• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

The department of stupid questions department

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
W

WhidbeyTomas

New Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Location
Whidbey Island WA
I have an old computer that I don't often use. I've fired it up because I need to explore software that can't run on my Mac. I find I need to update from my Windows XP Pro in order to run this software. So then I have to decide if that upgrade can be 64-bit (I discovered with Photoshop that this can make a BIG difference). How can I discover if my computer will accommodate 64-bit applications? I have an AMD Athlon(tm) 7750 Dual-Core Processor 2.70 GHz and 3.25 GB of RAM, can someone tell me if I can run a 64-bit operating system?

Thanks,
Tomás
 
Which 64-bit Windows OS are you planning to install? Upgrading to one of the later Windows OS from XP will also require that your old machine meets certain video standards as far as Direct X version. Vista or later will need Direct X 9.0c or later. Since you state you have 3.25 gb of system ram it appears that you have onboard video rather than a discrete video card. You can find out what the video chip set is by going into Control Panel/System/Harware/Device Manager and clicking on "Display Adapters".

Then go to either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units depending of whether or not the motherboard's chip set is Nvidia, AMD or Intel.

The Direct X version is listed in the tables.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how to tell if I have on-board video of a separate card. The display adapter is ATI Radeon HD 4650, which is direct X 10.1. So the system appears to meet the 64-bit requirements, right?
 
WhidbeyTomas said:
I'm not sure how to tell if I have on-board video of a separate card. The display adapter is ATI Radeon HD 4650, which is direct X 10.1. So the system appears to meet the 64-bit requirements, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, that will do fine. I suspect you have on-board video as opposed to a discrete video card because some of your 4 gb of system memory is being devoted to the on-board video. A discrete video card would have it's own memory and wouldn't be robbing main system memory. If you had a discrete video card your system would report an even 4 gb of memory. Another clue to that question is where the monitor cable is connected to on the computer. It it connects to a port that is in a cluster of other ports toward the top back of the case then it is on-board video. If the monitor cable connects to a port that is lower down on the case back where there are expansion slots then you have a discrete video card.
 
trents said:
Which 64-bit Windows OS are you planning to install? Upgrading to one of the later Windows OS from XP will also require that your old machine meets certain video standards as far as Direct X version. Vista or later will need Direct X 9.0c or later. Since you state you have 3.25 gb of system ram it appears that you have onboard video rather than a discrete video card.
Click to expand...

32 bit XP max ram seen is 3.25 gb. ;)
It is an OS limitation.
XP will not report 4 gig regardless of vid card or not.
 
Mr.Scott said:
32 bit XP max ram seen is 3.25 gb. ;)
It is an OS limitation.
XP will not report 4 gig regardless of vid card or not.
Click to expand...

That was true for a long time, Mr. Scott but Microsoft got so many complaints from idiot consumers about Windows XP not showing the full amount of RAM that they apparently issued patches that caused it to report the full amount installed, even though all of it wasn't actually being used by the system because of the 32-bit OS limitation. I remember seeing that change several years ago when I was still using Windows XP (32-bit).
 
trents said:
That was true for a long time, Mr. Scott but Microsoft got so many complaints from idiot consumers about Windows XP not showing the full amount of RAM that they apparently issued patches that caused it to report the full amount installed, even though all of it wasn't actually being used by the system because of the 32-bit OS limitation. I remember seeing that change several years ago when I was still using Windows XP (32-bit).
Click to expand...

I'll dispute that all day long. I still run a fully updated XP machine. I run 4 gig and still only show 3.25.

Proof? Here.

untitled.JPG
 
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but I certainly have seen 4 gb of ram show up as 4 gb of ram on XP 32-bit machines. One such was my workstation at my place of employment before I retired and it was the same on my coworker's machine. Could this also have a bios component to it?
 
I think I have an old 32-bit XP machine that shows 4GB of RAM installed back at the shop office. I'll check it out again to see... now I'm curious.
 
Just for the sake of general knowledge, I also have an older socket 939 system that refuses to address more than 3.25 gigs of ram - however CPU-Z will SEE all 4 1 gig DIMMs. I found both 32 bit XP and 7 and 64 bit 7 have this issue - it's a problem with the motherboard.
 
Windows version dependencies[edit]

Main article: Physical Address Extension § Operating system support
In Microsoft's "non-server", or "client", x86 editions of Microsoft Windows: Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1, the 32-bit (x86) versions of these are able to operate x86 processors in PAE mode, and do so by default as long as the CPU present supports the NX bit.[11] Nevertheless, these operating systems do not permit addressing of physical memory above the 4 GB address boundary. This is not an architectural limit; it is a limit imposed by Microsoft vialicense enforcement routines as a workaround for device driver compatibility issues that were discovered during testing.[16]
Thus, the "3 GB barrier" under x86 Windows "client" operating systems can therefore arise in two slightly different scenarios. In both, RAM near the 4 GB point conflicts with memory-mapped I/O space. Either the BIOS simply disables the conflicting RAM; or, the BIOS remaps the conflicting RAM to physical addresses above the 4 GB point,[citation needed] but x86 Windows client editions refuse to use physical addresses higher than that, even though they are running with PAE enabled. The conflicting RAM is therefore unavailable to the operating system whether it is remapped or not.
Click to expand...
 
OP- go pick up the full retail Windows 8.1. Make sure you download all the drivers you will need for your motherboard (video/audio/network/controllers, etc) onto a thumb drive before you install the new OS as you will likely have no internet connectivity on the fresh install of 8.1 until you install the drivers. You can get the drivers from the motherboard manufacturer's website. You will need to know your motherboard make and model. Usually it says right on the motherboard (ie ASRock Z97Extreme4). Take your side panel off and have a look.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^.
sheesh, just read your motherboard manual, it tells you about xp and ram.
 
Okay, I cannot reproduce what I said about having seen XP 32-bit machines report a full 4 gb of RAM. So for the time being I must concede that I was wrong about that and that Mr. Scott was correct asserting that it could not be.

So it is likely that the OP's XP 32-bit machine was reporting less than 4 gb of RAM, not because on-board video was using system RAM but because of the OS limitation or some combo of the two.

However, I did discover that Vista 32-bit will report a full 4 gb of RAM without any tricks and attached is the proof of t he pudding from a machine I set up this week using the 32-bit version of Vista. This is not photoshopped nor is this due to the installation of a PAE patch. What is interesting is that it only reported 3.25 gb of RAM initially but after installing all the service packs and patches it reported 4.0 gb of RAM. Now perhaps I was mistaken about having seen this in XP 32-bit as my memory cold have played tricks on me and it was with Vista 32-bit all along that I actually had seen this phenomenon. Having said that you would think if one 32-bit OS could report the full 4 gb RAM amount so could another.
 

Attachments

  • 4gigs.JPG
    4gigs.JPG
    64.1 KB · Views: 429
if you can get vista 32bit to see 4 gigs of ram winXp should see it to on the same system but I think it has to be win xp professional -windows 64bit is the same way see pic's to get all 8 gigs to show have to disable hardware in bios like igpu thunderbolt etc.. but of cause thats if you don't need it enable ram1.JPG ram2.JPG
 
Quickfast, I had installed Windows XP Pro 32-bit on the same system that the above pics of Vista Home Premium 32-bit System report. I couldn't get it to show all four gigs in XP Pro. Speaking personally, I've never had to do anything special in bios to get any Windows 64-bit OS newer than XP to report the full amount of RAM installed with 8 gb or more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mackerel
Software to benchmark ram speeds through whole range
Replies
2
Views
488
mackerel
mackerel
don256us
Last update before the big Folding race.
Replies
19
Views
493
HayesK
H
QuantumCookie
Testing some computer fans
Replies
2
Views
414
Evilsizer
Evilsizer
F
Pihole Build Thread - A Complete Walkthrough
Replies
2
Views
622
freakdiablo
F
Al_bundy
Alucryl - 3DFX - CNC - Retro pc
Replies
2
Views
387
EarthDog
EarthDog
Back