How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraWhat exactly were those 808X computers that would switch to 80386 upon Ctrl-Alt-Del?386SX, NES and how much did data lines really cost anyway?

How did Elite on the NES work?

Does a Draconic Bloodline sorcerer's doubled proficiency bonus for Charisma checks against dragons apply to all dragon types or only the chosen one?

TV series episode where humans nuke aliens before decrypting their message that states they come in peace

Page Layouts : 1 column , 2 columns-left , 2 columns-right , 3 column

Coin Game with infinite paradox

yticklabels on the right side of yaxis

Does using the Inspiration rules for character defects encourage My Guy Syndrome?

Where to find documentation for `whois` command options?

What is /etc/mtab in Linux?

What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?

Array Dynamic resize in heap

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

Contradiction:Maximum Power Transfer and High resistance of load

Why does the Cisco show run command not show the full version, while the show version command does?

Are there existing rules/lore for MTG planeswalkers?

Where can I find how to tex symbols for different fonts?

Why doesn't the university give past final exams' answers?

How long can a nation maintain a technological edge over the rest of the world?

Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space many times as possible so that it loose lot of kinetic energy over there?

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest

Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?

Are `mathfont` and `mathspec` intended for same purpose?

Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?

Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?



How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraWhat exactly were those 808X computers that would switch to 80386 upon Ctrl-Alt-Del?386SX, NES and how much did data lines really cost anyway?










19















I read on Wikipedia that 80386 could theoretically handle 4GiB of RAM. Knowing how long ago that was, I find it impossible to believe that anyone could actually connect as much to the CPU. So, given the constraints from motherboards and actual RAM chips existing at that time, how much RAM could one put together with an 80386?










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    Keep in mind that that's the virtual address space, and many operating systems used it to keep nice round numbers for process-space blocks.

    – chrylis
    Apr 5 at 16:09






  • 1





    I'm not claiming to know of any other kind of computer that used the 386, but when you say, "setup," can we assume that you mean, "made-for-Windows PC?"

    – Solomon Slow
    Apr 5 at 17:04







  • 1





    @chrylis The virtual address space of the 386 was 32 bit, but here we are talking about physical pins connected with wires. It is so physical address space, as it only can be.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 22:52






  • 1





    @peterh That was directed at the implicit question of "why so much address space if you couldn't possibly add it to the motherboard?"

    – chrylis
    Apr 6 at 1:08






  • 1





    It's probably worth noting that, with custom hardware and purpose-specific software, you could attach an infinite amount of ram to any processor (provided it has some sort of of IO). That's rather not what you're asking, though.

    – Fake Name
    Apr 6 at 6:47















19















I read on Wikipedia that 80386 could theoretically handle 4GiB of RAM. Knowing how long ago that was, I find it impossible to believe that anyone could actually connect as much to the CPU. So, given the constraints from motherboards and actual RAM chips existing at that time, how much RAM could one put together with an 80386?










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    Keep in mind that that's the virtual address space, and many operating systems used it to keep nice round numbers for process-space blocks.

    – chrylis
    Apr 5 at 16:09






  • 1





    I'm not claiming to know of any other kind of computer that used the 386, but when you say, "setup," can we assume that you mean, "made-for-Windows PC?"

    – Solomon Slow
    Apr 5 at 17:04







  • 1





    @chrylis The virtual address space of the 386 was 32 bit, but here we are talking about physical pins connected with wires. It is so physical address space, as it only can be.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 22:52






  • 1





    @peterh That was directed at the implicit question of "why so much address space if you couldn't possibly add it to the motherboard?"

    – chrylis
    Apr 6 at 1:08






  • 1





    It's probably worth noting that, with custom hardware and purpose-specific software, you could attach an infinite amount of ram to any processor (provided it has some sort of of IO). That's rather not what you're asking, though.

    – Fake Name
    Apr 6 at 6:47













19












19








19








I read on Wikipedia that 80386 could theoretically handle 4GiB of RAM. Knowing how long ago that was, I find it impossible to believe that anyone could actually connect as much to the CPU. So, given the constraints from motherboards and actual RAM chips existing at that time, how much RAM could one put together with an 80386?










share|improve this question














I read on Wikipedia that 80386 could theoretically handle 4GiB of RAM. Knowing how long ago that was, I find it impossible to believe that anyone could actually connect as much to the CPU. So, given the constraints from motherboards and actual RAM chips existing at that time, how much RAM could one put together with an 80386?







