Had bought 128GB, but the ASUS ROG MOBO I am using, can't handle a full
128GB (freaks out and drops back down to 4GB).
Windows can see that the full 128GB exists, but identifies 124.5 GB of
it as "System Reserved".
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Had bought 128GB, but the ASUS ROG MOBO I am using, can't handle a full >>128GB (freaks out and drops back down to 4GB).
Windows can see that the full 128GB exists, but identifies 124.5 GB of
it as "System Reserved".
This sounds to me like a Windows problem, not a problem of the board.
We have a number of systems, many of them with ASUS boards, with 128GB
RAM, and they all work fine, but of course none of them runs Windows.
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Had bought 128GB, but the ASUS ROG MOBO I am using, can't handle a full >>>128GB (freaks out and drops back down to 4GB).
Windows can see that the full 128GB exists, but identifies 124.5 GB of
it as "System Reserved".
This sounds to me like a Windows problem, not a problem of the board.
We have a number of systems, many of them with ASUS boards, with 128GB
RAM, and they all work fine, but of course none of them runs Windows.
The workstation still under my desk at work (delivered 2015, a
replacement has finally arrived end of last year) has 512 GB of
main memory. It ran using full memory using Windows 8.1,
and currently runs Windows 10.
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Had bought 128GB, but the ASUS ROG MOBO I am using, can't handle a full >>>>128GB (freaks out and drops back down to 4GB).
Windows can see that the full 128GB exists, but identifies 124.5 GB of >>>>it as "System Reserved".
This sounds to me like a Windows problem, not a problem of the board.
We have a number of systems, many of them with ASUS boards, with 128GB
RAM, and they all work fine, but of course none of them runs Windows.
The workstation still under my desk at work (delivered 2015, a
replacement has finally arrived end of last year) has 512 GB of
main memory. It ran using full memory using Windows 8.1,
and currently runs Windows 10.
Different variants of Windows support different amounts of memory.
See, e.g., ><https://www.compuram.de/blog/wie-viel-ram-lasst-sich-unter-32-bit-und-64-bit-betriebssystemen-maximal-adressieren/>
This says that, e.g., Windows 11 Home only supports 128GB, and Windows
11 Enterprize 32-bit supports 4GB. Interesting entries in this table
are:
Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition 32-Bit 128GB
Windows 2008 Server Datacenter 32-Bit 64GB
Makes you wonder why they reduced the capabilities between 2003 and
2008.
On 1/9/2024 4:38 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Had bought 128GB, but the ASUS ROG MOBO I am using, can't handle a full >>>>> 128GB (freaks out and drops back down to 4GB).
Windows can see that the full 128GB exists, but identifies 124.5 GB of >>>>> it as "System Reserved".
This sounds to me like a Windows problem, not a problem of the board.
We have a number of systems, many of them with ASUS boards, with 128GB >>>> RAM, and they all work fine, but of course none of them runs Windows.
The workstation still under my desk at work (delivered 2015, a
replacement has finally arrived end of last year) has 512 GB of
main memory. It ran using full memory using Windows 8.1,
and currently runs Windows 10.
Different variants of Windows support different amounts of memory.
See, e.g.,
<https://www.compuram.de/blog/wie-viel-ram-lasst-sich-unter-32-bit-und-64-bit-betriebssystemen-maximal-adressieren/>
This says that, e.g., Windows 11 Home only supports 128GB, and Windows
11 Enterprize 32-bit supports 4GB. Interesting entries in this table
are:
Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition 32-Bit 128GB
Windows 2008 Server Datacenter 32-Bit 64GB
Makes you wonder why they reduced the capabilities between 2003 and
2008.
I am running Windows 10 Professional, it is supposed to be able to
support 2TB of RAM apparently...
But, whatever is going on, seemingly 112GB is fine, but 128GB is not...
On 1/9/2024 4:38 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Had bought 128GB, but the ASUS ROG MOBO I am using, can't handle a
full
128GB (freaks out and drops back down to 4GB).
