Windows Vista 64bits, 4GB RAM no page file

Peter Tsang

Peter Tsang

Peter Tsang

Associate
Joined
23 Dec 2008
Posts
642
Hi folks,

I've just reinstalled my rig with Vista 64 bits because I need to play Civilization IV which is quite CPU intensive and I also need CPU effort to convert recorded game from AVI to MPEG4 for putting up on YouTube.

Anyway, I set pagefile=0 because I giving the OS pagefile means accessing the hard disk from time to time. I expect the OS to access the RAM module without "borrowing" from hard disk for paging. Question is would 64bits Windows OS uses all 4GB memory...I heard that 32bits Windows OSes use merely 2GB RAM no matter how much memory you put into the system...
 
Firstly turning of the page file is generally considered to be a bad idea.

64bit OSes will address all of the 4GB of memory.

32bit OSes will also address up to a total of around 4GB of memory BUT that total includes any memory on your video card as well so in practice only around 3-3.5GB of normal memory would be usable.
 
I'd give it a page file TBH.

The old-school rule was set the minimum to 1.5XRAM and the maximum to 3.0XRAM. But I don't like that, it varying the size could make it get fragmented. I'm not short of disk space so just set both the minimum and maximum to 3.0XRAM.

I was re-installing the family PC last weekend (i5 750, 5830, 80GB X-25M, RAID1 pair of Caviar Blacks, 4GB). I've set it to have a 12,288MB page file but put it on the RAID1 pair as I'm conscious of the lack of space on the SSD and don't want any more writes to it's cells than necessary!
 
Last edited:
which version of Vista do you have? I thought you said you had Ultimate...

which has a limit of 128GB according to MSDN
 
Yes, it's Ultimate. So 16 GB maybe is all I need.

Civ 4 is demanding, the more CPU power, the faster the turn runs.

I also play flight simulator like Strike Fighters. It is also memory demanding.
 
Unless they are 64bit applications, they can only use a max of 4gb per process anyway (and that's with the right flag set).

Also, don't disable your pagefile.
 
I never over clock a CPU, because it shortens its life span. Believe it or not, I always keep the CPU core temp below 49 degree as much as possible. My rig has 3 X 5,200 rpm fan and 2 are operational at the rear panel of the chassis. The whole rig produces as much noise as a vacuum cleaner during operation. But it doesn't bother me much since I wear headphones for audio most of the time.

The reason I disable the pagefile, please do not laugh at my decision, is because I don't want the system to access the hard drive. I believe this is the most efficient because disk I/O slows down performance a bit. If the OS requires memory, it goes directly to the onboard memory. The trouble is that I'm a bit worries if 4GB would be enough in case I open more than 1 games and other applications.
 
Peter Tsang said:
I never over clock a CPU, because it shortens its life span.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Peter Tsang said:
The reason I disable the pagefile, please do not laugh at my decision, is because I don't want the system to access the hard drive. I believe this is the most efficient because disk I/O slows down performance a bit. If the OS requires memory, it goes directly to the onboard memory. The trouble is that I'm a bit worries if 4GB would be enough in case I open more than 1 games and other applications.
Click to expand...

This doesn't work in practice. Windows will always have a pagefile anyway (even if you disable it). You'll get the best performance through a windows managed pagefile.
 
Peter Tsang said:
I never over clock a CPU, because it shortens its life span. Believe it or not, I always keep the CPU core temp below 49 degree as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Moderate overclock + better cooler = more performance + lower temps.

And it doesn't shorten the cpu's life span unless you intend to use it over the next 10+ years.
 
Yeah, I really wouldn't disable your pagefile. Bad idea.


raralis said:
Moderate overclock + better cooler = more performance + lower temps.

And it doesn't shorten the cpu's life span unless you intend to use it over the next 10+ years.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this. Compared with the length of time you will actually be using the CPU for, the amount of lifetime you will lose really isn't worth not overclocking for. Don't tell me you are going to be using the same CPU for 10+ years :p
 
I'm pretty sure Civ4 wasn't designed for multiple cores so increasing your clockspeed will probably pay off more than adding tons of RAM. It will improve your encoding times as well.
 
Peter Tsang said:
If the OS requires memory, it goes directly to the onboard memory. The trouble is that I'm a bit worries if 4GB would be enough in case I open more than 1 games and other applications.
Click to expand...

Do you really think Windows wouldn't be designed to use RAM first? Many applications need a pagefile, you should re-enable it. Do you have any actual proof that you're getting performance benefits by not having one?
 
The Pagefile is NOT an overflow so it is silly for you to disable it OP. I am willing to bet you wouldn't even notice any change in performance either way - Windows won't page out data you are using so I don't get why you are worried about Windows accessing the disk.

That's another point - Windows accesses the disk all the time for various reasons, not just the Pagefile.

Get a grip, lad! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom