Velocity Reviews - 32- or 64-bit?

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)

- Computer Information (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f41-computer-information.html)

- - 32- or 64-bit? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t951385-32-or-64-bit.html)

I have a home-built machine that has 8GB of RAM installed, the BIOS reports
all of the available RAM.

Windows XP only reports 4GB of RAM.

I understand that 32-bit operating systems can only utilize 4GB, and a
64-bit system is needed to see (and make use of) any RAM in excess of 4GB.

My question is if the processor that I have is a 64-bit processor, or not.

What I am running into is the cold, hard fact that XP is no longer supported
in the very near future. This means I will be forced into Win7, whatever,
and I may as well use the 64-bit version of the OS if my processor has the
capacity to do that.

So, the BIOS of the current installation reports all 8GB of available RAM,
while the XP Pro, 32-bit operating system reports the limits of the OS.
Since the BIOS sees all of the installed RAM, does that mean the board and
processor are capable of handling a 64-bit OS?

Re: 32- or 64-bit?

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I have a home-built machine that has 8GB of RAM installed, the BIOS
> reports all of the available RAM.
>
> Windows XP only reports 4GB of RAM.
>
> I understand that 32-bit operating systems can only utilize 4GB, and a
> 64-bit system is needed to see (and make use of) any RAM in excess of 4GB.
>
> My question is if the processor that I have is a 64-bit processor, or not.
>
> What I am running into is the cold, hard fact that XP is no longer
> supported in the very near future. This means I will be forced into
> Win7, whatever, and I may as well use the 64-bit version of the OS if my
> processor has the capacity to do that.
>
> So, the BIOS of the current installation reports all 8GB of available
> RAM, while the XP Pro, 32-bit operating system reports the limits of the
> OS. Since the BIOS sees all of the installed RAM, does that mean the
> board and processor are capable of handling a 64-bit OS?

Intel has the Intel Processor Identification Utility (PIU). There is
a Windows installable version.

Intel has ark.intel.com. You can find your processor there, if it's Intel,
and see whether it says "Instruction Set: 64 bit".

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...ktop-Processor

AMD has products.amd.com for their processors.

There are a couple modes a 64 bit processor can use. The most common mode
for a home user, might be mixed 64 bit/32 bit, where both 64 bit or 32 bit
programs can run. But I think there's some other mode, where the processor
runs in pure 64 bit mode. Maybe some day, on some future OS, they'll select
that mode.

*******

PAE mode, has existed for years. It allows up to 64GB of memory, to be accessed
in 4GB blocks. When you run an individual program, it can access things in that
4GB chunk. But not access all of the memory. And that can be done by a 32 bit
processor. So in fact, even with older processors, in theory, a 32 bit
processor could access a much larger block of memory (even if they didn't
have big enough DIMMs back then, for it to matter).

If the BIOS wanted, it could use such a mode, to implement a memory test
of a 8GB memory space, using nothing but a 32 bit processor. Simply
reload the page table, and test the second half.

Inside the processor, a 32 bit address runs through the TLB or page tables,
and a 36 bit address comes out as the answer. That's traditional PAE. That can
be used to address more than 4GB of memory, as long as the Northbridge has
a 36 bit address bus. There have been some Intel chipsets, where Intel could
have easily provided the extra 4 bits, but chose not to. In that case, only
32 bit addresses flow from processor to memory controller. In such a case, you
can install 4x2GB of DIMMs (since the row/column address on the Northbridge
is capable of doing it), but, since only 32 bit addresses come in over the
FSB, only 4GB of the 8GB can be addressed. That may have been back in the
LGA775 era. (In other words, limited addressing can be caused by the motherboard,
but the situation is pretty uncommon.)

Later processors, both Intel and AMD, the memory controller is inside the
processor, so there is less of an excuse to be bottlenecking the address bus.

On AMD, I think addresses can be at least 40 bits (for things like PAE),
which surpasses the ability to find big enough DIMMs to cause a problem.
Part of the reason for AMD to support such a number, is the ability to build
server designs with multiple sockets, and "coherent" interconnect. Any processor
in that case, can read the memory on any other processor, via Hypertransport.
A thing like a 40 bit address, would be handy for addressing such a larger space.
Desktops typically don't have multiple sockets (any more), but AMD tends
to maintain architectural parity between desktop and server designs. Same
applies to AMD supporting ECC on desktop memory - ECC is a server feature,
and they try to keep some of those features common across the entire product
line.