Windows can see that the full 128GB exists, but identifies 124.5 GB of >>>>> it as "System Reserved".
This sounds to me like a Windows problem, not a problem of the board.
We have a number of systems, many of them with ASUS boards, with 128GB >>>> RAM, and they all work fine, but of course none of them runs Windows.
The workstation still under my desk at work (delivered 2015, a
replacement has finally arrived end of last year) has 512 GB of
main memory. It ran using full memory using Windows 8.1,
and currently runs Windows 10.
Different variants of Windows support different amounts of memory.
See, e.g.,
<https://www.compuram.de/blog/wie-viel-ram-lasst-sich-unter-32-bit-und-64-bit-betriebssystemen-maximal-adressieren/>
This says that, e.g., Windows 11 Home only supports 128GB, and Windows
11 Enterprize 32-bit supports 4GB. Interesting entries in this table
are:
Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition 32-Bit 128GB
Windows 2008 Server Datacenter 32-Bit 64GB
Makes you wonder why they reduced the capabilities between 2003 and
2008.
I am running Windows 10 Professional, it is supposed to be able to
support 2TB of RAM apparently...
But, whatever is going on, seemingly 112GB is fine, but 128GB is not...
On 1/8/2024 5:24 AM, Robert Finch wrote:
On 2024-01-08 3:08 a.m., BGB wrote:
My issue with larger boards is the system build times. At some point
it is not practical as a hobby because builds take too long. It takes
about an hour or so to build the system for the current board. Not
keen on the idea of day long build times.
As the moment, my build times (on the XC7A200T) are around 25 minutes.
Though, this is not using the full FPGA, and with a fair bit of timing
slack at the moment. Takes a lot longer if timing is tight.
On 1/9/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Looking elsewhere, it says that the AMD B450 chipset has a 128GB limit.
Not sure if just for RAM, or if this would also include MMIO for PCIe
devices and similar...
Looking elsewhere, it says that the AMD B450 chipset has a 128GB limit.
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
On 1/9/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Looking elsewhere, it says that the AMD B450 chipset has a 128GB limit.
Not sure if just for RAM, or if this would also include MMIO for PCIe
devices and similar...
Almost certainly the latter. Which explains the missing GB.
Different variants of Windows support different amounts of memory.
See, e.g., ><https://www.compuram.de/blog/wie-viel-ram-lasst-sich-unter-32-bit-und-64-bit-betriebssystemen-maximal-adressieren/>
This says that, e.g., Windows 11 Home only supports 128GB, and Windows
11 Enterprize 32-bit supports 4GB. Interesting entries in this table
are:
Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition 32-Bit 128GB
Windows 2008 Server Datacenter 32-Bit 64GB
Makes you wonder why they reduced the capabilities between 2003 and
2008.
I remember working with a fairly large CPLD in the late 90's, with a
16-bit Windows system. It could take 2 or 3 hours for the build, if
it fitted - and 6 to 10 hours if it failed. And being 16-bit Windows,
the system was useless for anything else while the build was running.
That was tedious development work!
On 1/10/2024 11:04 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Looking elsewhere, it says that the AMD B450 chipset has a 128GB limit.
AM4 generally does not support more than 128GB RAM, because DDR4 can
only have 16GB/chip-select and channel, and AM4 only supports 4
chip-selects per channel and 2 channels. But B450 certainly does
support 128GB. We have 128GB in at least one machine with a B450
board:
# dmidecode|grep -B1 B450
Manufacturer: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC.
Product Name: TUF B450M-PLUS GAMING
# dmesg
...
[ 3.859281] EDAC MC: UMC0 chip selects:
[ 3.859282] EDAC amd64: MC: 0: 16384MB 1: 16384MB
[ 3.860295] EDAC amd64: MC: 2: 16384MB 3: 16384MB
[ 3.861280] EDAC MC: UMC1 chip selects:
[ 3.861280] EDAC amd64: MC: 0: 16384MB 1: 16384MB
[ 3.862238] EDAC amd64: MC: 2: 16384MB 3: 16384MB
...