386






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 5 at 12:08









d33tahd33tah

19817




19817







  • 1





    Keep in mind that that's the virtual address space, and many operating systems used it to keep nice round numbers for process-space blocks.

    – chrylis
    Apr 5 at 16:09






  • 1





    I'm not claiming to know of any other kind of computer that used the 386, but when you say, "setup," can we assume that you mean, "made-for-Windows PC?"

    – Solomon Slow
    Apr 5 at 17:04







  • 1





    @chrylis The virtual address space of the 386 was 32 bit, but here we are talking about physical pins connected with wires. It is so physical address space, as it only can be.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 22:52






  • 1





    @peterh That was directed at the implicit question of "why so much address space if you couldn't possibly add it to the motherboard?"

    – chrylis
    Apr 6 at 1:08






  • 1





    It's probably worth noting that, with custom hardware and purpose-specific software, you could attach an infinite amount of ram to any processor (provided it has some sort of of IO). That's rather not what you're asking, though.

    – Fake Name
    Apr 6 at 6:47












  • 1





    Keep in mind that that's the virtual address space, and many operating systems used it to keep nice round numbers for process-space blocks.

    – chrylis
    Apr 5 at 16:09






  • 1





    I'm not claiming to know of any other kind of computer that used the 386, but when you say, "setup," can we assume that you mean, "made-for-Windows PC?"

    – Solomon Slow
    Apr 5 at 17:04







  • 1





    @chrylis The virtual address space of the 386 was 32 bit, but here we are talking about physical pins connected with wires. It is so physical address space, as it only can be.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 22:52






  • 1





    @peterh That was directed at the implicit question of "why so much address space if you couldn't possibly add it to the motherboard?"

    – chrylis
    Apr 6 at 1:08






  • 1





    It's probably worth noting that, with custom hardware and purpose-specific software, you could attach an infinite amount of ram to any processor (provided it has some sort of of IO). That's rather not what you're asking, though.

    – Fake Name
    Apr 6 at 6:47







1




1





Keep in mind that that's the virtual address space, and many operating systems used it to keep nice round numbers for process-space blocks.

– chrylis
Apr 5 at 16:09





Keep in mind that that's the virtual address space, and many operating systems used it to keep nice round numbers for process-space blocks.

– chrylis
Apr 5 at 16:09




1




1





I'm not claiming to know of any other kind of computer that used the 386, but when you say, "setup," can we assume that you mean, "made-for-Windows PC?"

– Solomon Slow
Apr 5 at 17:04






I'm not claiming to know of any other kind of computer that used the 386, but when you say, "setup," can we assume that you mean, "made-for-Windows PC?"

– Solomon Slow
Apr 5 at 17:04





1




1





@chrylis The virtual address space of the 386 was 32 bit, but here we are talking about physical pins connected with wires. It is so physical address space, as it only can be.

– peterh
Apr 5 at 22:52





@chrylis The virtual address space of the 386 was 32 bit, but here we are talking about physical pins connected with wires. It is so physical address space, as it only can be.

– peterh
Apr 5 at 22:52




1




1





@peterh That was directed at the implicit question of "why so much address space if you couldn't possibly add it to the motherboard?"

– chrylis
Apr 6 at 1:08





@peterh That was directed at the implicit question of "why so much address space if you couldn't possibly add it to the motherboard?"

– chrylis
Apr 6 at 1:08




1




1





It's probably worth noting that, with custom hardware and purpose-specific software, you could attach an infinite amount of ram to any processor (provided it has some sort of of IO). That's rather not what you're asking, though.

– Fake Name
Apr 6 at 6:47





It's probably worth noting that, with custom hardware and purpose-specific software, you could attach an infinite amount of ram to any processor (provided it has some sort of of IO). That's rather not what you're asking, though.

