• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

32 bit is no longer valid

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: apoppin
Vista 32 can still easily address ~3.5GB of total system memory :p
--maybe late '08 or '09 Vista 64 will make sense for gaming

3.5GB is not enough for me though. I bought 4GB and I want ALL 4GB. Hell, if I worked more with Photoshop and other professional apps, I'd have 8GB right now. Of course, I'd want all 8GB.

The other option for someone who does professional graphics work is to get a Mac. The Macs can support that much memory without worrying about "am I running a 32bit or 64bit os?"
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: nanaki333
i'm a little bummed my ipod touch doesn't work with vista x64 still. :(

My iPod always worked in Vista x64 :confused:

I don't understand what can be different about the touch. Anyway, I'd never buy the touch in the first place, but that's just me.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
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 :confused:

in a 32bit environment is does.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
32bit address 3.5gb?

almost a gig is reserved for for various components... and then you have to remove the entire size of your video card ram... so for a modest 512MB video card (ill be generous here... not everyone has an ultra) you would have less then 3GB...

All of it is irrelevant though as cmdrdredd said, I bought a 4 gigs and I will be damned if I am getting any less then that because the OS cant handle it.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
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"

:)

I averaged 10 crashes a week with my driverset and configuration in XP. After Vista I have had no crashing or issues. With the same configuration.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Well, its pretty clear there's a lot of misconceptions about x64 vs. x86 flying around here. I highly recommend everyone who is truly interested in the differences between 64-bit and 32-bit to take take a look at:

AT's A Messy Transition Part 1, 2, and 3 (linked to Part 3 with embedded links to Part 1 and 2)

In particular of note addresses the problems with Windows x86 (32-bit) with /PAE for more than 2GB of system RAM and the "2GB Wall" for individual 32-bit applications. It also talks about user-space vs. kernel-space along with associated problems when trying to get a 32-bit app that's Large Address Aware to address 2GB or more of RAM.

2GB Wall from AT's Messy Transition Part 1

Removing the 2GB Barrier

As it turns out, it's possible and actually quite easy to move the 2GB barrier by increasing the size of the user space, but at the cost of reducing the size of the kernel space. Under Windows XP, this is the fabled "/3gb" switch for boot.ini, and for Windows Vista it's the "IncreaseUserVa" option in BCDedit. By using these options applications can use more than 2GB of virtual address space (generally up to 3GB), and ideally this would be the end of the article.

Unfortunately this is not the case as there are problems on both the application and kernel side of things. On the application side, a common poor programming practice has been to always assume that an application will only be dealing with 2GB of user space; code that makes this assumption will likely error if more than 2GB of user space is actually available.
This is avoidable by following proper programming practices, but as a safety precaution even with additional virtual address space allocated to user space Windows still defaults to limiting an application to 2GB. Only finally, if an application indicates to Windows that it is capable of handling more than 2GB, via the "/LARGEADDRESSAWARE" flag, may it have access to any space above 2GB.

As for the kernel, having had up to half of its space taken away must now find a way to live in a smaller space. The (in)ability of any specific system/Windows configuration to deal with this is why the 3gb switch is considered dangerous, seldom recommended, and just generally a bad idea. The biggest culprit here is drivers that run in kernel space. Like applications, they may assume that there's an entire 2GB of address space to work with, except unlike applications this space gets smaller instead of bigger.

Windows' own memory needs can also cause problems with the reduced kernel space. As we mentioned before, space is required for the kernel to do a multitude of things, if a lot of space is required - video cards with a lot of memory are a particular offender here - then everything needing space may not fit in the kernel space. Because there are no strong safeguards against these conditions it may cause a failure to boot or system instability, especially if the culprit is a driver that is well enough behaved to boot. Many modern drivers from hardware vendors that deal with enterprise-level hardware are capable of handling this, many more consumer hardware drivers are not. Stability concerns are the number one reason that breaking the 2GB barrier on a 32bit version of Windows is not recommended.

There is also a second concern however: performance. While an individual application may benefit from more user space in which to work, the kernel now has less space to cache data (as non-obvious as this may seem given all the addresses are virtual) and this can in theory hurt performance. This condition is something we will take a look at in a bit.

Highlighted some of the most relevant portions. But in summary, everything is getting squeezed and in reality an app in a 32-bit Windows OS can't really use 2GB+ even if it wanted to. So for those saying "2GB runs fine, never uses more than 1.5GB RAM", that's by design. However, the same game that's Large Address Aware in a 64-bit environment may very well use more than 2GB. Contrary to popular belief, there are games out now that can and will use more than 2GB of RAM and that list is growing by the month.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
this is actually completely IRRELEVANT...

This is assuming 2GB per APPLICATION maximum... no application NEEDS to 2GB anyways (except for some super heavy graphics apps, you know if you have them)

The issue at hand is the amount of ram seen by the OS and made available for programs to share... if you put 4GB of ram in 64bit os you have 4GB of ram... if you put it in windows XP you have 3GB of ram... each individual program can only access 2GB of ram for itself, but it doesn't even need that much, and it is not what was discussed here
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: taltamir
this is actually completely IRRELEVANT...

This is assuming 2GB per APPLICATION maximum... no application NEEDS to 2GB anyways (except for some super heavy graphics apps, you know if you have them)

The issue at hand is the amount of ram seen by the OS and made available for programs to share... if you put 4GB of ram in 64bit os you have 4GB of ram... if you put it in windows XP you have 3GB of ram... each individual program can only access 2GB of ram for itself, but it doesn't even need that much, and it is not what was discussed here
This is why I provided a direct link to the article.....so that you'd actually read it.

But here's the answer to your concerns, with screenshots:

Physical vs. Virtual Memory, etc.

 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
You provided a link to the article, but you quoted a whole paragraph and bolded 5 or so sentances, all of which deal with the 2GB per program limit, which is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the fact that if I pay for 4GB I want windows to make 4GB available, not 3 or less GB.

And I was quite wrong about the max ram usage of one program apparently.. I have been arguing that 2GB of ram is not enough for gaming, but thats because I was including the OS... here it shows supreme commander BY ITSELF taking 2.1GB
And now that I think about it... Company of heroes takes about 2.5GB
So yea, 2GB is really not enough for benchmarking video cards anymore and the 2GB per program limit IS an ADDITIONAL downside of using 32bit os...
 

sgrinavi

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2007
4,537
0
76
I know you guys are talking mostly about vista 64, but FWIW I run xp64 on my 3dMAX and AutoCAD workstations, it's faster and more stable. The only driver issue that I have had is with a Netgear MIMO card (and that was solved with a reference chipset driver)...

Every game I have tried (Crysis, Fear, COD, Gears,NBA,Madden,Civilization 4, C&C, World In Conflict), without exception, work perfectly. Some faster, some the same. None of them run slower on the x64 platform.

I appreciate Apples products and own several, but the propritary nature is a huge PIA;I-tunes sucks, who cares if it works.

As for Crysis running better with 8GB than 4GB... maybe, but I couldn't tell any difference when I upgraded from 4gb to 8gb. The only big difference for me is the ability to load larger models before going to the page file. Nice little productivity boost.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: taltamir
You provided a link to the article, but you quoted a whole paragraph and bolded 5 or so sentances, all of which deal with the 2GB per program limit, which is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the fact that if I pay for 4GB I want windows to make 4GB available, not 3 or less GB.

The 3.25GB or so limitation on Windows 32-bit OS precedes the links/quotes I highlighted and is addressed on page 1 of Part 1. Just because you paid for 4GB doesn't mean you'll ever see 4GB on a 32-bit Windows OS since 32-bit is 2^32 for 4GB of addressable space.

When you're limited to 4GB of addressable space, other hardware and peripherals that require addressable space will eat into your 4GB max which is why you end up seeing @3.2GB of system RAM and not 4GB. Apparently there's other 32-bit OS that can address beyond 4GB, but Windows 32-bit is limited to 4GB and makes sense really.
 

Mana

Member
Jul 3, 2007
109
0
0
taltamir, it is possible to create a 32-bit OS that can access all 4 GB of memory. But then there are some drawbacks, such as how to communicate with various devices.

Like most things computer science related there is a trade off, you can have more storage space at the expense of speed and complexity, or you can have less complexity and more speed at the expense of storage space. The people who design modern OSs chose to go with the latter.

It should be noted that I am not an expert on this.
 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
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"

:)

I averaged 10 crashes a week with my driverset and configuration in XP. After Vista I have had no crashing or issues. With the same configuration.

There must have been something seriously wrong with your system, perhaps a "botched" installation.

When my XP crashes (and it has happened maybe a dozen times in the past 4 years) it does for a reason, ex. SpySweeper scan with RivaTuner running in the backround, new "beta" driver, VirtualDrive conflict with existing hardware etc.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: 32-bit Windows XP is the most stable consumer Operating System ever - period.
 

neothe0ne

Member
Feb 26, 2006
197
0
0
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.

What's wrong with iTunes in Vista 64? I've used iTunes to sync my Razr V3i, and as far as I can tell the program works. Does it not sync certain iPods, or is it actually an iPod Software/Driver problem?
 

cputeq

Member
Sep 2, 2007
154
0
0
Windows XP 32bit and Vista 32bit are intentionally limited to 4GB physical RAM and 4GB address space.

This is purely because some drivers (nVidia) suck when they're mapped above 4GB.

Just because you have a 32bit OS does *not* mean you're limited to 4GB. Windows 2000 DataCenter Server, a 32bit OS, is capable of I believe 128GB addressing using PAE.

THe "bug" Nvidia talks about is precisely that --- You slap an Nvidia card using new drivers in a 32bit OS that actually supports mapping above 4GB, and it'll crash hardcore, which is why Microsoft limited Windows XP post-SP1 and Vista 32bit to 4GB address and 4GB physical memory.

----------------

Just because you're running a 64bit OS doesn't mean you're going to see more than 4GB of memory, though. You need to have a compatible BIOS which allows for "memory hole", "memory remapping", or something of the sorts.

To paraphrase a great explanation I read at the Arstechnica.com forums:

Let's say you're going to bake Apple Pie. You need 10 apples.

You place all apples in a line (that's your RAM).

Then, some moron comes and puts 2 oranges right in the spots of apples 8 and 9 (crap drivers, etc).

If you've got a smart memory controller, he'll know to Count Apples 1-7, then skip and look at place 10, 11, 12 for the rest of the 10 apples.

If your baker can *only* count 10 spots (crippled OS like XP SP1+ or Vista 32bit), he can *only* count to the 10th spot, therefore seeing 8 apples (RAM) and 2 oranges ("eaten" RAM), no matter how far the memory controller can see.

 

Cheex

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2006
3,123
0
0
Originally posted by: taltamir
You provided a link to the article, but you quoted a whole paragraph and bolded 5 or so sentances, all of which deal with the 2GB per program limit, which is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the fact that if I pay for 4GB I want windows to make 4GB available, not 3 or less GB.

And I was quite wrong about the max ram usage of one program apparently.. I have been arguing that 2GB of ram is not enough for gaming, but thats because I was including the OS... here it shows supreme commander BY ITSELF taking 2.1GB
And now that I think about it... Company of heroes takes about 2.5GB
So yea, 2GB is really not enough for benchmarking video cards anymore and the 2GB per program limit IS an ADDITIONAL downside of using 32bit os...

I'm glad to see that you have conceded. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong :thumbsup:.

Anyway, I believe that will all the applications and games nowadays utilizing more than 2GB of memory, it is definitely time to move towards 64-bit OS technology.

However, it MUST start with enthusiasts like ourselves. The more conventional users might not be so eager to make the change. We see the benefits and I think we should honestly start embracing the 64-bit evolution (not revolution).
 

kmmatney

Diamond Member
Jun 19, 2000
4,363
1
81
Originally posted by: 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 :confused:

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 :confused: ?

I don't think your explkanation is correct. You need to read the DansData article and understand it. "Everything" on your machine does nopt have to fit in the processor's address space! Otherwise systems with 2GB would also lose memory - THEY DON'T. read the article.
 

kmmatney

Diamond Member
Jun 19, 2000
4,363
1
81
From the DansData article, even 64-bit OSs will lose the memory between 3 GB and 4 GB, to maintain backward compatibility. However you can then start using the memory between 4 and 8 GB after the 3-4 GB hole. So an 8 GB system will only have about 7.2 GB of usable RAM. That is, unless your motherboard allows you to remap the RAM.

Interesting stuff in that article.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
I have 64-bit Vista and my system can't even recognize my 4GB of RAM properly.

I have an nForce 4 S939 motherboard...

Disappointing to say the least. As far as I can tell, it's chipset related...but really, I *should* be able to run 128GB of RAM if I want considering I have an Opteron 165. :thumbsdown:

I will never buy another nVidia chipset.
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
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

That right there just shows off your ignorance.

Vista64 is the best version of windows available right now. Any problems you think it may have is either just FUD or shit you made up in your head.

 

kmmatney

Diamond Member
Jun 19, 2000
4,363
1
81
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
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 :confused:

in a 32bit environment is does.

Only if you have more than 3 GB of RAM. Reading the Dansdata article, this issue also effects 64-bit operating systems, however you can add more RAM above 4 GB to make up for a lot of memopry that is lost in the 3-4 GB range.

 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: adairusmc
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

That right there just shows off your ignorance.

Vista64 is the best version of windows available right now. Any problems you think it may have is either just FUD or shit you made up in your head.
If I had 1GB of RAM I would run XP hands down (or 2000 even).
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I have 64-bit Vista and my system can't even recognize my 4GB of RAM properly.

I have an nForce 4 S939 motherboard...

Disappointing to say the least. As far as I can tell, it's chipset related...but really, I *should* be able to run 128GB of RAM if I want considering I have an Opteron 165. :thumbsdown:

I will never buy another nVidia chipset.

Lesser Intel chipsets have that problem too. My 945 chipset also doesn't handle 4GB well when used with a video card. Don't blame nvidia more than any other company because all the older chipsets have this problem/
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I have 64-bit Vista and my system can't even recognize my 4GB of RAM properly.

I have an nForce 4 S939 motherboard...

Disappointing to say the least. As far as I can tell, it's chipset related...but really, I *should* be able to run 128GB of RAM if I want considering I have an Opteron 165. :thumbsdown:

I will never buy another nVidia chipset.

Lesser Intel chipsets have that problem too. My 945 chipset also doesn't handle 4GB well when used with a video card. Don't blame nvidia more than any other company because all the older chipsets have this problem/
I blame any company that made a non-64-bit chipset for a 64-bit CPU.

Maybe I will go AMD next time. :beer:

Besides, wasn't the 945 originally for the P4?
 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
Originally posted by: adairusmc
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

That right there just shows off your ignorance.

Vista64 is the best version of windows available right now. Any problems you think it may have is either just FUD or shit you made up in your head.

Could you please elaborate why it is "the best version of windows available right now"?

What is it that it does BETTER than the 32-bit XP?

Because it runs all the applications, designed for the 32-bit OS' anyway...?

Or because it is ready for the future 64-bit applications, that haven't been designed yet...?

What does it do better...?

Educate me, please...