# Windows xp max memory it can use.



## trt740 (Oct 25, 2007)

on a Whim I put all four 1 gig sticks of Lanfest ram in my system. I knew ahead of time, or atleast thought windows xps is limited to 3.50gbs of ram is this correct and is there any bennifit to having all 4 GB in a windows xp system. Will it negativly effect my system at all? and will it use atleast 3.50gb of the 4 gb of ram. I figure I would buy the Lanfest ahead of time for the future because it is a limited edition and when vistas gets the bugs out I might move in that direction.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 25, 2007)

no negative effect just when it reads a stick there'll  be a 512mb blid spot


----------



## Darknova (Oct 25, 2007)

32-bit XP is limited to 4Gb maximum, however all your add-on cards (including graphics) take up a portion of that 4Gb register. So the more you have, and the more powerful your graphics card, the less space you will have.

On 64-bit XP you are limited to 128Gb of RAM


----------



## Kreij (Oct 25, 2007)

The amount of usable RAM is dependent on the hardware devices you have in your system.

32 bit OS (like WinXP) are capable of addressing all 4 GBs of RAM, however, some is set aside for hardware devices (PCI-E, PCI, etc.) which is why you will see Windows reporting something less than 4GBs.

Usually you will see somewhere between 2.75GB and 3.5GB available.

Putting is 4 sticks will keep your system operating in dual channel mode, where as 3 x 1GB will not.  So, put in the 4 x 1GB and enjoy


----------



## trt740 (Oct 25, 2007)

Kreij said:


> The amount of usable RAM is dependent on the hardware devices you have in your system.
> 
> 32 bit OS (like WinXP) are capable of addressing all 4 GBs of RAM, however, some is set aside for hardware devices (PCI-E, PCI, etc.) which is why you will see Windows reporting something less than 4GBs.
> 
> ...



So if I'm reading this right it will use all 4gb but just show 3.5GB and it will still be benifical to multitasking etc and make my system slightly faster right? I'm glad I put the other stick in then. It sure boots faster.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 25, 2007)

trt740 said:


> So if I'm reading this right it will use all 4gb but just show 3.5GB and it will still be benifical to multitasking etc and make my system slightly faster right? I'm glad I put the other stick in then. It sure boots faster.



It should only make your system faster if the system needs more than what you had before, so that it does not have to go out to the pagefile to get information. 

So if you had 2GB and that was sufficient for what you are doing, 4GB should not make it faster.  However, if you had 3GB you were not running in dual channel mode so adding the extra stick would get you an improvement.

Anyway, IMO the more RAM the better. I would rather have 3GB than 2GB, unless you are benchmarking.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 25, 2007)

Kreij said:


> It should only make your system faster if the system needs more than what you had before, so that it does not have to go out to the pagefile to get information.
> 
> So if you had 2GB and that was sufficient for what you are doing, 4GB should not make it faster.  However, if you had 3GB you were not running in dual channel mode so adding the extra stick would get you an improvement.
> 
> Anyway, IMO the more RAM the better. I would rather have 3GB than 2GB, unless you are benchmarking.




It seems to boot slightly faster I have a bunch of programs launching in the beginning.


----------



## KennyT772 (Oct 25, 2007)

Also remember, with overclocking you can only go as fast as the slowest part. doubling the amount of ram ICs (16 per stick, 2gb 32, 4gb 64) may have a impact on your max memory speeds. This is why benchers only use just as much ram as they need, 256mbit ics are usually faster than 512mbit, and therefore clock higher.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 25, 2007)

KennyT772 said:


> Also remember, with overclocking you can only go as fast as the slowest part. doubling the amount of ram ICs (16 per stick, 2gb 32, 4gb 64) may have a impact on your max memory speeds. This is why benchers only use just as much ram as they need, 256mbit ics are usually faster than 512mbit, and therefore clock higher.



I noticed a slight drop so far but at my everyday clock it is the same. My systems does seems snappier


----------



## trt740 (Oct 26, 2007)

*3GB switch*



KennyT772 said:


> Also remember, with overclocking you can only go as fast as the slowest part. doubling the amount of ram ICs (16 per stick, 2gb 32, 4gb 64) may have a impact on your max memory speeds. This is why benchers only use just as much ram as they need, 256mbit ics are usually faster than 512mbit, and therefore clock higher.



Have you ever tried this and does it have any benifits http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1108831,00.html

Here is another link explaining it. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e834e9c7-708c-43bf-b877-e14ae443ecbf.aspx it sounds like it will let you use 1 gig for Windows and 3 gig for application games etc.. instead of 2 for Windows and 2 for applications and games. i'm using it now and it lets you boot to either at start up.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 26, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Have you ever tried this and does it have any benifits http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1108831,00.html
> 
> Here is another link explaining it. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e834e9c7-708c-43bf-b877-e14ae443ecbf.aspx it sounds like it will let you use 1 gig for Windows and 3 gig for application games etc.. instead of 2 for Windows and 2 for applications and games. i'm using it now and it lets you boot to either at start up.



After reading looks like it really isn't for me http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/23/memory-management-demystifying-3gb.aspx


----------



## surfsk8snow.jah (Oct 26, 2007)

so wait does that work for xp? Cuz the MS link there says it only works for Windows 2000 & 2003? That does look pretty sick tho.


----------



## panchoman (Oct 26, 2007)

benchmark your system. then edit your boot.ini file and put /PAE and then benchmark after you reboot  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

all 4 gigs will be used, just not recognized by windows.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 26, 2007)

surfsk8snow.jah said:


> so wait does that work for xp? Cuz the MS link there says it only works for Windows 2000 & 2003? That does look pretty sick tho.



you read the wrong one yes works for xp http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1108831,00.html


----------



## surfsk8snow.jah (Oct 26, 2007)

trt740 said:


> After reading looks like it really isn't for me http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/23/memory-management-demystifying-3gb.aspx



That's a kewl site. Good illumination on that... I was suddenly "mystified" by the prospect also, but this definitely dispels the myths well.


----------



## Darknova (Oct 26, 2007)

The only reason to use the /3Gb switch is if you have 4Gb, and you only see less than 3Gb. If you see more than 3Gb then you'll see NO difference what so ever.

It's for the people who lots of add-in cards, and big meaty graphics cards that see 2.75Gb or something like that.

Just switch to XP x64 and you don't have these problems


----------



## niko084 (Oct 26, 2007)

Kreij said:


> The amount of usable RAM is dependent on the hardware devices you have in your system.
> 
> 32 bit OS (like WinXP) are capable of addressing all 4 GBs of RAM, however, some is set aside for hardware devices (PCI-E, PCI, etc.) which is why you will see Windows reporting something less than 4GBs.
> 
> ...



BAHAHAHAHA Sorry I LOVE your signature... I say that to people who think they know programming and they go huh?!?!? 

XP itself only allows up to 4gb to be addressed, while server applications can cache much more to ram... Not sure what the difference is...


----------

