• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

SLI Setup

Franco_cov

Franco_cov

Franco_cov

Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2007
Posts
547
Guys, can someone help me here :(

I have the new asus striker II Extreme and i have 4 gb of memory which i only see 3 of because of win xp 32 limitations etc etc... but when i add my second 8800 ultra card for sli it goes down to 2.5gb of ram?

And if i take 2gb out of the machine i still see 2gb with my sli ??

Is this correct ?? or is something wrong ? I have installed the latest nvidia driver etc and on boot up it detects the 4gb. I have loaded up 3dmark06 and it says 2.5gb in there and in bios it says 4gb?

Help anyone please...... my pc in bits and would like to know what to do next :confused:
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong but I believe the memory limititations fo 32 bit systems also relates to the graphics card memory.

The reason why you see 2 gig after only having 2 gig is because machine memory + graphics memory is less than the 32 bit system limititations.
 
they is lol I have installed DDR3 memory thats why i was concerned about not having 4gb it aint cheap. As for 64bit OS being xp or vista are they supported as in it will run all applications and games that 32 bit run ?


and do they run as good as or even better than the 32bit versions
 
If you want 4gig then you will have to use a 64bit OS... they are getting better - tho personally I'm still sticking with 32bit for now... and yes the total GPU memory will eat into the available physical memory due to the fact that total addressable memory locations are limited to 32bits.
 
Yeah, DOS-XP has to assign addresses to the Vid Card as well (I assume something like the old AGP aperture), and since it only has 4 billion addresses, it has to rob it from somewhere.

As far as I know, the same applies to swap, if you set a 2GB pagefile, that uses 2 billion addresses, leaving only 2 billion for physical RAM.


64 bit XP is useless, some will tell you "oh everything runs on it fine", they lie.
64 bit Vista is slow (witness 64bit scores vs 32bit) AND useless.


So unless you fancy Linux, I'd sit tight for now.
 
Franco_cov said:
snip
Click to expand...

That's perfectly normal.

If you wish to utilize 4GB of RAM then you will have to be using a 64-bit Operating System weather that is Windows XP or Windows Vista. A 64-bit Operating System is fantastic; it is securer, more stable, faster and just generally a much better platform to be using. :)

thegoonden said:
64 bit XP is useless, some will tell you "oh everything runs on it fine", they lie.
Click to expand...

Hello thegoonden, sorry but could you elaborate on the above please?

thegoonden said:
64 bit Vista is slow (witness 64bit scores vs 32bit) AND useless.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I wouldn't agree with you there one bit to be honest. :p If it was slow and/or useless, myself and lots of other people wouldn't be using the Operating System. Windows Vista 64-bit has come a long way since it was very first released and now is a fantastic Operating System in my opinion. :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Fire Wizard,

Last time I tried both the 64 bit windows, was about a year ago. Loads of my music software failed badly on XP64 (the only Apps I use in windows), including cubase SX. Many games also refused to run at all, or ran badly.

I couldn't get Vista64 to be anything but a giant bug.

Perhaps things have moved on and I should try again?

Anyway, since most software is still 32 bit, surely the extra RAM would only be accessible if multitasking with concurrent large apps, with each one seeing 32bit's worth of RAM.

My Vista 32 score on Crysis is almost 25% more than any scored on 64 bit (check the list when it's updated), and many of those are from machines that should pummel mine.



And thanks for clearing up the swap thing.
 
Been running vista 64 fine for months after a period of dual booting, only one minor issue so far (vid bios program cant detect the bios on 64 bit systems)
 
Franco_cov
Do you use your PC solely for gaming ?
If you do then the decision to stay with XP 32bit a while longer has some merit.

If your PC is more of an all rounder then bite the bullet and go Vista 64.

XP 64 is not liked and had lots of problems with drivers and software compatability and is best avoided.
Vista 64 is much much better.
 
thing is also i have just noticed no 64 bit drivers for my d-link usb wireless adapter DWA-142 and I bought this becasue my old one never supported vista.... I aint buying another one to support 64 bit surely ?
 
i think i am going to install both 32 and 64 versions of xp and vista and have a play

I play a lot of online games so until 64 bit drivers are available its a no no for me but will have a look at them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom