Vista Ultimate 64-bit 8GB on ASUS 3A32-MVP Deluxe

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrKit
  • Start date Start date
M

MrKit

I have an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Series Wifi Edition motherboard, which is
capable of running 8GB of RAM. In have a Phenom 9500 quad-core cpu, which is
64-bit. I have 4 DIMMS of KVR667D2N5/2G, which is the RAM the motherboard
manufacturer says runs in the board at 8GB.

I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Sp1 and Windows XP Pro SP 2 as
dual-booting Os'.

I cannot boot to the desktop with 4GB of RAM in, and have tried all the RAM
DIMMS alone and in 4GB configurations of all which works. It is in continual
reboot with 8GB installed.

I tried the KB929777 patch for 64-bit Vista, but it reported that it is not
for this system.

ASUS claims that the master boot record is the problem, but VISTA always
crashes before it will let me fix the master boot record, or reinstall Vista
or anything.

If you can help, please do so.
 
Remove XP. Find out how to run Vista at 8GB before you consider doing
anything else. You have to establish if the chipset can even support Vista
x64 on your board with four dimms installed. I believe you are using DDR2
667 memory so that should not be the issue. The problem is probably one of
timings and not software.
 
Thanks, but not thanks. I am not going to destroy my XP installation and then
go through later on reinstalling it, begging on the phone for Microsoft to
activate it because it has been reinstalled so many times (back when
Microsoft insisted I uninstall it in order to get support - now at least my
support has run out and I can't afford their paid support for this overpriced
OS).


Taking away the functionality I have is not the answer.

Kingston, the DIMM manufacturer, gave me the timing and other settings for
the memory. It is also programmed on the DIMMS themselves, to be read
directly by the BIOS. And, since the BIOS properly reports the 8GB of RAM,
which is prior to the OS running, the DIMMS are working properly. It MUST be
an OS issue.

The BIOS accepts the RAM. It is the OS (XP Pro and Vista) that are having
the problem.

Remember, I tested each DIMM independently and then with another. They work.
The system will boot with 1GB, 2 GB, or 4GB using those exact DIMMS. It just
will not boot once the total is over 4GB.

The motherboard and memory manufacturers say it is an OS issue. I'm no
expert, but what little I know seems to indicate that they are right.
 
Incorrect. The POST showing all the ram is important but does not mean an
OS will be stable. This is a known issue and involves many hardware issues.
A 64bit OS is more demanding on a memory controller than a 32bit OS even in
4GB of ram. It is called the "fourth damn dimm" problem and you probably
won't find a software solution.

Just because a mobo is spec'd to support 8GB of ram and spec'd to support
certain dram speeds does NOT mean that the board can support 8GB at the
higher rated speeds using a 64bit OS.

But I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.
 
Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.

The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not be
able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues like
that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista because
the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.

Oh well.
 
Colin said:
Curious, that is specific to 32bit Vista. The OP's issue is an unstable
computer running 64bit Windows on 8GB.

The integrated memory controller in the phenom quad he is using may not
be able to handle the configuration. I have read that there are issues
like that with some phenoms. However, the OP insists it must be Vista
because the mobo maker couldn't have gotten it wrong.

Oh well.
Click to expand...


Yes, Asus have got it wrong before. My old machine says it can take up
to 2MB but install that and it reports something off the wall like 50
bytes or something and crashes. New BIOS does not fix, it is a hardware
addressing defect apparently.
 
I never claimed to have superior knowledge of the subject. I just gave my
reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was a software problem. Again,
each DIMM works perfectly well on its own or in combination with any other of
them. It is only when 3 or 4 are used that the problem occurs.

I have extensively tested the hardware and software to determine the cause
and solution. Now, if I arrive at an improper conclusion, I am teachable and
willing to try other things. I am just not willing to uninstall Windows XP
Pro in order to try and fix something in Windows Vista. Giving an answer here
does not mean the recipient MUST obey everything you say to do.

I think your comment "But I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject"
is unhelpful and downright rude. I want help from someone who wants to help
me rather than someone who wants to ridicule me. This is a computer issue,
which should be unemotional. I just want to solve it without the personality
issues.
 
On the surface I would agree with you about ASUS. They can and do make
mistakes or misrepresent things in order to sell their products sometimes, or
to keep from fulfilling their duties as spelled out in their warranty.
However, I did talk to the people at Kingston, who tested the motherboard
model at 8GB with their memory. They are the originators of the claim that
the board could run at 8GBs using this particular memory model.

It is possible, I suppose, that the memory controller on the Phenom is the
problem, but what I need is a definate test to make absolute certain that
this is the cause. If it is, I can then attack it from there, fixing the
problem or returning/replacing the cpu. However, this would be too expensive
unless there was solid, verifiable evidence that the memory controller is the
problem.

I know nothing of memory controllers on cpus. I just first heard about them
a few days ago. So, I don't know how they work or anything. However, it just
seems to me that if the BIOS accepts and reports the 8GBs, then doesn't than
mean the motherboard and cpu have also accepted it? I am willing to contact
the cpu manufacturer. I just need to learn more about the memory controller
 
The problem is timings while accessing the memory. The BIOS is simply
reporting the presence of devices compatible with the mobo. The BIOS is not
predicting success of an installed OS.

For mobo manufacturers and cpu makers, it is a real estate problem. That is
why I call it the "fourth damn dimm" problem sometimes. The electrical
distance out and back from the memory controller to the furthest dimm
determines the maximum frequency that can be supported and also sustain
stability. There is a point at which the memory controller is overwhelmed
or cannot keep up. Slightly increasing the dram voltage (no more than 0.1v)
can help in a marginal situation as can lowering the dram speed if the
highest rated ram for the mobo is in use. I think you are already using 667
ram which is a very comfortable dram speed for current boards so I don't see
that as an issue. But the memory controller is integrated on the Phenom so
while the cpu is compatible with the board and 8GB of ram is compatible with
the board, is your model Phenom AND 8GB of your ram compatible on your mobo?
That is the question. It is never the individual component specs but the
combination that is such a headache to work out at times.
 
Right. I agree with you there. As I said, I did contact the DIMM manufacturer
and get the exact timing and voltage to use with this memory as well as this
motherboard. They also said that each DIMM is embedded with the SPD which
tells the BIOS which timing and voltage to use. In this case, they are cas
latency 5, ras cas 5, row precharged delay 5 and voltage 1.8. I even hard-set
these in the BIOS to override the SPD with the same results. To me, this
eliminates the SPD as the problem. The BIOS had read it properly and set it
for the DIMMS in the first place.

And, I contacted AMD, the manufacturer or the Phenom 9500 in order to
investigate any issues there - with the memory controller or something else.

ASUS, Kingston and AMD all say that the BIOS is properly reading the SPD in
the DIMMS and utilizing all the RAM. They each say this is an OS issue.
Microsoft will not discuss the issue with me for less than $59 despite the
fact that I paid full price for both Microsoft Os' in use on the computer.
When one pays $399 for an operating system, they should get better treatment.

This is the first incident I ever brought here. All previous issues that
MIGHT be Microsoft-related I handled alone, with friends, or with Microsoft
in the first 90 days. For one thing, although I have been using computers
almost daily since 1978, I am not a good typist and it takes a long time to
write these messages and remove most of the errors.

I had hoped to run into someone with my same motherboard, cpu, memory and
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit edition, to see how they make it all play
nicely together. That would have been great, but since it didn't happen, I
get to deal with real life on life's terms.

Frankly, all I am left to do is to examine the issue from all possible
sides, and try those solutions which are the least destructive and seem most
likely to work.
 
If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about
requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64
bit Vista with 8GB installed.
 
If you a retail copy of the OS then you are entitled to free installation
support, period. The only other possibility is an OEM pack, and you would
be out of luck there. The purchaser of an OEM pack is responsible for
supporting the customer for whom he installed the software.

I would simplify. I would get XP off for the time being. I would focus on
Vista because it is the one that can access 8GB of ram. XP can't anyway.
You can always reinstall XP from an image to a second partition or drive and
do the usual repair of the dual-boot startup from the MS KB article on
installing XP second, or by using VistaBoot Pro. It is really hard to
troubleshoot a computer as it is and simplification is priceless. In fact,
it is an art form. :)
 
Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That
is the workaround.

But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is a
problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first
addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving
memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all the
references are specifically 32bit Windows.

The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point it
discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most
64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box
that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only see
3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user. Notice
that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of Windows is
required.

Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how
much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but
by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part
should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere.

PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a
Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a
carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must
be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to
its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of
Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE
compatible? :)
 
Everything you say is true. I posted the link since their was some
information in it that applied to the subject of this thread and which might
be of benefit to MrKit. I certainly was not trying to imply that the link's
content would solve the Op's problem.
 
It's a good link. I usually snip all but the 32bit stuff. Frankly I'll be
glad to see the issue die of old age someday when all new computers come
with 64bit Windows. Most users just don't have the computer background to
sort it out.
 
Colin said:
Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to
how much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program
space, but by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the
PAE part should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere.

PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in
a Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also
requires a carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware
and software must be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software
would bring a system to its knees. That's why you only see support
written into server editions of Windows. When was the last time you
checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE compatible? :)
Click to expand...

Actually, it is not about program space (virtual address space), because
that does not change in pae mode. It only affects (bad) drivers that
takes for granted that nothing will ever exists above 4G. Normal
applications never sees anything more than 32bit addresses, and there
cannot be affected.
 
I installed Vista initially about 18 months ago. The 90-day tech support has
long since expired. I mentioned that in at least a couple of my earlier
messages.

Both Windows XP Pro 64-bit AND Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit claim to be
able to use 8GB of memory.

I repeat something else I said more than once before - I will NOT be
removing my XP installation. It works, and I use it for things I cannot do in
Vista. It is much faster than Vista. There are many things that work in XP
and not Vista. Besides all that, it takes too long and is a big hassle to
re-install XP and then call in and beg for an activation when it won't
activate over the internet because so many tech support people in the
beginning told me to uninstall it. I used up the standard number of allowed
XP installs just doing what Microsoft said way back then.

So, since I am unwilling to remove XP, I am only looking for solutions that
do not require me to remove Windows XP, especially since no one has presented
one shred of evidence that XP is causing any kind of problem whatsoever. I
won't destroy something that's working in order to fight with something that
isn't working.

This is computer science, not an art class. Computers are black-and-white.
Art is relative.
 
Colin is the guru of 8GB memory support and addressing in this and several
other newsgroups.
He assumed that when you mentioned XP that you did not mean the 64bit
version of XP.
All versions of Vista can run 64 bit vista and can support more the 4GB of
memory. The 32bit versions can not support more the 4GB for any one process
however.
One difference between memory support in memory support in XP and in Vista
is that when Vista boots it will test the speed of all the memory to insure
that it is all running at the same speed. If it is not then it only
recognizes the slower memory.
 
Curious said:
One difference between memory support in memory support in XP and in
Vista is that when Vista boots it will test the speed of all the memory
to insure that it is all running at the same speed. If it is not then it
only recognizes the slower memory.
Click to expand...

That is a job for the BIOS. It programs the memory controller, not the OS.
 
Back
Top