– Fake Name
Apr 6 at 6:47










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















31














I very much doubt that anyone would ever have seriously considered fitting 4 GiB in a 386-based system, let alone designing such a beast. (To put this into context, I remember seeing early 1 GiB Alpha servers on the factory floor of Digital’s plant in Scotland in 1994, and those machines were priced at around $250,000...)



The Red Hill hardware guide provides a number of examples. 386SX systems were limited to 16 MiB at most anyway, because of the limited number of address lines. For 386DX systems, a common configuration included 8 SIMM slots, for up to 32 MiB of RAM, but Red Hill’s golden oldies page lists one SIPP-based motherboard which might have been usable with 64 MiB. Some manufacturers produced expansion boards to add more memory — e.g. ALR systems had expansion boards supporting up to 48 MiB each. In early 1993, in the US, 4 MiB of RAM cost over $100.



I bought a 386DX/33 in 1992, with 8 MiB of RAM out of a maximum 32 MiB, and that was considered large at the time — enough to run Windows 3.1 or OS/2 very comfortably. I kept that system for four years, eventually switching to Linux, and never needed to add more memory.



In those days, even servers had “small” base configurations as presented in advertisements — see this 1990 ALR advert with a 386/33 and 5 MiB of RAM for a cool $6,290...






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

    – Bernhard Döbler
    Apr 5 at 13:48






  • 1





    Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:53






  • 1





    Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

    – Gnudiff
    Apr 5 at 18:28






  • 1





    Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

    – R..
    Apr 5 at 22:23






  • 1





    @R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 22:25


















19














We can see the datasheet of the 386DX here. The most important part is its pinout.



We have address lines from A2 to A31. It means, that yes, it could have handled 4GB memory on a motherboard. Although it is very unlikely, that any ordinary PC motherboard had been built with the required number of memory sockets at the time.



It is more likely, that it was used at most to make memory-mapped IO easier in embedded environments.1



(A0 and A1 are missing, because the cpu could address only 4byte memory operations. Essentially, it was an only 30-bit CPU, working with 32-bit "bytes". This trick is usual since the early 16-bit era.)



For example, the Weitek Abacus FPU was memory-mapped to 0x0C000000. Floating-point calculations could be done by writing the commands into a 64kB-block starting at far higher as any physical RAM ever could end (at the time... 192MByte), and then reading out the result with mov operands.




enter image description here






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:51






  • 1





    Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

    – Michael
    Apr 5 at 14:42






  • 3





    Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

    – Ruslan
    Apr 5 at 14:59






  • 4





    @Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 15:15






  • 2





    @Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:30


















6














As someone who had a 386, I was happy just to upgrade from 4MB RAM to 8MB RAM. Just think of all the cool things I can do now?! At that point, my motherboard could not contain anymore RAM IC's, so the only way to upgrade further would have been to get denser chips. But by the time I needed more RAM I was on to a 486. Yes, you're correct about the theoretical maximum but, at least for consumer level machines, ain't nobody doin' that.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:33






  • 1





    IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

    – Mazura
    Apr 5 at 21:54











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9579%2fhow-much-ram-could-one-put-in-a-typical-80386-setup%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









31














I very much doubt that anyone would ever have seriously considered fitting 4 GiB in a 386-based system, let alone designing such a beast. (To put this into context, I remember seeing early 1 GiB Alpha servers on the factory floor of Digital’s plant in Scotland in 1994, and those machines were priced at around $250,000...)



The Red Hill hardware guide provides a number of examples. 386SX systems were limited to 16 MiB at most anyway, because of the limited number of address lines. For 386DX systems, a common configuration included 8 SIMM slots, for up to 32 MiB of RAM, but Red Hill’s golden oldies page lists one SIPP-based motherboard which might have been usable with 64 MiB. Some manufacturers produced expansion boards to add more memory — e.g. ALR systems had expansion boards supporting up to 48 MiB each. In early 1993, in the US, 4 MiB of RAM cost over $100.



I bought a 386DX/33 in 1992, with 8 MiB of RAM out of a maximum 32 MiB, and that was considered large at the time — enough to run Windows 3.1 or OS/2 very comfortably. I kept that system for four years, eventually switching to Linux, and never needed to add more memory.



In those days, even servers had “small” base configurations as presented in advertisements — see this 1990 ALR advert with a 386/33 and 5 MiB of RAM for a cool $6,290...