# free
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 131832604 104094356 17986860 24772 11018444 27738248
Swap: 0 0 0
Apparently the kernel uses a little over 2GB for its own purposes (the
number of total KB shown is only 125.7GB).
Not sure, is this with an integrated or discrete GPU?...
Currently 2733 MHz IIRC, as 2933 MHz seemed to have stability issues
(the new RAM modules, from Corsair, claimed to be good for 3200 MHz, but
I didn't see stable results much over 2733; was running 2933 with the
old modules, which IIRC claimed 3000 MHz...).
IIRC, I have Windows currently set up with around 384GB of swap space,
spread across several HDDs.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
I remember working with a fairly large CPLD in the late 90's, with a
16-bit Windows system. It could take 2 or 3 hours for the build, if
it fitted - and 6 to 10 hours if it failed. And being 16-bit
Windows, the system was useless for anything else while the build
was running. That was tedious development work!
I have a similar memory but I'm not sure what kind of Windows it
was. FPGA was something fairly large for the time, the FPGA tool was
probably early Quartus and there was no progress indication at all.
When you hit start, mouse cursor changed to a hourglass for hours and
then it was done, pass or fail. I think someone rigged the then new
fangled invention called a web camera to watch the display so we
didn't have to walk to the machine to see if it was finished or not.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:27:59 +0200
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
I remember working with a fairly large CPLD in the late 90's, with a
16-bit Windows system. It could take 2 or 3 hours for the build, if
it fitted - and 6 to 10 hours if it failed. And being 16-bit
Windows, the system was useless for anything else while the build
was running. That was tedious development work!
I have a similar memory but I'm not sure what kind of Windows it
was. FPGA was something fairly large for the time, the FPGA tool was
probably early Quartus and there was no progress indication at all.
When you hit start, mouse cursor changed to a hourglass for hours and
then it was done, pass or fail. I think someone rigged the then new
fangled invention called a web camera to watch the display so we
didn't have to walk to the machine to see if it was finished or not.
What David describes does not sound like Altera.
By late 90s in Altera world everybody were using MAX+Plus II. It was
32-bit.
Several posters on comp.arch are running their cpu designs on FPGAs.
I have several questions:
1. Which particular FPGA chip? (not just family but the particular SKU)
2. On what development board?
3. Using what tools?
Thanks,
brian
On 1/13/2024 2:45 PM, BGB wrote:
*: At the moment, basically any triangle with a circumference larger
than ~ 21 pixels, or 28 pixels for a quad, will be subdivided. Going
too much bigger makes the affine warping a lot more obvious.
Self-correction:
It is 144 for a triangle and 192 for a quad, 48 pixels on each side...
I had mistakenly done a square-root here, noting that I compared these
values as distance^2, but then forgot to take into account that the
values themselves were squared, so it was 48 pixels linear, rather than square-root of 48 pixels.
Using 7 pixels would have probably led to a lot less affine distortion,
but would have have a much higher overhead. Goal being mostly to break
apart large primitives where the affine distortion is more obvious.
BGB wrote:
On 1/13/2024 2:45 PM, BGB wrote:
*: At the moment, basically any triangle with a circumference larger
than ~ 21 pixels, or 28 pixels for a quad, will be subdivided. Going
too much bigger makes the affine warping a lot more obvious.
Self-correction:
 It is 144 for a triangle and 192 for a quad, 48 pixels on each
side...
I had mistakenly done a square-root here, noting that I compared these
values as distance^2, but then forgot to take into account that the
values themselves were squared, so it was 48 pixels linear, rather
than square-root of 48 pixels.
Using 7 pixels would have probably led to a lot less affine
distortion, but would have have a much higher overhead. Goal being
mostly to break apart large primitives where the affine distortion is
more obvious.
I am pretty sure that the original SW Quake used 16-pixel spans, with a single 1/Z division for each span, so interpolated between affine and perspective correct?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:44:24 |
| Calls: | 6,682 |
| Files: | 12,222 |
| Messages: | 5,342,793 |