So if you have an Intel processor, you can play with the PIU program.

If you have an AMD processor, you're going to have to work a bit harder.
Find a hardware utility that can identify the processor. Run the identity
through products.amd.com (or search against cpu-world.com), and get
the particulars.

*******

One cold hard fact, is you don't need Microsoft to be patching your OS.
I occasionally use Win2K, and it hasn't been supported in some time, and
the old programs loaded on the machine for it, still work. How Microsoft
works their magic, is giving software development tools to developers, that
magically don't work on older OSes, and that's how they "wedge out" the
older OSes. Microsoft destroyed 3D game compatibility, so that new games
wouldn't load on Win2K (even though Win2K and WinXP core are very similar),
and that's how they "encourage" you to leave the old OSes behind. If it wasn't
for that sort of thing, you could quite comfortably continue to use it.
The AV companies already know how to build product for the older OSes,
so they can still provide you with a measure of protection.

There's a contingent of people still using Win98, as an example of
how far you can go with this.

Paul

Re: 32- or 64-bit?

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:k1c1rv$4au$1@dont-email.me...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> I have a home-built machine that has 8GB of RAM installed, the BIOS
>> reports all of the available RAM.
>>
>> Windows XP only reports 4GB of RAM.
>>
>> I understand that 32-bit operating systems can only utilize 4GB, and a
>> 64-bit system is needed to see (and make use of) any RAM in excess of
>> 4GB.
>>
>> My question is if the processor that I have is a 64-bit processor, or
>> not.
>>
>> What I am running into is the cold, hard fact that XP is no longer
>> supported in the very near future. This means I will be forced into Win7,
>> whatever, and I may as well use the 64-bit version of the OS if my
>> processor has the capacity to do that.
>>
>> So, the BIOS of the current installation reports all 8GB of available
>> RAM, while the XP Pro, 32-bit operating system reports the limits of the
>> OS. Since the BIOS sees all of the installed RAM, does that mean the
>> board and processor are capable of handling a 64-bit OS?
>
> Intel has the Intel Processor Identification Utility (PIU). There is
> a Windows installable version.
>
> Intel has ark.intel.com. You can find your processor there, if it's Intel,
> and see whether it says "Instruction Set: 64 bit".
>
> http://ark.intel.com/products/family...ktop-Processor
>
> AMD has products.amd.com for their processors.
>
> There are a couple modes a 64 bit processor can use. The most common mode
> for a home user, might be mixed 64 bit/32 bit, where both 64 bit or 32 bit
> programs can run. But I think there's some other mode, where the processor
> runs in pure 64 bit mode. Maybe some day, on some future OS, they'll
> select
> that mode.
>
> *******
>
> PAE mode, has existed for years. It allows up to 64GB of memory, to be
> accessed
> in 4GB blocks. When you run an individual program, it can access things in
> that
> 4GB chunk. But not access all of the memory. And that can be done by a 32
> bit
> processor. So in fact, even with older processors, in theory, a 32 bit
> processor could access a much larger block of memory (even if they didn't
> have big enough DIMMs back then, for it to matter).
>
> If the BIOS wanted, it could use such a mode, to implement a memory test
> of a 8GB memory space, using nothing but a 32 bit processor. Simply
> reload the page table, and test the second half.
>
> Inside the processor, a 32 bit address runs through the TLB or page
> tables,
> and a 36 bit address comes out as the answer. That's traditional PAE. That
> can
> be used to address more than 4GB of memory, as long as the Northbridge has
> a 36 bit address bus. There have been some Intel chipsets, where Intel
> could
> have easily provided the extra 4 bits, but chose not to. In that case,
> only
> 32 bit addresses flow from processor to memory controller. In such a case,
> you
> can install 4x2GB of DIMMs (since the row/column address on the
> Northbridge
> is capable of doing it), but, since only 32 bit addresses come in over the
> FSB, only 4GB of the 8GB can be addressed. That may have been back in the
> LGA775 era. (In other words, limited addressing can be caused by the
> motherboard,
> but the situation is pretty uncommon.)
>
> Later processors, both Intel and AMD, the memory controller is inside the
> processor, so there is less of an excuse to be bottlenecking the address
> bus.
>
> On AMD, I think addresses can be at least 40 bits (for things like PAE),
> which surpasses the ability to find big enough DIMMs to cause a problem.
> Part of the reason for AMD to support such a number, is the ability to
> build
> server designs with multiple sockets, and "coherent" interconnect. Any
> processor
> in that case, can read the memory on any other processor, via
> Hypertransport.
> A thing like a 40 bit address, would be handy for addressing such a larger
> space.
> Desktops typically don't have multiple sockets (any more), but AMD tends
> to maintain architectural parity between desktop and server designs. Same
> applies to AMD supporting ECC on desktop memory - ECC is a server feature,
> and they try to keep some of those features common across the entire
> product
> line.
>
> So if you have an Intel processor, you can play with the PIU program.
>
> If you have an AMD processor, you're going to have to work a bit harder.
> Find a hardware utility that can identify the processor. Run the identity
> through products.amd.com (or search against cpu-world.com), and get
> the particulars.
>
> *******
>
> One cold hard fact, is you don't need Microsoft to be patching your OS.
> I occasionally use Win2K, and it hasn't been supported in some time, and
> the old programs loaded on the machine for it, still work. How Microsoft
> works their magic, is giving software development tools to developers,
> that
> magically don't work on older OSes, and that's how they "wedge out" the
> older OSes. Microsoft destroyed 3D game compatibility, so that new games
> wouldn't load on Win2K (even though Win2K and WinXP core are very
> similar),
> and that's how they "encourage" you to leave the old OSes behind. If it
> wasn't
> for that sort of thing, you could quite comfortably continue to use it.
> The AV companies already know how to build product for the older OSes,
> so they can still provide you with a measure of protection.
>
> There's a contingent of people still using Win98, as an example of
> how far you can go with this.
>
> Paul