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

    – Bernhard Döbler
    Apr 5 at 13:48






  • 1





    Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:53






  • 1





    Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

    – Gnudiff
    Apr 5 at 18:28






  • 1





    Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

    – R..
    Apr 5 at 22:23






  • 1





    @R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 22:25















31














I very much doubt that anyone would ever have seriously considered fitting 4 GiB in a 386-based system, let alone designing such a beast. (To put this into context, I remember seeing early 1 GiB Alpha servers on the factory floor of Digital’s plant in Scotland in 1994, and those machines were priced at around $250,000...)



The Red Hill hardware guide provides a number of examples. 386SX systems were limited to 16 MiB at most anyway, because of the limited number of address lines. For 386DX systems, a common configuration included 8 SIMM slots, for up to 32 MiB of RAM, but Red Hill’s golden oldies page lists one SIPP-based motherboard which might have been usable with 64 MiB. Some manufacturers produced expansion boards to add more memory — e.g. ALR systems had expansion boards supporting up to 48 MiB each. In early 1993, in the US, 4 MiB of RAM cost over $100.



I bought a 386DX/33 in 1992, with 8 MiB of RAM out of a maximum 32 MiB, and that was considered large at the time — enough to run Windows 3.1 or OS/2 very comfortably. I kept that system for four years, eventually switching to Linux, and never needed to add more memory.



In those days, even servers had “small” base configurations as presented in advertisements — see this 1990 ALR advert with a 386/33 and 5 MiB of RAM for a cool $6,290...






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

    – Bernhard Döbler
    Apr 5 at 13:48






  • 1





    Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:53






  • 1





    Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

    – Gnudiff
    Apr 5 at 18:28






  • 1





    Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

    – R..
    Apr 5 at 22:23






  • 1





    @R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 22:25













31












31








31







I very much doubt that anyone would ever have seriously considered fitting 4 GiB in a 386-based system, let alone designing such a beast. (To put this into context, I remember seeing early 1 GiB Alpha servers on the factory floor of Digital’s plant in Scotland in 1994, and those machines were priced at around $250,000...)



The Red Hill hardware guide provides a number of examples. 386SX systems were limited to 16 MiB at most anyway, because of the limited number of address lines. For 386DX systems, a common configuration included 8 SIMM slots, for up to 32 MiB of RAM, but Red Hill’s golden oldies page lists one SIPP-based motherboard which might have been usable with 64 MiB. Some manufacturers produced expansion boards to add more memory — e.g. ALR systems had expansion boards supporting up to 48 MiB each. In early 1993, in the US, 4 MiB of RAM cost over $100.



I bought a 386DX/33 in 1992, with 8 MiB of RAM out of a maximum 32 MiB, and that was considered large at the time — enough to run Windows 3.1 or OS/2 very comfortably. I kept that system for four years, eventually switching to Linux, and never needed to add more memory.



In those days, even servers had “small” base configurations as presented in advertisements — see this 1990 ALR advert with a 386/33 and 5 MiB of RAM for a cool $6,290...






share|improve this answer















I very much doubt that anyone would ever have seriously considered fitting 4 GiB in a 386-based system, let alone designing such a beast. (To put this into context, I remember seeing early 1 GiB Alpha servers on the factory floor of Digital’s plant in Scotland in 1994, and those machines were priced at around $250,000...)



The Red Hill hardware guide provides a number of examples. 386SX systems were limited to 16 MiB at most anyway, because of the limited number of address lines. For 386DX systems, a common configuration included 8 SIMM slots, for up to 32 MiB of RAM, but Red Hill’s golden oldies page lists one SIPP-based motherboard which might have been usable with 64 MiB. Some manufacturers produced expansion boards to add more memory — e.g. ALR systems had expansion boards supporting up to 48 MiB each. In early 1993, in the US, 4 MiB of RAM cost over $100.



I bought a 386DX/33 in 1992, with 8 MiB of RAM out of a maximum 32 MiB, and that was considered large at the time — enough to run Windows 3.1 or OS/2 very comfortably. I kept that system for four years, eventually switching to Linux, and never needed to add more memory.



In those days, even servers had “small” base configurations as presented in advertisements — see this 1990 ALR advert with a 386/33 and 5 MiB of RAM for a cool $6,290...







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 5 at 13:19

























answered Apr 5 at 12:16









Stephen KittStephen Kitt

41.1k8169177




41.1k8169177







  • 1





    Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

    – Bernhard Döbler
    Apr 5 at 13:48






  • 1





    Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:53






  • 1





    Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

    – Gnudiff
    Apr 5 at 18:28






  • 1





    Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

    – R..
    Apr 5 at 22:23






  • 1





    @R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 22:25












  • 1





    Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

    – Bernhard Döbler
    Apr 5 at 13:48






  • 1





    Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:53






  • 1





    Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

    – Gnudiff
    Apr 5 at 18:28






  • 1





    Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

    – R..
    Apr 5 at 22:23






  • 1





    @R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 22:25







1




1





Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

– Bernhard Döbler
Apr 5 at 13:48





Sorry, I dont want to create confusion. The processors sure had the addresses. I always believed motherboards were not equipped to handle that much memory as it was not needed.

– Bernhard Döbler
Apr 5 at 13:48




1




1





Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 5 at 13:53





Ah, right, yes — adding lines costs money and would only be done if it was useful!

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 5 at 13:53




1




1





Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

– Gnudiff
Apr 5 at 18:28





Well, it was obviously Intel 80x86 architecture you were talking about, so just as a side note I remember a tech guy at my uni showing me his fully packed Sparcstation 10 in 1994, which had 512mb, so half of the GB.

– Gnudiff
Apr 5 at 18:28




1




1





Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

– R..
Apr 5 at 22:23





Address lines aren't really a limit if you use EMS or paging in protected mode. You could put an unlimited amount of ram on the ISA bus if you were happy with having a driver to interface with it.

– R..
Apr 5 at 22:23




1




1





@R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 5 at 22:25





@R. as long as you don’t mind a hefty speed penalty ;-).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 5 at 22:25











19














We can see the datasheet of the 386DX here. The most important part is its pinout.



We have address lines from A2 to A31. It means, that yes, it could have handled 4GB memory on a motherboard. Although it is very unlikely, that any ordinary PC motherboard had been built with the required number of memory sockets at the time.



It is more likely, that it was used at most to make memory-mapped IO easier in embedded environments.1



(A0 and A1 are missing, because the cpu could address only 4byte memory operations. Essentially, it was an only 30-bit CPU, working with 32-bit "bytes". This trick is usual since the early 16-bit era.)



For example, the Weitek Abacus FPU was memory-mapped to 0x0C000000. Floating-point calculations could be done by writing the commands into a 64kB-block starting at far higher as any physical RAM ever could end (at the time... 192MByte), and then reading out the result with mov operands.




enter image description here






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:51






  • 1





    Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

    – Michael
    Apr 5 at 14:42






  • 3





    Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

    – Ruslan
    Apr 5 at 14:59






  • 4





    @Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 15:15






  • 2





    @Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:30















19














We can see the datasheet of the 386DX here. The most important part is its pinout.



We have address lines from A2 to A31. It means, that yes, it could have handled 4GB memory on a motherboard. Although it is very unlikely, that any ordinary PC motherboard had been built with the required number of memory sockets at the time.



It is more likely, that it was used at most to make memory-mapped IO easier in embedded environments.1



(A0 and A1 are missing, because the cpu could address only 4byte memory operations. Essentially, it was an only 30-bit CPU, working with 32-bit "bytes". This trick is usual since the early 16-bit era.)



For example, the Weitek Abacus FPU was memory-mapped to 0x0C000000. Floating-point calculations could be done by writing the commands into a 64kB-block starting at far higher as any physical RAM ever could end (at the time... 192MByte), and then reading out the result with mov operands.




enter image description here






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:51






  • 1





    Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

    – Michael
    Apr 5 at 14:42






  • 3





    Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

    – Ruslan
    Apr 5 at 14:59






  • 4





    @Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 15:15






  • 2





    @Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:30













19












19








19







We can see the datasheet of the 386DX here. The most important part is its pinout.



We have address lines from A2 to A31. It means, that yes, it could have handled 4GB memory on a motherboard. Although it is very unlikely, that any ordinary PC motherboard had been built with the required number of memory sockets at the time.



It is more likely, that it was used at most to make memory-mapped IO easier in embedded environments.1



(A0 and A1 are missing, because the cpu could address only 4byte memory operations. Essentially, it was an only 30-bit CPU, working with 32-bit "bytes". This trick is usual since the early 16-bit era.)



For example, the Weitek Abacus FPU was memory-mapped to 0x0C000000. Floating-point calculations could be done by writing the commands into a 64kB-block starting at far higher as any physical RAM ever could end (at the time... 192MByte), and then reading out the result with mov operands.




enter image description here






share|improve this answer















We can see the datasheet of the 386DX here. The most important part is its pinout.



We have address lines from A2 to A31. It means, that yes, it could have handled 4GB memory on a motherboard. Although it is very unlikely, that any ordinary PC motherboard had been built with the required number of memory sockets at the time.



It is more likely, that it was used at most to make memory-mapped IO easier in embedded environments.1



(A0 and A1 are missing, because the cpu could address only 4byte memory operations. Essentially, it was an only 30-bit CPU, working with 32-bit "bytes". This trick is usual since the early 16-bit era.)



For example, the Weitek Abacus FPU was memory-mapped to 0x0C000000. Floating-point calculations could be done by writing the commands into a 64kB-block starting at far higher as any physical RAM ever could end (at the time... 192MByte), and then reading out the result with mov operands.




enter image description here







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 5 at 19:21

























answered Apr 5 at 13:47









peterhpeterh

599519




599519







  • 3





    Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:51






  • 1





    Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

    – Michael
    Apr 5 at 14:42






  • 3





    Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

    – Ruslan
    Apr 5 at 14:59






  • 4





    @Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 15:15






  • 2





    @Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:30












  • 3





    Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 5 at 13:51






  • 1





    Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

    – Michael
    Apr 5 at 14:42






  • 3





    Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

    – Ruslan
    Apr 5 at 14:59






  • 4





    @Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

    – peterh
    Apr 5 at 15:15






  • 2





    @Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:30







3




3





Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 5 at 13:51





Exactly, thanks. It’s worth noting that the 386, while it addressed 32-bit words as you point out, could operate on individual octets by using the bus enable pins (BE0–3).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 5 at 13:51




1




1





Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

– Michael
Apr 5 at 14:42





Why didn’t they reduce the address pins to a more reasonable number? I mean … nobody expected you to have the full 2^32 bytes of RAM back then, right? A2–A24 for 32MiB RAM should have been perfectly sufficient.

– Michael
Apr 5 at 14:42




3




3





Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

– Ruslan
Apr 5 at 14:59





Would be fun to see someone fitting a modern 4GiB RAM module via some type of adapter to a real 386 chip and get it to work.

– Ruslan
Apr 5 at 14:59




4




4





@Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

– peterh
Apr 5 at 15:15





@Michael I think they had two reasons: 1) they didn't know at the moment, how strongly should they remain compatible with their own CPU sockets of the future. At the time it was yet a real possibility that 586, 686 will be still socket-compatible (or will have at least a socket-compatible version) 2) These CPUs wasn't designed only for PCs, but also for embedded environments. If you access some hardware by memory-mapped IO, it means that you communicate with the chip with memory read/write operations. Essentially, the CPU can see the chip as if it would be a memory module.

– peterh
Apr 5 at 15:15




2




2





@Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

– mschaef
Apr 5 at 15:30





@Michael The 386SX did that... it narrowed the address bus to 16MB, which was much more realistic in terms of installed RAM. On 386DX hardware, there were also products like the Weitek 1167/3167 FPU's that were memory mapped into addresses way beyond 16MB. (These devices accepted their instruction stream over the address bus, in fact.)

