"What's with the 3Gb memory barrier"?

On a 64-bit system you shouldn't lose any of your physical memory space to device memory. Device memory regions can be remapped outside of the 4GiB region there (unless your system BIOS is crap).

So you should see all available physical memory on a 64-bit OS.

8GiB here, 8GiB available, Vista x64, with 1GiB total of GPU memory (768 + 256).

Ok cheers. So assuming the article is correct were it says:

By default, an all-64-bit PC will still have the standard big holes in its memory from three to four gigabytes. This is the lowest-hassle way to deal with the problem - just install more than 4Gb of memory, and live with the fact that your 8Gb PC with a 768Mb graphics card only actually has seven-point-not-much gigabytes of visible RAM.
One advantage of this is that you can still boot a 32-bit OS, if you want to. Another is that this vanilla configuration is most likely to actually work. Cleverer memory configurations aren't necessarily properly supported by hardware and OSes yet.
If you don't care about these factors, though, there are two ways to get the lost memory back.
Some 64-bit motherboards these days give you an option for "memory hole remapping". That moves the fourth-gigabyte MMIO memory holes higher into the 64-bit address space, probably way above the maximum RAM you can physically install.
Many other 64-bit boards, though, are even smarter, and can leave the memory holes where they are and remap (at least some of) the physical RAM out from under the holes and up past 4Gb. This process is often entertainingly referred to as "memory hoisting", and it used to be the preserve of server motherboards. It's been showing up in more and more desktop mobos, though. And on some of them, the memory-hoisting BIOS setting even works, and doesn't horribly crash the system as soon as something tries to use the remapped RAM.
You may only be able to "hoist" the last 512Mb of the 4Gb address space, but that's better than nothing. If it works.

Your motherboard must be using one of the above memory remapping techniques to gain back the 4th Gigabyte.

I guess your comment about this being the case unless the bios is crap is saying that this is quite a common feature of modern motherboards?
 
I saw it happen on early Athlon 64 boards with XP Pro x64, yeah. Haven't since then though, which makes me think it's a fixed issue on modern shipping mainboards (and has been for some time).
 
does anyone know the maximum 64 bit can handle? isnt it like 128GB? im just curious.

Vista artificially limits you to 16GB of physical memory and 8TB of user mode virtual address space.

I assume kernal address space is 8TB aswell but im not certain of that.
 
Indeed, the operating system will likely impose a limit before the hardware will.

If I'm doing the math right, a 64-bit addressing scheme should be able to map 2,097,152 terabytes of storage. In theory it shouldn't matter, but I don't think anyone should magically expect their OS (or their app) to be able to address, manage or take advantage of that kind of resource pool right-outta-the-box ;)
 
Vista artificially limits you to 16GB of physical memory and 8TB of user mode virtual address space.

I assume kernal address space is 8TB aswell but im not certain of that.

that feels short sighted, you can put 8GB right now on a low end mobo and it's not very expensive (less than a copy of retail Vista ultimate here)
microsoft wants you to upgrade a few years from now to Server 2008, Vienna or.. Server 2003?
it's not that far-fetched. I ran win98 with 768MB ram :p (I still hated XP at the time for interface and other bloat, and compatibility issues. thanksfully I've leant to clean the bloat). And a NT class OS can be used for a long time.
 
Yes, Vista 64 bit makes all my memory available -- 8 Gig installed with 8 Gig usable.
 
Which is more driver/software friendly right now WinXP-64bit or WinVista-64bit? or what is better choice?
 
Business/Enterprise/Ultimate go up to 128 GB.
Which is the nominal limit of the CPU for all AMD x64 processors (and most recent Intel ones). Despite them being 64-bit processor architectures, a 40-bit physical address space is the maximum a current x64 CPU can work with.
 
Which is more driver/software friendly right now WinXP-64bit or WinVista-64bit? or what is better choice?

Vista-64 has far better support than XP-64. This is clearly evident in terms of drivers.
 
I am building a new gaming rig and I choose XP Home and the Asus P5E MB with 2x2GB sticks of PC1000 DRAM that I intend to OC to PC1066 to go with my E6850 CPU. Why XP Home you ask? Just a temp OS until I jump into Vista64 after gaining confidence with SP1 and the fact I play WoW exclusively so I got the OEM el cheapo edition.

It is my understanding that all 32 bit OS are limited to 3GB of RAM. There is a workaround I will list below that I am sure many are familiar with.

What is the general consensus of how well this works and does anyone have any advise on if this is a good or bad idea? There is also a /PAE command and a /USERVA command which further dictates the allocation of the memory. Thanks in advance...especially BRiT for directing me here.

"How To: Set the /3GB Switch

Even if you don't have 3 GB or more of memory, the /3GB switch can still help XSI get more memory to use and allow XSI to allocate larger contiguous blocks of memory. This can help, for example, if you are trying to render large images.


To add the /3GB switch as a separate boot option:



Click Start, right-click My Computer, and then click Properties.
Click the Advanced tab.
Under Startup and Recovery, click the Settings button.
Under System Startup, click Edit to edit the BOOT.INI file.
Find the current boot entry, which typically looks like this:

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Micro soft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect

Copy this line and paste it at the end of the BOOT.INI file, and change it along these lines:

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Micro soft Windows XP Professional 3GB Switch" /fastdetect /3GB

This lets you choose between a conventional boot entry and the /3GB boot entry. If something goes wrong when you use /3GB, you can always boot back into the original configuration.

Save and close BOOT.INI.
Click OK to close the Startup and Recovery dialog box.
Click Settings again, and in the Default operating systems list, click the new boot entry that has the /3GB switch. Then click OK.
Restart your computer to use the new profile. "
 
Are there any games that even set the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag? If they don't the /3GB OS switch won't let the process have a 3GB userspace anyway. I don't have any new games installed atm. to check.
 
A few, like Gothic 3, Bioshock and Stalker, but only after a patch or hack.
 
My motherboard Asus P5b deluxe, doesn't seem to like being asked to address 4gb of Ram. Don't know why.
 
I wonder if SP3 will address this issue in any way. From what I have read there is very limited success with this /3GB switch. I am kinda resigned to the fact that I'll have an extra GB of RAM gathering dust on my MB until I switch to Vista 64.
 
I wonder if SP3 will address this issue in any way. From what I have read there is very limited success with this /3GB switch. I am kinda resigned to the fact that I'll have an extra GB of RAM gathering dust on my MB until I switch to Vista 64.
The /3GB switch works as designed as far as I know. When you talk about limited success I guess you talk about the hacks that change the flag for the exe which doesn't have native support? I wouldn't count on SP3 changing anything in this regard, since it could have huge compatibility implications.
This whole problem is really a 32-bit address problem and the games (and consumers) really need to go to 64-bit instead.
 
Back
Top