My goal is to move toward an OS that still has support, and will have for
many years to come. I already have an OS that support is about to die out
on, and any information that leads to even older OSs is not meaningful or
helpful.

So, I have a motherboard that is stuffed with two 4GB RAM modules, and the
BIOS reads the correct total but the OS (XP Pro) only reads half.

My specific question was if I happened to have loaded a 32-bit OS onto a
board that has the capacity for a 64-bit OS.

The reason the question comes up is because the board is relatively new and
meets my needs for speed and quantity of the various ports, but if there is
a failure that demeands reloading the OS, then on that event I would likely
invest in the current OS and I was wondering if I could automatically select
the 64-bit version, or should I get the 32-bit version.

I'm not interested in making my current OS do anything more than it does
with respect to the memory capacity. I simply had a brain-fart when I built
the system because the motherboard could support 2x4GB of RAM, and the price
was right -- well, it was okay -- so I bought it. I realized the error of my
ways when I started assembling the parts, but there is no harm in having
8GB, but only 4GB are being used. The HDD took a dump -- warranty coverage
available -- so I had to replace it. It is becoming a struggle to reload XP
because of all of the updates and the arguments with the Genuine Advantage
verifications and so on. As I figure out how to game the system so that I
can get the machine going, I find that there is a warning on Microsoft's
Website that says support for Win XP will be ending soon.

In the interest of planning ahead, I will be upgrading to Win7, or perhaps
Win8, in the not-so-distant future, and I was wondering if I could go to a
64-bit OS since the motherboard knows how much RAM is installed. I don't see
any point in staying with a 32-bit OS that can't work with more than 4gb of
RAM when there are 8gb of RAM installed. I guess my question is about my
confusion as to whether the amount of RAM that can be seen is a function of
the motherboard or the operating system. I don't recall at the moment
whether the CPU is an i3 or an i5. If these are 64-bit, then I will get the
64-bit version of the next OS that I have to buy.

Re: 32- or 64-bit?

