remapping feature all us forum posters are telling you about.
Clicking through all the bios shots on Hard's review of a 680i board, I also don't see a memory remapping option. Woe be to non-intel chipset motherboard owners
Call up EVGA and ask for support on the memory remapping feature all us forum posters are telling you about.
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
Beccause now that he has unbroken his system, he should stop getting the out of memory errors he complained about!
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,721
Guys, there is no memory remapping on a 680i SLI. It supports 8GB of ram and does not have a remap feature. I personally owned one and used 4GB myself, without issues. However, I was using 4x1GB sticks.I agree.
If he cant enable memory remapping he should try different MoBo (if possible) and RMA his current MoBo.
Thus, it might hold true what I stated earlier. He's most likely now got an incompatibility problem with his memory and the motherboard. The memory chips probably have too many devices on it for the board to support a 2x, let alone 4x of the same memory type installed on the board at one time.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,721
srbarcena,
Go into FSB and Memory Config tab and click on FSB memory mode, change it from auto to unlinked, then go down memory and lower it so the ram actual speed is 667 mhz.
Go into FSB and Memory Config tab and click on FSB memory mode, change it from auto to unlinked, then go down memory and lower it so the ram actual speed is 667 mhz.
I think ill have a friend of mine bring his RAM into work and oll see if it make a difference. ill call evga tmrw too to see if they can help.
did nothing other than make everything slower lol
If the chipset is not able to remap memory, tell me then, how will it organize it?
All desktop chipsets gives MMIO addresses from 4GB and down, and RAM is given addresses from 0 and up. If the overlap between MMIO and RAM is not fixed, you cannot use the hidden RAM. That is just the way it is.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,721
There's no memory remap feature that you turn on and off.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,721
Have you tried it in non-dual channeled mode. Like in slots 0 and 2? And running your memory at 667 isn't going to make it slower because at that speed, it's already matched the FSB. No matter how much faster the memory is beyond that, the FSB couldn't keep up if It wanted too.
There has to be. It's not something that can be switched dynamically when the system is switched to 64-bit mode and the chipset goes "Oh 64-bit, let's remap all my memory then". Doing that will break tons of things. By the looks of it, the memory remapping is not enabled, and there is no way to enable it in the current BIOS. You'll need either a BIOS update or a different motherboard with a chipset and BIOS that supports it (my ancient Asus P5B Deluxe does
).Funny enough x86 Macs are actually sold with memory remapping enabled by default, and the user cannot change it. So when they install a 32-bit OS, they only see 2 GB, regardless of what they really have. The rest of the memory is mapped beyond the 4 GB limit, and cannot be seen by the 32-bit OS.
You might want to google on that, you'll find a lot of confused Mac users wondering where their memory went
Here for example:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7704621
lol youve apparently never overclocked your memory. why would they sell higher speeds if it doesnt make a difference?
calling evga in a bit
You apparently haven't either, because you'd be agreeing with him. And they sell higher speeds for the bunches of n00bies that go OMGZ!!!!!!11!11!!!!!!HIAR SPDZ!!!!!11z1!111!11!!, or for those who go for insane FSB overclocks, of which 98% of the CPUs out there are incapable of hitting. So he's absolutely correct in stating what he did.
We're trying to help here, so if you don't mind, keep the asinine comments to yourself.
Not really.
See this article for example:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=472
Even though they use a CPU with a stock FSB speed of 1066 MHz, they still find that DDR2-800 is the fastest memory, which theoretically would match a 1600 MHz FSB in dualchannel. Hence their conclusion:
Granted, the differences aren't spectacular, but it's not like the extra speed is completely useless.
i wasnt trying to asinine so sorry if i cam off that way, im just saying 1100 mhz compared to 800 is a big difference in boot times and overall system performance IMO maybe its just all in my head but who knows.
anyway back to the topic. the guys at evga said their isnt a remap function because thats for 32bit operating systems to squeeze in the extra memory. im thinking its more of a windows issue because i vaguely remember seeing all 4 gigs in task manager before, i just cant remember when
anyway back to the topic. the guys at evga said their isnt a remap function because thats for 32bit operating systems to squeeze in the extra memory. im thinking its more of a windows issue because i vaguely remember seeing all 4 gigs in task manager before, i just cant remember when
Sounds like the evga guys don't have a clue what they're talking about.
