32 bit is no longer valid

[1ManArmY]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

I stand corrected. In my previous set-up I was running XP Media Center Edition with a 7800 GTX 256 mb and when I benched my system it said that I had ~ 3.3 GB of RAM when I had 4 X 1024 sticks installed.


I now utilize a dual boot sytem with XP Media Center Edition and Vista Home Premiun 64 bit. I have been strictly Vista 64 for the last month no reason to boot to XP yet:roll:

 

[taltamir]

I agree with the op here...

The only reason I run vista to begin with is for the 64bit functionality...
XP is excellent for 32 bit. 64bit XP has 0 driver support. 64bit vista is the only option for wanting to run 64bit software, and the extra ram.

Anyways I have been running 64bit vista almost flawlessly for months now. I saw almost because about a couple of months ago MS released a patch that when installed by the autoupdated corrupted the vista installation on all 5 of my computers (Opening any program that uses the internet: firefox, thunderbird, or IE7, will have them eternally loading unable to connect to anything online, turning them off will result in them crashing)... Making a clean RTM install and patching it to latest did not cause the problem to occur again (so it was a conflict with a now obsolete patch that caused the problem).

There is also the issue that installing vista at RTM requires you to remove ram so that you are not above 2GB... after install patch it up and then add the ram... 4GB of ram was buggy on the RTM for some reason

Ok in retrospect it wasn't flawless at all... but it is fairly good.

 

[wordsworm]

video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

Ah, you should contact nVidia right away and correct them then. This is the correspondence I had with them:

Customer (B Steven) 12/13/2007 08:09 AM

Recently I've been seeing some reviews using 32 bit Vista, 4GB of RAM, comparing the various flavours of Nvidia and ATI cards. I have a question that I'd like answered concerning something: as far as I know, if you have a 768MB video card, that 4GB of RAM will quickly dwindle to 3.2GB. In SLI mode that would whittle another .77GB of RAM, so that you're only operating on 2.5 GB of motherboard memory.

If this is the case, then any reviews using 4GB of memory and 32 bit OS to compare video cards is going to be flawed. If I'm wrong or right, I'd like to know about it.

Response (SS) 12/13/2007 11:15 AM
Hello Steven,

Thank you for contacting NVIDIA Customer Care.

I understand from your mail that you have some questions regarding 4 GB memory on Windows Vista 32 bit system.

As far as NVIDIA graphics cards are concerned we acknowledge that there does exist unresolved issues with 4 GB memory in Windows Vista systems with all models. We are actively working with Microsoft to resolve this issue. We acknowledge that the information that you are finding is correct and it is not unique to you. At this moment we request you to be patient and wait till a solution is released in future.

We regret any inconvenience that this may cause.

Regards,
NVIDIA Customer Care

It's always nice having someone who knows more than the people who work at the company that put out video cards. This is the email address: Nvidia Customer Care <nvidia@mailca.custhelp.com>

 

[Cheex]

I've highly bought into the idea of running a 64-bit OS. I'm upgrading my memory very soon, just so I can do that.

 

[jonesthewine]

Originally posted by: LightningRider
I run Vista 64 Ultimate with no problems whatsoever.

tru dat...me too.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

Ah, you should contact nVidia right away and correct them then. This is the correspondence I had with them:

Customer (B Steven) 12/13/2007 08:09 AM

Recently I've been seeing some reviews using 32 bit Vista, 4GB of RAM, comparing the various flavours of Nvidia and ATI cards. I have a question that I'd like answered concerning something: as far as I know, if you have a 768MB video card, that 4GB of RAM will quickly dwindle to 3.2GB. In SLI mode that would whittle another .77GB of RAM, so that you're only operating on 2.5 GB of motherboard memory.

If this is the case, then any reviews using 4GB of memory and 32 bit OS to compare video cards is going to be flawed. If I'm wrong or right, I'd like to know about it.

Response (SS) 12/13/2007 11:15 AM
Hello Steven,

Thank you for contacting NVIDIA Customer Care.

I understand from your mail that you have some questions regarding 4 GB memory on Windows Vista 32 bit system.

As far as NVIDIA graphics cards are concerned we acknowledge that there does exist unresolved issues with 4 GB memory in Windows Vista systems with all models. We are actively working with Microsoft to resolve this issue. We acknowledge that the information that you are finding is correct and it is not unique to you. At this moment we request you to be patient and wait till a solution is released in future.

We regret any inconvenience that this may cause.

Regards,
NVIDIA Customer Care

It's always nice having someone who knows more than the people who work at the company that put out video cards. This is the email address: Nvidia Customer Care <nvidia@mailca.custhelp.com>

Its the standard pacify response... that person doesn't work in the company, he works in india and his job is to tell people "thank you, we appreciate your concern and it is being taken care of..."...
Reminds me when I tried to tell asus that their server has the wrong version number for the autoupdater program causing it to enter an endless loop of updating the program (which is mandatory before it will attempt to retreive new bios)...

I went back and forth with them as they kept on stupidly trying to pacify me until a new version was released with some unrelated fixes regardless and the problem got circumvented unintentionally.

Originally posted by: jonesthewine

Originally posted by: LightningRider
I run Vista 64 Ultimate with no problems whatsoever.

tru dat...me too.

To clarify, while I mentioned some problems with 64bit vista... those problems were less then those I experienced with XP...

 

[Cheex]

Aside from using all your RAM though, what are some of the other benefits of a 64-Bit OS?

Vista (Ultimate) x64 in particular.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

This is really at the crux of the whole issue here...anyone know more about this?

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Cheex
Aside from using all your RAM though, what are some of the other benefits of a 64-Bit OS?

Vista (Ultimate) x64 in particular.

Well, that's the problem.

None whatsoever - 99% of the consumer software out there has the lower 2GB access limit anyway!

People that say "I love it", mean "Hey, I'm running it like if it was a 32-bit system, I don't really have problems!"

As I've said numerous times before - the future is in the 64-bit OS.

But not for another 1-2 years, or more.

I am waiting for the OEM's to start putting the 64-bit Vista on the computers available in B&M stores.

That will be the signal for me to switch/upgrade.

Until then - my XP will be MORE than enough.

But please, correct me if I'm wrong, and list ALL the advantages of running the 64-bit OS, and what MORE it does for you that the 32-bit XP or Vista can not deliver!

 

[taltamir]

The ram is actually the SMALLER benefit as far as I see... 32bit software recompiled in 64bit gets a tiny performance boost, but some software gets HUGE tremendous benefit to speed... I still remember the first time I opened 64bit IE and saw it come up 5 times faster then the 32bit version did... At that point I was sold on 64bit applications.

The downside is lackluster driver support (completely atrocious before vista64)...
The ability to use 4GB of ram MERELY COMPENSATES for the extra ram used by vista compared to XP.. if XP64bit had driver support I would say use it with 2GB of ram... I Don't even consider the extra ram an advantage, but I am an avid 64vista proponent.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

This is really at the crux of the whole issue here...anyone know more about this?

Yes, it does.

"However this range is sub-divided to manage both the computer?s PCI address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM.
The PCI address range is used to manage much of the computer?s components including the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus
bridges, PCI-Express, and today?s high performance video/graphics cards (including their video memory). A high performance x86-
based computer typically needs 0.6 to 1 GB for the PCI address range."

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsu...M_w-Windows_08Ap07.pdf

Even the area between 3 - 4GB remains kinda "iffy", since this is the area reserved for all the PCI memory, and all the drivers are written to access this particular range. It might remain "dead" for the applications forever, just the way the "higher memory area" between 640B and 1MB is until this day.

