Vista64bit RAM usage is lower than 32bit ?

mrk · 30 Aug 2008 at 15:47

Now I'm all up and running on 64bit and it's amazing, slicker than 32bit yet I find it is using 20% less RAM than Vista32 with the same background apps running - is this a tip of the hat to a 64bit OS ?

Right now it's using 33% of 4GB whilst Vista32 would be using between 50% and 55% in normal Windows usage with Firefox running and other systray apps.

Happy either way but would like to know if anyone else experienced this ?

Dolph · 30 Aug 2008 at 15:49

How long have you had 64 bit running? It may well be that it's not started pre-loading apps via readyboost yet.

Edit: I mean superfectch

mrk · 30 Aug 2008 at 15:50

Only since this morning ¬_¬

You may be right, Superfetch has not had enough time to train yet so perhaps this is what it is !

asim18 · 30 Aug 2008 at 16:37

Are you calculating that "%" by including the cache?

The memory used by superfetch is not included in the "physical memory usage graph". It is shown seperately under "Cached"...

My usage would be almost 99% if I included the cache.

mrk · 30 Aug 2008 at 16:42

I was using the Sidebar ALL CPU METER gadget but TM shows:

Berserker · 30 Aug 2008 at 17:55

Don't forget that Vista32 can't use all 4GB.

For example, if you have a graphics card with 512MB...

50% of 3.3GB = 1.65GB
33% of 4.0GB = 1.32GB

So, still less, but not as much less as first appearances may suggest. A graphics card with more RAM will further narrow the gap (and vice versa).