Win 7 32-bit Memory Limits?

[hcour]

I'm running Win 7 32-bit with 2 GB memory in my system, considering upgrading to 4 GB. I've read that the 32-bit ver will only utilize 2.5 to 3.6 GB memory maximum. If my system will only utilize 2.5 GB memory, an upgrade wouldn't really be worth it, but if it will utilize 3.6 GB, I think that would be a nice boost. What determines the maximum memory Win 7 is capable of utilizing in my system in that 2.5 - 3.6 range? Thanks!

 

[A Guy]

You should be able to utilize approx. 3.6GB. But this depends on how much Windows allots to video ram. If you have a discreet video card with plenty of VRAM, then windows will utilize closer to the 3.6 GB. But hardware also uses the "address space", and that will vary depending on hardware. I think in general, you will get the benifit of upgrading to 4GB of ram. A Guy

 

[marsmimar]

Some of the memory (even with a 64-bit operating system) is reserved for use by the devices that you are using, such as a graphics card, PCI card, integrated network connections, etc, meaning it is unavailable for use as normal main memory.

Having said that, I'm not sure how you can determine in advance how much of the 4GB will be reserved without actually installing the RAM. According to this Microsoft Answers forum thread, you could open Device Manager and (with a little math) figure out exactly how much memory is reserved for each component. I'm guessing they mean you can select a device, look under the Resource tab, and figure out how much memory will be held in reserve.

How can I increase my usable RAM to 4GB in Windows 7 - 32bit? - Microsoft Answers

 

[hcour]

Thanks for the replies. Marsmimar, your link eventually led me to the following, a patch which apparently gets around the 32-bit memory limitiations. What do ya'll think? (Warning, some side-bar advertisements are NSFW.)

UNAWAVE - 32-bit Windows 7 with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

 

[marsmimar]

Thanks for the replies. Marsmimar, your link eventually led me to the following, a patch which apparently gets around the 32-bit memory limitiations. What do ya'll think? (Warning, some side-bar advertisements are NSFW.)

UNAWAVE - 32-bit Windows 7 with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

I'd make a system image on an external hard drive (along with the companion system repair CD) just in case the patch installed malware, or otherwise borked my computer. At least I could get my machine working again in about 20 - 30 minutes.

Considering your machine has 2GB RAM now (and most likely shows less than that as usable RAM), I'd just go ahead and upgrade to 4GB. Even if your usable RAM is "only" 3GB after the upgrade - and it will probably be more than 3GB - that's still more than a 1GB increase of usable RAM without the risk of installing a patch that that may or may not work. Also, most people will see a definite increase in performance going from 2GB to 4GB. Not so much going from 3GB to 4GB.

 

[hcour]

Yeah, I always have image backups (Acronis) and would definitely make one before I installed something like that. I think I'll take your advice and go ahead and install the extra ram and see how much my system performance improves w/o any patching. Thanks.

 

[alphanumeric]

Windows 7 32 bit has a maximum address range of 4 gig. As an example if you video card has say 1 gig of dedicated RAM that RAM is addressed in that 4 gig space. That will leave you with 3 gig of usable address space for your RAM and other hardware. If you have 4 gigs of RAM only 3 gigs will get used. It will actually be slightly smaller than that because some space will be used by other hardware. On the same system with Windows 7 64 bit the address space is not limited to 4 gigs. Video ram gets shifted into space above the 4 gig that will be reserved for system RAM. If your video card uses some of your system RAM, (doesn't have its own dedicated RAM) it won't matter, it will still be subtracted from usable RAM.

Just in case you don't know, your product code is good for 32 bit or 64 bit. You could if you want switch to 64 bit and use the same product code you have now. Assuming you have 64 bit install media that is. Also if it doesn't work out for you, you can just go back to 32 bit. You have to re-install but it is an option.

 

[hcour]

Newegg.com - Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, LED LCD TV, Digital Cameras and more!

These are all priced the same. Is there any difference between them quality-wise? Also, I may overclock my system down the road. Would one of these be better for oc than the others? Thanks!

Alpha - I'm trying to avoid a complete re-install. If I end up going that route (installing 64-bit ver) I'm just going to go ahead and build a new system.

 

[marsmimar]

These modules are from well known, well established companies with great reputations. The only thing I saw that might make me choose G.Skill over the others is the voltage requirement. G.Skill requires 2.5V, the Patriot 2.6V, and no matter what website I went to I couldn't find a voltage requirement for the Corsair. I'm of the opinion (FWIW) that a lower voltage requirement means cooler temps and heat is always a consideration. Having said that you could probably go with any of the three and be happy with the choice.

