XP 64bit Memory Increase

THT

THT

THT

Associate
Joined
10 Mar 2004
Posts
998
I currently have 2 x 1GB Sticks of Ram in my machine.

Looking for an upgrade and have around £ 50 to spend.

First of all, Will Xp64 go over the 3gb limit that Xp32 has?
Should i then
1) buy another 2x2gb and have 6gb
2) should I sell the old sticks and get the 2x2gb and have 4gb
3) buy another 2x1gb and have 4gb?

Thanks
 
yes, any 64-bit OS will be able to utilise all 4gb of system ram ( i think the limit is 8gb or 16gb for the 64-bit OS)

I would sell the 2 sticks you have, and get some 2x2gb modules.
 
I would just stick to 2x2gb.

It's unlikely you need more than 4gb, and mixing new memory with old memory could cause problems. But saying that, if you do get to have 6gb in your possession then it's certainly worth trying it out.
 
xp32 has a 4gig limit,... but some of it is lost as you graphics card ram has to be mapped in the same space (so im my case i lose 256meg to the card) and then the kernel has to have some space for its self too so another few hundered meg gone, resulting in about 3.2gig of ram for the 32bit world....

The theoretical max for 64bit is something like 4pebibyte (off the wikipedia) and m$ set it at 128gig for xp64 and 64 home premium (8gig for 64bit basic).

Anyway, best thing is the more ram the better! and to help the less modules for this amount of ram the better. So at current prices the best thing to do is lay your hands on 2gig modules. That said hang on to the 1gig modules as they wont be worth much resale given how dirt cheat ddr2 is :)
 
but whats the point in hanging on to them? and do what with them?

Any of the benchmark tools give me an accurrate idea of which is better?
 
use them to have 6 gig?
use them to run a second pc for someone else?

I dunno, go on ebay and see what your ram goes for (or the members market) and see if theres a good return, potentially making it a cheaper upgrade if 6gig doesnt seem to useful.

Urm im not up on benchmarking tools (sis sandra is one but i dont really go in for benchmarks)
 
As it's binary, the amount of data the operating system can access is 2^[the amount of bits the OS is]

So in the case of Windows XP x86, it's 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes, and through dividing by 1024 we get 4,194,304KB, 4,096MB, or 4GB to be precise.

This is the total amount of memory the OS can address - so that includes graphics RAM, CPU cache, and the like (it does NOT include HDD space or page file).

This normally leaves you with something in the region of 3-3.75GB of RAM, depending on components.

A 64-bit operating system can address 2^64 bytes which turns out to be 17,179,869,184GB!!! So there's not much chance of hitting that anytime soon! ;)
 
Now thats a good explanation and clear explanation of the limits of 32bit windows, and as hardware prices/os and application demands are getting over this, is seems like a logical step to move to a 64bit operating system :)
 
pingwing said:
Now thats a good explanation and clear explanation of the limits of 32bit windows, and as hardware prices/os and application demands are getting over this, is seems like a logical step to move to a 64bit operating system :)
Click to expand...

It's never been a better time to make the move - what with 4GB DDR2 kits getting cheaper and cheaper. It's not even that much extra over the 2GB ones really!

Even if you still only use 3GB or less, it's still worth moving over to 64-bit. It covers you in the future.
 
I'd just like to revise what I said....it's not the total video RAM that is subtracted, just the page area or whatever it's called, like what used to be called AGP aperture.

Otherwise I'd have about 2.8GB usuable when in fact it's 3.6ish (been a while since that box darkened windows' doors so to speak)
 
Tute said:
A 64-bit operating system can address 2^64 bytes which turns out to be 17,179,869,184GB!!! So there's not much chance of hitting that anytime soon! ;)
Click to expand...

Minimum system requirements for Windows 2020. And it'll still just have a dodgy browser, a dodgy mail client, a useless media player and freecell LOL
 
this does come up at least weekly - why is there no 32-bit 4GB++ sticky?

Sorry for sounding like such a tool, btw, but weekly is a conservative estimate!!!111!:)
 
jak731 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition says it 128GB ,and thats after MS limited the true amount a 64bit OS can support
Click to expand...

Its not just a Microsoft limit, to cut costs, both Intel and AMD didnt include the full 64bit address bus, infact it can make use of the 40 least significant bits, I believe the first P4's with EM64T were limited to 38bits, The Core 2 Duo is the same as Athlon64, it can deal with 40bit memory addressing.

Still memory density isnt up to the point where the processors limits are an issue, and it should be pretty easy to increase the address bus in future processor designs, and patching the OS should be almost a non issue. Its not a major change like the move from 640k. Its only physical memory address space thats limited, AMD64 / EM64T fully support 64bit virtual address space, 64bit address boundrys, 64bit registers in the ALU's etc etc etc.
 
Rob-- said:
Just asking but why does 32 bit have only 3gb max? i dont understand
Click to expand...

Hiya Rob, their is no "actual" amount a 32-bit operating system will be able to address. It is normally in the region of 3GB. However, this does not mean that every system that has a 32-bit operating system installed along with 4GB of memory, will in definite, see 3GB of memory, it is very much dependent on the type of hardware your system consists off.
 
Last edited:
6GB in my XP64 PC: 2 x 2GB and 2 x 1GB Corsair 6400C4 DHX. More than I need really but I already had the 1GB sticks and buying a 4GB kit was better value than another 2GB....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom