Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
"DK" <dk@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message news:HP4Wq.15425$Sh7.6801@newsfe15.iad...
>I installed GeForce 210 into Asus M4N68T-M-V2.
>
> The label on a card very clearly indicates 512 Mb. However,
> XP reports only 3 Gb memory out of 4 and both CPU-Z and
> SIW ("System Information for Windows") report 1024 Mb
> video memory.
>
> I have no use for anything above 512 Mb of video memory but
> once in a while having more than 3 GB memory is useful for
> a few things that I do. So I am trying to understand what's going
> on and how it can be solved. I can't find anything in BIOS that
> would relate to the video memory is concerned.
>
> Any ideas? Thanks,
>
> Dima
>
>
You don't mention if you're running 32- or 64-bit WinXP, but if you have 32-bit, you're not going to show the whole 4GB
anyhow. Generally, only 2.5 to 3.25GB will be shown, unless you have 64-bit Windows.
Did you disable the on-board Nvidia 7025 in BIOS after installing the 210? That could be where the rest of 1024MB is
coming from. (I have that same MB.)
--
SC Tom
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
SC Tom wrote:
>
> "DK" <dk@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
> news:HP4Wq.15425$Sh7.6801@newsfe15.iad...
>> I installed GeForce 210 into Asus M4N68T-M-V2.
>>
>> The label on a card very clearly indicates 512 Mb. However,
>> XP reports only 3 Gb memory out of 4 and both CPU-Z and
>> SIW ("System Information for Windows") report 1024 Mb
>> video memory.
>>
>> I have no use for anything above 512 Mb of video memory but
>> once in a while having more than 3 GB memory is useful for
>> a few things that I do. So I am trying to understand what's going
>> on and how it can be solved. I can't find anything in BIOS that
>> would relate to the video memory is concerned.
>>
>> Any ideas? Thanks,
>>
>> Dima
>>
>>
> You don't mention if you're running 32- or 64-bit WinXP, but if you have
> 32-bit, you're not going to show the whole 4GB anyhow. Generally, only
> 2.5 to 3.25GB will be shown, unless you have 64-bit Windows.
>
> Did you disable the on-board Nvidia 7025 in BIOS after installing the
> 210? That could be where the rest of 1024MB is coming from. (I have that
> same MB.)
Onchip VGA Frame Buffer Size. Can be adjusted down to 32MB but
apparently doesn't have zero as an option in the Asus manual.
Perhaps the real BIOS installed in the motherboard, has better
options, not documented in the manual ? Somehow, I doubt this is
causing the "1GB" report from DirectX though.
*******
What's interesting, is a Gigabyte board with 7025 Northbridge offers these options.
"Onchip VGA Frame Buffer Size" [Auto, Disable, 32M, 64M, 128M, 256M]
"Onboard GPU" [Enable if no Ext PEG, Always Enable]
and that is a *perfect* set of options, because it gives you everything
you could possible expect from 7025 IGP (including the ability to
turn it off). The Asus motherboard manual doesn't offer that nice
set of options. So Gigabyte did a better job in their BIOS design.
*******
The behavior seen doesn't bother me that much. I have a 512MB card, I have
4GB memory, a 32 bit OS, and I get "3GB available" RAM reported. And that
is the BIOS decision as to what cut off point to remap memory above 4GB
(where my 32 bit OS can't see it). But DirectX on my system reports
512MB as expected.
You can also use Device Manager (Start : Run : devmgmt.msc) , use
View : Resources By Type and use that to examine what the various
piece of hardware are using.
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
DK wrote:
> In article <jgblb3$vnt$1@dont-email.me>, dk@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>
>>> Onchip VGA Frame Buffer Size
>> Once PCIE --> PCI --> IGP sequence is chosen, this option is
>> not available.
>
> I take it back. There is no such option in the BIOS that I can find
> anywhere - regardless of the setting for video.
>
>
Which implies that the IGP is disabled, as soon as the PCI Express
video card is detected ?
As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of
the Device Manager, if you can arrange it. I do screen captures
of selected windows, with the GIMP graphics editor, but there
are other ways to do it.
If you can see a real, 1GB segment mapped for the video card,
then perhaps it does have that much memory on board. (In my example
here, the video card is 512MB.)
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:
> As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
> ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of the
> Device Manager, if you can arrange it. I do screen captures of
> selected windows, with the GIMP graphics editor, but there are
> other ways to do it.
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
John Doe wrote:
> Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>> ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of the
>> Device Manager, if you can arrange it. I do screen captures of
>> selected windows, with the GIMP graphics editor, but there are
>> other ways to do it.
>
> Hold "alt" while pressing "print screen".
>
Once it's pulled into GIMP, I save as GIF and upload to imageshack.
Since I need an image editor anyway, easier to do it from the GIMP
"acquire" menu. (In the example in this thread, the image is
annotated.) The "acquire" image automatically opens at the
right resolution choices. Whereas if I use a copy/paste buffer, GIMP
doesn't behave very smart about it. I have to paste, then crop.
My upload is pitifully slow, and switching to (8 bit) GIF for
technical pictures of dialog boxes is good enough.
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>>> ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of the
>>> Device Manager, if you can arrange it. I do screen captures of
>>> selected windows, with the GIMP graphics editor, but there are
>>> other ways to do it.
>>
>> Hold "alt" while pressing "print screen".
>>
>
> Once it's pulled into GIMP, I save as GIF and upload to
> imageshack. Since I need an image editor anyway, easier to do it
> from the GIMP "acquire" menu. (In the example in this thread,
> the image is annotated.) The "acquire" image automatically opens
> at the right resolution choices. Whereas if I use a copy/paste
> buffer, GIMP doesn't behave very smart about it. I have to
> paste, then crop.
>
> My upload is pitifully slow, and switching to (8 bit) GIF for
> technical pictures of dialog boxes is good enough.
I would do "alt" while pressing "print screen". Then say "Drawing"
to open Windows XP picture editor. Then say "set" to paste the
clipboard image. Then verbally click and drag to crop the upper
and left sides. Then press escape to release the picture. Then
position the pointer to the correct crop location for the lower
and right sides, note the pixel location, and set the picture
attributes accordingly. Then save as JPG or whatever.
If I were doing lots of pictures, I might look for something
better, like maybe clicking and dragging a rectangle to crop the
picture. Also, I'm not sure how well the Windows XP picture editor
does for saving pictures in a compact form, relative to other
programs. I think it usually depends on the source. My most recent
picture posted here to UseNet was a tiny 3 kB.
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
dk no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
> Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:
>
>>As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>>ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of the
>>Device Manager, if you can arrange it.
>
> Here it is: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9590/memorye.png
>
> I am not sure how to translate the hex memory ranges into
> megabytes.
Me either, but since I know I'll be corrected if wrong...
The second value has six more Fs. That translates into decimal
16777215. Then maybe you multiply that by 32 bits to get
536870880. Looks like 512 MB would be closer than 1 GB?
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
"DK" <dk@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message news:jgbmd9$6kb$1@dont-email.me...
> In article <jgblb3$vnt$1@dont-email.me>, dk@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>
>>> Onchip VGA Frame Buffer Size
>>
>>Once PCIE --> PCI --> IGP sequence is chosen, this option is
>>not available.
>
> I take it back. There is no such option in the BIOS that I can find
> anywhere - regardless of the setting for video.
>
>
I don't think the Frame Buffer setting will show at all with the 210 installed, only when it is out and you're running
on the onboard chip.
GPU-Z is a different program than CPU-Z; it's for video cards/chipsets only.
I'm sorry I misled you about disabling the onboard video. I think I still had my old M2NPV-VM MB on my mind when I
posted that; it had the separate options of enabling/disabling.
--
SC Tom
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
DK wrote:
> In article <jgboc1$k97$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>> ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of
>> the Device Manager, if you can arrange it.
>
> Here it is:
> http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9590/memorye.png
>
> I am not sure how to translate the hex memory ranges into megabytes.
>
To reference another user's allocations, I couldn't find a Device
Manager picture for Geforce 210, so I grabbed the first Linux
one I could find.
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GT218 [GeForce 210] (rev a2)
Subsystem: eVga.com. Corp. Device 1212
Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 18
Memory at fb000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16M]
Memory at b0000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=256M]
Memory at ce000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=32M]
I/O ports at ef00 [size=128]
[virtual] Expansion ROM at c0000000 [disabled] [size=512K]
Capabilities: [60] Power Management version 3
Capabilities: [68] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+
Capabilities: [78] Express Endpoint, MSI 00
Capabilities: [b4] Vendor Specific Information: Len=14 <?>
Capabilities: [100] Virtual Channel
Capabilities: [128] Power Budgeting <?>
Capabilities: [600] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0001 Rev=1 Len=024 <?>
Kernel driver in use: nouveau
The three mappings, appear to match your mapping, in terms of size.
A 16MB, a 32MB, and a 256MB segment. So it's not even reporting as
a 512MB card (as the 256MB segment would be 512MB, if it was a 512MB
card). If could be, that the card is "TurboCache", and dynamically
allocates additional memory from system memory. But that would not
affect the "free" memory reported by the OS. It doesn't explain why
it reports as 1GB.
When I compare your map to my map, it looks like your computer
is avoiding the top-most 512MB, and I don't see a device listed
that corresponds to that range. That can happen, if a fixed
allocation is given to the built-in graphics. Some of your
hardware devices needing bus space, are at 0xDE, and 0xE0 to 0xFF
would be 512MB of space.
As near as I can determine, 512MB is just being wasted. And I
can't tell exactly why. Either a BIOS bug, or still related
to the IGP (integrated graphics).
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
On 02 Feb 2012 01:27:16 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>dk no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>
>> Paul <nospam needed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>>>ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of the
>>>Device Manager, if you can arrange it.
>>
>> Here it is: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9590/memorye.png
>>
>> I am not sure how to translate the hex memory ranges into
>> megabytes.
>
>Me either, but since I know I'll be corrected if wrong...
>
>The second value has six more Fs. That translates into decimal
>16777215. Then maybe you multiply that by 32 bits to get
>536870880. Looks like 512 MB would be closer than 1 GB?
It's already in bytes.
Besides, you're not looking at the main buffer. That's at C0000000
and it's 256mb.
>In article <jgboc1$k97$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>
>>As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>>ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of
>>the Device Manager, if you can arrange it.
>
>Here it is:
>http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9590/memorye.png
>
>I am not sure how to translate the hex memory ranges into megabytes.
Windows 7 calculator in programmer mode can deal with the math for you
quite easily.
I see three buffers on there:
256mb at C0000000
32mb at DC000000
16mb at DF000000
(I'm not counting the little one in low memory that exists to emulate
an old-fashioned VGA.)
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:27:13 -0800, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@hotmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:20:38 GMT, dk@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <jgboc1$k97$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As for the 1GB claim, use Device Manager and verify the memory
>>>ranges listed in there. Post a URL to a screen capture of
>>>the Device Manager, if you can arrange it.
>>
>>Here it is:
>>http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9590/memorye.png
>>
>>I am not sure how to translate the hex memory ranges into megabytes.
>
>Windows 7 calculator in programmer mode can deal with the math for you
>quite easily.
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
Somewhere on teh intarwebs DK wrote:
> In article <jgbags$25q$1@dont-email.me>, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Another way to check video resources, is with GPU-Z.
>
> CPU-Z reports 1024 Mb video.
Yeah, but he didn't say CPU-Z did he? CPU-Z is designed to give the most
accurate info about the CPU (odd that) and cursoty info about the rest of
the system.
*G*PU-Z does the same for the GPU. My laptop has some stupid ATI
'Hypermemory' thing going on where CPU-Z, DX-diag and most other hardware
diagnostics report twice as much VRAM as is actually there, as the system
can use sysRAM to 'top-up' VRAM. GPU-Z is the only utility that I know (or
rather that I use) that accurately reports physical VRAM.
If you're going to ask for help please don't glibly ignore one of the best
really helpful things posted.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
Also... If you're going to original post, please don't use the no-archive switch.
dk no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe01.iad.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware
> From: dk no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
> Subject: Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb???
> References: <HP4Wq.15425$Sh7.6801 newsfe15.iad> <jgbags$25q$1 dont-email.me> <jgblb3$vnt$1 dont-email.me> <jikhng$p3b$1 dont-email.me>
> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 3.11
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <2%j3r.2043$jH4.487 newsfe01.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ndlhejnloefhiijmbgokonecdgflkpaa
> X-Complaints-To: abuse charter.net
> X-Trace: bcpcmoabmkbflobllgdegddckechphcoopkfbpnmlinoagiind lhejnloefhiijmpdokmalfmihgibccinbgikpdpechdocofhfi anojehalfeimhabmmejieaknjdfgfdlbpmaelemcakjp
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:57:02 UTC
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:57:03 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1993
>
> In article <jikhng$p3b$1 dont-email.me>, "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy nospamyahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>Somewhere on teh intarwebs DK wrote:
>>> In article <jgbags$25q$1 dont-email.me>, "SC Tom" <sc tom.net> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>> Another way to check video resources, is with GPU-Z.
>>>
>>> CPU-Z reports 1024 Mb video.
>>
>>Yeah, but he didn't say CPU-Z did he? CPU-Z is designed to give the most
>>accurate info about the CPU (odd that) and cursoty info about the rest of
>>the system.
>>
>>*G*PU-Z does the same for the GPU. My laptop has some stupid ATI
>>'Hypermemory' thing going on where CPU-Z, DX-diag and most other hardware
>>diagnostics report twice as much VRAM as is actually there, as the system
>>can use sysRAM to 'top-up' VRAM. GPU-Z is the only utility that I know (or
>>rather that I use) that accurately reports physical VRAM.
>>
>>If you're going to ask for help please don't glibly ignore one of the best
>>really helpful things posted.
>
> Yes, same here. At some point I *did* notice the difference between
> CPU-Z and GPU-Z and yes, GPU-Z reports 512 MB, as it should.
>
>
Re: 512 Mb video card is reported to have 1024 Mb??? 
Linear Mode