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>
> My goal is to move toward an OS that still has support, and will have
> for many years to come. I already have an OS that support is about to
> die out on, and any information that leads to even older OSs is not
> meaningful or helpful.
>
> So, I have a motherboard that is stuffed with two 4GB RAM modules, and
> the BIOS reads the correct total but the OS (XP Pro) only reads half.
>
> My specific question was if I happened to have loaded a 32-bit OS onto a
> board that has the capacity for a 64-bit OS.
>
> The reason the question comes up is because the board is relatively new
> and meets my needs for speed and quantity of the various ports, but if
> there is a failure that demeands reloading the OS, then on that event I
> would likely invest in the current OS and I was wondering if I could
> automatically select the 64-bit version, or should I get the 32-bit
> version.
>
> I'm not interested in making my current OS do anything more than it does
> with respect to the memory capacity. I simply had a brain-fart when I
> built the system because the motherboard could support 2x4GB of RAM, and
> the price was right -- well, it was okay -- so I bought it. I realized
> the error of my ways when I started assembling the parts, but there is
> no harm in having 8GB, but only 4GB are being used. The HDD took a dump
> -- warranty coverage available -- so I had to replace it. It is becoming
> a struggle to reload XP because of all of the updates and the arguments
> with the Genuine Advantage verifications and so on. As I figure out how
> to game the system so that I can get the machine going, I find that
> there is a warning on Microsoft's Website that says support for Win XP
> will be ending soon.
>
> In the interest of planning ahead, I will be upgrading to Win7, or
> perhaps Win8, in the not-so-distant future, and I was wondering if I
> could go to a 64-bit OS since the motherboard knows how much RAM is
> installed. I don't see any point in staying with a 32-bit OS that can't
> work with more than 4gb of RAM when there are 8gb of RAM installed. I
> guess my question is about my confusion as to whether the amount of RAM
> that can be seen is a function of the motherboard or the operating
> system. I don't recall at the moment whether the CPU is an i3 or an i5.
> If these are 64-bit, then I will get the 64-bit version of the next OS
> that I have to buy.
>

Use Intel PIU utility, to confirm the processor model number.

http://www.intel.com/support/process.../CS-014921.htm

Then go to ark.intel.com and look up that processor number.

A 64 bit processor, can run 64 bit or 32 bit programs, or
install a 64 bit or 32 bit OS.

Memory addressing is a separate issue. If you install a 32 bit OS,
PAE mode (supported in hardware for eons), *could* support all 8GB.
But the Microsoft memory license prevents you from doing so.

http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/w...nse/memory.htm

With a 32 bit OS install, and the Microsoft memory license in place,
you *can* still use the additional RAM above 4GB. But you can
only do that from ring0 driver space. With this software installed,
4GB is for the OS, and the other 4GB goes to a RAMDisk. And that's
with a 32 bit OS (one that is actually running PAE mode, for other
reasons).

RAMDisk freeware...

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

In summary, if you have a 64 bit ptocessor, you can do anything you
want with it. It supports 64 bit or 32 bit programs. Microsoft
can impose a memory license or not. The chipset can be a limitation,
but when I hear you mention "i3 or i5", that tells me the chipset
is probably not a limitation in this case.

Paul

Re: 32- or 64-bit?

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k1g41o$kfi$1@dont-email.me...
<<Snipped>>
>
> I don't see any point in staying with a 32-bit OS that can't work with
> more than 4gb of RAM when there are 8gb of RAM installed. I guess my
> question is about my confusion as to whether the amount of RAM that
> can be seen is a function of the motherboard or the operating system. I
> don't recall at the moment whether the CPU is an i3 or an i5. If these are
> 64-bit, then I will get the 64-bit version of the next OS that I have to
> buy.
>
I do have a Win7 Pro 64 machine but I only have 3gb installed in that box so
limits not an issue for me. I figured it gives me option to expand if needed
although I can't imagine I'd need it. As you might know, licensing of the
program is the limiting factor. Are you just going to run IE, MSFT apps
designed for this new OS ? To go from XP to Win7 you'll be reinstalling. If
there are some programs that you now have and THAT is why you want to see
all 8gb, check specs to see if it will even run - in what environment. You
will probably see that the license is for a 32bit Windows environment. The
old programs will only run in 32 bit mode even if you had a terabyte of
memory. So although Windows might see the terabyte, the app will still run
in its little world .. pagefaulting - quickly, but program still will only
see what was designed for. Unless a need to have many apps in memory,
perhaps consider buying another motherboard/cpu for the Win7 pc - use 4gb
there and keep current pc. That's what I've done with a few of my pc's. I
always overbought and ended not 'needing' the horsepower. That's why I'm
still on the old PC right now - it still works fine with just 1gb left in
it. I couldn't justify tossing it.