# 32 bit vs 64 bit: How it relates to video cards



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2009)

I've had to post this too many times so i thought i'd get it out in the correct forum here.

Minor edit: the below text is a bit fuzzy regarding the 2GB limit per application in 32 bit OS's, and focuses on the 4GB total in the OS. There is a 2GB cap in most programs unless they have a "2GB+ aware" flag set in the program - some games have this already (Sup com: forged alliance, for example) but many others do not, and therefore cant use more than 2GB regardless of how much address space is available - if they try to, they crash (usually mid game)

Under a 32 bit OS, you have 4GB total (OS) and 2GB per application.

Under a 64 bit application, 32 bit apps are still capped at 2GB - but if its large address aware (the 2GB+ flag i mention above) then it can use upto 4GB of ram/address space per program.

Under a 32 bit operating system (XP, vista 32) you have 4GB of address space available. Address space is different to the amount of memory in your PC.

The reason a 32 bit system can only use 3GB (or 3.25GB, or whatever number you get) of system ram is because it doesnt have enough address space left. Video cards are the most important part of a PC that uses address space.

If you had 4GB of system ram and a 1GB video card under a 32 bit operating system, each individual program could only use 3GB of that system ram (due to the video card using 1GB of address space) However there is something else most people are NOT aware of.
Under DirectX 9.0C (and lower) video card ram must be duplicated into system ram. That means if you're running on the highest settings with your new shiny 1GB video card - that 1GB of video memory must be duplicated leaving you with only 2GB left for your game.

You just went from 4GB to 2GB, only considering a single 1GB video card. Things only get worse in SLI and crossfire.

Under 64 bit you wouldnt have lost that initial 1GB of ram to the address space, so you'd have 3GB of usable ram, with 1GB used in DX9.0C games. All of a sudden those modern games which border on 1.5-2GB of ram usage are playable, without your system running like a dog.

Side note: It should be noted that DX10/10.1 does not duplicate video memory into system ram. DX10 actually helps to alleviate this issue, if your system is powerful enough to run games in DX10.

Side note 2: There is more than just video card ram that affects this. System page file uses address space, as do various parts related to the BIOS (RAID cards, sound cards with onboard ram, etc) - this is why with a 512MB video card your 32 bit OS may report 3.25GB of ram - 256MB was taken away for everything else

These are the old examples. we've since found out they were a little inaccurate.


Spoiler



Example configs:
*32 bit*
*4GB system ram
1GB video card*
3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.

*2GB system ram
1GB video card*
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram here. If you dont lower texture settings, resolution, and AA you'll get pretty nasty stuttering as you run out of ram.

*4GB system ram
2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)*
2GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)

*64 bit*
*4GB system ram
1GB video card*
4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.

*2GB system ram
1GB video card*
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram. This kind of PC is the one where people claim vista x64 has no real advantage, or slower due to 64 bit using slightly more ram than 32 bit in windows itself.

*4GB system ram
2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)*
4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)


*32 bit*
*4GB system ram
1GB video card*
3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
So that this makes sense: if your game used 512MB of video ram, you'd only have 1.5GB of system ram for the game.
If its a modern game like modern warfare 2, that game can use 900MB of video ram - hence why the game crashes on many 32 bit systems when there isnt enough ram for game and video ram.


*2GB system ram
1GB video card*
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram here. If you dont lower texture settings, resolution, and AA you'll get pretty nasty stuttering as you run out of ram.

*4GB system ram
2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)*
2GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because ram isnt additive in SLI/Xfire, only one cards ram is duplicated)

*64 bit*
*4GB system ram
1GB video card*
4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.

*2GB system ram
1GB video card*
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram. This kind of PC is the one where people claim vista x64 has no real advantage, or slower due to 64 bit using slightly more ram than 32 bit in windows itself.

*4GB system ram
2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)*
4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because ram isnt additive in SLI/Xfire, only one cards ram is duplicated)


3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.

I was PM'd to edit in a scenario with a system with 8GB+ of ram and 32 bit games. In that situation it would work the same as a 4GB OS, except with more RAM free for background tasks - even if your game is still capped at 4GB, having an extra, 4, 8 or 12GB of ram for your operating system, web browsers, and whatever work you do wont hurt.



Update:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

This link from microsoft has some good info, and fills a gap i'd missed.
You do not need to download the file mentioned, as this is already included in vista SP1 (and you should be on SP2 by now!)


			
				MS article said:
			
		

> On a modern operating system such as Windows Vista, applications run within their own private virtual address space. Typically, the size of the virtual address space is fixed at 2 gigabytes (GB) for 32-bit applications. How much virtual address space is available is not related to how much physical memory there is on the computer.
> 
> A modern graphics processing unit (GPU) can have 512 MB or more of video memory. Applications that try to take advantage of such large amounts of video memory can use a large proportion of their virtual address space for an in-memory copy of their video resources. On 32-bit systems, such applications may consume all the available virtual address space.



This shows another side to this - 32 bit applications can only have 2GB total for the entire application, regardless of the amount of available ram and system-wide address space. so even if you have 4GB of ram and 3.5GB showing as available, if you've got a 1GB video card in a 32 bit OS you're in for a world of hurt on high settings on modern games.



Edit: W1zzard has queried the ram duplication, so i managed to find some more links - thanks to Xenos especially.


> With the introduction of DirectX 10 and Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) in Windows Vista, it is no longer necessary for an application to maintain a copy of its resources in system memory.



http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-graphics-ram-desktop-memory,7644.html

This article is talking about how the aero desktop was moved from DX9 (WDDM1.0) to DX10 (WDD1.1) and they directly mention how the old (DX9) system required a copy of video ram in system ram.


----------



## JanJan (Apr 15, 2009)

i know questions i'm about to ask is obvious to many people in here but i'm totally new so bear with me..
how can you upgrade from a 32bit OS to a 64bit OS?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2009)

You need to format and upgrade. It uses a different install disk.

For example if you have windows XP and want to go 64 bit, you will need to go buy windows XP 64 bit.
If you have vista, 32 bit CD keys work on 64 bit - so you can pay shipping and microsoft will send you a 64 bit disk.


----------



## crazy pyro (Apr 15, 2009)

Right, cheers for that Mussels.


----------



## Darknova (Apr 15, 2009)

Nice information. Thanks Mussels!


----------



## Ahhzz (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks very much Mussels. Informative. I didn't know that at all. Appreciate it.


----------



## silkstone (Apr 15, 2009)

Nice Thread Muss, i'' bookmark it and just paste is into all the hundreds of future x64 vs. x86 threads

Strange - I thought crysis was DX 10? - When i tried it with only 2gb and a 512mb video card it stuttered like hell. Even 3gb wasn't enough to eliviate this problem i had to use 4gb (using vista 64). It seemed like it was still shadowing the video ram even tho its a dx 10 game.'


----------



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2009)

crysis is very VERY badly coded for DX10.

Games like crysis are DX9 ran through an automated converter to DX10... and it doesnt work well. they run like crap.


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 17, 2009)

Mussels said:


> You need to format and upgrade. It uses a different install disk.
> 
> For example if you have windows XP and want to go 64 bit, you will need to go buy windows XP 64 bit.
> If you have vista, 32 bit CD keys work on 64 bit - so you can pay shipping and microsoft will send you a 64 bit disk.



If this is true where do i get the 64 bit disk from microsoft ?


----------



## sneekypeet (Apr 17, 2009)

jamupnorth said:


> If this is true where do i get the 64 bit disk from microsoft ?



At the store


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 17, 2009)

sneekypeet said:


> At the store



Cant find that at the store


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 17, 2009)

Mussels said:


> crysis is very VERY badly coded for DX10.
> 
> Games like crysis are DX9 ran through an automated converter to DX10... and it doesnt work well. they run like crap.



Still the DX10 version of Crysis produces better graphics than the DX9 one.


----------



## MadClown (Apr 17, 2009)

Great post, very good info.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 18, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> Still the DX10 version of Crysis produces better graphics than the DX9 one.



yes, but at a massive performance hit.

In theory, DX10 should be faster than dX9 - lazy coding is the reason it isnt so in most games.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 18, 2009)

Yup, most DX10 games are still DX9 at heart.  DX10 cleaned up a lot of filth that has accumulated in DX9 over the years but, it really doesn't matter because the transistion to purely DX10 or greater (as in no pre-DX10 render path) is still going slow.


----------



## silkstone (Apr 18, 2009)

jamupnorth said:


> Cant find that at the store




Then use google and use the legit key from 32bit vista on the 64bit download.


----------



## hat (Apr 18, 2009)

I never knew that vram was copied to system ram like that... that's pretty shitty actually


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 18, 2009)

Quote:Originally Posted by Mussels 

"You need to format and upgrade. It uses a different install disk.

For example if you have windows XP and want to go 64 bit, you will need to go buy windows XP 64 bit.
If you have vista, 32 bit CD keys work on 64 bit - so you can pay shipping and microsoft will send you a 64 bit disk."



jamupnorth said:


> If this is true where do i get the 64 bit disk from microsoft ?



Mussels is correcto mundo!

Go here:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia/default.mspx

You have to pay shipping and handling...


Or for around 349 us dollars, join Technet and use just about all their software, for unlimited evalution...sometimes you can catch it discounted.


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 18, 2009)

95Viper said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by Mussels
> 
> "You need to format and upgrade. It uses a different install disk.
> 
> ...



I have tried this and it does not seem to like the product keys on the back of 2 of my laptops ? any ideas ?

I think the offer has expired


----------



## Kweku (Apr 18, 2009)

Nice and informative... I once had a rig with 4GB of ram, but windows only saw 3GB of it, at the time i had a 512MB 8800GT card, so yeah, and funny i was opting to go SLI on that rig.

Anyways, nice info. Its gonna come in very handy with what I'm building next


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 18, 2009)

Make sure that the key code is for the country you are trying to get...for ex. us for us or uk for uk.

If that does not work try calling:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia/support/default.mspx
United Kingdom 
Phone: 08082341460 
Toll (English, French, German): +49 5241 999 727 
E-mail: Vista-am@msdirectservices.com

I have heard they have a problem sometimes with OEM keys.


----------



## GTX (Apr 18, 2009)

wat bout if i have 
2gb of ram and a 512mb vid ?


----------



## crazy pyro (Apr 18, 2009)

Then you aren't affected.


----------



## silkstone (Apr 18, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> Then you aren't affected.



Unless your using dx9 which shadows the ram and so in effect the game would only have 1.5gb minus sstem processes?


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 18, 2009)

95Viper said:


> Make sure that the key code is for the country you are trying to get...for ex. us for us or uk for uk.
> 
> If that does not work try calling:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia/support/default.mspx
> United Kingdom
> ...



I tried to but they are shut for the weekend , i also have an old copy of vista ultimate with no keys , could i install the 64bit version off that and use the genuine 32 bit keys that i have ? 

One last point can i just upgade from 32it to 64 bit and leave all my files ok or does it have to be a full reinstall , format etc ?

Sorry if this has nothing to do with graphics cards


----------



## rampage (Apr 18, 2009)

ohh how i love having 8 gig of ram, especially if i decide to go sli

as mussels has told me over the phone this brings into question a lot of reviews, whether it be gfx of software reviews, and even benchmarks..  

for example .... today we are going to test tri sli with gtx280's on out windows Xp 32 bit PC with 2 gig of ram  (even 4 gig will suffer) nutkick:


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 18, 2009)

Lastly, you have to do a complete install, as 64bit uses 64 bit drivers and such.

(Save all your stuff you want to keep, then install or install on a new partition - transfer your data and info - dual boot)

I don't believe you can use the premium key with ultimate.  Someone correct, if I am wrong.


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 18, 2009)

95Viper said:


> Lastly, you have to do a complete install, as 64bit uses 64 bit drivers and such.
> 
> (Save all your stuff you want to keep, then install or install on a new partition - transfer your data and info - dual boot)
> 
> I don't believe you can use the premium key with ultimate.  Someone correct, if I am wrong.



I will need to think about this as i am not sure if it will be worth it for 1 gig of ram extra ?

Or will i just wait for windows 7 ?


----------



## hat (Apr 18, 2009)

may as well... it's just around the corner


----------



## Mussels (Apr 19, 2009)

jamupnorth said:


> I have tried this and it does not seem to like the product keys on the back of 2 of my laptops ? any ideas ?
> 
> I think the offer has expired



aptops have the OEM version and i beleive MS only ships disks to retail users.

You can still get an x64 disk from somewhere and install with your key on it, just that MS wont send you one.



GTX said:


> wat bout if i have
> 2gb of ram and a 512mb vid ?





crazy pyro said:


> Then you aren't affected.





silkstone said:


> Unless your using dx9 which shadows the ram and so in effect the game would only have 1.5gb minus sstem processes?



2GB of ram + 512MB video card means 512MB (at most) is taken by your video card leaving you 1.5GB of ram available for whatever you're doing. as to whether or not thats a problem, entirely depends on how much ram your games need.

Is it that hard to figure it out yourself, based on the provided examples?


----------



## FryingWeesel (Apr 19, 2009)

with a laptop i assume you got one from a major OEM, run over to mydigitallife forums, they got the info you need to setup you OEM system with vista64.


----------



## crazy pyro (Apr 19, 2009)

Blergh, I forgot about it mirroring into the RAM, sorry.


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 19, 2009)

FryingWeesel said:


> with a laptop i assume you got one from a major OEM, run over to mydigitallife forums, they got the info you need to setup you OEM system with vista64.



thanks for the info


----------



## Alv (Apr 19, 2009)

The RAM mirroring issue in dx9 only happens when gaming, right?


----------



## FryingWeesel (Apr 19, 2009)

yes, or apps that use dx9c like some 3d modeling apps, anything using dx is going to mirror to ram.

As I understand it with sp2's updates and updates to dx9L(the vista version of dx9) this may nolonger be an issue under vista/server 2008/win7, BUT theres no guarntees, i know ms is moving to run the desktop on dx10 insted of dx9 when possible so it has even less performance impact.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 20, 2009)

FryingWeesel said:


> yes, or apps that use dx9c like some 3d modeling apps, anything using dx is going to mirror to ram.
> 
> As I understand it with sp2's updates and updates to dx9L(the vista version of dx9) this may nolonger be an issue under vista/server 2008/win7, BUT theres no guarntees, i know ms is moving to run the desktop on dx10 insted of dx9 when possible so it has even less performance impact.



It is still an issue. What was changed was changed in vista SP1, and that only made content in use mirrored.

For example if you have a 1GB video card, prior to this update 1GB was mirrored and unavailable, even if you were only using 512MB. Now it only mirrors what is actually in use, on the card. (This was a bug - it didnt occur under XP, and hasnt in vista for some time)



Alv said:


> The RAM mirroring issue in dx9 only happens when gaming, right?


As was said above, its anything that uses system ram. For example aero might well take up 10-20MB of your ram, for its transparency effect.


----------



## iBeer&Knife (Apr 22, 2009)

so for my config i should better get the x32 vista right ?


----------



## FryingWeesel (Apr 22, 2009)

not if ur planing to run more then 3gb of system ram any time b4 you do a full reinstall, x64 is just the better choice.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 22, 2009)

x64 is still a better choice. The thing is you dont gain *ANYTHING* going back to x86. there is ZERO benefit to it, while at least going x64 you dont have to worry about formatting again when you finally get more ram.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 28, 2009)

very nice thread mussels , that's decrease duplicate posts and questions
wow i don't know about dx technology how dx9.0 waste the memory , so at this state win xp32 + 2G ram + 1G video card = complete waste performance


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> very nice thread mussels , that's decrease duplicate posts and questions
> wow i don't know about dx technology how dx9.0 waste the memory , so at this state win xp32 + 2G ram + 1G video card = complete waste performance



XP with 2GB of ram and a 1GB video card is the same as vista with 2GB of ram and a 1GB video card. THe system ram is eaten up by the video cards higher settings, so you get stuttering.

Remember that it only mirrors whats in USE, so if you're using an older game designed for 256MB cards, its only going to use 256MB of the video cards ram (and therefore 256MB of system ram)

Its a loose rule, but one i've always followed is to have at least 3 times as much system ram as you do video card ram.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> XP with 2GB of ram and a 1GB video card is the same as vista with 2GB of ram and a 1GB video card. THe system ram is eaten up by the video cards higher settings, so you get stuttering.
> 
> Remember that it only mirrors whats in USE, so if you're using an older game designed for 256MB cards, its only going to use 256MB of the video cards ram (and therefore 256MB of system ram)
> 
> Its a loose rule, but one i've always followed is to have at least 3 times as much system ram as you do video card ram.



so i should be more clear by changing the word "xp" to "dx9" depending as vista use dx10 and sure it is depending on video card series


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> so i should be more clear by changing the word "xp" to "dx9" depending as vista use dx10 and sure it is depending on video card series



yes. DX9 and DX10 is the difference, not vista and XP.


----------



## jamupnorth (Apr 28, 2009)

I decided to put Vista 64 bit in and dual boot with Vista 32 bit and i must say it does feel better and faster with my set up & so far i am glad i did it (but only after reading this thread from you guys )


----------



## a_ump (May 4, 2009)

um....is this something that is not seen with usuable ram? i have a vista sidebar application that show's my ram and how much is being used(system monitor) and when i had my 8800GT it only showed 2.8gb/4gb and now with my 7800GTX 256mb it shows the same, 2.8gb/4gb.  If this holds true i would think i'd have gained 256mb or 512mb of usuaable ram? am i wrong


----------



## Mussels (May 4, 2009)

a_ump said:


> um....is this something that is not seen with usuable ram? i have a vista sidebar application that show's my ram and how much is being used(system monitor) and when i had my 8800GT it only showed 2.8gb/4gb and now with my 7800GTX 256mb it shows the same, 2.8gb/4gb.  If this holds true i would think i'd have gained 256mb or 512mb of usuaable ram? am i wrong



remember that the ram decreases only as its used. If you run a game that only uses 128MB of ram, you're only losing 128MB of ram. Its realtime, it goes up and down.

There is also no rule that says that the video card has priority - in the example of a 2GB system with a 1GB video card, you could end up with 1GB of usable ram and 1GB used by the card - or you could have 1.9GB of usable ram, and 128MB used on the video card.


----------



## ricoh (May 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> If you had 4GB of system ram and a 1GB video card under a 32 bit operating system, each individual program could only use 3GB of that system ram (due to the video card using 1GB of address space) However there is something else most people are NOT aware of.



32bit apps running under a 32bit OS can only use up to 2 GB at all (unstable PAE-Hacks not included).
32bit apps running under a 64bit OS can also only use up to 2 GB at all. 
32bit apps running under a 64bit OS can access up to 4 GB if they are flagged with the /LargeAdressAware (LAA for short) flag. Use your favourite search engine for more information.

And the video card's RAM is mirrored into the system RAM with an address window size of 256 MB, no matter how large the VRAM actually is. 

Btw, the 3.25 GB limit in XP 32bit is artificially set by MS to ensure stability even with poorly written drivers.



Mussels said:


> *2GB system ram
> 1GB video card*
> 1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram. This kind of PC is the one where people claim vista x64 has no real advantage, or slower due to 64 bit using slightly more ram than 32 bit in windows itself.



2 GB RAM usable. The VRAM is mapped above the 4 GB wall when using a 64bit OS.


Quite a nice guide you've written, but quite buggy too.


----------



## Mussels (May 14, 2009)

ricoh said:


> 32bit apps running under a 32bit OS can only use up to 2 GB at all (unstable PAE-Hacks not included).
> 32bit apps running under a 64bit OS can also only use up to 2 GB at all.
> 32bit apps running under a 64bit OS can access up to 4 GB if they are flagged with the /LargeAdressAware (LAA for short) flag. Use your favourite search engine for more information.
> 
> ...



not sure what you're saying i've missed there.

This was only relative to video cards, so the 2GB per app limit doesnt really matter (but i might add it anyway).

"And the video card's RAM is mirrored into the system RAM with an address window size of 256 MB, no matter how large the VRAM actually is."
Thats wrong. MS released a patch for vista when it was new to set that as the minimum instead of Vrams size, due to crashing bugs.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

If it was locked at 256MB, they'd hardly have needed to release something like this now would they.



			
				that link said:
			
		

> A modern graphics processing unit (GPU) can have 512 MB or more of video memory. Applications that try to take advantage of such large amounts of video memory can use a large proportion of their virtual address space for an in-memory copy of their video resources. On 32-bit systems, such applications may consume all the available virtual address space.


Note the "in-memory copy of their resources" and how they say a 512MB or greater card can use all the address space (which is 2GB) - if it was capped at 256MB, this would not apply.


----------



## Hap (May 18, 2009)

A description of the 4 GB RAM Tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension parameter
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988


----------



## GSG-9 (May 18, 2009)

Thanks for this post Mussels. I knew video memory was duplicated but I did not know the circumstances or details.


----------



## crtecha (May 18, 2009)

Great post Mussels.  I'm glad im out of the 32bit club


----------



## Mussels (May 28, 2009)

added a small update to the end. wow, did that post get me a loooot of thanks.


----------



## crazy pyro (May 28, 2009)

I'm guessing that ridiculous new dual GTX285 would make it impossible to actually use a 32 bit OS then would it?


----------



## Mussels (May 28, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> I'm guessing that ridiculous new dual GTX285 would make it impossible to actually use a 32 bit OS then would it?



it would work, but you sure wouldnt be getting its full potential.


----------



## qubit (May 28, 2009)

Nice explanation there, Mussels. I already understand how this works, but your post is a great place to direct my friends to, who are less knowledgeable on this subject.

A well deserved thanks. 

EDIT: In fact, I now remember reading about this somewhere else a while ago (sorry, I can't remember where it was now) that went into great technical detail into what happens when a 32-bit app runs out of it's 2GB address space. In short, it bombs out and there's very little that can be done about it. The app developers have to take it into account, but most don't. They discussed how a particular game would crash and how a little more memory can be made available to 32-bit apps like that one with a startup switch, which invariably causes more problems than it solves.

Re-compiling the app as a 64-bit executable solves the problem completely.


----------



## Mussels (May 29, 2009)

qubit said:


> Nice explanation there, Mussels. I already understand how this works, but your post is a great place to direct my friends to, who are less knowledgeable on this subject.
> 
> A well deserved thanks.
> 
> ...



supreme commander was a great example. Prior to the expansion (when they patched it to be 2GB+ aware) the game would crash out if you used high graphics settings on 80KM maps, and the game lasted over an hour.

when diagnosing the crashes we noticed lots of XP users would crash out and the game would use 1.5-1.75GB of ram in their task manager - it was always 2GB minus their video card. thats what started me off into researching this whole thing.


----------



## W1zzard (May 29, 2009)

i think lots of information in this thread is incorrect. i'm on my way to computex now so dont have much time for a full reply.

afaik there is no mirroring of vga memory into usermode. ever. use this to check the validity of yoru assumptions. 32-bit apps have 2 gb user mode address space and 2 gb kernel address space.


----------



## Mussels (May 29, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> i think lots of information in this thread is incorrect. i'm on my way to computex now so dont have much time for a full reply.
> 
> afaik there is no mirroring of vga memory into usermode. ever. use this to check the validity of yoru assumptions. 32-bit apps have 2 gb user mode address space and 2 gb kernel address space.



i found it in a microsoft document, after being linked on the relic forums in a discussion about their DX10 patch. i think the document YOU linked to even discussed it - let me check.


edit: here we go



> With the introduction of DirectX 10 and Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) in Windows Vista, it is no longer necessary for an application to maintain a copy of its resources in system memory.



They discuss how the local copy of Vram was removed in DX10/WDDM1.0 and above.


----------



## W1zzard (May 29, 2009)

copy of resources doesnt mean mirror of the whole memory. the wording also isnt clear if those copies are in user mode or kernel mode


----------



## Mussels (May 29, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> copy of resources doesnt mean mirror of the whole memory. the wording also isnt clear if those copies are in user mode or kernel mode



i originally found a clearer article elsewhere, i'm trying to locate it.

edit: google isnt helping me locate it, i dont know what wording they used in the article.

I remember it being discussed on the relic forums, they suggested vista 32 users with low amounts of system ram to use DX10 mode in order to reduce the memory overheads, due to it not mirroring. this was a few years back when the 1.70 patch came out (and DX10 support was added to the game) so i'm having trouble finding that post as well.


edit 2: closest i can find is other people talking about the same thing.

http://www.evga.com/forums/printable.asp?m=100674947
"It can appear that game using DX9 is using more memory in Vista because memory is allocated twice. You should run games in DX10.  "


another edit: i think i may have found a misinterpretation where i first heard this. instead of being mirrored, it may be the following.

In DX9 applications, the CPU does its share of the work, passes it to system memory, and then it goes to video card memory.
In DX10 applications the CPU can directly access video card ram, bypassing the need for a *temporary* copy of the ram in system ram.

So instead of being a copy of however much is in use, it may just be on an 'as needed' basis (which can still chew up a lot of ram if you're using really high settings)


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 29, 2009)

all I know is that I've always maintained 4 times the system ram as vga ram and it's always balanced out for me. which is why I won't be able to get a 1gb card until i upgrade my memory. 

so back when I had 4mb gpu I had 16mb memory, 8-32, 16-64, 64-256, 128-512, 256-1024, and now 512-2048. 

I couldn't tell you why but I've never strayed from it.


----------



## xenos (Jun 18, 2009)

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-graphics-ram-desktop-memory,7644.html

Title: New Windows 7 WDDM 1.1 drivers save you RAM

This should help clear the WDDM stuff up a bit


----------



## Mussels (Jun 18, 2009)

xenos said:


> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-graphics-ram-desktop-memory,7644.html
> 
> Title: New Windows 7 WDDM 1.1 drivers save you RAM
> 
> This should help clear the WDDM stuff up a bit



well there we go xenos, it seems my original information was correct... this is probably the only time i've seen w1zzard proven wrong on something (and its not like he concretely disagreed here, so he was only half-wrong)

I'll be adding this to the OP once i have a quick read.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 18, 2009)

Can setting GFX aperture size in BIOS to a smaller figure reduce this effect? I have always set mine to 64


----------



## Mussels (Jun 18, 2009)

intel igent said:


> Can setting GFX aperture size in BIOS to a smaller figure reduce this effect? I have always set mine to 64



i'm not entirely sure. Its hard to find any solid documentation on this stuff. I cant rule it out, but as far as i can remember i've only seen that setting on AGP boards.

http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/43

google found me an article from our king  reading now to see if it applies



> When using an AGP card the video memory on the graphics adapter is mapped into the 4 GB memory address space (above the region of the physical installed memory). Any accesses to this memory region are directly forwarded to the video memory, greatly increasing transfer rates. However in earlier days of video cards graphics memory was rather limited and ran out quickly (a single 32-bit 512x512 MIP-mapped texture consumes ~1.5 MB) so AGP added a mechanism to use the system's main memory as additional storage for graphics data such as textures



So no, the setting wont directly affect it. Its merely a "video card can use X system ram, when it runs out" - its the page file of AGP cards.


----------



## xenos (Jun 19, 2009)

Mussels said:


> well there we go xenos, it seems my original information was correct... this is probably the only time i've seen w1zzard proven wrong on something (and its not like he concretely disagreed here, so he was only half-wrong)
> 
> I'll be adding this to the OP once i have a quick read.



Yes although just going to Vista's WDDM 1.0 isn't enough, you need to go over to Windows 7 to get the full effect with WDDM 1.1 as this is a brand new feature


----------



## Mussels (Jun 19, 2009)

xenos said:


> Yes although just going to Vista's WDDM 1.0 isn't enough, you need to go over to Windows 7 to get the full effect with WDDM 1.1 as this is a brand new feature



WDDM1 and 1.1 are related to aero and the windows desktop only. What this is, is to save system memory from rendering aero alone - the pictures they have show ram savings from having heaps of windows open.

All it is, is that MS has ported aero to DX10 to save ram. (and yes, you need to use 7 to get it)


----------



## largon (Jul 3, 2009)

Btw, my system is infact using 4088MB of the total 4096MB and I'm using _XP 32bit_... 
OS sees 3327MB and the unmanaged 766MB is allocated as a RAM disk so only 8MB of the total 4096MB is wasted. 


And the funny thing is; I have a HD4890 with 1024MB of GDDR5 and OS has >3GB usable, so the quote from OP is not correct. 


> Example configs:
> 32 bit
> 4GB system ram
> 1GB video card
> 3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 3, 2009)

largon said:


> Btw, my system is infact using 4088MB of the total 4096MB and I'm using _XP 32bit_...
> OS sees 3327MB and the unmanaged 766MB is allocated as a RAM disk so only 8MB of the total 4096MB is wasted.



the OS can see it, but it still cant use it. MS decided to make the OS show how much is installed as opposed to available in the latest service packs... i guess people were trying to sue over being sold a 4GB machine with "only" 3-3.5GB 'showing'


----------



## Emeth (Jul 4, 2009)

*MS "Engineering Windows 7" blog excerpt*

Hi folks:

I'm new here, but I found this interesting, and wanted to add this reference just in case it helps. Can anyone comment on how this might affect video stability?


http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

"Desktop Graphics - Reduced Memory Footprint

Another area which affects system responsiveness is memory usage. Simply put, increased system memory (RAM) usage leads to an increased paging activity which directly leads to reduced system responsiveness. Thus, for the best responsiveness, all applications, processes and OS components need to use as little system memory as possible.

In Windows Vista, the amount of memory required to run multiple windows scales linearly with the number of windows opened on the system. This results in more memory pressure when there are more windows or if the monitors have higher resolution. It gets worse if you have more than one monitor. As part of investigating various means to improve system responsiveness, we saw a great opportunity in reducing the usage of system memory by DWM. In Windows Vista, every GDI application window accounts for two memory allocations which hold identical content – one in video memory and one in system memory. DWM is responsible for composition of the desktop through the graphics hardware. Hence, it requires a copy of the same allocation in video memory, which is easily accessible by the graphics hardware. The duplicate copy present in system memory is required because GDI is being rendered utilizing the CPU completely in the operating system without any assistance or “acceleration” by the graphics hardware. As the CPU performs all the tasks for rendering GDI applications, it requires an easily accessible cacheable copy of memory.
Existing memory allocations.



Figure 5. Existing memory allocations.

Windows 7 saves one copy of the memory allocation per application window by getting rid of the system memory copy entirely. Thus, for a GDI application window visible on the desktop, the memory consumed is cut in half."


----------



## javaking (Jul 5, 2009)

Thanks for the info it helps me to kind of understand what was happening to my system last may in my old build. I just could not get my 3870 to work but then again I had a 64bit OS installed


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 5, 2009)

Bashing us 32-biters i see.

Going to be using 4GB RAM(windows sees 2.75 tho) and a 896MB card, games should run fine.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 6, 2009)

Emeth said:


> Hi folks:
> 
> I'm new here, but I found this interesting, and wanted to add this reference just in case it helps. Can anyone comment on how this might affect video stability?
> 
> ...





javaking said:


> Thanks for the info it helps me to kind of understand what was happening to my system last may in my old build. I just could not get my 3870 to work but then again I had a 64bit OS installed



I added this to the first post a week or two ago actually. The drop in memory use is because windows 7 moved to WDDM 1.1, which is in fact directX 10 based. Running DX10 removes the memory copy in DX9, which means if you're on onboard video wndows 7 uses half as much memory for the GUI as windows vista.





CDdude55 said:


> Bashing us 32-biters i see.
> 
> Going to be using 4GB RAM(windows sees 2.75 tho) and a 896MB card, games should run fine.



sure they will. with a maximum of 1152MB of available ram per game. (2048MB per 32 bit app, minus video card ram)


----------



## Sanhime (Jul 19, 2009)

wow!  Very informative post.  

So my rig is:
C2D E6600 @3.4ghz
4gb corsair dominators
2 GF 8800GTS SLI (640mb each)
I'm currently running dual boot, Win7 RC 32bit and WinXP 32-bit.

Win7 reports 2.5gb usable.  So are you saying that the actually usage of ram for games is less then 2.5gb?  Should I just use Windows 7 64bit?

I played around with 7 64-bit, and the games seem to run slower than when running 7 32-bit.  For example, TF2 felt slower on 64-bit, COD5 felt slower on 64bit.

You said:  "This shows another side to this - 32 bit applications can only have 2GB total for the entire application, regardless of the amount of available ram and system-wide address space. so even if you have 4GB of ram and 3.5GB showing as available, if you've got a 1GB video card in a 32 bit OS you're in for a world of hurt."

Does that mean, depending on the game, more video card memory will hurt you more than help?  Using the same hypothetical, what if you have a 2gb card (like the new 285gtx), does that actually make performance worse then?  I was thinking of buying a 285gtx 2gb to replace my two 8800gts.

Does this also mean that regardless of how much system ram you have on a 64 bit OS, 32-bit apps will only be limited to 2gb of vitrual memory thingy and therefore all that extra amount of ram you have is useless for that 1 particular 32-bit app?  So the only plus side to running 32-bit apps (and 95% of games are still 32-bit unfortunately) on a 64-bit OS is the you can run 5 32-bit games at one time with minimal drag?

Also, I think the 8800 Geforces are Dx9 cards.  So even if you are running Vista or 7, are you still confine to the memory mirroring problem?


So much memory chatter, this is confusing to me sometimes!   

I aplogize if these are noob questions.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 20, 2009)

under a 32 bit OS, each application can only use 2GB maximum.

Thats address space - and your video cards ram uses that. DX9 applications also duplicate into system memory - so with a 640MB card (only one counts, memory doesnt add in SLI) you have 640MB as a maximum address spaced used, as well as a duplication of that memory.

WORST case, with every video setting cranked to the max using all 640MB of video ram - you'd have about 800MB left over for your game. I'd expect it to be more around the 1-1.2GB mark.


----------



## qubit (Aug 17, 2009)

Mussels said:


> under a 32 bit OS, each application can only use 2GB maximum.
> 
> Thats address space - and your video cards ram uses that. DX9 applications also duplicate into system memory - so with a 640MB card (only one counts, memory doesnt add in SLI) you have 640MB as a maximum address spaced used, as well as a duplication of that memory.
> 
> WORST case, with every video setting cranked to the max using all 640MB of video ram - you'd have about 800MB left over for your game. I'd expect it to be more around the 1-1.2GB mark.



You know, I'm curious to know what would happen if you used a graphics card with 4GB RAM on it on a 32-bit OS - that would theoretically grab the whole address space, so would the OS even boot properly?


----------



## Fishymachine (Sep 20, 2009)

Sanhime said:


> wow!  Very informative post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't play 5 games in 32 bit unless there from the "pre-gig" era,and every card (nvidia and ati) newer than the 8800gtx(including your GTS) are at least DirectX 10.0 what you should do is get a 64bit(preferably Win7) and since you want an upgrade now I recommend a HD 5850 or patience until the GTX 360/350


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2009)

qubit said:


> You know, I'm curious to know what would happen if you used a graphics card with 4GB RAM on it on a 32-bit OS - that would theoretically grab the whole address space, so would the OS even boot properly?



no, the OS would reserve a minimum amount - most likely 2GB




Fishymachine said:


> You can't play 5 games in 32 bit unless there from the "pre-gig" era,and every card (nvidia and ati) newer than the 8800gtx(including your GTS) are at least DirectX 10.0 what you should do is get a 64bit(preferably Win7) and since you want an upgrade now I recommend a HD 5850 or patience until the GTX 360/350



his question was more that "if i have 8GB of ram, can i run 4 2GB programs at once" - and the answer is yes.

while many programs are still only capable of addressing 2GB each, x64 lets you run more of them at once - better multitasking.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 12, 2009)

i've noticed threads get auto locked (and cant be unlocked) if they become a certain age with no posts. this post is just to prevent that happening here.


----------



## qubit (Nov 12, 2009)

Mussels said:


> no, the OS would reserve a minimum amount - most likely 2GB





Mussels said:


> i've noticed threads get auto locked (and cant be unlocked) if they become a certain age with no posts. this post is just to prevent that happening here.



Hey, I'm glad you did - I'd missed your answer and forgotten all about my question.


----------



## boise49ers (Dec 2, 2009)

Well I upgraded to 64 bit and ALL my games run so much better at their absolute highest setting and resolution. This has been by far the best upgrade I have done. My old copy and movie software won't work on 64 bit, but I'll just get a burner for my other system and do all that on that one. 
Thanks Mussels !


----------



## andreeebdg (Dec 24, 2009)

correct me if i am wrong... but i saw something mistakenly typing here here

in 32 bit system... 



> 4GB system ram
> 2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
> 2GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
> (SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)



in 64 bit system... 



> 4GB system ram
> 2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
> 4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
> (SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)



now, does it looks that there's no duplication in 32 bit? or it should be



> 4GB system ram
> 2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
> 3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
> (SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because of how it works both cards ram is in the address space, but only one cards ram is duplicated)



Again, sorry if this  has been discussed previously or i'm the one who misread.. and for my poor english too ..


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

oh there is likely MANY typos! let me read your post in detail


I've since learned that only one card is in the address space, i'll go update the first post with the information found throughout the thread.

What typo are you pointing out, exactly?



edit: first post has been updated somewhat.


----------



## andreeebdg (Dec 24, 2009)

oh no.. the 1st post has changed bit

here



> 32 bit system
> 4GB system ram
> 2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
> *2GB* system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
> ...



or should it be?



> 32 bit system
> 4GB system ram
> 2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)
> *3GB* system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.
> (SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because ram isnt additive in SLI/Xfire, only one cards ram is duplicated)



I kinda confused between system ram usable and left at this point. 

If usable 2GB then 1GB left for game as 1GB used for duplication or usable 3GB then 2GB left as 1GB used for duplication, ??? 

I see only the second state that is similar to every other combination.....

Again, i am sorry if i'm wrong.. and my poor english ...


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

what it means is that while 3GB is usable, only 2GB per application. meaning that 1 of those 3GB could be leftover for the OS or whatever.


----------



## shdssamir (Dec 27, 2009)

please help

i have a BFG gtx 285 2GB and 2 GB RAM, how much ram will be used on 32 bit OS ??
and how much RAM will be used if i have 4 GB RAM on a 64bit OS ???

thnx


----------



## GSG-9 (Dec 27, 2009)

shdssamir said:


> please help
> 
> i have a BFG gtx 285 2GB and 2 GB RAM, how much ram will be used on 32 bit OS ??
> and how much RAM will be used if i have 4 GB RAM on a 64bit OS ???
> ...



Please start a new thread and refinance this one as the source of your concern, it keeps everything cleaner.  

and Welcome to TechPowerUp!


----------



## shdssamir (Dec 27, 2009)

thnx


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

shdssamir said:


> please help
> 
> i have a BFG gtx 285 2GB and 2 GB RAM, how much ram will be used on 32 bit OS ??
> and how much RAM will be used if i have 4 GB RAM on a 64bit OS ???
> ...



You really need a 64 bit OS for that much ram - otherwise you can only really use 512MB or so of video ram.


----------



## shdssamir (Dec 27, 2009)

thnx for your reply


----------



## El_Mayo (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels!
what if.. you have 2gb RAM and a 1GB video card in 32bit windows 7?
it doesn't replicate the video RAM does it?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

El_Mayo said:


> Mussels!
> what if.. you have 2gb RAM and a 1GB video card in 32bit windows 7?
> it doesn't replicate the video RAM does it?



if you are running a DX9 game, yes it does.


The key there is how much Vram the games use - older games - no problems. games like MW2 at 1080P = problem (950MB according to some tests with GPU-Z on an nvidia card with max AA)


----------



## El_Mayo (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> if you are running a DX9 game, yes it does.
> 
> 
> The key there is how much Vram the games use - older games - no problems. games like MW2 at 1080P = problem (950MB according to some tests with GPU-Z on an nvidia card with max AA)



dayumm.. okay.. so if it uses up to 1gb video RAM, that means the game can run only using like 1GB RAM?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

El_Mayo said:


> dayumm.. okay.. so if it uses up to 1gb video RAM, that means the game can run only using like 1GB RAM?



since MW2 uses upto 950MB of video ram, that means 950MB of duplicated ram as well - which is why the game crashes so often on 32 bit users and theres reports of the game being "buggy".

 without max AA, but still at high resolutions you could imagine it using 700MB or so - 1400MB of 2048MB being used up, makes sense that the game would crash every half hour or so, as it used more and more ram every few levels.


32 bit OS's do not cut it for modern games, in DX9. its as simple as that.


----------



## El_Mayo (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> since MW2 uses upto 950MB of video ram, that means 950MB of duplicated ram as well - which is why the game crashes so often on 32 bit users and theres reports of the game being "buggy".
> 
> without max AA, but still at high resolutions you could imagine it using 700MB or so - 1400MB of 2048MB being used up, makes sense that the game would crash every half hour or so, as it used more and more ram every few levels.
> 
> ...



so if i had 2gb RAM and a 64 bit OS, that'd fix it?
or be just as bad?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

El_Mayo said:


> so if i had 2gb RAM and a 64 bit OS, that'd fix it?
> or be just as bad?



same thing.

2GB in 32 or 64 = pretty much same thing. while you wouldnt run out of address space, you'd still run out of physical ram (and either move to the page file (laggy gameplay, or crash)

But if you had 4GB of ram, then you'd have 4GB available in the 64 bit OS


----------



## El_Mayo (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> same thing.
> 
> 2GB in 32 or 64 = pretty much same thing. while you wouldnt run out of address space, you'd still run out of physical ram (and either move to the page file (laggy gameplay, or crash)
> 
> But if you had 4GB of ram, then you'd have 4GB available in the 64 bit OS



oh okay that's alright then, i've got a 2GB kit, and i'll switch one of 'em out eventually to get 3GB.
I'll just stick with a 512mb card till i get 3GB


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

El_Mayo said:


> oh okay that's alright then, i've got a 2GB kit, and i'll switch one of 'em out eventually to get 3GB.
> I'll just stick with a 512mb card till i get 3GB



this is the part i feel like i dont get across well: just because its a 1GB card, doesnt mean the game uses 1GB of ram.


If you experience weird lag, or crashes: lower AA, texture details, or resolution and the amount of ram used will drop (as will the system ram duplicate)


----------



## El_Mayo (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> this is the part i feel like i dont get across well: just because its a 1GB card, doesnt mean the game uses 1GB of ram.
> 
> 
> If you experience weird lag, or crashes: lower AA, texture details, or resolution and the amount of ram used will drop (as will the system ram duplicate)



that's because it's confusing!


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

cod MW2 uses 950MB at 1920x1080 with 16xaa (thats what the user said/GPU-Z reported)

if you were to run it at 1280x1024 with no AA, it'd probably use <512MB (and thus, less than 512MB to be duplicated into system ram) - leaving you 1GB+ free for the game to run crash free


----------



## El_Mayo (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> cod MW2 uses 950MB at 1920x1080 with 16xaa (thats what the user said/GPU-Z reported)
> 
> if you were to run it at 1280x1024 with no AA, it'd probably use <512MB (and thus, less than 512MB to be duplicated into system ram) - leaving you 1GB+ free for the game to run crash free



I GET IT NOW


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> cod MW2 uses 950MB at 1920x1080 with 16xaa (thats what the user said/GPU-Z reported)
> 
> if you were to run it at 1280x1024 with no AA, it'd probably use <512MB (and thus, less than 512MB to be duplicated into system ram) - leaving you 1GB+ free for the game to run crash free



The system in my specs and with no background processes MW2 crashes. I would think 2.2GB of ram free with an i7 920 3Ghz and a 4890 1GB would be enough... 

Tried multiple graphics drivers and everything is 24/7 stable ocording to the stress test Prime95 and ATi GPU stress tests.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> The system in my specs and with no background processes MW2 crashes. I would think 2.2GB of ram free with an i7 920 3Ghz and a 4890 1GB would be enough...
> 
> Tried multiple graphics drivers and everything is 24/7 stable ocording to the stress test Prime95 and ATi GPU stress tests.



as an example

at max graphics, roughly 1GB in use (from previous example) + 1GB of duplication (DX9 game) = 1GB free

I dont know how much ram it uses, but that 1GB may not be enough, with the OS/background apps eating into some


In your case i'd say lower/remove the AA, and manually set your page file to 4GB min/max (so that the OS can move stuff there, leaving more ram for the game)


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 27, 2009)

There is no way they would require more than 3GB's of ram to run the game in vista. When vista launches a game the OS uses less ram to free it up for the game I have heard. But even if thats not true, vista only uses 800mbs of ram on my i7's when I am browsing the internet. So thats 2.2GB's of ram for the game. I only run 4x AA and 8xAF at 1080p with MW2. I don't see how it could need more. Fallout 3 doesn't use that much ram and draws out into the distance at the max setting without a problem. It just strikes me as a game problem and not a ram problem in the case of MW2.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> There is no way they would require more than 3GB's of ram to run the game in vista. When vista launches a game the OS uses less ram to free it up for the game I have heard. But even if thats not true, vista only uses 800mbs of ram on my i7's when I am browsing the internet. So thats 2.2GB's of ram for the game. I only run 4x AA and 8xAF at 1080p with MW2. I don't see how it could need more. Fallout 3 doesn't use that much ram and draws out into the distance at the max setting without a problem.



its system ram + video ram (twice, with DX9 being as it is)


How much video ram it uses is more important - and thats not shown anywhere in task manager

rather than say how you dont get the theory, try what i said. more page file, no AA. see if it helps.

every computer i've played the game on was crash free, and they all had 6GB + of combined page file + system ram (4GB of sys ram was minimum in every machine)


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> its system ram + video ram (twice, with DX9 being as it is)
> 
> 
> How much video ram it uses is more important - and thats not shown anywhere in task manager
> ...



Well, my brother's computer runs it crash free with the same setup except its using a GTX280 instead of a 4890. So maybe its just ATi's crappy drivers again idk. I maintain both computers the same but I only update his graphics drivers every two months. He doesn't know how to do it himself so he has to wait. 

But when the 4890 i7 computer crashes it doesn't say display driver failure ecetera, it just freezes and I ctrl+alt+delete to task manager to close it.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Well, my brother's computer runs it crash free with the same setup except its using a GTX280 instead of a 4890. So maybe its just ATi's crappy drivers again idk. I maintain both computers the same but I only update his graphics drivers every two months. He doesn't know how to do it himself so he has to wait.
> 
> But when the 4890 i7 computer crashes it doesn't say display driver failure ecetera, it just freezes and I ctrl+alt+delete to task manager to close it.



3 of the 4 systems i've had no crashes on are ATI 4K series. 4870, 4870 crossfire, radeon 3200 IGP and radeon 4200 IGP. its not exactly every one of their GPU's, but i've messed around with a lot of drivers between them - and i could never make them crash (all vista/7 x64, all 4GB of ram + static 2-4GB page files)


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> 3 of the 4 systems i've had no crashes on are ATI 4K series. 4870, 4870 crossfire, radeon 3200 IGP and radeon 4200 IGP. its not exactly every one of their GPU's, but i've messed around with a lot of drivers between them - and i could never make them crash (all vista/7 x64, all 4GB of ram + static 2-4GB page files)



So are you saying page file management always does the trick for you and that is where it is having a problem? If so, I will check it out.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> So are you saying page file management always does the trick for you and that is where it is having a problem? If so, I will check it out.



it may be. its something i've always set since the XP days, and it makes sense that if low ram is an issue, page file could be related.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 27, 2009)

I am running out of RAM (have 4GB and a GTX 280 1GB) playing Risen with a hi-res texture pack under Win 7 x64. Disabling a few services to free up mem and or removing the pack remedies the issue which is a Smartheap error crash. What's kind of strange though is that this did not happen with my 4870 which also has 1GB.  GPU-Z reports the game is using 973MB w pack last time I checked.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Dec 27, 2009)

While running WCG it says:

Page file  2079M/6356M
Does that mean I have a ton of Page File allocated already... would that mean when everything is off including WCG except my game, I have a ton free? Just curious if that means anything.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> While running WCG it says:
> 
> Page file  2079M/6356M
> Does that mean I have a ton of Page File allocated already... would that mean when everything is off including WCG except my game, I have a ton free? Just curious if that means anything.



what i've found over the years is that when you leave it on dynamic, it shrinks on you sometimes - and it cant make itself big enough, fast enough, which leads to some apps crashing (its rare, but MW2 does seem to be quite the RAM hog)


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Dec 28, 2009)

Lets say i have 2 GTX 260's in SLI and a 8400gs 





^^^ Notice the p45, with 3 video cards, Sli hacked, and silly 4Ghz quad 

I only have 2gb of ddr2 Pc8500 in my rig, and yet i have 3 video cards, 2 in sli and 1 in physx. Im on Vista x64 bit Ultimate, the only games im stuttering in, is GTA 4 and thats it, so do i need more system ram, because im ready to upgrade to 4gb of system ram, becaue i love gta 4 that much


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

i know that SLI doesnt add ram, so whatever is used on card 1 will be used + duplicated.

the card you're using for PhsyX, should only use its ram and nothing more. it wont be running DX9 (rather, CUDA) so it wont be duplicated into system ram.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i know that SLI doesnt add ram, so whatever is used on card 1 will be used + duplicated.
> 
> the card you're using for PhsyX, should only use its ram and nothing more. it wont be running DX9 (rather, CUDA) so it wont be duplicated into system ram.



Ya im ganna buy a fresh gt240-220 and overclock it
Right when the UPS guy comes knocking, im going to open the card box, take pictures, walk to the garage, get the demel out and grind that sucker to pci-e x1, so i can have a proper card for physx, and performance wont be hacked almost at all for a 48-96 stream processor card. 

8400gs is useliss for physx but its nice to run what you modded just to run it .


----------



## yogurt_21 (Dec 29, 2009)

hmm was just talking with programmer at work and he claims the info in ths thread to be incorrect. 

he states that directx can be coded to duplicate the video memory in the system memory but it is only done by smaller applications or in situaitons where you are dealing with unlimited memory. 

he says that most games then will not use this practice. 


I guess a simple test then would be to try running the same amount of system mem as your gpu has and seeing if the game plays normally or stutters. 

unfortuantely for me I only have a 512mb card and my smallest ddr2 stick is 1gb.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 30, 2009)

yogurt_21 said:


> hmm was just talking with programmer at work and he claims the info in ths thread to be incorrect.
> 
> he states that directx can be coded to duplicate the video memory in the system memory but it is only done by smaller applications or in situaitons where you are dealing with unlimited memory.
> 
> ...



if theres methods to program against it, why isnt it the default? I do link to articles (some from MS) saying that one of the key aspects of DX10 is to reduce memory use, by negating the need for the duplicate


----------



## yogurt_21 (Dec 30, 2009)

Mussels said:


> if theres methods to program against it, why isnt it the default? I do link to articles (some from MS) saying that one of the key aspects of DX10 is to reduce memory use, by negating the need for the duplicate



actually it's funny you should bring that up as i took advantage of the steam sale and got the jedi knight pack. In dark forces 2 (1997) in the graphics settings you can select and deselect the memory duplication. I'll post a screenie of it tonight.

from what my programmer tells me newer games (since 2000) by default do not duplicate the vga memory in system memory. And you do realize that MS could simply be taking credit for what the game industry already did. As from what I've seen dx10 in no way uses less memory then dx9. you of course can test that with any dx10 game.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 30, 2009)

yogurt_21 said:


> actually it's funny you should bring that up as i took advantage of the steam sale and got the jedi knight pack. In dark forces 2 (1997) in the graphics settings you can select and deselect the memory duplication. I'll post a screenie of it tonight.
> 
> from what my programmer tells me newer games (since 2000) by default do not duplicate the vga memory in system memory. And you do realize that MS could simply be taking credit for what the game industry already did. As from what I've seen dx10 in no way uses less memory then dx9. you of course can test that with any dx10 game.



i cannot rule this out. it is certainly possible - but i've seen no proof either way.


So far we know that DX9 *can* duplicate into system memory, and due to MS's documents it sounds like its default behaviour - they wouldnt tout windows 7's new WDDM1.1 as having better performance due to not duplicating ram like windows vistas WDDM 1.0 (DX10 vs DX9), if they could already do it in DX9


summary: based on microsofts documentation and logic, it seems like DX9 definitely duplicates ram. This however does not rule out situations where it is NOT duplicated - its poorly documented.


----------



## Goodman (Jan 6, 2010)

3volvedcombat said:


> Ya im ganna buy a fresh gt240-220 and overclock it
> Right when the UPS guy comes knocking, im going to open the card box, take pictures, walk to the garage, get the demel out and grind that sucker to pci-e x1, so i can have a proper card for physx, and performance wont be hacked almost at all for a 48-96 stream processor card.
> 
> 8400gs is useliss for physx but its nice to run what you modded just to run it .



DON'T cut the card , cut the PCI-e 1x open so the card will fit in , see the link

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/249291-30-card


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 6, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i cannot rule this out. it is certainly possible - but i've seen no proof either way.
> 
> 
> So far we know that DX9 *can* duplicate into system memory, and due to MS's documents it sounds like its default behaviour - they wouldnt tout windows 7's new WDDM1.1 as having better performance due to not duplicating ram like windows vistas WDDM 1.0 (DX10 vs DX9), if they could already do it in DX9
> ...



I read an interview with some exec from ATI who stated that the 5-series still keeps copies of vga ram in system ram, *due to hardware design, not software*. He was speaking about how the 5-series doesn't have a unified cache or really a unified buffer(memcontrol is 4x64-bit, not really 256 bit as suggested), and said it was nessecary to keep the system ram copy for times when needed data could not be properly accessed due to the actual buffer where the data resides being busy.

I searched high and low for that article, but could not find it last night...I'll look for it today and post a link later.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 25, 2010)

I have a question. I have 8GB of DDR2 memory and 512MB GDDR5 HD 4870 x 2 in Crossfire X. How would this relate to gaming. Am I still memory deficient?

I am sure I have enough ram for gaming. But just curious.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2010)

Super XP said:


> I have a question. I have 8GB of DDR2 memory and 512MB GDDR5 HD 4870 x 2 in Crossfire X. How would this relate to gaming. Am I still memory deficient?
> 
> I am sure I have enough ram for gaming. But just curious.



you'd be capped to 2GB per app on a 32 bit OS, as for 64 bit (with 32 bit games) you're raised to a 4GB cap - including only 1GB of the video ram (second cards ram isnt used in crossfire, therefore no address space used)


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 25, 2010)

Mussels said:


> ..... (second cards ram isnt used in crossfire, therefore no address space used)


Really. I didn't realize that... How about Nvidia Chipsets, or did I miss that statement earlier in the thread?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2010)

Ahhzz said:


> Really. I didn't realize that... How about Nvidia Chipsets, or did I miss that statement earlier in the thread?



SLI and crossfire behave the same way.

Some small amount of ram/address space may be used, but it'd be small and insignificant.


----------



## xBruce88x (Jan 26, 2010)

wow i should have read this much sooner thanks for the info! so which is my real bottleneck then, 32bit XP with my newer games (apps fighting for my 2gb ram), or my Pent. D? there's an "unofficial" bios for my motherboard that lets it use 4gb instead of only 2... thinking about doing that and installing win7 64bit. of course i'd really like a core2duo/quad


----------



## nt300 (Feb 5, 2010)

Mussels said:


> you'd be capped to 2GB per app on a 32 bit OS, as for 64 bit (with 32 bit games) you're raised to a 4GB cap - including only 1GB of the video ram *(second cards ram isnt used in crossfire, therefore no address space used)*


Sounds to me both ATI and Nvidia need to address this issue as soon as possible so they can make sure 2nd cards ram is well in use. Sounds like the 2nd cards ram is a waist which means the dual gpu is the better way forward if you plan on crossfire or sli.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 5, 2010)

nt300 said:


> Sounds to me both ATI and Nvidia need to address this issue as soon as possible so they can make sure 2nd cards ram is well in use. Sounds like the 2nd cards ram is a waist which means the dual gpu is the better way forward if you plan on crossfire or sli.



if it was easy to do, it would have been done long ago.


----------



## MatTheCat (Mar 14, 2010)

Mussels said:


> second cards ram isnt used in crossfire, therefore no address space used)



So by this rationale, a 1GB 4870 + a 512MB 4870 Crossfired would give you 1GB of vRAM, just as 2x 1GB 4870's?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 15, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> So by this rationale, a 1GB 4870 + a 512MB 4870 Crossfired would give you 1GB of vRAM, just as 2x 1GB 4870's?



no. they have to match - you end up with 512MB of ram.


card 1's ram is duplicated into the second card, to make sure their images match. think RAID 1


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 18, 2010)

So DirectX copies VRAM to normal RAM? Maybe that's why I naturally hate it so much..... OpenGL forever, baby.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 19, 2010)

hellrazor said:


> So DirectX copies VRAM to normal RAM? Maybe that's why I naturally hate it so much..... OpenGL forever, baby.



openGL likely does it too, since it uses the same hardware instructions. If the video cards could be accessed directly in ram, DirectX would have done it... and since they didnt, its logical to assume openGL cant either


----------



## Mussels (Mar 19, 2010)

cadaveca - All you're doing is taking my thread off topic.

This will result in mass deletion if it continues.


edit: well, it was even taken to PM's telling me how wrong i am about this topic, so its cleanup time.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 19, 2010)

Mussels said:


> openGL likely does it too, since it uses the same hardware instructions. If the video cards could be accessed directly in ram, DirectX would have done it... and since they didnt, its logical to assume openGL cant either



OpenGL doesn't care what's in VRAM (or RAM), it merrily goes along completely oblivious to it, and I'm fine with that because that means there's more RAM for me.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 19, 2010)

hellrazor said:


> OpenGL doesn't care what's in VRAM (or RAM), it merrily goes along completely oblivious to it, and I'm fine with that because that means there's more RAM for me.



i have no proof either way with openGL. Until we can find some, i'll stay neutral. You got any info on that anywhere?




cadaveca said:


> My info is from Richard Huddy, Mussels, an ATI official. I'm not wrong, if anything, he is. I could provide a link, but you are being stubborn. Ofcourse, I was going to provide sources, but you deleted the relevant info, so I'll post no source. Good day.




Your information proves absolutely nothing, since none of it has anything to do with the address space limitations of a 32 bit OS. please stop posting crap in my thread - i've already had to give you one infraction over it. You've even resorted to insulting me in PM's, and i'm serious now that you are on your last straw.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 20, 2010)

I find it hard to believe that OpenGL will keep a copy of all resources in RAM - especially  since  the Nintendo DS uses a _very_ similar library, which would have a horrid performance penalty if it did (seeing how it has 656k of VRAM and only 4 MB of RAM - it gets more complex than that since it's controlled by two different processors, and it isn't TOTALLY opengl, but it's close enough that a huge difference like that wouldn't magically appear out of nowhere).

I admit it is iffy.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2010)

hellrazor said:


> I find it hard to believe that OpenGL will keep a copy of all resources in RAM - especially  since  the Nintendo DS uses a _very_ similar library, which would have a horrid performance penalty if it did (seeing how it has 656k of VRAM and only 4 MB of RAM - it gets more complex than that since it's controlled by two different processors, and it isn't TOTALLY opengl, but it's close enough that a huge difference like that wouldn't magically appear out of nowhere).
> 
> I admit it is iffy.



without proof either way, we really cant say. I fully beleive that openGL using DX10 hardware can bypass the limit - but if we're talking DX9 hardware in a DX9 OS, it wont be able to access the hardware features to access memory directly.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> WDDM 1.1 removes the need for data duplication. So unless on Win7, the data MUST be duplicated. HD5xxx will never be able to do so though.



WDDM 1.1 uses directX 10 to remove the duplication - this only applies to AERO, the windows interface. any DX10 (or above) application (be it a game, or aero) does not require duplication.

ati 5k cards have no problems with DX10, unless you have yet another unrelated theory as to why it wont work.


----------



## 95Viper (Mar 20, 2010)

Here are a couple of good reads:
Graphics Guide for Windows 7 ages 11 through 17; the whole paper, really. Well, I enjoyed it.

Graphics Memory Reporting through WDDM

Good place for info: Device Fundamentals

Just for grins:Calculating Graphics Memory

Just info...,'cause I ain't getting in the middle of this.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2010)

documentation is always welcome - so long as people arent making weird assumptions about what it really means.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 31, 2010)

I can't help it, I really like this thread. Very informative


----------



## kaneda (Apr 24, 2010)

I understand how and why the Graphics ram is duplicated in the system ram, but what im curious about is if only whats currently being used in the graphics ram is duplicated or if the OS will completely take up the ram.

say you had a gpu with 1gb of ram, would 1gb of system ram be used or would only whats being used of that 1gb of graphics ram be duplicated?


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 24, 2010)

kaneda said:


> I understand how and why the Graphics ram is duplicated in the system ram, but what im curious about is if only whats currently being used in the graphics ram is duplicated or if the OS will completely take up the ram.
> 
> say you had a gpu with 1gb of ram, would 1gb of system ram be used or would only whats being used of that 1gb of graphics ram be duplicated?



The how and why dictates what's duplicated.

For Crossfire and SLi, because the gpus do not share framebuffers, there must be a repository of the info that they can both access...


----------



## kaneda (Apr 24, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> The how and why dictates what's duplicated.
> 
> For Crossfire and SLi, because the gpus do not share framebuffers, there must be a repository of the info that they can both access...



This was not helpful XD, sorry.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 24, 2010)

I know, but it depends on the situation. 


The OS reserves potentially more than what is in the graphics ram, as it must cache desktop data as well, when in 3D, or alt-tabbing wouldn't be possible, for example. It's also not nessecary to duplicate anything other than what may be accessed by other processing elements, whether it's another vga, or say the cpu, with Phys-X.

So this space is typcially greater than vga ram, but it's actual size and contents will vary.


----------



## kaneda (Apr 24, 2010)

Thanks, thats very helpful


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2010)

I've seen some games (sins of a solar empire, for one) where it crashes at 1.75GB everytime - leading us to conclude that it reserves 256MB for video ram.

So it seems that programmers can hardcode a reserved amount, or it can happen dynamically as to how much gets duplicated/cached.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 24, 2010)

Mussels said:


> I've seen some games (sins of a solar empire, for one) where it crashes at 1.75GB everytime - leading us to conclude that it reserves 256MB for video ram.
> 
> So it seems that programmers can hardcode a reserved amount, or it can happen dynamically as to how much gets duplicated/cached.



There's both. 256MB is a hardware requirement(which bios memory remapping steps around, and not just vgas will take up this space, every device reserves a bit), the other is driver-level/software. 

The 256MB is like a buffer for communication over the pci-e bus, which is one-way communication(cpu writes to, vga reads), and the driver-level is for the OS/apps, which is shared between rendering devices.

In XP's driver model, you couldn't run concurrent 3D apps, but the shared render cache offered by WDDM 1.0 and 1.1 allows you to run as many as you wish, although, of course, performance will be hampered as both apps fight for vga ram space/communication...

WDDM 1.1 takes this further, and allows direct access to vga ram, using things like CUDA and CTM, without any data duplication... With WDDM 1.0, there is still a need for the data to be duplicated, although I don't understand why exactly.

So, when an app can use 2.0gb, and the driver itself can use just as much, ideal performance for Vista and Win7's driver models requires a 64-bit OS, as 4GB can easily be consumed just in 3D, nevermind whatever the OS and other stuff uses.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2010)

WDDM1.1 takes it further by using DX10 instead of DX9.C - remember that that only concerns the OS and its usage of the graphics, basically for aero and media playback.


----------



## Hockster (Apr 24, 2010)

It's 2010 and a half. Anyone still using a 32 bit OS should be flogged.

In public.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2010)

Hockster said:


> It's 2010 and a half. Anyone still using a 32 bit OS should be flogged.
> 
> In public.



so should game devs who dont use the large address aware flag


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 24, 2010)

Mussels said:


> WDDM1.1 takes it further by using DX10 instead of DX9.C - remember that that only concerns the OS and its usage of the graphics, basically for aero and media playback.



Sure, it uses the DX9 way of managing that shared data, but it's not just Aero and the OS that requires data duplication.

From what I understand WDDM 1.0 makes an effort to eliminate data duplication, but legacy apps require those bios caches in order to run, so they are still there. WDDM 1.1 doesn't require it them all, but board makers would only be able to run Win7 on boards without it.

We're kinda stuck in a juxtaposition of the two ways of doing things...in the past it wasn't possible for hardware to communicate as it can now, so they need to leave these functions there, but if they could phase all the old stuff out...

As it stands now, in XP and Vista, there are times when data isn't just duplicated..it's trippled...once on VGA, once on shared render cache, and once in the GART cache(GART cache would be the bios-assigned system ram).



Mussels said:


> so should game devs who dont use the large address aware flag



This can cause issues all on it's own though. The PAE switch needs to be enabled before the OS boots, so they don't have this choice in every scenario...again, it's legacy hardware that can screw with this. PAE also require morethan 4GB of ram. Microsoft explains it best:



> Hardware Requirements for PAE
> The system must meet the following minimum requirements:
> 
> • x86 Pentium Pro processor or later
> ...





> Various chipsets are capable of supporting more than 4 GB of physical memory. By using PAE, the Windows Datacenter and Advanced Server operating systems can use this memory.
> 
> On a 64-bit platform, for optimal performance, all PCI adapters (including 32-bit PCI adapters) must be able to address the full physical address space. For 32-bit PCI adapters, this means that they must be able to support the Dual Address Cycle (DAC) command to permit them to transfer 64-bit addresses to the adapter or device (that is, addresses above the 4 GB address space). Adapters that cannot provide this support cannot directly access the full address space on a 64-bit platform.
> 
> ...



PAE is basically running 36-bit, the extra 4 bits allow addressing greater than 32-bit, obviously.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2010)

PAE and LAA are two entirely seperate beasts, and one does not require the other.

and yes, WDDM (windows display driver model) concerns aero and media playback. it doesnt have anything to do with third party apps, unless they tie into it for 3D surfaces (such as a game or media player - MPC-HC lets you choose from tons of rendering modes, for example).

WDDM is purely about the OS and how it renders, which is why you can run WDDM 1.1 (DX10) for aero and so on, and yet still have DX11 (not part of the WDDM 1.1 standard) for games.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 24, 2010)

Mussels said:


> PAE and LAA are two entirely seperate beasts, and one does not require the other.


Specifically, PAE is Intel's LAA tech, but they are still one and the same.



> and yes, WDDM (windows display driver model) concerns aero and media playback. it doesnt have anything to do with third party apps, unless they tie into it for 3D surfaces (such as a game or media player - MPC-HC lets you choose from tons of rendering modes, for example).
> 
> WDDM is purely about the OS and how it renders, which is why you can run WDDM 1.1 (DX10) for aero and so on, and yet still have DX11 (not part of the WDDM 1.1 standard) for games.


No. WDDM = Windows Display Driver Model. This includes DirectX, GDI, Direct2D, DirectCompute, etc...

GDI = Desktop level stuff. This is what requires data duplication, as the GDI format is not the same as DirectX, so there has to be a space to convert the GDI info to DirectX. That's what you are talking about...

But yeah, I understand what you are saying.

When it comes to 3D, the reasons for data duplication are different...such as deffered rendering, and, technically, Crossfire and SLi are deffered rendering, but on frames, rather than work within the graphics pipeline(like how the PS3 renders). Phys-X is also deffered rendering.

That's how Lucid's Hydra works...using deffered rendering.

Anyway, WDDM 1.0 only allowed for one application to use the entire system, while WDDM 1.1 allows for more, as the places and timing for exclusive access have been broken down into smaller parts. This allows for Both GDI threads to access the same memory space, which eliminates the need for hte duplication for the desktop space, however, the same does not apply for 3D...unless, I suppose, the developer allows for it. That's where it starts to get really confusing for me.


----------



## remixedcat (May 15, 2010)

excellent explanation OP. very well done.


----------



## Timonthy (Jun 20, 2010)

Ah, with only 2GB or RAM and a puny 256MB for the GPU frame buffer, I guess i have an excuse to stick with 32-bit Win7.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2010)

Timonthy said:


> Ah, with only 2GB or RAM and a puny 256MB for the GPU frame buffer, I guess i have an excuse to stick with 32-bit Win7.



yeah, system like that has no loss on 32 bit, at all.

you wont lose anything going to 64 bit either, so consider that when you next reinstall windows.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2010)

If you got 6 GiB of RAM on a 64-bit OS, a 32-bit application that is large address aware, and a card with 1 GiB VRAM, how much does the game have access to?  3 GiB or 4 GiB?


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you got 6 GiB of RAM on a 64-bit OS, a 32-bit application that is large address aware, and a card with 1 GiB VRAM, how much does the game have access to?  3 GiB or 4 GiB?



2GB. 32 bit OS caps each app to 2GB. so depending how much Vram it uses, you could only have 1GB for ram available.

if its large address aware and you mod the OS with the /3GB switch, then you can raise it to 3GB


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2010)

I said 64-bit OS. XD


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I said 64-bit OS. XD



... quiet, you.


32 bit app on 64 bit OS is still capped at 2GB, unless its large address aware in which case that raises to 4GB of address space.


remember that the amount of vid memory used (and thus in address space) varies, and its usually NOT the maximum your video card has (or you'd be stuttering all the time) it might be 200MB, it might be 500MB, it might be 800MB.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2010)

So the game might have 3.8 GiB, 3.5 GiB, or 3.2 GiB available to it?


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So the game might have 3.8 GiB, 3.5 GiB, or 3.2 GiB available to it?



yeah those numbers were pulled out of a hat, but yes. if its LAA, its 4GB minus whatever your video card is using at that moment in time (some games its hardlocked, others it varies)

if its not LAA, then its 2GB minus the rest, just like a 32 bit OS.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 21, 2010)

Hockster said:


> It's 2010 and a half. Anyone still using a 32 bit OS should be flogged.
> 
> In public.



I have some builds on 32bit, and some on 64bit. Most people are still on 32bit OSes. 32bit isn't bad but it is wasted potential in many cases.


----------



## tonschk (Jul 10, 2010)

Thanks very much for the info Mussels. 

.


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 17, 2010)

I dont know if this was clarified in the entire thread yet, as I did not have time to read all the way through it. But, just because a video card has 1GB of VRAM or 2GB of VRAM, does not mean its gonna use that in address space. I looked at many different video cards and most of them only use 256MB of address space.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 17, 2010)

GenTarkin said:


> I dont know if this was clarified in the entire thread yet, as I did not have time to read all the way through it. But, just because a video card has 1GB of VRAM or 2GB of VRAM, does not mean its gonna use that in address space. I looked at many different video cards and most of them only use 256MB of address space.



yeah that was covered, it was something we learned later on. Games can reserve set amounts, or us dynamic amounts - and i too have seen many games using a 256MB limit. Its easy to go above it however, when you add in external things such as forcing AA/AF from the driver control panel.


----------



## ERazer (Jul 17, 2010)

Woot learn alot, TY Mussel


----------



## somebody (Jul 17, 2010)

Hadn't noticed this thread before, probably because I don't have a big graphics card , but a couple of things caught my eye.


cadaveca said:


> PAE also require morethan 4GB of ram. Microsoft explains it best:


Using PAE does not require more than 4GB of RAM. Even my old retired laptop that had 256MB of RAM used PAE. Perhaps the quote you have made is for a system where it would make little sense to run PAE without more than 4GB RAM. From XP2 onwards PAE has been enabled by default to enable use of hardware DEP, that is if the CPU support the NX bit.



cadaveca said:


> PAE is basically running 36-bit, the extra 4 bits allow addressing greater than 32-bit, obviously.


Enabling PAE on the older "32-bit" CPU's that supported PAE meant being able to physically address up to 36-bits because thats how many address lines were supported by those CPU's. If a CPU supported 50 address lines then PAE would support up to 1024TB of RAM, in other words PAE can theoretically address as much RAM as 64-bit. The problem with a 32-bit OS** is actually with the linear memory space since this is limited to 4GB with the Windows OS usually taking the upper 2GB of that. This is where AWE comes in and enables swapping in to and out of chunks of that large memory into the small linear address space to enable much more than 2GB of RAM for a 32-bit application. Don't expect to see AWE in your everyday applications though . Although MS claims AWE is very efficient at doing this and it would also depend on the application itself, 64-bit should be more efficient as it can map to a much larger linear address space without swapping, which IIRC is split 8TB/8TB for Windows. 

** Of course the biggest problem is from the poor drivers written some time ago that pushed MS to cap the physical address space to 4GB so that any ram that is re-mapped above 4GB is usually ignored in most 32-bit Windows OSes. Now that 64-bit OSes are available there are no real world gains for enabling 32-bit to make use of the remapped memory above 4GB. For most users anyway.



cadaveca said:


> Specifically, PAE is Intel's LAA tech, but they are still one and the same.


They are not the same. Large address aware is to do with linear address space, in which all it basically means is "this program should work correctly with linear addresses above 2GB (0x80000000)". PAE is to do with how the linear address is translated to a physical address. IMO it's usually the confusion between linear and physical that generates a lot of misinformation.

Sorry if it looks like I'm picking on you cadaveca, it's not meant that way.




Hockster said:


> It's 2010 and a half. Anyone still using a 32 bit OS should be flogged.


Well as somebody who uses a 32-bit OS, where do I go for my flogging? I do also use 16-bit on occasion, what do I get for that?  Seriously though, I will also use 64-bit, whatever works best for what I am doing at the time. 

Probably can skip the flogging as Mussels will probably want to kill me after sidetracking this thread.


----------



## Sir_Real (Jul 17, 2010)

Well i have dual boot on my rig 32bit XP pro & 64bit win 7. If 32bit is so inferior why is it 3Dmark06 & furmark score higher wen running on xp ?


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 17, 2010)

maybe because xp is less resource drawing which means it has more expendable resource for applications


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 17, 2010)

xp is ready to retire to the old OS home and join DOS and windows ME!


----------



## chaotic_uk (Jul 17, 2010)

remixedcat said:


> xp is ready to retire to the old OS home and join DOS and windows ME!



only the 32bit version , the 64bit version is supported till 2014 from what i have read


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 17, 2010)

wow they extended it then I heard it was 2011 or 2012.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 17, 2010)

somebody said:


> Probably can skip the flogging as Mussels will probably want to kill me after sidetracking this thread.



no problems when people have information to add - and you've got a wall of it, and a good chunk of it seems relevant.




Sir_Real said:


> Well i have dual boot on my rig 32bit XP pro & 64bit win 7. If 32bit is so inferior why is it 3Dmark06 & furmark score higher wen running on xp ?



because they were coded for that OS. i bet if you get a program made for win 95, it'll run better in win 95 than in XP.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 17, 2010)

remixedcat said:


> xp is ready to retire to the old OS home and join DOS and windows ME!



xp should really go home!!!


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 18, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yeah that was covered, it was something we learned later on. Games can reserve set amounts, or us dynamic amounts - and i too have seen many games using a 256MB limit. Its easy to go above it however, when you add in external things such as forcing AA/AF from the driver control panel.



oh ok cool =), well the reservation of memory by a game really has nothing to do with address space dedicated to the video card =)

-----
On another note, regarding PAE...yes it allows a CPU to address 36bit address and theoretically allowing a 32bit OS to use up to 64GB of ram I believe it is...
But the problem as someone said earlier is the design of MS drivers being the limiting factor on desktop OS's and why they wont be able to address higher then 32bit memory.

Their 32bit server os's on the other hand do take full advantage of PAE as their drivers are PAE aware and can see up to 64GB of RAM.

Linux also, easily can see a higher amount of memory with PAE aware kernel and compiled drivers for PAE...which is a much simpler approach.

Also, the only thing XP 32bit used PAE for was the Execute Disable bit technology as it functioned in the higher 36bit area. Thats why PAE is enabled on most XP box's where before the Execute Disable bit came out...you wouldnt see the "Physical Address Extension" in the system properties.


----------



## Graogrim (Jul 19, 2010)

*cough* I don't mean to start an argument here or anything, but I feel obliged to point out that hardly any "real" games these days use the GDI (the part of Windows responsible for the duplicated memory assets). The GDI is for rendering fonts and lines and ellipses and such in desktop windows, and lacks any kind of animation support. It certainly does not support 3D.

If your application is using D2D, D3D, OpenGL, or is rendering video then it is *highly* unlikely (though technically possible I suppose if the programmers were insane enough to do it) that it is relying upon the GDI at all.

What this means in practice is that the effect of this duplication is not nearly so dramatic as to completely mirror the video card's entire set of onboard memory, but rather just the memory required by the specific windows that use the GDI. A good way to think of it is not that the video card's memory is being duplicated in system RAM, but that system RAM allocated for GDI use is being duplicated in the GPU's on-board memory for final rendering to the screen. Shared memory architectures benefit from Windows 7's GDI improvements the most because the GDI effectively has hitherto had to double-dip system RAM whenever a new window in which it is used is opened.

It's also noteworthy that apps which use GDI+ under Windows 7 are still reliant on software rendering, and therefore will not benefit from the WDDM 1.1 improvements.

Added: Of course that doesn't have direct bearing on the duplication of 3D resources (usually cached textures, meshes, shaders and the like), but there are similar implications for cached resources in 3D apps. It's not literally duplicating the video card's entire address space.

Sorry if this duplicates anything that's already been said...8 pages make it a bit tough to keep track of everything everyone has posted so far.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2010)

Graogrim said:


> *cough* I don't mean to start an argument here or anything, but I feel obliged to point out that hardly any "real" games these days use the GDI (the part of Windows responsible for the duplicated memory assets). The GDI is for rendering fonts and lines and ellipses and such in desktop windows, and lacks any kind of animation support. It certainly does not support 3D.
> 
> If your application is using D2D, D3D, OpenGL, or is rendering video then it is *highly* unlikely (though technically possible I suppose if the programmers were insane enough to do it) that it is relying upon the GDI at all.
> 
> ...



microsoft themselves said that aero using WDDM 1.0 (DX9 hardware/PS2.0) duplicates in vista/7, and you need DX10 hardware to run WDDM 1.1 to prevent it in win 7. while i do not disagree with your information (since some if its over my head) - i trust that information from MS.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 19, 2010)

Just wish there was a program we can run to see how much vram is been used in each game we fire up, this would help a lot in determining how much RAM we really need in our gaming rigs, or if we are hitting the limit?

At a guess id say 99% of games wouldn't even use 1GB of vram while playing? I have no idea.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2010)

Melvis said:


> Just wish there was a program we can run to see how much vram is been used in each game we fire up, this would help a lot in determining how much RAM we really need in our gaming rigs, or if we are hitting the limit?
> 
> At a guess id say 99% of games wouldn't even use 1GB of vram while playing? I have no idea.



no way to tell Vram that i know of. it needs to be supported in the video cards and drivers for that to work.

I THINK some Nvidia cards + GPUZ can show Vram used, but not all of them, and not ATI.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jul 19, 2010)

Melvis said:


> Just wish there was a program we can run to see how much vram is been used in each game we fire up, this would help a lot in determining how much RAM we really need in our gaming rigs, or if we are hitting the limit?
> 
> At a guess id say 99% of games wouldn't even use 1GB of vram while playing? I have no idea.



there is, 

its called GPU-Z lol. goto the sensors tab and it will show how much video ram is being used.

(only if your video card supports it.)


----------



## Melvis (Jul 19, 2010)

Mussels said:


> no way to tell Vram that i know of. it needs to be supported in the video cards and drivers for that to work.
> 
> I THINK some Nvidia cards + GPUZ can show Vram used, but not all of them, and not ATI.



Yea shame ATI dont have drivers/support for this yet, would help alot, least i can tell with my 8600GT's.

I never even thought about GPU-Z, and yea since owning a ATI card i haven't noticed it.



slyfox2151 said:


> there is,
> 
> its called GPU-Z lol. goto the sensors tab and it will show how much video ram is being used.
> 
> (only if your video card supports it.)



 Yea i know since using an ATI card for the past few yrs i haven't even seen it in GPU-Z, but now i know its there its time to do some testing with my SLi rig, see how much games realy use. And yes the 8600GT's are supported.


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 19, 2010)

Well here is what I have discovered regarding VRAM. I run all my games @ 1680 x 1050. Usually w/ 4x AA and 16AF.

Most modern games, and vantage / unigine use somewhere between 300MB-650MB VRAM depending on the game at this resolution and AF / AA settings. So, a card 1GB of VRAM is called for in gaming at this resolution sometimes =)

Its no longer the days of, oh you only need 512MB if your playing and lower - medium resolution with little AA.

This is on a nvidia GTS250

I am getting a GTX 460 this week as replacement, if the VRAM usage changes due to architecture I will let you know=)


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 19, 2010)

Mussels said:


> no way to tell Vram that i know of. it needs to be supported in the video cards and drivers for that to work.
> 
> I THINK some Nvidia cards + GPUZ can show Vram used, but not all of them, and not ATI.



GPU-Z detects how much VRAM is being used on my GTX 470.

Didn't know it doesn't show up for ATI cards.


----------



## Graogrim (Jul 19, 2010)

Mussels said:


> microsoft themselves said that aero using WDDM 1.0 (DX9 hardware/PS2.0) duplicates in vista/7, and you need DX10 hardware to run WDDM 1.1 to prevent it in win 7. while i do not disagree with your information (since some if its over my head) - i trust that information from MS.


Sure, and nothing I said was intended to flat out disagree, it's just that based on some of the posts I read it seemed like some folks had the wrong idea. For instance, the entirety of the video card's address space is not copied to system RAM. Also, depending on the API being used by any given app, even Windows 7 with DX11 is not completely immune to the replication of resources.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 20, 2010)

Graogrim said:


> Sure, and nothing I said was intended to flat out disagree, it's just that based on some of the posts I read it seemed like some folks had the wrong idea. For instance, the entirety of the video card's address space is not copied to system RAM. Also, depending on the API being used by any given app, even Windows 7 with DX11 is not completely immune to the replication of resources.



we thought the entirety was at first, however we learned later on that its not. It uses bits at a time, which CAN lead up to the entire amount of Vram - so most games lock it (256MB is rather common - they hit 1.75GB of ram used and CRASH)


----------



## Graogrim (Jul 20, 2010)

That will only ever be the case if the game in question actually loads enough textures and other resources at once to entirely fill video memory. One way around that is to use algorithmically generated textures on the fly. That can cut memory requirements down to nothing more than the workspace required to generate any given single texture at once. Various demoscene apps--especially those that have to fit their executable and supporting files in a very small space--historically do this more often than actual games. It's slower than reloading from a cache in system RAM but usually faster than reloading from disk.

Strictly speaking, games don't HAVE to use that sort of caching, and some don't--those are the ones that don't use things like procedural textures and take a while to get going again after you've alt-tabbed out and back in again.


----------



## somebody (Jul 22, 2010)

GenTarkin said:


> Also, the only thing XP 32bit used PAE for was the Execute Disable bit technology as it functioned in the higher 36bit area. Thats why PAE is enabled on most XP box's where before the Execute Disable bit came out...you wouldnt see the "Physical Address Extension" in the system properties.



The XD bit is not somewhere in the 36bit area but actually bit 63. PAE uses 64-bit page tables.  

If you were lucky enough to have had 4GB of RAM with XP SP1 then it would have been up to the user to enable PAE since it wasn't enabled by default, and have full use of all 4GB of RAM. That is if the user was also lucky enough not to have bad drivers and BSOD's. Needless to say the user's luckiness of using all 4GB would shortly disappear in SP2. 


Okay, back OT.





Not really sure what this is supposed to be showing, it doesn't tie in with what I see on my own system. With Vista running a hundred windows of 512x512x32 (1MB) results in 200MB of physical memory no longer available where as in 7 it's 100MB. Ties in with half the memory but can't see the connection with the above graph from Tom's.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2010)

RAMMap 1.1 was released a month ago...with this app it's possible to monitor device driver memory usage:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/ff700229.aspx

Ati also ahs a tool for monitoring vga ram usage, available on the amd dev site. GPU-Z can tell you nvidia ram usage, and with RAMMap, you'll know how much the driver uses as well.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 23, 2010)

somebody said:


> Okay, back OT.
> http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/3/207435/original/image_thumb_8.png
> Not really sure what this is supposed to be showing, it doesn't tie in with what I see on my own system. With Vista running a hundred windows of 512x512x32 (1MB) results in 200MB of physical memory no longer available where as in 7 it's 100MB. Ties in with half the memory but can't see the connection with the above graph from Tom's.



thats one of the graphs we found, yes.


the graph may be total BS, but the halfing of memory/reduction of memory/address space used is the key. with such a poorly documented 'feature' its been a bitch finding ANYTHING about it.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> RAMMap 1.1 was released a month ago...with this app it's possible to monitor device driver memory usage:
> 
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/ff700229.aspx
> 
> Ati also ahs a tool for monitoring vga ram usage, available on the amd dev site. GPU-Z can tell you nvidia ram usage, and with RAMMap, you'll know how much the driver uses as well.



please link to this ATI tool (or download it/reupload it if normal users cant get it)


----------



## somebody (Jul 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> RAMMap 1.1 was released a month ago...with this app it's possible to monitor device driver memory usage:
> 
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/ff700229.aspx



Thanks for the link. I like the fact that it shows AWE usage. Some initial problems running without a pagefile is that in Vista it appears to need an extra ~300MB of virtual space to refresh. ie If the program is already up and running and I run a memory hungry program that leaves less then ~300MB of RAM / virtual, then try to use the refresh button it crashes. Will have to look into it some more.


----------



## alfieabel (Oct 9, 2010)

Many (if not most) of working memory cards sealed with a bitmap image memory built in video card, which is transferred to the physical screen memory in a copy operation managed by a function transfer printing equipment. The block transfer takes a chunk of memory at a time and transfers it to the screen buffer bit real. little size it says speed is produced. 32 bits at a time, 64 bits, 128 bits or more. The more bits, and transfer is carried out.


----------



## remixedcat (Oct 10, 2010)

I got a sidebar gadget that tells me how much vram I'm using.


----------



## genta3d (Oct 22, 2010)

How about a 32bit windows server ?
It can using 16GB of ram right ?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 23, 2010)

genta3d said:


> How about a 32bit windows server ?
> It can using 16GB of ram right ?



there are some tricks server OS's can do to see more ram, but keep in mind the limitations: its still locked to 2GB per application making it pointless.


----------



## genta3d (Oct 23, 2010)

So is it really can make up to 16GB ?
BTW, I really need RAM to play multi client game. For the game is just 700-800mb RAM need it. But I want to open 20-30 client in one computer. And I need it in 32bit, since some program got bad in 64bit...


----------



## Mussels (Oct 23, 2010)

genta3d said:


> So is it really can make up to 16GB ?
> BTW, I really need RAM to play multi client game. For the game is just 700-800mb RAM need it. But I want to open 20-30 client in one computer. And I need it in 32bit, since some program got bad in 64bit...



i dont know if it can, google didnt help me much.


----------



## Nokiacrazi (Nov 11, 2010)

EDIT : Lol, sorry for reviving the thread... in all honesty I read the last post as november...oh well.

Useful thread. First page was especially helpful.

I am currently thinking of buy a new computer. I will give the specs that I plan to use so I can then ask my question.


Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3 870 Socket AM3 8 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz Socket AM3 8MB L3 Cache 125W Retail Box Processor
OCZ 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600MHZ Gold AMD Memory Kit CL8 1.65V
Sapphire HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI Dual Mini Display Port Out PCI-E Graphics Card

My questions are - Using this build mainly for gaming (dx10/11) will the RAM be a bottleneck for the graphics card?

Are any of the components bottlenecks for each other?

Would I have considerably/more performance in gaming with a AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 9MB Cache Socket AM3 Retail Box Processor using the same build?

Would I have considerably/more performance in gaming with OCZ 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600MHz AMD Black Edition Memory Kit AOD Ready CL8(8-8-8-24) 1.65V using either builds?

Would I have consderably/more performance in gaming with Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD7 890FX Socket AM3 8 Channel Audio Out XL-ATX Motherboard in any of the combinations?

And finally (sorry  too many questions for a newbie ) If I had the Sapphire HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI Dual Mini Display Port Out PCI-E Graphics Card in crossfire x2, would I need more RAM? What PSU would I need? Would it be compatible with any of the combinations?


----------



## Techtu (Nov 11, 2010)

Mussels - How about updating the original post to include some new figures for example, 1.5/2Gb video cards. Surely these effect the amount of usable ram?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 11, 2010)

Nokiacrazi said:


> EDIT : Lol, sorry for reviving the thread... in all honesty I read the last post as november...oh well.
> 
> Useful thread. First page was especially helpful.
> 
> ...




DX10 and 11 dont duplicate the ram, so no, it wont be a problem at all. 4GB is still enough for every game these days.


the rest of your questions are better off asked in another thread, probably here System Builder's Advice




Techtu said:


> Mussels - How about updating the original post to include some new figures for example, 1.5/2Gb video cards. Surely these effect the amount of usable ram?




I think everyone gets the hang of it now. anyone using a 2GB video card in DX9 games in XP 32 bit, is gunna get what they deserve...


----------



## Techtu (Nov 11, 2010)

Mussels said:


> DX10 and 11 dont duplicate the ram, so no, it wont be a problem at all. 4GB is still enough for every game these days.
> 
> 
> the rest of your questions are better off asked in another thread, probably here System Builder's Advice
> ...



Haha... yeah it's pretty obvious come to think of it now


----------



## Rolano (Nov 23, 2010)

Mussels, I think you don't have full understanding of address space mapping and Windows memory model.

For 32bit Windows, due to linear memory model only 4GB space is addressable.
Upper part is taken by kernel (mostly API functions mapping) and then goes down by each device drivers mapping their supported hardware IO into 32 bit address space. Video driver is one of them.

Physical memory is MAPPED into system address space for application use. Video memory is also directly MAPPED to kernel address space, it DOES NOT use physical RAM for it. Its Windows Vista and 7 Aero interface thing that does video frame buffer copy of application window like a texture because it is implemented so.

Video driver max mapped address space window can be 256MB if i remember correctly and there are some nuances in how kernel memory can be mapped by drivers. Also this kernel and driver memory mapping is always present in all threads so that is why in 32 bit systems with video card with more than 256MB memory maximum usable physical RAM to Windows (without special technique like PAE) can be 3.25 GB, but if other drivers map their portion of kernel memory "badly", you can get down to worst case of 2GB of useful physical memory.

Now about individual applications. In 32 bit Windows every application gets up to 2GB (3GB with -3GB flag) user space of these max usable 3.25 physical memory for their use. Much of it is same physical memory shared by several applications by using same DLLs.

In 64 bit Windows, 32 bit applications behave exactly the same way as in 32 bit and have exact same limitations as in 32 bit Windows.

For 64 bit applications there are several changes:
1. Kernel system space and driver mappings now take place in upper 8 TB (8 terabytes because current CPUs use only 48 bit physical address lines) of address space, so maximum useful physical memory is 8TB - kernel and driver needs.
2. Normal applications still get 2GB of user space.
3. Applications with -3GB flag get full 4GB user space.

So that is why 32 bit system without special techniques (PAE, ramdisk, etc) can only use 3.25-3.5GB of physical RAM, and 64 bit can use full amount of physical RAM (because no system can have 8TB of physical RAM today).

I hope this helps to clear things up.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 23, 2010)

Rolano said:


> Mussels, I think you don't have full understanding of address space mapping and Windows memory model.




i certainly DONT understand all of it.

the whole point of this was to bring everyone out who does understand it, or parts of it, and get all that knowledge together since no one seemed to have a clue about it.


All i know for fact is that 32 bit OS's are a limitation to many modern games, and a 64 bit OS with LAA applications can alleviate that - the rest of this is trying to figure out why that is (which is hard with so little information available on the internet and contradicting opinions), and getting people to at least realise there IS an issue, even if they dont understand it completely.


thanks for providing more information, i'm sure people will read it and appreciate it.


----------



## Rolano (Nov 23, 2010)

Yeah, nice point about making people informed about operating system they use.

There is very nice blog detailing how Windows internals work. Here are some useful links for this discussion from there:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx

Added:
It seems, I also have made some mistakes in my previous post, so please read the links I provided for full picture, the info there is guaranteed to be correct.


----------



## Ulysses (Jan 22, 2011)

Interesting thread, but it certainly does *not* work the way it's described in the 1st post.
I still have windows XP (32bit) , and even though I have a 2GB 6950 windows is still able to manage 3.5G (it only "wastes" 0.5G for I/O space). Makes me wonder: is it making use of the video card's 2G ???


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 22, 2011)

Ulysses said:


> Interesting thread, but it certainly does *not* work the way it's described in the 1st post.
> I still have windows XP (32bit) , and even though I have a 2GB 6950 windows is still able to manage 3.5G (it only "wastes" 0.5G for I/O space). Makes me wonder: is it making use of the video card's 2G ???



with your kind of system i would be using seven because it has dx10 and 11 support unlike XP


----------



## sliderider (Jan 22, 2011)

In a 32 bit system you don't technically have 4gb RAM. You can install that much, but 3.19GB or something like that is all that is seen by the OS. Anything above that is wasted which is why most systems sold today with a 32 bit OS installed come with 3GB RAM. 

You should have more than that for gaming, though, because even though a particular game might not see anything above 2GB, overhead penalties from the OS are reduced. How many times have you experienced slowdowns while playing because Windows needed to access the pagefile? It's hard for your game to import data from the hard drive with all that pagefile work going on and still maintain a seamless display. These days with people with gaming rigs with huge memory configurations there is virtually no pagefile access, but for those of us lower down on the foodchain it can still get to be a problem.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 22, 2011)

Ulysses said:


> Interesting thread, but it certainly does *not* work the way it's described in the 1st post.
> I still have windows XP (32bit) , and even though I have a 2GB 6950 windows is still able to manage 3.5G (it only "wastes" 0.5G for I/O space). Makes me wonder: is it making use of the video card's 2G ???



no, in a 32 bit OS its not possible to use that.


32 bit apps in a 32 bit OS only get 2GB address space total, so there is no way you can use all 2GB of video ram (unless your app uses 0MB of ram)


----------



## sliderider (Jan 22, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> with your kind of system i would be using seven because it has dx10 and 11 support unlike XP



Ditto. 7 doesn't suffer the performance penalties that Vista did, either. There's no longer any reason to still be using XP unless you have mission critical apps that actually require it, like some businesses do. Home users should move to 7 and skip Vista and they should be upgrading to x64.


----------



## sliderider (Jan 22, 2011)

Mussels said:


> no way to tell Vram that i know of. it needs to be supported in the video cards and drivers for that to work.
> 
> I THINK some Nvidia cards + GPUZ can show Vram used, but not all of them, and not ATI.



crazyeyes posted some charts in another thread that showed the amount of VRAM that some games were maxing out at. The only one I remember clearly was Oblivion and that game was maxing out at 600megs of VRAM usage with all the bells and whistles turned on. Games have advanced a lot since then so VRAM usage has to be pushing the limits of a 1GB card by now if it hasn't already surpassed it. When 28nm hits, I wouldn't be surprised to see more cards with more than 1gb installed than there are now. 1.5gb will probably be the minimum for anyone who wants to play games with any sort of eye candy turned on.


----------



## Ulysses (Jan 22, 2011)

There has to be some mechanism for applications to use VRAM greater than 256 megs, because that's all that gets allocated in the memory address space... (e.g. XP32bits: E0000000-EFFFFFFF and yes I know I do need to go 7 to get DX11 )
I am not sure the articles quoted are relevant to games running in full screen mode, especially the part about XP having to duplicate video stuff into system RAM: sounds too dumb to be true, even for MS...


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 22, 2011)

well read the links on the OP, the inbuilt thing may not be reporting correctly


----------



## Ulysses (Jan 22, 2011)

That reasoning is a bit strange... if Windows didn't know for itself where things were in memory, how could anything work  So yes, the windows system memory report has more credibility than some web article 
Edit: besides, the article http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx states that under 7x86 each 1GB card is "only" being mapped for 256MB each, which seems consistent with my findings under XPx86


----------



## Mussels (Jan 23, 2011)

Ulysses said:


> That reasoning is a bit strange... if Windows didn't know for itself where things were in memory, how could anything work  So yes, the windows system memory report has more credibility than some web article
> Edit: besides, the article http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx states that under 7x86 each 1GB card is "only" being mapped for 256MB each, which seems consistent with my findings under XPx86



from what i've gathered, thats the minimum amount reserved.


256MB video memory + 256MB reserved system memory (for the mapping) adds up nicely with the 3.5GB usable memory most people see in a 32 bit OS with 4GB of ram


obviously more can be used, unless you think that only 256MB of VRAM is used with any game.


----------



## JayzeBlueshark (Apr 13, 2011)

wow! nice info muss.. but 64 bit OS is compatible with any type of CPU unit? like Core 2 Duo, Dual core, quad core, etc.?

sorry for the duplicated post.. my internet connection wasn't respond and that is why..
how to delete that previous post? ..sorry.. i'm in a hurry..


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2011)

i deleted your duplicate post, but i still dont understand the question you're trying to ask


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 13, 2011)

I believe he's trying to ask, if all of the CPUs he listed(plus etc.) are 64bit OS capable.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2011)

95Viper said:


> I believe he's trying to ask, if all of the CPUs he listed(plus etc.) are 64bit OS capable.



oh. well this really isnt the place to find that, CPU-Z can tell you on any working system, and google can find out for any other. All modern CPU's are 64 bit.


----------



## Delova (Apr 25, 2011)

Nice Info Mussels !! Thanks very much !!


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Apr 25, 2011)

Yeah the guy's actually good for something now and then!


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Jul 1, 2011)

So for when the computer I'm building is fully finished will be using 64-bit operating system, 8GB system RAM and a 2GB GPU. Can I still use the 4GB application/exe patcher? Would it make a difference especially for games?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 2, 2011)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> So for when the computer I'm building is fully finished will be using 64-bit operating system, 8GB system RAM and a 2GB GPU. Can I still use the 4GB application/exe patcher? Would it make a difference especially for games?



yes. thats the situation its designed for.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2011)

4GB here.. sitting with 2.735GB Free and 1.5GB GPU. 2.7+1.5=4.*2*GB... HUH? What did I miss?

W764


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 2, 2011)

GART memory allocation is only 256MB.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 2, 2011)

Must have read the first post wrong then.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Jul 11, 2011)

Mussels said:


> yes. thats the situation its designed for.



Most excellent and apologies for a delayed response.


----------



## Bo$$ (Dec 24, 2011)

kat-middleton said:


> Rule of thumb right now, if you are on 32bit, just stay there. If you are upgrading, go 64 bit.



The performance gain is not really apparent in use, it is more of a functionality sort of issue.
like i paid extra for 8gb ram, why not spend a little more to obtain a 64bit version rather than waste 5/8th of it...
even for a home user when multi-tasking the speed up is immense with >3gb ram


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> The performance gain is not really apparent in use, it is more of a functionality sort of issue.
> like i paid extra for 8gb ram, why not spend a little more to obtain a 64bit version rather than waste 5/8th of it...
> even for a home user when multi-tasking the speed up is immense with >3gb ram



this thread must not die!


its less about the maximum system ram of 4GB these days, and more about apps themselves needing more than 2GB.


look at all the crash bugs with skyrim solved by the LAA mod on 64 bit OS's - so common it actually got included as an official patch.


32 bit OS is dead for the PC gaming world.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> GPU-Z does fine for me, i just have to halve the amounts it shows since it seems to be doubling up in crossfire.



Oh maybe that's it. Doubling. Did you see Black Panther's recent thread about GPU-Z monitoring? IIRC it was postulated that it seemed to be 768 over. But maybe it's doubled like you say and also maybe juts crossfire. Cause I too have it saying I am using more than I physically have.


----------



## nt300 (Dec 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> 32 bit OS is dead for the PC gaming world.


Well said


----------



## Azfar (Dec 31, 2011)

Mussels said:


> If you had 4GB of system ram and a 1GB video card under a 32 bit operating system, each individual program could only use 3GB of that system ram (due to the video card using 1GB of address space) However there is something else most people are NOT aware of.
> Under DirectX 9.0C (and lower) video card ram must be duplicated into system ram. That means if you're running on the highest settings with your new shiny 1GB video card - that 1GB of video memory must be duplicated leaving you with only 2GB left for your game.
> 
> You just went from 4GB to 2GB, only considering a single 1GB video card. Things only get worse in SLI and crossfire.
> ...



So does that mean a 64-bit system with say 4GB ram running DX10 will have all 4GB of system RAM available since the above highlighted points wont be applicable on it ?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2011)

Azfar said:


> So does that mean a 64-bit system with say 4GB ram running DX10 will have all 4GB of system RAM available since the above highlighted points wont be applicable on it ?



theoretically, if it was an LAA app yes.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2012)

i get excited when i see people post in this thread... and its always sad when its spam bots


----------



## CoMF (Jan 17, 2012)

Mussels,

I happened to find this thread completely by chance while doing my "homework" on the potential of a future Crossfire setup for my PC.  Excellent write-up.  Very informative.

However, what correlation would memory hole remapping have to the specific 32-bit addressing issue being discussed and how would it work out in practice?  Would it be a viable solution for someone using 4 GB of RAM and two Radeon cards with 1 GB VRAM each who wants to stick with a 32-bit OS for whatever reason?  My apologies if this has already been addressed, but I did skim through all 10 pages of comments before fielding this question.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 17, 2012)

In all technicality its a driver compatibility issue under 32bit register.

Address remapping (the "memory hole")

x86 chipsets that support more than 4 GB of RAM typically also support memory remapping (referred to in some BIOS setup screens as "memory hole remapping"). In this scheme, the BIOS detects the memory address conflict and in effect relocates the interfering RAM so that it may be addressed by the processor at a new physical address that does not conflict with MMIO. On the Intel side, this support once was limited to server chipsets; however, newer desktop chipsets like the Intel 955X and 965 and later support it as well. On the AMD side, the AMD K8 and later processors' built-in memory controller supported it from the beginning.

As the new physical addresses are above the 4 GB point, addressing this RAM does require that the operating system be able to use physical addresses larger than 232.[11] This capability is provided by PAE. Note that there is not necessarily a requirement for the operating system to support more than 4 GB total of RAM, as the total RAM might be only 4 GB; it is just that a portion of it appears to the CPU at addresses in the range from 4 GB and up.[11]

This form of the 3 GB barrier affects one generation of MacBooks,[12] lasting 1 year (Core2Duo (Merom) – Nov 2006 to Oct 2007): the prior generation was limited to 2 GB, while later generations (Nov 2007–Oct 2009) allowed 4 GB by supporting PAE and memory hole remapping, and subsequent generations (late 2009 onwards) use 64-bit processors and support over 4 GB.
[edit] Windows version dependencies

The final piece of the 3 GB barrier puzzle is a limit deliberately coded by Microsoft into the "non-server", or "client", x86 editions of Microsoft Windows: Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7. The 32-bit (x86) versions of these are able to operate x86 processors in PAE mode, and do so by default as long as the CPU present supports the NX bit.[13] Nevertheless, these operating systems do not permit addressing of physical memory above the 4 GB address boundary. This is not an architectural limit; it is a limit imposed by Microsoft as a workaround for driver compatibility issues that were discovered during testing.[14]

Thus, the "3 GB barrier" under x86 Windows "client" operating systems can therefore arise in two slightly different scenarios. In both, RAM near the 4 GB point conflicts with memory-mapped I/O space. Either the BIOS simply disables the conflicting RAM; or, the BIOS remaps the conflicting RAM to physical addresses above the 4 GB point, but x86 Windows client editions refuse to use physical addresses higher than that, even though they are running with PAE enabled. The conflicting RAM is therefore unavailable to the operating system whether it is remapped or not.

-Wiki-



CoMF said:


> Mussels,
> 
> I happened to find this thread completely by chance while doing my "homework" on the potential of a future Crossfire setup for my PC.  Excellent write-up.  Very informative.
> 
> However, what correlation would memory hole remapping have to the specific 32-bit addressing issue being discussed and how would it work out in practice?  Would it be a viable solution for someone using 4 GB of RAM and two Radeon cards with 1 GB VRAM each who wants to stick with a 32-bit OS for whatever reason?  My apologies if this has already been addressed, but I did skim through all 10 pages of comments before fielding this question.


----------



## CoMF (Jan 17, 2012)

@eidaraman1

Thanks.  After reading this am I correct in assuming that, in theory, memory hole remapping would not make one bit of difference and may actually leave one *worse* off?


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 17, 2012)

CoMF said:


> @eidaraman1
> 
> Thanks.  After reading this am I correct in assuming that, in theory, memory hole remapping would not make one bit of difference and may actually leave one *worse* off?



No. the memory hole occurs because a reserved space is needed for every device in the system. Add more devices, and the amount of space available decreases per device. For multi-gpus, this extra space per GPU is not needed, as all data in each GPU's memory is duplicated anyway.


Remapping this space takes it from the 2GB spot(which makes a 2GB usable limit), and re-maps it to the upper end of the addressing limit. If it is not re-mapped, the space above 2GB would be unusable.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 17, 2012)

its just a compatibility share for 32bit os, but in all technicality the computers are limited with 32bit, 64bit does provide a better user experience and does boot fast


----------



## CoMF (Jan 17, 2012)

@cadaveca

Fair enough.  My concern was that, theoretically, the VRAM would be hoisted to a memory range the OS can't access, therefore rendering it unusuable.  I guess I'm overthinking this.  

@eidairaman1

Oh, I have no doubt that a 64-bit OS is the better solution.  Nowadays, there's really not much of a practical choice between XP and 7 any more.  Unfortunately, 7 is a bit of a hard sell for me due to potential issues with some of my hardware.  I really don't want to have to perform voodoo to get the OS to recognize components simply because the drivers aren't signed.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 17, 2012)

What is your hardware?



CoMF said:


> @cadaveca
> 
> Fair enough.  My concern was that, theoretically, the VRAM would be hoisted to a memory range the OS can't access, therefore rendering it unusuable.  I guess I'm overthinking this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2012)

yeah if you're in a situation where your hardware has no signed x64 drivers, you either need to replace that hardware, or stick with old hardware and software.


there comes a point where its not worth keeping the old stuff any more, and mixing with new hardware just wont work right due to OS requirements.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 18, 2012)

People, more ram the better. 64-Bit rocks all thanks to AMD. It's better to have both of these than not IMO.


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

Super XP said:


> People, more ram the better. 64-Bit rocks all thanks to AMD. It's better to have both of these than not IMO.



I agree with you to a point . It is NOT all thanks to AMD is it however all thanks to Microsoft ! Lets try to keep this in perspective and not toss around the fanboy charm . AMD came out with the first 64 bit CPU yes Intel was slow to come out with one but they did have them in the P4 days as well . 
Been on the 64 bit OS since windows XP ! Love it .


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2012)

trickson said:


> I agree with you to a point . It is NOT all thanks to AMD is it however all thanks to Microsoft ! Lets try to keep this in perspective and not toss around the fanboy charm . AMD came out with the first 64 bit CPU yes Intel was slow to come out with one but they did have them in the P4 days as well .
> Been on the 64 bit OS since windows vista ! Love it .



AMD made x86-64. intels solution previously was an entirely new OS with ZERO 32 and 16 bit compatibility - every single app had to be 64 bit.


AMD does deserve thanks there, as they did bring about operating systems that could run 32 and 64 bit at the same time.


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

Mussels said:


> AMD made x86-64. intels solution previously was an entirely new OS with ZERO 32 and 16 bit compatibility - every single app had to be 64 bit.
> 
> 
> AMD does deserve thanks there, as they did bring about operating systems that could run 32 and 64 bit at the same time.



I agree . I just did not want this to become a CPU war thread . AMD did force Intel to hand out a much more flexible alternative and that is the best thing . Having only 64 bit with out the advantage of running anything else was some thing consumers would have never liked and would have dealt Intel a very hard blow if not KILL them all together ! AMD did a great service in this area and continues to put Intel in check . But lets not get too grateful for AMD's hand in this it has also given programers a green light to just keep to the CODE ! In other words since 64 bit OS and CPU's can run 32 bit software just fine we still have yet to see games and other fine things use 64 bit to the full potential hence stagnating the game industry I mean hell even the browser industry is still on 32 bit slow to produce any 64 bit software  . This is JMHO .


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@eidairaman1

Nothing terribly exotic or archaic.  My hardware RAID card (LSI/3Ware 9650SE) is my biggest concern, although Microsoft swears it's supported out of the box in 7.  I'd like to take their word for it, but the horror stories of Vista have left me skeptical.  Of lesser concern are my reservations about the functionality of 32-bit programs in 7 like DOSBox and such. 

@Mussels

If someone's using dated hardware and it's preventing them from taking advantage of a 64-bit OS, they should definitely consider upgrading their components.  However, if it results in them essentially building an entirely new system around the OS, budget constraints may kick in.  

In my case, when I'm given the choice between buying another expensive RAID card or going with FakeRAID, the decision is not quite so practical.  

Edited to Add:  Thanks once again to all for the replies.  They've helped me to understand this problem more in depth than I had previously.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 18, 2012)

Horror Stories from Vista are like cow pies in a pasture, and makes you smell just as bad. 7's nowhere near as bad as Vista was.


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@Ahhzz

And implied insults are supposed to appeal to my logic and reasoning how, exactly?

You know, I *could* bring up the fact that 64-bit operating systems, once the domain of *servers*, were forced upon the public by Microsoft before they had reached their maturity as a *desktop* operating system for the *average* user...  I could also bring up that there's no shortage of Linux users who'd love to comment on the absurdity of needing 2 GBs of ram (per MS) just for your operating system overhead, but I digress.

The fact of the matter is, yes.  7 is an arguably superior OS when compared to Vista.  However, I also reserve my right to be skeptical of it because it's still relatively "new" to me and has "features" I'm not exactly sure I'd love.  Thankfully, the civil and intelligent posts I've been reading are educating me in that regard.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2012)

Just Look up LSI/3ware 9650SE windows 7 driver. Win 7 does alot better of supporting hardware excluding NF-NF4 chipsets because NV decided to not produce drivers during vista time



CoMF said:


> @eidairaman1
> 
> Nothing terribly exotic or archaic.  My hardware RAID card (LSI/3Ware 9650SE) is my biggest concern, although Microsoft swears it's supported out of the box in 7.  I'd like to take their word for it, but the horror stories of Vista have left me skeptical.  Of lesser concern are my reservations about the functionality of 32-bit programs in 7 like DOSBox and such.
> 
> ...


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@eidairaman1

Done and done.  That's how I found out that MS says my card is supported right out of the box without the need for any additional drivers.

Also, no concerns here.  My chipsets are AMD.  

I think it's safe to say that I can finally lay this to rest.  I'll upgrade to 7 64-bit Pro and add some additional memory and the aforementioned Crossfire cards once my funds permit it.  That should make my system future-proof for quite some time.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2012)

can you just list all of your system specs so i know what im dealing with when n if problems occur


----------



## Ahhzz (Jan 18, 2012)

CoMF said:


> @Ahhzz
> 
> And implied insults are supposed to appeal to my logic and reasoning how, exactly?






I have no idea where that came from.... I'm pretty much a straight-forward insults type of guy on the forums  If I'm gonna stick the proverbial poker in ya, I'll do it loud and obnoxious like   Now in person, it's a bit different. I've been accused of being in a different country by the time someone realizes I've zinged them 

Just simply stating that Vista was a noxious mess that most of us hated with a passion, and that 7 is a considerable improvement. As for the M$ hate, I fall in the camp of "Hate it, but it's where I keep all my stuff "


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@eidairaman1

No need.  I appreciate the offer, however.

@Ahhzz

No worries, mate.  Sorry if I read ya the wrong way.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2012)

CoMF said:


> @eidairaman1
> 
> No need.  I appreciate the offer, however.
> 
> ...



honestly i just want to know what your running so i can provide solutions etc...


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> honestly i just want to know what your running so i can provide solutions etc...



Then start a new thread . Really this is not helpful to the topic at hand . 

64 Bit is far better IMHO than the 32 Bit OS . Fact is that it has been around for some 5-6 years now and they still have yet to get programs up to speed . Using 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS and CPU is kind of redundant !


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2012)

trickson said:


> Then start a new thread . Really this is not helpful to the topic at hand .
> 
> 64 Bit is far better IMHO than the 32 Bit OS . Fact is that it has been around for some 5-6 years now and they still have yet to get programs up to speed . Using 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS and CPU is kind of redundant !



oh so ur in Sequim huh, not far from you actually


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> oh so ur in sequim huh, not far from you actually :d



:d


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2012)

trickson said:


> :d



it was this


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> it was this



Yeah some thing is wrong !


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2012)

chill and have a beer or whiskey dude




trickson said:


> Yeah some thing is wrong !


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@eidairaman1

If you insist...  PM sent.  I'd prefer not to hijack this thread like trickson said, however.

@trickson

I have programs and games which I don't want to dustbin, so the ability to run 32-bit apps in a 64-bit OS is important to me, hardly what I'd consider "redundant."  Thankfully, I've learned that it's a non issue as a 64-bit OS can run 32-bit programs perfectly well.

Also, 64-bit OSes aren't "new" by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

CoMF said:


> @eidairaman1
> 
> If you insist...  PM sent.  I'd prefer not to hijack this thread like trickson said, however.
> 
> ...



Ok let me try this again . While it is fine and dandy to have an OS that is 64 bit and be able to run 32 bit games programs and such it is still redundant , Why ? Well lets see in order for "US" to move forward there has to be an inherent need to push things forward . As it is there really is no need to move forward , 64 bit is still a novelty or viewed as such by the gaming and software industry . 64 Bit software and games are still few and far between . The industry has no real need to move forward and come up with faster better software since the current 32 bit crap can be run on the current 64 bit OS and machines ! Get it now ? Or are you still convinced that the 8 track cassette tapes and VHS tapes are far better than the CD / DVD ? It is the same premiss . Thing is programers are lazy and corporations are greedy and there is NO push for them to get off there ass and deliver , This just makes our OS and CPU's pretty much redundant . We pay for new better stuff they hand us old crap we are stuck with .


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@trickson

Settle down.  Change doesn't happen simply because Microsoft screams _"Paradigm shift!"_  You need to look at the bigger picture:

Over time Windows 7 will vastly supersede XP's market share.  It's not quite there yet, but it won't be long before it does.  In due course, more games and software will be coded to take advantage of the 64-bit instruction set.  The current hard drive price crunch will draw more people toward SSDs (which, incidentally, are optimally utilised under Windows 7).  The time will also come (again, in due course) when having only 2 GBs of RAM is no longer practical, which will be a further nod towards 64-bit operating systems.  

In short, change doesn't happen overnight.  Especially when market conditions aren't ideal for a major shift towards 64-bit personal computing.  If you want someone to blame, blame Microsoft and their flawed business model.


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

CoMF said:


> @trickson
> 
> Settle down.  Change doesn't happen simply because Microsoft screams _"Paradigm shift!"_  You need to look at the bigger picture:
> 
> ...


Yes change does happen over night . This change though should have already happened . Think for a second about the time line . as far as I can tell 64 bit OS's have been around for 5 years now . just how long do they all need 10-15-20 more years . See my point ? Change only happens when there is a force that pushes you forward . There is no real change here because of AMD . Giving CPU's the ability to run both 32 and 64 bit code . You can not play a DVD in your VHS tape played nor can you slide your CD into a tape deck ! Change happens it did not take 20 years for them to change that format ! 
Oh and by the time 64 bit becomes mainstream there will no longer be a windows 7 or windows 8 not only will they not be around they will not even be supported . So really all I have done is piss away good cash for some thing not really needed at all. Microsoft knows this and is feeding off this .


----------



## CoMF (Jan 18, 2012)

@trickson 

Actually, they've been around quite a lot longer than that, and they were traditionally used for rather boring and pedestrian tasks from a "gamer" perspective.

Think of the world of ever-advancing technology as a sort of Red Queen's race, and things begin to make a little more sense.


----------



## trickson (Jan 18, 2012)

CoMF said:


> @trickson
> 
> Actually, they've been around quite a lot longer than that, and they were traditionally used for rather boring and pedestrian tasks from a "gamer" perspective.
> 
> Think of the world of ever-advancing technology as a sort of Red Queen's race, and things begin to make a little more sense.



Well since the advent is to make money and cheap games for xbox and Wii I guess there is NO real need for us to pay for a 64bit OS and no need for Microsoft to PIMP one on us since well there is no inherent need for any one to have one . As well as the video card industry why is it they are producing faster and faster cards when well there is no real need for any thing this powerful ? We have no games that NEED them nor do we have a need for DX11 or DX11.1 ! You see my point now ? Other than the fact a shiny new car with more bells and whistles in it is better to gloat to your friends about what is the real need ? See you have the same thinking as the industry as a whole has . Why change when there is no need . Since we have CPU's that can run both 32bit and 64bit code what is more cost effective for US ? 32bit as it is faster and easier to write code for than it is for 64bit . It is cost and that is what it comes down to.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> Using 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS and CPU is kind of redundant !



No... no it isnt. if the app doesnt benefit from 64 bit (say, web browser/media player) then why should they update it? it maintains greater compatibility.


even games dont need to be 64 bit yet, since a 32 bit app on a 64 bit OS gets twice the ram address space thanks to LAA.



trickson: please stop derailing the thread. if you dont want progress to cost you money, dont buy any new stuff. the end.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 26, 2012)

this thread is nothing but a spam magnet lately, so i'm locking it. it can always be unlocked at a later date should it need to be.


----------

