Are the next gen consoles the realization of AMDs HSA dream?

[Sleepingforest]

Consider me more educated than before. Thank you (though I could have done without the condescending tone).

What do you have to say about Cerb's point about hardware reserved space being reduced to a few MB? For all intents and purposes, the OS and software have access to all 16GB.

 

[Enigmoid]

No. You continue without getting it.

First, the physical memory amount is addressable.

Second, what I said is that Windows home premium 64bit cannot access to 16 GB of RAM, because has a physical memory limit of 16 GB and

16 GB = RAM + VRAM + other_hardware_reserved_memory

See the quote in my previous post. Pay attention to the part where Microsoft says:

Another thing is the amount of memory available to applications. The amount of memory available to a game will be

RAM = RAM_for_games + RAM_used_by_the_OS

This was somewhat true for 32 bit but is not really true for windows 7 64 bit.

Note that memory on our graphics cards DOES NOT COUNT towards the physical memory limit because it does not occupy address space as seen by the CPU. However, hardware mappings do. A graphics card with 2GB of memory on it will probably not have more than 256MB of mappings if the BIOS has memory remapping disabled (which it should for a 32-bit OS). That's why the physical memory limit is typically around 3.5GB, even if you have a graphics card with 1GB -- hardware mappings seldom exceed 768MB.

windows 7 disables this. (LOOK for people with 16 GB ram, home premium 64 bit and titan, they have 16GB ram and the 6GB vram).

Easily found with a google search.

So you might have 15.9 GB (Please not that there is probably not a singly game out there that needs more than 8GB).

 

[Cerb]

16 GB = RAM + VRAM + other_hardware_reserved_memory

No, that's wrong. If that were the case, I would have 7GB usable, of my 8. Instead, I have 8190MB on my main (8GB RAM, 1GB VRAM, BIOS shows 8192 at POST). On another PC, it's 3071MB (3GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, BIOS shows 3072 at POST).

Another thing is the amount of memory [Be]available to applications[/B]. The amount of memory available to a game will be

RAM = RAM_for_games + RAM_used_by_the_OS

Anything will have that. The amount will be less, but the consoles have OS overhead, too. The XB360 supposedly took around 30MB, and the PS3 100+MB at the start, and then eventually down to like 50MB.

 

[galego]

Consider me more educated than before. Thank you (though I could have done without the condescending tone).

What do you have to say about Cerb's point about hardware reserved space being reduced to a few MB? For all intents and purposes, the OS and software have access to all 16GB.

It was a fair educative response but you continue denying the facts.

 

[galego]

This was somewhat true for 32 bit but is not really true for windows 7 64 bit.



windows 7 disables this. (LOOK for people with 16 GB ram, home premium 64 bit and titan, they have 16GB ram and the 6GB vram).

Easily found with a google search.

So you might have 15.9 GB (Please not that there is probably not a singly game out there that needs more than 8GB).

I know that I wrote this before, but I will reproduce once again

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610/en-us

Or, a 64-bit version of Windows 7 may report that there is only 7.1 GB of usable system memory on a computer that has 8 GB of memory installed.

Home premium 64bits cannot address 16 GB of RAM. It does not matter if you install 16 GB of RAM or 32 GB, it only can access to less than 16 GB.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Maybe you missed it says may. And I doubt you understand why it says may.

You should read, and even more importantly understand the links you use.

 

[galego]

No, that's wrong. If that were the case, I would have 7GB usable, of my 8. Instead, I have 8190MB on my main (8GB RAM, 1GB VRAM, BIOS shows 8192 at POST). On another PC, it's 3071MB (3GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, BIOS shows 3072 at POST).

No. You are wrong again. RAM and VRAM in that equation do not denote the installed memory on the computer.

I know I wrote this before, but will try again:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610/en-us

Or, a 64-bit version of Windows 7 may report that there is only 7.1 GB of usable system memory on a computer that has 8 GB of memory installed.

Note The amount of usable memory in the examples are not exact amounts. Usable memory is a calculated amount of the total physical memory minus "hardware reserved" memory.

 

[ShintaiDK]

VRAM is not hardware reserved. PCIe and such is.

But 64bit Windows supports remapping to any address unlike its 32bit sibling. So it all depends on BIOS and memory controller.

Such a "better knowing" person like yourself should be aware of these basic functions.

 

[galego]

Maybe you missed it says may. And I doubt you understand why it says may.

You should read, and even more importantly understand the links you use.

Don't worry I will explain this to you as well.

It says "may" because if the limit of the OS is 16GB and you install 8 GB of RAM then the entire 8 GB are available to the operative system. This is trivial and was not he point. :whiste:

It says "may" because the link is giving concrete values such as "3.5 GB of usable system memory" or "7.1 GB of usable system memory". Pay attention to this part of my previous message:

Note The amount of usable memory in the examples are not exact amounts. Usable memory is a calculated amount of the total physical memory minus "hardware reserved" memory.

That is the reason why I did not wrote concrete values on my post. If I had wrote some concrete value then I had used the word "may". This is an example:

Windows 7 home premium 64 bit may report that there is only 15.1 GB of usable system memory on a computer that has 16 GB of memory installed. :whiste:

 

[ShintaiDK]

It will also report 16GB useable in any modern system.

 

[galego]

VRAM is not hardware reserved. PCIe and such is.

But 64bit Windows supports remapping to any address unlike its 32bit sibling. So it all depends on BIOS and memory controller.

Such a "better knowing" person like yourself should be aware of these basic functions.

And precisely part of the address reserved for the PCI bus are used to access to the memory of the graphics card installed in the PCI bus. I find it hard you believe that the access to the graphics card memory installed in a PCI slot is made via WIFI :whiste:

If you read the post just above the your, you would notice that VRAM in the equation was not denoting the installed VRAM in the computer. It seems you also missed this part of one of my previous posts:

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of on-board memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Let me ask you this, can or cant the hardware reservations in Windows Home Premium be over the 16GB area?

Also Windows Resource monitor is a nice tool to see hardware reserved space in the physical memory.

And not all VRAM is memory mapped. The amount of address space a (single) video card uses is typically 256MB.

 

[galego]

It will also report 16GB useable in any modern system.

I assume that by "modern" you really mean "64bit", because Windows 8 is more modern than Windows 7 and none of the windows 8 32bit versions can access to 16 GB of RAM.

Windows 7 Starter 64 bit, Windows 7 Home Basic 64 bit, and Windows 7 Homer Premium 64 bit cannot access to 16 GB RAM.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Windows 7 Starter 64 bit, Windows 7 Home Basic 64 bit, and Windows 7 Homer Premium 64 bit cannot access to 16 GB RAM.

But they can still do device mappings above.

 

[galego]

Let me ask you this, can or cant the hardware reservations in Windows Home Premium be over the 16GB area?

Also Windows Resource monitor is a nice tool to see hardware reserved space in the physical memory.

And not all VRAM is memory mapped. The amount of address space a (single) video card uses is typically 256MB.

I know I already explained this to you two or three times before, but I will try again. VRAM in the above equation did not denote the installed VRAM.

I also explained to you how hardware reservation works, but I will try to explain it again but now in a different form. Microsoft in the link given above says:

Or, a 64-bit version of Windows 7 may report that there is only 7.1 GB of usable system memory on a computer that has 8 GB of memory installed.

Note The amount of usable memory in the examples are not exact amounts. Usable memory is a calculated amount of the total physical memory minus "hardware reserved" memory.

Now say me if "hardware reservations" are remapped above 8 GB, why only 7.1 GB are usable?

Or answer this, if I install 8 GB more of RAM in the same computer which will be the usable RAM now? 16 GB? 15.1 GB? Other? :whiste:

 

[ShintaiDK]

Now say me if "hardware reservations" are remapped above 8 GB, why only 7.1 GB are usable?

Or answer this, if I install 8 GB more of RAM in the same computer which will be the usable RAM now? 16 GB? 15.1 GB? Other? :whiste:

They are not mapped above 8GB or 16GB then. But thats a BIOS/Memory controller limitation. Not a OS problem.

You can use 16GB fully with Windows Home Premium.

 

[Cerb]

No. You are wrong again. RAM and VRAM in that equation do not denote the installed memory on the computer.

I know they don't. It was you who insisted they did:

16 GB = RAM + VRAM + other_hardware_reserved_memory

That is wrong. 16GB = physical addresses up to 16GB, as reported by the board. VRAM is, like with 32-bit, taken off the other end of the address space, which is way up at 16TB, or higher, for most current implementations (along with other device mappings). The lowest 1MB will remain effectively unusable due to BIOS/real-mode compatibility. Why some boards, like mine, take a wee bit more, I have no idea (I'm not exactly losing sleep over that 1MB, either, though).

The caveat of less RAM seen or usable has to do with early motherboards, before 64-bit became the norm. To use anything over 4GB before x86-64, you needed to use PAE. Now, PAE generally sucked, as a way to extend addressable RAM (overlays are bad, mmmkay?). But, with PAE, you still had mappings taken off the top of the 4GB space, so there was still some missing RAM, usually. Well, x86-64 (also, NX bit support in 32-bit) extends PAE page tables (one of the traditional ugly-but-effective means of x86 implementing backwards-compatibility, and minimizing additional CPU complexity for new features).

Many mobos would keep the device mappings the way they were, leaving a hole in the RAM (worse, some would only allow 4GB less mapped space, even in 64-bit!). Some had remap options, some not. Enthusiast mobos pretty much always automatically handled it, of course, and now, pretty every mobo does. However, many Vista users were stuck with those broken mobos, and some Win 7 upgraders, as well.

