Originally Posted by Smeggy I was making the point that while the article infers that the memory usage goes down, it is actually going up!
I never got that impression.
I did. In fact, the same thought occurred to me too.
I wondered how many people bought into the hype that x64 was too near the bleeding edge, and opted for Vista x86. In my experience, whenever a system is slower with *more* RAM, it is invariably only slightly slower. But when a system benefits from *more* RAM, sometimes the benefits are quite marked. I discovered when Vista came out in Nov 06 that 2GB wasn't enough for BF2. And extra 2GB meant the load times for a level were nearer 10s than 50s, and task switching was near-instantaneous.
I did notice a theoretical slowdown when I moved to 6GB (IE via Windows Experience Index) but not anything to concern me.
Originally Posted by page 1 of the article 32-bit versus 64-bit operating systems: the 4GB memory limit
As you may or may not know, 32-bit operating systems are limited to addressing a maximum memory size of 4,294,967,296 bytes, or "4GB" in more normal terms. However, this 4GB is shared between all MMIO (Memory-Mapped Input Output) devices - this includes graphics cards. Therefore, that nice, shiny new 512MB graphics card you've just bought limits your entire system memory use to just 3.5GB. What about the newest Nvidia GeForce 280 GTX with 1GB of GDDR3? That'll reduce your system memory to just 3GB.
In this respect, it means that if you're a gamer at least and want to upgrade your graphics setup, this will only just continually impede on your overall system memory availability.
64-bit operating systems on the other hand can address 16,384GB (or just over 16TB) of memory, giving significant room for consumer machines to use now and well into the future. The MMIO system space is still there and addressed in the same way, but the available space is so massive that your graphics memory (or any other addressable memory) in no way impacts your main system memory size.
From top to bottom, we used Vista x64 with Service Pack 1 because it provides a uniform base for which to test over. Vista 32-bit and probably more appropriately, XP 32-bit, might still be popular, but the stigma against Vista x64 is no longer true: drivers are readily available and since Service Pack 1, we've found it works very well indeed. In a recent community poll we found half of those questioned already run Vista x64 with SP1 and a good amount of those still running a 32-bit OS were considering the upgrade sometime soon too.
In this respect, like all our in house testing now - be it motherboard, graphics, heatsink or gaming - Vista x64 SP1 has become the logical standard.
READ FIRST before you ask please.
There is also the search button up top of this page that will lead you to one of the bazilion threads about this issue.
The short answer: 32-bit can use only 4GB TOTAL memory present in your computer. If you put in more memory (graphics cards, raid controllers, more DDR2 memory), the PC will work, it will just not see or use the memory.
64-bit can use a grand whopping total of 16 TERAbyte. Goo luck trying to break that barrier
> Even better, set your Swap to use the RAMDISK partition!
Look at it this way: a moderately expensive RAID 0 is capable of around 500MB/second;
faster RAID 0 setups can do sequential I/O faster, but the price premium goes thru the roof.
Now, be realistic and pay ~$100 for RamDisk Plus version 9 from www.suprespeed.com .
Our DDR2-800 / PC2-6400 4-4-4-12 is doing raw reads from our RAMDISK
at around 2.7 GB/second.
THIS MEMORY IS 3 YEARS OLD!!
Got your calculator handy? 2700/500 = what?
Now, ramp up to more modern DDR2 and DDR3 DIMMs. What then?
Rotating hard drives are just not advancing as rapidly as RAM e.g.
Western Digital's latest "black editions" are reported to be capable of 145MB/second
(WD's website is usually a bit optimistic, from my own experience).
FYI: we just filed for patents on a "Format RAM" feature in the BIOS, and
an enhancement to Gigabyte's i-RAM Box that uses SO-DIMMs instead,
plus SATA @ 300-600MB/second and DDR2 DIMM slots.
Can you think 2-5 years ahead to motherboards with 64-256GB?
There are already server motherboards with 32 x DIMM slots.
THE FUTURE IS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF HIGH-SPEED RAM.
Mark my words!!
p.s. SSDs are not even close to current rotating hard drives,
so I've demoted mention of SSDs to this footnote.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library http://www.supremelaw.org/
> As you may or may not know, 32-bit operating systems are limited to addressing a maximum memory size of 4,294,967,296 bytes, or "4GB" in more normal terms
Let's just say "32-bit operating systems from Microsoft", Linux (and OS X IIRC) can address more than 4Gb in 32-bit version
Annoyed that 4x1Gb was dropped from most of the benchmarks - I'd have thought most people would have that set-up (or like me, considering it). I'm still considering 'splashing out' for another 2x1Gb Geil DDR2 for my P5W DH (£35), but has anyone experience with four sticks on this board??
Don't forget... Whatever you need for your OS + most demanding game/app is the bare minimum. You need extra RAM for caching - especially in Vista with SuperFetch. Vista x64 will benefit from as much RAM as you can throw at it. So if you need 2GB+ for STALKER, 4GB is the minimum you should really be aiming for...
Hey I was wondering. You said if you have 4GB ram and 512mb VGA card you get 3.5GB at the end. But what If I have Crossfire 512mb cards ? that will make me get 3GB at the end same the 1GB cards or what ?
Originally Posted by ComputerKing Hey I was wondering. You said if you have 4GB ram and 512mb VGA card you get 3.5GB at the end. But what If I have Crossfire 512mb cards ? that will make me get 3GB at the end same the 1GB cards or what ?
In effect, yes.
The cards don't actually use RAM, but the do use up some memory addresses, of which there is 4GB worth...
Comments 51 to 75 of 98
I did. In fact, the same thought occurred to me too.
I wondered how many people bought into the hype that x64 was too near the bleeding edge, and opted for Vista x86. In my experience, whenever a system is slower with *more* RAM, it is invariably only slightly slower. But when a system benefits from *more* RAM, sometimes the benefits are quite marked. I discovered when Vista came out in Nov 06 that 2GB wasn't enough for BF2. And extra 2GB meant the load times for a level were nearer 10s than 50s, and task switching was near-instantaneous.
I did notice a theoretical slowdown when I moved to 6GB (IE via Windows Experience Index) but not anything to concern me.
Yes, if you don't mind not using 4.5GB of it.
READ FIRST before you ask please.
There is also the search button up top of this page that will lead you to one of the bazilion threads about this issue.
The short answer: 32-bit can use only 4GB TOTAL memory present in your computer. If you put in more memory (graphics cards, raid controllers, more DDR2 memory), the PC will work, it will just not see or use the memory.
64-bit can use a grand whopping total of 16 TERAbyte. Goo luck trying to break that barrier
have about 3GB of actual system RAM, then have 4.5GB of RAMdisk, set RAMdisk setting to use non-windows memory.
so you'll have 3GB RAM, a 4.5GB ultra fast disk
..This sounds like a challenge.
I think you mean 16.8 million terabytes.
Even better, set your Swap to use the RAMDISK partition!
Look at it this way: a moderately expensive RAID 0 is capable of around 500MB/second;
faster RAID 0 setups can do sequential I/O faster, but the price premium goes thru the roof.
Now, be realistic and pay ~$100 for RamDisk Plus version 9 from www.suprespeed.com .
Our DDR2-800 / PC2-6400 4-4-4-12 is doing raw reads from our RAMDISK
at around 2.7 GB/second.
THIS MEMORY IS 3 YEARS OLD!!
Got your calculator handy? 2700/500 = what?
Now, ramp up to more modern DDR2 and DDR3 DIMMs. What then?
Rotating hard drives are just not advancing as rapidly as RAM e.g.
Western Digital's latest "black editions" are reported to be capable of 145MB/second
(WD's website is usually a bit optimistic, from my own experience).
FYI: we just filed for patents on a "Format RAM" feature in the BIOS, and
an enhancement to Gigabyte's i-RAM Box that uses SO-DIMMs instead,
plus SATA @ 300-600MB/second and DDR2 DIMM slots.
Can you think 2-5 years ahead to motherboards with 64-256GB?
There are already server motherboards with 32 x DIMM slots.
THE FUTURE IS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF HIGH-SPEED RAM.
Mark my words!!
p.s. SSDs are not even close to current rotating hard drives,
so I've demoted mention of SSDs to this footnote.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.intel.com/Products/Server/Systems/4-Processor-S7000FC4UR/4-Processor-S7000FC4UR-specifications.htm
Intel® 4-Processor Server System S7000FC4UR
Capacity: Support for up to 256 GB with up to 32 DIMM sockets
DIMM sizes: 512 MB, 1 GB, 2 GB, 4 GB, 8 GB
32 DIMM slots @ 8GB = 256GB
Forget cost for the moment: THIS STUFF IS AVAILABLE NOW!!
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/RAMDISK.2GB.Corsair.DDR2-800.JPG
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/superspeed/raw.read.Corsair.PC2-6400.GIF
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/Highpoint.RocketRAID.2322.8xWD1600YD.JPG
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/ICH7R.4xWD2500YD.JPG
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/io.tests/Intel.82801ER.2xRaptor.74GB.SATA-1.5G.JPG
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/
A good read, and with the growing amount of ram.. needs to looked at closely.
Let's just say "32-bit operating systems from Microsoft", Linux (and OS X IIRC) can address more than 4Gb in 32-bit version
Thanks !
My OS uses 600MB
1920x1200 8xAA , every setting high :!
all together when playing stalker : 2150MB.
So really all you need is a 3GB : )
In effect, yes.
The cards don't actually use RAM, but the do use up some memory addresses, of which there is 4GB worth...
yup I know that, But my point is crossfire setup of 2 X 512MB cards will make you End with 3GB of ram not 3.5GB
So that is right or not ?
Crossfire gets you 2x 512MB, and they must be addressed separately, so you'll only get 3GB of RAM left, not counting other hardware.
I didn't understand him clearly, Sorry. And yes I know that any 32BIT OS can see 4GB memory only.
The point was in CF thing. But now I got it. Thanks A lot.
again cjmUK sorry for misunderstanding