More reading material:

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

 

[CaptainJackSwallows]

Originally posted by: Harmattan
I've been running Vista 64 since March with only one compatibility problem: iTunes. That piece of crap software still doesn't work on Vista 64. I have many older peripherals: HP 420p printer (circa 1999), Saitech X52, Fantom 250GB backup (technically not Vista-compatible). Other that f&*k$n' iTunes, it's been all daisies.

Only other software incompatibility I've seen is with Intel TAT.

thats odd, i've been running itunes just fine on vista 64 since july (when i got it).

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

This is really at the crux of the whole issue here...anyone know more about this?

Yes, it does.

"However this range is sub-divided to manage both the computer?s PCI address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM.
The PCI address range is used to manage much of the computer?s components including the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus
bridges, PCI-Express, and today?s high performance video/graphics cards (including their video memory). A high performance x86-
based computer typically needs 0.6 to 1 GB for the PCI address range."

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsu...M_w-Windows_08Ap07.pdf

Even the area between 3 - 4GB remains kinda "iffy", since this is the area reserved for all the PCI memory, and all the drivers are written to access this particular range. It might remain "dead" for the applications forever, just the way the "higher memory area" between 640B and 1MB is until this day.

More reading material:

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Interesting

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

Yes of course it does. Everything (!) in your machine has to fit into the processor's physical address space - and that's 4 gigabytes in 32-bit mode. So if you have 4 GB of RAM, typically 256 to 512 MB of system essentials needing room too, plus a 512-MB graphics card, you'll be down to 3 to 3.25 GB of ACTUALLY AVAILABLE system RAM.

Got it now, or still ?

 

[MarcVenice]

So I stand correct, 1ManArmy... The fact that YOU saw 3.3gb in a 32bit os doesn't mean that's going the be the case for everybody else.

And as for the Itunes debate, my recently purchased ipod nano and Itunes work just fine on Vista 64x. Like someone else mentioned though, it gives an error stating I can't burn any cd's. Itunes is kind of slow though, with like 10-20k songs in my library it doesn't scroll very smooth, not really a bad issue, but a little annoying nonetheless...

 

[Puffnstuff]

One of the reasons I switched to the 64 bit os was to have access to all of my system's resources. While I was using the 32bit version I could only see 3gb of ram. As for creative they acknowledge the problem with 4gb systems and source games with any memory size. Their latest driver doesn't address the issue completely but it's better than previous drivers. I can play other games and the sound is great but once I load cs:s the sound breaks up and distorts. I never had that problem with HL2 and the episode packs so I wonder what the difference is between it and cs:s.

 

[Peter]

On a modern chipset with PCI Express, you'll never get more than 3.5GB of available RAM in a 32-bit OS. The rest is already taken by system core devices.

Everybody look at Device Manager, Resources by Type. Unfold "memory", and see for yourself how much space all the devices already take. From the bottom of the list, seek upward.

 

[apoppin]

it's silly to say 32 bit is no longer valid ... at least for gaming ... my system can address well over 3.2GB of system memory
... and i don't feel ANY need to drop fifty dollars on another 2GB ... for what? ... eventually, sure ... another $50 to utilize at least 1.2GB out of 2 more GB of memory
---what am i losing out .... now?


i will agree with the OP in *2 years* when i dump my MB and upgrade again ... until then you can *have* your 64bit "perfectly working" OS
... Vista32 does everything better for me and works flawlessly with my expensive but 'ancient' programs and HW that i don't need to upgrade.


[yet]

 

[wordsworm]

What I was referring to as 'invalid' is the benchmarks that were passed and compared to one another. Basically, the video cards with greater RAM are hobbled with 4GB of memory in a 32 bit OS, and therefore the comparison that Anandtech and a few others had made comparing v90 to v92 wasn't really objective, in my opinion. If you have 2GB of RAM, then it makes sense to stick to 32 bit Vista/XP. If you have 4GB of RAM, then it doesn't make sense to stay with a 32 bit OS.

 

[JustaGeek]

People upgrade RAM to 4GB because of its price.

