vista32 to see 4gb ram after sp1?
- Thread starter Jody
- Start date
x64 it is then i guess
It just shows the user that there is 4GB os RAM in the system to stop all the confusion. However as stated above, because the system is still based on 32Bit it will only use roughly, 3.5Gbs of the 4Gbs.
Why XP 64bit? And not Vista 64bit?
Why XP 64bit? And not Vista 64bit?
Yes, 32Bit O/S cannot use the full 4GB... It uses up some of it for the devices, so some PCs will see 3.2 and some 3.5 but apparently, some see as little as 3.0
X64 is powerfull enough to not need to assign RAM to the devices.
X64 is powerfull enough to not need to assign RAM to the devices.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
it does assign RAM to the devices, it's just that the max memory limit with 64 bit is in the terabytes.
No system RAM is used by devices (unless they are devices that do anyway such as shared video cards), it is the addess space that devices need.
So on a 32 bit Windows OS as the maximum address space is 4GB, if you put 4GB in your system there is 0k of addressable space free. So in effect the sytem chops out system RAM from the memory map so hardware devices can use it.
The memory addressing limit on 64 Bit is 16 terabytes, so no problems!
You get get the full 4GB under 32bit Vista however there as specific hardware requirements, in order to allow memory remapping.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
Using PAE, however this can cause stability issues.
There are also the /3GB that other posts say will allow you access to 4GB it does not! The /3GB switch changes the way the 4GB virtual address space is split up. As standard 32 bit address space is split 2GB of user mode virtual address space and 2GB of kernel mode virtual address space. The /3G switch changes the split to 3GB user mode virtual address space and 1GB of kernel mode virtual address space.
So on a 32 bit Windows OS as the maximum address space is 4GB, if you put 4GB in your system there is 0k of addressable space free. So in effect the sytem chops out system RAM from the memory map so hardware devices can use it.
The memory addressing limit on 64 Bit is 16 terabytes, so no problems!
You get get the full 4GB under 32bit Vista however there as specific hardware requirements, in order to allow memory remapping.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
Using PAE, however this can cause stability issues.
There are also the /3GB that other posts say will allow you access to 4GB it does not! The /3GB switch changes the way the 4GB virtual address space is split up. As standard 32 bit address space is split 2GB of user mode virtual address space and 2GB of kernel mode virtual address space. The /3G switch changes the split to 3GB user mode virtual address space and 1GB of kernel mode virtual address space.
I only get 2.75 on my setup because of 1900xtx/CF 512MBx2 when i installed vista 32bit by mistake.
Just think if i had 2900xt/CF1GBx2 versions that would put me down to 1.75 system give or take.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You mean 16 exabytes
As for using PAE, I highly recommend not going down this route. MS discontinued this for the reason of instability on any driver that uses DMA.
Save the hassle and go x64.
Burnsy
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
theres too many of these threads, if you are going vista, go for the 64 bit regardless of your ram situation, because all 32 bit apps also work on it, but 64bit apps wont work on the 64 bit version
its simple really guys 64 bit vista regardless, it can do everything 32 bit can and more
its simple really guys 64 bit vista regardless, it can do everything 32 bit can and more
Nah, I can only count 95... Few more and we hit the century!
64Bit anything.
Never understood why people bother with 64Bit CPU and then cripple it with 32Bit O/S
Because currenty for the past year 32bit windows still come out as faster (or much faster, if you still run XP). If you think about it 99.9% of your everyday apps are still 32bit, under x64 they are run in WoW64 emulation layer (and yes, before you lot jump to break my neck again - it is emulation layer, if only because Microsoft calls it that, not my fault) where the same rules apply - memory limitation per application is the same, 4Gb memory total applies etc, etc. It's just that this time your 32bit application has slightly higher overheads of heavier, chunkier OS and window in windows layer on top.
If you had more than 4Gb of RAM installed and throughout your typical day used mostly 64 bit applications that could take advantage of the environment, then it would make all sense in the world, but at the moment it doesn't look like it's going to happen (at least large scale) for Vista any time soon (partially because of the way x64 is implemented under windows and partially because many software manufacturers, Microsoft included, don't see much advantage from porting their current application range to 64bit at all).
We had similar conversation on this forum a week ago and I'm sure someone will start screaming "FUD" in a second, but it has nothing to do with fear or doubt - I deal with 64bit systems for better part of the last 16 years, owned quite a few myself - back as far as SGI times - seen the good 64bit unixes, the bad unixes, the slow rising Suns and where the Suns just wouldn't shine (I still have some of my 64bit memorabilias in the loft, if anyone wants to collect them).
x64 Vista needs something more than "feels ok" or "it's almost as fast as 32bit" to properly take off. We have few more years to jump in front of that freightrain and it needs to be slightly revised first.
Last edited:
It sounds like you don't like AMD64. And I can sympathise with that as I was practically drooling at the mouth at the prospect of Itanium reaching the desktop a few years ago. Unfortunately it didn't turn out that way because AMD came up with their x86-64 instruction set which ruined Intel's road map.
It's wrong to blame Windows. There's nothing wrong with Windows' x64 implementation. In fact it is probably the best. Not many OSes bother to even offer a compatibility layer like what WOW64 offers.
Just because Microsoft refers to it as an emulator doesn't automatically mean it is slow. There are many different types of emulator. But technically they are using the wrong terminology - I suspect they are doing so because it is a common term that many users are familiar with. As you now know, it isn't really an emulator but more of a wrapper that runs at native speed. And this native speed ability is perhaps one of the biggest advantages of the AMD64 instruction set over "pure 64-bit" instruction sets like Itanium.
A lot of software vendors don't feel the need to port to x64 because currently, you are quite right, there is no need. Microsoft Office would have hardly any benefit at all. But then even when Office was a 16-bit application, it performed just fine. That's because it's just a "boring" desktop application that doesn't have any significant performance requirements. There will come a time though that Microsoft decides to release a x64 version because the overheads of x32 by that time may have increased (perhaps AMD64 will have been superceded by that time by something new which doesn't run x86 code so easily...)
That is not the case for many other types of software though which do have performance requirements. Compilers... games... CAD... rendering... photography... the list is almost endless. Admittedly there isn't much that interests average joe consumers though. But this is Overclockers UK, not the "PC Pro" forums.
No it is not. XP64 is the fastest Of all Windows Versions.
X64 in WindowsXP is NOT an Emulator at all. It runs 32Bit code either exactly the same as 32Bit Windows, or faster, but nothing runs slower.
Yes, the Apps really are 99% 32Bit, but running a PC is not only down to the apps... Its the faster 64Bit OS and the faster 64Bit Drivers that allow the old 32 bit apps to run better than they do in a 32Bit environment.
The number of times this one has been argued and it has always been lost by the ones who slate 64Bit is just getting boring now.
And where the hell did you get the crap about the Memory limitations from?
Oh right, now its no longer that you are misinformed, you seem to now be lying...
Im sorry, but while I do see what you are saying, this is also simply not the way things are.
Look at things logically...
Even in just something as simple as computer games... Look at how big they are getting... Already some games are coming out that run better on 4GB than they do on 2GB FFS... Its only a matter of time before we will find the 4GB limit exactly that... A Limit. This is where the 64Bit O/S will be ahead.
Every game I have runs better on XP64 than any other OS, including XP and Vista 32, some games have add-ons or patches to allow the extra power of the 64Bit OS to improve the game. FarCry, Half Life 2 for example and this shows its superiority over the 32Bit already.
As we go on, more and more coders are seeing the potential of the improved power of the 64Bit OS and are improving their software for the 64Bit users and in turn the 64Bit users will see the superiority of having a 64Bit O/S and will move over.
Its only a matter of time and that time is a lot closer then you seem to think it is.
I for one am in the proces of moving all my LAN PCs to XP64 ( Not Vista, XP ) and all my LAN games play far better on XP64 than they do in anything else.
Out of all things 64 you choose XP64 as fastest? Where did you get that from. Any benchmarks to back it up?
I really don't want to argue this anymore, it's not my product, I didn't invent it, didn't write it so I'm not going to rename it, please send your complaints to the authors on postcards - please read out loud the first line of the description to the class..
Just think about it for a second.
Seriously, why would I - what's to be gained?
That's what I said. A matter of time. Not this time around. Not with Vista. Not with this deck of cards.
Seriously. I doubt that very much.
Trouble is - with Microsofts x64 it's mostly rewrite of the code rather than recompilation, and it's not like your typical instant messenger or html editor would gain anything from this surgery. That's why there is no major move towards 64bit. Most games, you mentioned, are still waiting to be optimized for multiple CPUs, let alone go large on memory. You mentioned FarCry and HalfLife, and it's true, they are very much still evolving, added HDR, improved graphics, tried 64bit engines etc, but these are exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself. And even there, the numbers work against xp64...
Last edited:
1 - From my own eyes. I would never go back to XP32 as I find it has some sluggishnes occasionally that I dont get with XP64, it feels smoother to use and its overall a better sleeker OS to work with.
2 - Its common knowledge.
3 - I dont give a monkeys toss off about benchmarks. I can show you benchmarks that show a Celeron is faster than a Core2Duo, so BenchMarks prove no swearing all to me.
I did... And...?
Ok accepted, thats quite possibly true, but its going to be a lot sooner than people realise, that 4GB will be the norm... Already you rarely see PCs beign sold with less than 1GB and its now usual to have 2GB... The O/S alone is chewing the fat too deep and we will need more RAM soon. Yes, not now, maybe not "This time Round" but when is the next time round? - The need for more RAM will probably be here a lot sooner than the "Next Time Round".
Doubt all you like. I have 7 Legal licences of XP Home and 2of XP Pro just sitting in the cupboard along with a couple of unused Vista 32 and a Vista 64 Licence, and I have bought so far, 9 licences of XP64 and I am converting all my LAN PCs to XP64.
Dont get me wrong, not all of them benefit, thats true, but since I will be giving all my PCs ( 13 of them ) 4GB of RAM before March, I want to give them *** best chance of running right, and I have felt that XP64 gives them the best feel of beign a sleek PC to work with.
No its not.
XP64 is based on Server 2003 and that was a complete ground-up O/S written seperately to the 32Bit Code. XP64 looks like XP32 but thats it.
I saw that FiringSquad page not long ago, and my thoughts now are the same as they were back then... no swearing.
Do you have a more up to date list? I mean, come on! - when the nVIDIA 6800 card was the card to have, sure, as we saw from those benches ( HA! ) the XP64 scores were ... what? almost exactly the same across the board when comparing XP32 v XP64 but a few thigns have changed a lot since then... The OS is better, and faster, the GFX Cards are much better and faster, and the B/s Benches are also a lot more "This century" too!
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
the performance difference of xp32 vs xp64 vs vista32 vs vista64 is within single digit percentages in 32-bit apps