It was already mentioned in this thread, but I'll summarize again what happens:
1) A 32-bit system has 4 GB maximum address space
2) Memory addresses are mapped starting from 0 up
3) Memory-mapped I/O addresses (hardware) are mapped from 4 GB down
4) At some point they start to overlap and some of the physical memory ends up 'hidden' because those addresses are already mapped for MMIO.
When you enable the memory remapping, the following happens:
At the 2 GB boundary, the memory mapping makes a jump past 4 GB.
This means that the upper 2 GB of the 4 GB range can be used for MMIO (you can't remap the hardware outside the 4 GB range, else 32-bit software cannot reach it).
The rest of the memory is mapped beyond 4 GB, and can easily be reached in 64-bit mode. Therefore you dont lose any of your physical memory in 64-bit mode, even though you can have up to 2 GB of MMIO addresses.
In 32-bit mode, you will only see 2 GB, the rest is out of reach.
Your BIOS (and chipset?) simply doesn't seem capable of doing this remapping beyond 4 GB, hence your memory 'disappears' underneath the address range that is already mapped for MMIO.
so why would the board support 8 gigs if you cant use it? i dont want to reinstall windows but it looks like thats what im going to have to do. maybe a restore point? i know ive been able to use all 4 gigs before so it has to be someting that was installed. the only ive installed really has been windows updates and catalyst control center. ive uninstalled that so im thinking it has to be a windows update
You can put 8 GB in, and you'll probably lose at most 2 GB of that to MMIO.
Problem is just that you'll lose the memory above the 2 GB point, because that's where the MMIO is. Once you're past the 4 GB point, there will be no more loss of memory, I assume.
In my case I have 6 GB, and without remapping, I see about 5.1 GB in XP64 and Vista64 (I see 2.93 GB in XP32).
When I turn remapping on, I see the full 6 GB in XP64 and Vista64 (but only 2 GB in XP32).
So basically my memory is moved...
In blocks of 2 GB, it's like this:
0-2 GB: Memory
2-4 GB: MMIO
4-6 GB: Memory (out of reach of 32-bit OSes)
6-8 GB: Memory (out of reach of 32-bit OSes)
Without remapping it looks like this:
0-2 GB: Memory
2-4 GB: MMIO + Memory (some memory hidden, depending on what hardware you have installed)
4-6 GB: Memory (out of reach of 32-bit OSes)
If it is indeed a memory remapping problem, then there's no software that can help you. Turning the swap file back on is a good place to start however, since it has other uses than just being extra memory when the physical memory runs out. It can also swap out memory of inactive processes, freeing up more physical memory. This means you won't run out of physical memory as quickly, so you actually get better performance.
You didn't understand what I tried to explain then?
That's what I'm saying. We're in agreement here. srbarcena, have you ever installed XP Pro x64?
Download the Ubuntu 64-bit Live CD. Boot from it and hit Try Ubuntu. Open a terminal and run top.
What does it say for Mem?
This will eliminate whether it's a hardware or a software problem.
What does it say for Mem?
This will eliminate whether it's a hardware or a software problem.
vista 64 is the only OS i have installed i have not tried xp 64 because vista spoiled me lol. i can try to get a copy from a friend. will try ubuntu when i get home. i didnt even think of that. i can try 32 xp when i get home also. have to make a partition on my secondary hard drive first. will let you guys know when i get home. if anybody has any ideas in the meantime i can remotely connect so if there is a OS setting somewhere i can try that. other than that im just kinda stuck here waiting