99% of these "upgraders" DO NOT need more than 2GB.

I've got 3GB, due to Quake 4 using 99% of my 2GB RAM. After the upgrade to 3GB, it uses up to 72% (yes, it does go beyond 2GB on a 32-bit XP, perhaps due to other services/applications running alongside the game).

By the time these 4GB machines can take advantage of the full 4GB and more, they will have to be upgraded to new CPUs/MBs etc.

IMO, in about 2 years. Maybe more.

And as I've said before - the area between 3-4 GB of RAM will most likely remain "dead" to applications.

So if you want to add memory, go for either 3GB or beyond 4GB of total RAM (like 6GB or 8GB).

 

[swtethan]

I run vista64 and the only thing that doesnt work is my canon scanner which is about 5+ years old. oddly enough my 10+ year old HP laserjet still works under vista64 :-D gotta love that.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: swtethan
I run vista64 and the only thing that doesnt work is my canon scanner which is about 5+ years old. oddly enough my 10+ year old HP laserjet still works under vista64 :-D gotta love that.

See (?!?) - "gotta love that" because it works.

Not - "gotta love that, because it is so much better and faster that my obsolete 32-bit OS"

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: swtethan
I run vista64 and the only thing that doesnt work is my canon scanner which is about 5+ years old. oddly enough my 10+ year old HP laserjet still works under vista64 :-D gotta love that.

See (?!?) - "gotta love that" because it works.

Not - "gotta love that, because it is so much better and faster that my obsolete 32-bit OS"

It feels just the same performance wise. Plus its much more secure than XP, havent had to reformat.

 

[taltamir]

http://www.pcstats.com/article...?articleid=1665&page=8

Vista is a necessary evil for 64bit support. You can see in the link above where 64bit really shines. Math.
The absolute best improvement was where it cut down the time it took to calculate a hash from 12.73 seconds to 2.97 seconds. Thats phenomenal. that 4.29x faster on the exact same processor... thats 329% faster operation on the exact same processor. 300+ PERCENT. Thats off the hook. Most math heavy things show 100-300+% improvement... the absolute smallest improvement shown was 2% over vista32bit... causing it to perfectly tie with XP32bit... (since vista itself is bloatier, although it manages to win a few benchies in 32bit vs 32bit XP).

This is why I fell in love with 64 bit. This is why people put up with the shit that is vista... this is why I cannot fathom why someone would intentionally subject themselves to vista WITHOUT taking advantage of this amazing gain... All my computers (and those of my family) are either 64bit vista... or windowsXP 32bit. No other windows is worthwhile.

There are already a few high end graphical editing programs available ONLY in 64bit... and I can't wait for a CODEC that is natively 64bit... such a codec would be impossible to run (realistically) on a 32bit machine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Ares202
if they fixed 64 bit operating systems i would "embrace the 64 bit revolution"

64 bit xp has no drivers
64 bit vista is just crappy

and crysis works fine on 2gb, the max usage i get when running crysis is 1.3gb, that leaves me 700mb of memory doing nothing

im running xp 32 bit and a 512mb video card, theres also a good review of 64 bit vs 32 bit on crysis somewhere and it leads to no performance gain,

Plus why do you trust Nvidia they will want to everyone to move to new OS's as this will increase there graphics card sales as new OS usually means new system for alot of us

You're wrong. Vista x64 is perfect. It works just the same as x86 versions of the OS and I have yet to find ANY application that is 100% not workable in Vista x64. Even iTunes runs (no burning support yet) when Apple clearly states x64 OS not supported. I found out that Apple doesn't even let users run x64 Vista when running Bootcamp because obviously Apple wants everyone to believe that Windows is not as good as MacOS X. In fact, I find Vista more trouble free.

That's getting a bit off topic, but you claim that Vista x64 is crap without bringing any facts. There are numerous posts here on this forum abou Vista x64 and very very few of them are reports of "it sucks".