– mschaef
Apr 5 at 15:30











6














As someone who had a 386, I was happy just to upgrade from 4MB RAM to 8MB RAM. Just think of all the cool things I can do now?! At that point, my motherboard could not contain anymore RAM IC's, so the only way to upgrade further would have been to get denser chips. But by the time I needed more RAM I was on to a 486. Yes, you're correct about the theoretical maximum but, at least for consumer level machines, ain't nobody doin' that.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:33






  • 1





    IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

    – Mazura
    Apr 5 at 21:54















6














As someone who had a 386, I was happy just to upgrade from 4MB RAM to 8MB RAM. Just think of all the cool things I can do now?! At that point, my motherboard could not contain anymore RAM IC's, so the only way to upgrade further would have been to get denser chips. But by the time I needed more RAM I was on to a 486. Yes, you're correct about the theoretical maximum but, at least for consumer level machines, ain't nobody doin' that.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:33






  • 1





    IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

    – Mazura
    Apr 5 at 21:54













6












6








6







As someone who had a 386, I was happy just to upgrade from 4MB RAM to 8MB RAM. Just think of all the cool things I can do now?! At that point, my motherboard could not contain anymore RAM IC's, so the only way to upgrade further would have been to get denser chips. But by the time I needed more RAM I was on to a 486. Yes, you're correct about the theoretical maximum but, at least for consumer level machines, ain't nobody doin' that.






share|improve this answer













As someone who had a 386, I was happy just to upgrade from 4MB RAM to 8MB RAM. Just think of all the cool things I can do now?! At that point, my motherboard could not contain anymore RAM IC's, so the only way to upgrade further would have been to get denser chips. But by the time I needed more RAM I was on to a 486. Yes, you're correct about the theoretical maximum but, at least for consumer level machines, ain't nobody doin' that.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 5 at 15:16









StealthKKStealthKK

611




611







  • 2





    My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:33






  • 1





    IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

    – Mazura
    Apr 5 at 21:54












  • 2





    My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

    – mschaef
    Apr 5 at 15:33






  • 1





    IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

    – Mazura
    Apr 5 at 21:54







2




2





My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

– mschaef
Apr 5 at 15:33





My family had a 386sx machine that capped out at 5MB, assuming it was fully populated with 1MB SIMMs (and 1MB was soldered on the motherboard). A few years later, we had a 486 that could go to 32MB if you used 4MB SIMMs, and then to 64MB via a machine-specific memory expansion board. (We never took that machine past 8MB.)

– mschaef
Apr 5 at 15:33




1




1





IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

– Mazura
Apr 5 at 21:54





IME there were no programs that really needed more than what half of what your RAM could be, for any x86. Modern, "typical", memory-hungry programs are a relatively new invention. If you ever rocked an x86 maxed-out, it was past its service length (and affordable) or doing something atypical.

– Mazura
Apr 5 at 21:54

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9579%2fhow-much-ram-could-one-put-in-a-typical-80386-setup%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?When are black boxes used?What protects the location beacon (pinger) of a flight data recorder?Is there anywhere I can pick up raw flight data recorder information?Who legally owns the Flight Data Recorder?Constructing flight recorder dataWhy are FDRs and CVRs still two separate physical devices?What are the data elements shown on the GE235 flight data recorder (FDR) plot?Are CVR and FDR reset after every flight?What is the format of data stored by a Flight Data Recorder?How much data is stored in the flight data recorder per hour in a typical flight of an A380?Is a smart flight data recorder possible?

Is there a general name for the setup in which payoffs are not known exactly but players try to influence each other's perception of the payoffs?Osborne, Nash equilibria and the correctness of beliefsIs there a name for this family of games (Binomial games?)?Perfect Bayesian EquilibriumCalculating mixed strategy equilibrium in battle of sexesPure Strategy SPNEIs there a commitment mechanism which allows players to achieve pareto optimal solutions?Extensive Form GamesAn $n$-player prisoner's dilemma where a coalition of 2 players is better off defectingTit-For-Stat Strategy Best RepliesPotential solutions of the $n$-player Prisoner's Dilemma

Which is better: GPT or RelGAN for text generation?2019 Community Moderator ElectionWhat is the difference between TextGAN and LM for text generation?GANs (generative adversarial networks) possible for text as well?Generator loss not decreasing- text to image synthesisChoosing a right algorithm for template-based text generationHow should I format input and output for text generation with LSTMsGumbel Softmax vs Vanilla Softmax for GAN trainingWhich neural network to choose for classification from text/speech?NLP text autoencoder that generates text in poetic meterWhat is the interpretation of the expectation notation in the GAN formulation?What is the difference between TextGAN and LM for text generation?How to prepare the data for text generation task