The apparent reduction in memory will be the same regardless of 64-bit OS (it's not a Windows-specific issue), and will affect any users with those boards, and enough RAM to reach the address space limits in 32-bit mode.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610/en-us

That's correct, but it doesn't mean what you've been saying it means. For x86-64 support, Windows must be able to use a 16TB address space (44 bits) (edit: they can make use of less, like Linux did at first, but they still have to work with the same total number of low bits). The more, the better, but that is the minimum, as used by 1st-gen Opterons (P.S. it appears MS is sticking to 16TB internally, for now). Device mappings are in the opposite end of the address space from your OS and applications (the middle is unusable by any current implementation).

The limit of 16GB is strictly an artificial limit on physical system RAM usable by Windows Home, and does not affect the usable address space. OEMs get better deals on the home OS versions, but not so much the Pro and up versions (IE, MS makes more money per unit, and per site, on those licenses). Today, I think it's outlived its usefulness, but it's one of those things MS has done for ages (Vista Home Basic had an 8GB limit, FI), we've become used to it, and most who might care get Pro anyway, so very few users actually get affected.

 

[Idontcare]

I know I already explained this to you two or three times before, but I will try again. VRAM in the above equation did not denote the installed VRAM.

I also explained to you how hardware reservation works, but I will try to explain it again but now in a different form. Microsoft in the link given above says:

Now say me if "hardware reservations" are remapped above 8 GB, why only 7.1 GB are usable?

Or answer this, if I install 8 GB more of RAM in the same computer which will be the usable RAM now? 16 GB? 15.1 GB? Other? :whiste:

galego, the problem here is that you are being absurdly pedantic over the semantics out of some embarrassing (for you) effort to save face.

Give it up man, back away with some dignity.

The OS can see and use 16GB if only the rest of the computer doesn't keep it from doing so, that is not an OS limitation, that is a per-OEM/vendor implementation limitation.

Regardless, you are losing the war with this ridiculous persistence of yours to try and win the battle on the basis of technicalities alone. No one is being convinced that you know what you are talking about, it is your own credibility you are undermining here.

If you care to be taken seriously in these forums going forward you would do well to not enter into silly pointless debates like this one here, it really does only reflect poorly on you and you should care to avoid garnering that sort of reputation for yourself (username) here.

If you don't care about any of that then folks will, and perhaps rightly so, conclude you joined the AnandTech Forums just to troll the existing community.

How you proceed, given this feedback, is up to you, but all eyes are on you. This is your moment to show that you can be reasoned with, or not, up to you.

 

[galego]

The lowest 1MB will remain effectively unusable due to BIOS/real-mode compatibility. Why some boards, like mine, take a wee bit more, I have no idea (I'm not exactly losing sleep over that 1MB, either, though).

<snip>

The apparent reduction in memory will be the same regardless of 64-bit OS (it's not a Windows-specific issue), and will affect any users with those boards, and enough RAM to reach the address space limits in 32-bit mode.

Thanks by the clarification and the corrections. Appreciate them.

I think maximum reserved I saw is something as 1.5 or 1.6 Gb. I have seen from maximum usable RAM of 15.9 GB to as low as 14 GB.

I must confess I never saw users reporting 16 GB full usable of installed 16 GB RAM on home premium. Some of you? And I must confess that I never found anyone with this problem in linux which did me believe it was specific of windows.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Thanks by the clarification and the corrections. Appreciate them.

I think maximum reserved I saw is something as 1.5 or 1.6 Gb. I have seen from maximum usable RAM of 15.9 GB to as low as 14 GB.

I must confess I never saw users reporting 16 GB full usable of installed 16 GB RAM on home premium. Some of you? And I must confess that I never found anyone with this problem in linux which did me believe it was specific of windows.

It applies to any OS, Linux, BSD etc all included.

 

[Cerb]

And I must confess that I never found anyone with this problem in linux which did me believe it was specific of windows.

I think that's more due to the level of technical knowledge and interest of most Linux users. My father, FI, more or less had his hand forced in an upgrade, with a G33 board, that, with 8GB installed, would only give ~3.2GB usable. Said desktop never ran Windows. I'm pretty sure that he never went and said anything about it, like on a forum or anything. A little research, finding that some others had similar problems, with the same RAM amount shown in 32-bit as 64-bit, and then he just went and replaced the board and CPU, re-purposing the limited one.

Until maybe 2007, it wasn't too uncommon for boards to keep the memory hole that was required for the mapping overlays. Since it also wasn't until around 2007 that 2GB unbuffered DDR2 was being done without flaky stacked chips, there very well may have been technical issues, in-so-far-as not being able to test adequately with larger RAM amounts, before some parts of a given design needed to be finalized.

 

[BD2003]

Damn, talk about a derailment.

 

[Ajay]

Damn, talk about a derailment.

Over virtual memory 101! Fortunately, it's all sorted now, until the next person comes along. It's probably happened to all of us at some point. At least there is some real useful knowledge being disseminated.