One other thought is using matched pairs. Some folks say it's OK to mix and match and I've done it myself on occasion. But other people have compared memory modules to tires on a car. Put a snow tire on one side and a regular tire on the other (even if they're identical sizes) and there's going to be some differences no matter how slight.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Do NOT install any kind of patch or file that claims to give you more memory usage in Windows 7 x86.

That being said, if you want/need more memory, is there a reason you aren't looking into Windows 7 x64?

 

[alphanumeric]

I'm with DeaconFrost in regards to installing that patch. From what I have read, when it works it only works on very specific hardware. And even when it does work, it doesn't do what you think it does. More often than not it just borks your system and you'll end up doing that reinstall you didn't want to do in the first place. Why the resistance to wards doing a clean install?

 

[bobkn]

Thanks for the replies. Marsmimar, your link eventually led me to the following, a patch which apparently gets around the 32-bit memory limitiations. What do ya'll think? (Warning, some side-bar advertisements are NSFW.)

UNAWAVE - 32-bit Windows 7 with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

It's not clear what this patch does, but I suppose that it's a hack that enables PAE (physical address extension) on a 32 bit desktop OS. The PAE pieces are supposed to be present is desktop Windows, but disabled.

PAE allows 32 bit server versions of Windows to work with more than 4GB of RAM. The memory limitations on 32 bit applications software remain (2 or 3 GB available to one application), but it would, in principle, allow you to run multiple applications at a time with less competition for RAM. (Not something I've ever done.)

64 bit Windows adds support for 64 bit applications. And avoids hacking the OS to get access to those last few hundred MB of RAM.

 

[hcour]

I'd just rather avoid a complete re-install if possible. My system is pretty much fine as is, just a bit sluggish, especially when I'm copying or moving files, of which I do a lot. I currently have an ASUS A8N-SLI mb, Athlon 64 X2 4200+ CPU, the 2GB memory, a 512mb video card running two 24" LCD monitors, and a 500 watt Antec PS. My plan is to increase the memory, install a second 512mb video card, so each monitor will be on one card, install a 60GB SSD for my OS and programs, and then OC the system.

What do ya'll think?

 

[DeaconFrost]

If you are adding an SSD, that would be the perfect time to do a clean install. It only takes a few hours of your time, and it guarantees that your SSD is set up properly. Not much effort on your end, but you'll be using all of the memory you paid for.

 

[hcour]

Thanks, but I'm just going to make an image of my C: drive with Acronis and put that on the SSD drive. I'd rather not mess with a reinstall and 64-bit if don't need to.

 

[DeaconFrost]

There's nothing to be afraid of with 64 bit. It acts just like 32 bit, and the install process is identical.

If you aren't going to do a clean install, then be sure you follow the tutorials to check that your alignment is correct.

 

[flemur13013]

What do ya'll think? (Warning, some side-bar advertisements are NSFW.)

UNAWAVE - 32-bit Windows 7 with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

I've used two such patches and they worked fine: you get access to more memory and everything else is the same. Some claim that PAE addressing is slightly slower, but I can't see any speed differences, even using a stopwatch. FWIW, some or most 32-bit Linux distros enable PAE by default, so it's not like PAE is some weird scam.

I tried 64 bit windows on my factory 64-bit machine, and nothing ran any faster*, including video conversions with 64 bit software, and it seemed to cause a bunch of strange, minor but irritating problems with lots of software, so I went back to 32 bit.

*Of the things I tested, of course: reboot times, conversions, etc., though 64 bit linux is generally slightly faster than 32 bit linux, PAE or not.

 

[DeaconFrost]

The issue with PAE, is that it very often causes apps and especially drivers to have issues that weren't intended to be used with a PAE-enabled system.

Now that Windows 7 has viable options for either platform, there's no need to consider any patch like that. If you need more memory, running Windows 7 x64 should be your solution. There's no reason to fear it, or treat it as a proof of concept product.

 

[hcour]

Thanks, guys. I may just end up building a new system - i5, 4gb ram, 1gb video card, ssd for OS and programs, Win7 64. I've already got a great big Cooler Master case (probably should add a couple more fans) and an Antec 500w PS. I could probably do it for around $500. I've got to think about this.