CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › IT › Hardware › RAM issues

RAM issues

Started by shadowpanther0 · · 👁 3 views · 8 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants shadowpanther0Christian Torres3fadedorca66Larry Ortiz5wearymason4
shadowpanther0 shadowpanther0 MemberOP
13 messages
joined Jan 2014
#1 ·
Hey there... just saying hello.

I have a question regarding some RAM.

So, I just installed 4 GB of RAM into my desktop. Everything looks fine in the BIOS—it actually recognizes the full 4096 MB. But then... once I boot up into Windows XP? My system properties are just telling me I only have 3.12 GB available. What gives?
I honestly can't wrap my head around it. I just... I don't know why.
So, just to clarify... the setup currently has one 2GB stick and two 1GB sticks installed.
P.S. Once I pull out one of those 1GB sticks, it shows up as only 3 GB of RAM.
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#2 ·
shadowpanther0 said:Hey there...

I've got a question about my RAM.

I put 4 GB of RAM into my desktop, and the BIOS shows the full 4096 MB, but once I boot into Windows XP, the system properties only show 3.12 GB of RAM.
Why is that happening?
The setup is one 2 GB stick and two 1 GB sticks.
PS: If I pull out one of the 1 GB sticks, it shows 3 GB of RAM.

It's 99.9% certain you're running 32-bit Windows.

The 3 GB barrier.

In computing, the "3 GB barrier" describes a limit hit by certain 32-bit operating systems running on x86 processors. This stops the OS from accessing the full 4 GB (4 × 1024³ bytes) of available RAM. The actual amount visible can fluctuate between 2.75 GB and 3.5 GB depending on your motherboard and how much memory is being hogged by I/O devices like your video card. You won't run into this if you use a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating system, or if you use specific hardware and software—like Linux or certain versions of Windows Server and macOS—that fully utilize physical address extension (PAE) on x86.
shadowpanther0 shadowpanther0 MemberOP
13 messages
joined Jan 2014
#3 ·
Christian Torres3 said:99.9% of people are running x86 Windows

The 3 GB barrier

In the world of computing, the "3 GB barrier" describes a specific bottleneck found in certain 32-bit operating systems running on x86 microprocessors. Basically, it stops the OS from accessing the full 4 GB (4 × 1024³ bytes) of available RAM. The actual limit can shift depending on your motherboard setup and how your I/O devices—especially video RAM—are configured; you might see anything from 2.75 GB up to 3.5 GB. This issue disappears entirely if you move to a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating system, or if you're using specific x86 hardware paired with Linux or certain builds of Windows Server and macOS that take full advantage of physical address extension (PAE) mode on x86.

Ugh, my English is pretty rough, so it would really help if someone could explain this in American terms.
I'm running 32-bit Windows. But before, it used to show me over 4 GB of RAM, and my motherboard actually supports up to 8GB of expansion.
Which one is more accurate? What the BIOS shows, or what the OS shows? Like, how much RAM is the OS actually working with?
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#4 ·
shadowpanther0 said:My English isn't great, so could someone explain this in plain terms?
I'm running 32-bit Windows. Before, it used to show about 4 point something GB of RAM, and my motherboard supports up to 8GB.
Which one is more accurate—what the BIOS shows or what the OS shows? Like, how much RAM is the computer actually using?

The BIOS is right showing 4 GB, but since you're on Windows x86 (32-bit), you're hitting those built-in limits. You can only ever use what the OS allows, which is a max of 3.5 GB. If you want to actually use all your memory, you need to switch to x64 (64-bit) Windows. Don't sweat it though, nothing is actually broken.
fadedorca66 fadedorca66 Regular
372 messages
joined Nov 2022
#5 ·
What else are you running in that rig? You should probably at least grab Windows 7 64-bit, or honestly, just go with Windows 10 64-bit if you can. Windows XP is ancient news, and I guess its 64-bit version was never really known for being anything close to reliable.
shadowpanther0 shadowpanther0 MemberOP
13 messages
joined Jan 2014
#6 ·
fadedorca66 said:What else are we looking at in terms of specs? You should really try installing at least Windows 7 64-bit, or honestly, even better, Windows 10 64-bit. Windows XP is ancient history at this point, and let's be real—its 64-bit version was never exactly known for being reliable.

It's just an old machine. I'm only putting XP on it because it's definitely not built to handle any newer versions of Windows.
Larry Ortiz5 Larry Ortiz5 Regular
710 messages
joined May 2020
#7 ·
shadowpanther0 said:It's an older machine—I'm just putting XP on it, nothing more advanced than that.

If you're really set on using outdated XP, you might want to grab the x64 version instead? Since, as others have pointed out, Windows x86 versions usually tap out at around 3.5 GB of RAM.
fadedorca66 fadedorca66 Regular
372 messages
joined Nov 2022
#8 ·
Honestly, it's probably fine. That extra 0.5GB of RAM isn't going to make a massive difference anyway, especially if they're running an older system.
wearymason4 wearymason4 Active Member
239 messages
joined Oct 2014
#9 ·
...and honestly, that PC might actually run totally fine on Windows 10 too... but we're just guessing at this point because we don't have the actual specs, you know? Like, what are we looking at for the CPU, the RAM type, the GPU, the hard drive, or even the motherboard?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads