32 bit is no longer valid

[Hans Gruber]

I'll give my 2 cents of Vista 64 bit. I have Ultimate 64 installed on my Quad Core. Please excuse my language as I have tourettes syndrome. Vista 64 is an absolute mess. My system doesn't blue screen anymore because Microsoft has managed to make Vista 64 hang for 15-30 seconds and then come back to life. Ultimate loads every game but at times mysteriously crashes for no reason.

Vista 64 requires signed drivers so important tools like riva tuner are difficult to install. I have 4 GB of ram and from what i've heard, XP 32 bit outperforms both 32 and 64 bit versions of vista in all games.

I used to think Vista 64 was a pain in the ass. Now I realize it's my ass that been pounded by Vista without my permission. Vista 64 badly needs a service pack now, not next year.

The only good product Microsoft made was XP, it's practically bullet proof. I live down the street from Microsoft so that means I get full retail copies of Vista 64 Ultimate for $40. When I call customer service I expect to be treated like like somebody who just shelled out $400 for a very unstable piece of software. Every hot fix or update seems to cause some form or paralysis to Vista.

I won't uninstall it, but I've heard I can run dual 32 bit and 64 bit Vista operating systems on the hard drive.

 

[Mem]

I'll give my 2 cents of Vista 64 bit. I have Ultimate 64 installed on my Quad Core. Please excuse my language as I have tourettes syndrome. Vista 64 is an absolute mess. My system doesn't blue screen anymore because Microsoft has managed to make Vista 64 hang for 15-30 seconds and then come back to life. Ultimate loads every game but at times mysteriously crashes for no reason.

That normally happens when something is overclocked too much, most Vista x64 users like myself find Vista x64 very crash proof,if I was you I'll would start troubleshooting,definitely does not sound like an OS problem but something else.

Have you run Memtest86+, check temps etc?

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Mem

I'll give my 2 cents of Vista 64 bit. I have Ultimate 64 installed on my Quad Core. Please excuse my language as I have tourettes syndrome. Vista 64 is an absolute mess. My system doesn't blue screen anymore because Microsoft has managed to make Vista 64 hang for 15-30 seconds and then come back to life. Ultimate loads every game but at times mysteriously crashes for no reason.

That normally happens when something is overclocked too much, most Vista x64 users like myself find Vista x64 very crash proof,if I was you I'll would start troubleshooting,definitely does not sound like an OS problem but something else.

Have you run Memtest86+, check temps etc?

Hmm...

The fact that Vista comes back to life sounds like evidence of a video driver problem.
The fact that Vista does not have this problem on other rigs implies a problem with Hans' rig.

Seemingly-random crashes can also happen when:

- Logitech SetPoint is installed. Remove it ASAP!
- Video RAM is clocked too high -- a hardware fault that XP may not expose!

If the above does not apply, the only advice I can give to the OP is to disable nonessential hardware, restore stock clock rates (as Mem said), and re-enable one thing at a time until you can identify a specific cause for the random crashing problem.

Posting specs and details -- e.g. clean install or upgrade? -- will help isolate the problem.

 

[cputeq]

Originally posted by: Hans Gruber
I'll give my 2 cents of Vista 64 bit. I have Ultimate 64 installed on my Quad Core. Please excuse my language as I have tourettes syndrome. Vista 64 is an absolute mess. My system doesn't blue screen anymore because Microsoft has managed to make Vista 64 hang for 15-30 seconds and then come back to life. Ultimate loads every game but at times mysteriously crashes for no reason.

Vista 64 requires signed drivers so important tools like riva tuner are difficult to install. I have 4 GB of ram and from what i've heard, XP 32 bit outperforms both 32 and 64 bit versions of vista in all games.

I used to think Vista 64 was a pain in the ass. Now I realize it's my ass that been pounded by Vista without my permission. Vista 64 badly needs a service pack now, not next year.

The only good product Microsoft made was XP, it's practically bullet proof. I live down the street from Microsoft so that means I get full retail copies of Vista 64 Ultimate for $40. When I call customer service I expect to be treated like like somebody who just shelled out $400 for a very unstable piece of software. Every hot fix or update seems to cause some form or paralysis to Vista.

I won't uninstall it, but I've heard I can run dual 32 bit and 64 bit Vista operating systems on the hard drive.

You've got a problem with your hardware and/or software drivers, plain and simple.

My experience with Vista 64 is the exact opposite of yours. The *ONLY* problem I've had with my system was my fault.

I had my CPU OC'd to 3.2Ghz (8x 400MHz) and 4x 1GB sticks of RAM on the motherboard -- Unfortunately, when 4x slots are filled the mobo gets picky on the RAM speeds, and I was crashing when running Xvid4PSP (MPEG4 converter) and playing say TF2...the RAM/mobo couldn't handle it.

I lowered speeds to 9x 333Mhz and everything is kosher. No crashes, no hangs, nothing wrong with the system.

I even did a video card swap without doing stupid crap like running DriverCleaner in safe mode (Gasp!!!) Imagine that.

When a system is as unstable as you're claiming, you should start examining what's the problem -- I can tell you now, it's not the OS. Drivers for the OS maybe (blame the hardware vendor!), but 99.9% not the OS.

 

[wordsworm]

apoppin, do you have ADD? Do you have a hard time reading sometimes? Clearly you have some issues with that. I sent a second email to nVidia to confirm whether or not a second graphics card adds to the total system RAM, and they said that it didn't.

Low level or high level, the techies at nVidia surely know what they're talking about.

Like I've said before. I don't make up opinions like you're fond of doing. If I don't know something or there's an argument, or if I make a false assumption, I have *no problem* checking on it and fixing the mistake. You, on the other hand, make stuff up on the fly and have no problem putting false claims in people's mouths. I published the first letter from nVidia. Where the heck did you get the idea that they confirmed my false assumption? The only assumption they confirmed was that video card RAM will displace motherboard RAM when there's 4GB on board. This is a fact. Another fact is that a computer runs better with more RAM. Another fact, a 64 bit OS can have more RAM loaded up.

The key differences between the two of us is 1) When Mana contradicted my statement about adding RAM in SLI, I didn't argue back. I wrote an email to nVidia to settle the dispute. 2) I actually read and consider what other people write, and I don't make up stuff that other people say in order to make up an invalid point, like you do.

I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?

Even Justageek has concluded that playing the games that he's got has been much better with Vista 64. He was just as cynical as you. There are problems with Vista 64, just as there are problems with Vista 32 and XP. There are always problems. Then there are limitations. 32 bit is a limitation, as is 64 bit. But we're years away from seeing the limitations of 64 bit. There's a lot of headroom to exploit.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
apoppin, do you have ADD? Do you have a hard time reading sometimes? Clearly you have some issues with that. I sent a second email to nVidia to confirm whether or not a second graphics card adds to the total system RAM, and they said that it didn't.

Low level or high level, the techies at nVidia surely know what they're talking about.

Like I've said before. I don't make up opinions like you're fond of doing. If I don't know something or there's an argument, or if I make a false assumption, I have *no problem* checking on it and fixing the mistake. You, on the other hand, make stuff up on the fly and have no problem putting false claims in people's mouths. I published the first letter from nVidia. Where the heck did you get the idea that they confirmed my false assumption? The only assumption they confirmed was that video card RAM will displace motherboard RAM when there's 4GB on board. This is a fact. Another fact is that a computer runs better with more RAM. Another fact, a 64 bit OS can have more RAM loaded up.

The key differences between the two of us is 1) When Mana contradicted my statement about adding RAM in SLI, I didn't argue back. I wrote an email to nVidia to settle the dispute. 2) I actually read and consider what other people write, and I don't make up stuff that other people say in order to make up an invalid point, like you do.

I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?

Even Justageek has concluded that playing the games that he's got has been much better with Vista 64. He was just as cynical as you. There are problems with Vista 64, just as there are problems with Vista 32 and XP. There are always problems. Then there are limitations. 32 bit is a limitation, as is 64 bit. But we're years away from seeing the limitations of 64 bit. There's a lot of headroom to exploit.

When you have nothing to reply or are have no facts to back-up your argument do you always resort to making it "personal"?
Let me ask your *same* question about you:
I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?


Let's carefully examine your correspondence and i will bold the *factual errors*:

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

first of all, a sli'd 2nd card does NOT use additional memory over the first card

2nd, there is NO FIX to this "issue" ...

Lastly, the issues you are finding about SLI are dead wrong ... not "correct" as they wrongly agree.

all they say is: "we acknowledge that there does exist unresolved issues with 4 GB memory in Windows Vista systems with all models"

you were BSed ... and you can't BS the rest of us based on THAT nonsense e-mail

we will *see* the PRACTICAL differences - if any ... when we test it this coming week. i will wait until then before making any final decisions about my own OS. i AM getting 64bit

 

[wordsworm]

My second email to nVidia is what follows:

Thank you for writing back to us.

Please be informed that, you can configure for SLI using two or three graphics cards with same memory capacities or with different memory capacities. When you configure for SLI using two or three graphics cards, the effective memory will be the lowest memory among all the SLI cards and not the combined memory of all the SLI graphics cards. Only the rendering load is shared among the SLI cards.

Please feel free to contact us for further questions.

Regards,
NVIDIA Customer Care
Customer (B Steven) 12/21/2007 08:52 PM
I thank-you for the prompt reply that settled one debate over memory. Now, there is a new argument going on over SLI. Someone has contended that the 3x768MB of RAM on the 3 way SLI GTX configuration appears to the OS as one single 768MB rather than a total of 2.2GB of memory. To quote accurately:
"There won't be any discernable difference between Vista 32-bit and 64-bit with 3-way SLI because if I remember correctly, the memory on all three videocards is addressed as the same. Meaning, the system still only sees 768-MB, despite there being an 'extra' 1536 GB of RAM. If the CPU wants to put a piece of information at block XXX of the memory on videocard 2, then that information is also put at block XXX of videocards 1 and 3 at the same time."
Is this true, or is all the memory on the 2 or 3 video cards used?

 

[cputeq]

If the CPU wants to put a piece of information at block XXX of the memory on videocard 2, then that information is also put at block XXX of videocards 1 and 3 at the same time."

I think you're kinda mixing things up here.

In SLI modes, the frame buffer/total video ram doesn't just magically double. You can't have 2x GTXs in SLI and the game think you have 1.4GB of video RAM. You have 2, seperate buffers rendering different parts of frames (or different frames altogether, whichever way SLI actually works).

The CPU/GPU doesn't pick and choose where to address RAM like normal system memory. It simply spits out frames to render, and whichever card actually recieves the frame request renders it (or scan line, again...depending on how the SLI is working).

In terms of simplicity, this is about the easiest way to do things, how SLI already does it -- Either render differing frames or different lines within the same frame.

Doing things like what is suggested --- Addressing all the video RAM in discrete, independent chunks would likely be a memory management nightmare, a performance tank, and just not work very well.

 

[Sylvanas]

I'll give my 2 cents, having used XP64bit and now Vista 64 I've never had any problems with anything, drivers have all been great after changing components several times- thumbs up for 64.

 

[Dadofamunky]

From Ask Dan, way upthread

Power users with a hankerin' for dual graphics cards may be experiencing something of a sinking feeling, at this juncture. Yes, the 256Mb reserved for my little old graphics card means exactly what you think it means: Those two 768Mb graphics cards you can totally justify buying will eat one point five gigabytes of your 32-bit memory map all by themselves, cutting you down to a 2.5Gb ceiling before you even take the other reservations into account.

This also explains why 1Gb graphics cards haven't hit the consumer market yet. Nobody yet needs anything like that much memory on one card for any desktop computer purpose, but some people would still be very happy to pay for such a card just for the pose value. It'd eat the whole of the fourth gigabyte of their system memory, though. And then they'd probably demand their money back.

(This fact has apparently not stopped certain unscrupulous companies, coughDellcough, from allowing people to buy a computer with WinXP, 4Gb of RAM, and a pair of Nvidia's oddball 1Gb GeForce 7950 GX2 cards. Result: 56.25% of the installed memory absent without leave. You might as well have only bought 2Gb.)

I'd really like to see this before I believed it, since an attempt by NVidia to refute that statement is upthread... I really wish I could test this myself. Has anyone with an SLI rig seen this? I doubt it, since no one else has ever made this observation that I'm aware of... A friend of mine at work used to work at NVidia. I'll have to see what he says. He is in a position to know, without question.

I will say that IF THIS IS TRUE, it's extremely amusing and would seem to indicate that anyone in this position really really needs to run Vista 64.

But I don't think so. It would be all over the boards if 32-bit SLI users were getting shellacked in their memory usage like that.

I myself plan to run Vista 64 on my new build. I don't see any reason to run Vista 32-bit as this will be a brand-new system with complete drivers, my apps all run fine, and I'm planning on 8 GB of G.Skill PC2-1000 (I have 4 GB already). No SLI though, I don't game enough to justify it. Plus it's a MicroATX build anyway. I just run a crapload of publishing and graphics apps and want to make maximum use of SuperFetch and other things. So since RAM is so bloody cheap and Vista 64 has decent support, the benefits are enough for me to switch.

 

[Peter]

Can you guys please hold for a minute? I'm out of popcorn ... thanks. You're entertaining, since your debate is as heated as it is flawed.

Flaw #1: Graphics cards have long stopped mapping their RAM 'flat' for exactly that reason - address space consumption. Instead, the card makers configure an arbitrary 'aperture' size, and the card only consumes this much address space for this 'viewing window' into its local RAM. This is usually 256MB, but sometimes 512MB.

Flaw #2: Regardless of SLI or not, every individual PCI, PCIE or AGP device instance will consume as much address space as it's been built and configured to. The grouping of devices for SLI happens way after the system's resource map has been configured.

Flaw #3: Yes, even in a 64-bit environment, devices are still being mapped to 32-bit addresses. Why? Two reasons: (1) the device mapper in BIOS cannot predict what kind of OS is going to be booted, and (2) many many devices do not even support being mapped to "high" addresses.
The physical address of a device being in 32-bit space does NOT mean that "the driver is still 32-bit code" even in Windows x64. They are clearly not. As a general rule of how operating systems internally work, hardware drivers MUST be using the same general CPU mode the rest of the OS core uses, and that's AMD64 in a 64-bit OS.

Now, on with the show please.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: cputeq

If the CPU wants to put a piece of information at block XXX of the memory on videocard 2, then that information is also put at block XXX of videocards 1 and 3 at the same time."

I think you're kinda mixing things up here.

Those weren't my words really. They came from Mana who'd pointed out before that RAM in SLI mode doesn't stack. I wanted to make sure that I didn't deviate from his exact words so as to hopefully clear the uncertainty. So, according to the nVidia guy, the video card with the least RAM is the amount of RAM that is addressed.

Anyways, it seems that AT has been doing mostly 64 bit testing. That's nice to see.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: wordsworm
apoppin, do you have ADD? Do you have a hard time reading sometimes? Clearly you have some issues with that. I sent a second email to nVidia to confirm whether or not a second graphics card adds to the total system RAM, and they said that it didn't.

Low level or high level, the techies at nVidia surely know what they're talking about.

Like I've said before. I don't make up opinions like you're fond of doing. If I don't know something or there's an argument, or if I make a false assumption, I have *no problem* checking on it and fixing the mistake. You, on the other hand, make stuff up on the fly and have no problem putting false claims in people's mouths. I published the first letter from nVidia. Where the heck did you get the idea that they confirmed my false assumption? The only assumption they confirmed was that video card RAM will displace motherboard RAM when there's 4GB on board. This is a fact. Another fact is that a computer runs better with more RAM. Another fact, a 64 bit OS can have more RAM loaded up.

The key differences between the two of us is 1) When Mana contradicted my statement about adding RAM in SLI, I didn't argue back. I wrote an email to nVidia to settle the dispute. 2) I actually read and consider what other people write, and I don't make up stuff that other people say in order to make up an invalid point, like you do.

I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?

Even Justageek has concluded that playing the games that he's got has been much better with Vista 64. He was just as cynical as you. There are problems with Vista 64, just as there are problems with Vista 32 and XP. There are always problems. Then there are limitations. 32 bit is a limitation, as is 64 bit. But we're years away from seeing the limitations of 64 bit. There's a lot of headroom to exploit.

When you have nothing to reply or are have no facts to back-up your argument do you always resort to making it "personal"?
Let me ask your *same* question about you:
I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?


Let's carefully examine your correspondence and i will bold the *factual errors*:

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

first of all, a sli'd 2nd card does NOT use additional memory over the first card

2nd, there is NO FIX to this "issue" ...

Lastly, the issues you are finding about SLI are dead wrong ... not "correct" as they wrongly agree.

all they say is: "we acknowledge that there does exist unresolved issues with 4 GB memory in Windows Vista systems with all models"

you were BSed ... and you can't BS the rest of us based on THAT nonsense e-mail

we will *see* the PRACTICAL differences - if any ... when we test it this coming week. i will wait until then before making any final decisions about my own OS. i AM getting 64bit

The problem with the answer that nVidia may have provided is that it's generic. Someone reads my email and clicks the right reply to send. It's a fact that video card RAM is addressed by the OS, and a 32 bit OS is limited to 2^32 bytes of RAM.

 

[Peter]

Yet still, a 768MB card does NOT consume 768MB of system address space. You've "lost" 768MB with one graphics card because a PCIE system already consumes 512MB all for itself, before the graphics card gets its (typical) 256MB viewport assigned. Another graphics card of the same type will set you back another 256MB.

Look at Device Manager, View - Resources by Type, unfold Memory, and see for yourself. Being able to read hex numbers is prerequisite.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Peter
Yet still, a 768MB card does NOT consume 768MB of system address space. You've "lost" 768MB with one graphics card because a PCIE system already consumes 512MB all for itself, before the graphics card gets its (typical) 256MB viewport assigned. Another graphics card of the same type will set you back another 256MB.

Look at Device Manager, View - Resources by Type, unfold Memory, and see for yourself. Being able to read hex numbers is prerequisite.

Hmm...I never understood the distinction. Good posts!

:thumbsup:

What happens with a 1 GB video card, and then SLi/CFX -- 256 MB or 512 MB v. address space per card?

(I have heard cases of only 2.5 GB addressable system RAM although I do not know what else was in the PCs.)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: wordsworm
apoppin, do you have ADD? Do you have a hard time reading sometimes? Clearly you have some issues with that. I sent a second email to nVidia to confirm whether or not a second graphics card adds to the total system RAM, and they said that it didn't.

Low level or high level, the techies at nVidia surely know what they're talking about.

Like I've said before. I don't make up opinions like you're fond of doing. If I don't know something or there's an argument, or if I make a false assumption, I have *no problem* checking on it and fixing the mistake. You, on the other hand, make stuff up on the fly and have no problem putting false claims in people's mouths. I published the first letter from nVidia. Where the heck did you get the idea that they confirmed my false assumption? The only assumption they confirmed was that video card RAM will displace motherboard RAM when there's 4GB on board. This is a fact. Another fact is that a computer runs better with more RAM. Another fact, a 64 bit OS can have more RAM loaded up.

The key differences between the two of us is 1) When Mana contradicted my statement about adding RAM in SLI, I didn't argue back. I wrote an email to nVidia to settle the dispute. 2) I actually read and consider what other people write, and I don't make up stuff that other people say in order to make up an invalid point, like you do.

I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?

Even Justageek has concluded that playing the games that he's got has been much better with Vista 64. He was just as cynical as you. There are problems with Vista 64, just as there are problems with Vista 32 and XP. There are always problems. Then there are limitations. 32 bit is a limitation, as is 64 bit. But we're years away from seeing the limitations of 64 bit. There's a lot of headroom to exploit.

When you have nothing to reply or are have no facts to back-up your argument do you always resort to making it "personal"?
Let me ask your *same* question about you:
I'm curious, do you have ADD, reading comprehension problems, or are you a troll? A, B, or C?


Let's carefully examine your correspondence and i will bold the *factual errors*:

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

first of all, a sli'd 2nd card does NOT use additional memory over the first card

2nd, there is NO FIX to this "issue" ...

Lastly, the issues you are finding about SLI are dead wrong ... not "correct" as they wrongly agree.

all they say is: "we acknowledge that there does exist unresolved issues with 4 GB memory in Windows Vista systems with all models"

you were BSed ... and you can't BS the rest of us based on THAT nonsense e-mail

we will *see* the PRACTICAL differences - if any ... when we test it this coming week. i will wait until then before making any final decisions about my own OS. i AM getting 64bit

The problem with the answer that nVidia may have provided is that it's generic. Someone reads my email and clicks the right reply to send. It's a fact that video card RAM is addressed by the OS, and a 32 bit OS is limited to 2^32 bytes of RAM.

we're finally getting somewhere ... and good to see Peter supplying the hard facts

Yet still we have no "numbers" ... we have nothing - yet - to quantify any practical gaming differences between 32-bit and 64-bit OSes

so ... this is why we are SO looking forward to actually testing and benchmarking the OSes.

IF anyone else cares to join us ... perhaps someone with an AMD CPU and/or a nvidia GPU would care to join in - i expect we will have results within a week or two at the latest.

 

[angry hampster]

!!!! I've just installed Vista Ultimate 32bit. I hope to god my system is still valid.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

LMAO, like I said, even if I explained the difference you wouldn't UNDERSTAND it. I've already posted screenshots and links to support my position and you still don't understand.

But I'll try one more time in a language you understand:
Green Bar (1.2) + Green Bar (2.0) + 32-bit Vista = :thumbsdown: :roll:

:beer: :thumbsdown:

Ironically I don't need to explain any practical advantage, I can just let you contradict yourself with your comments about the "amazing" difference in HG:L with 3.25GB. Now imagine if you had an OS that actually allowed HG:L to use most of that memory.

But ya I think Avalon hit the nail on the head earlier. You're just going to argue for the rest of the hardware "minimalists" and insist its not needed or necessary until you finally make the switch so you can come back and say "I told you so!" 2 years down the road. I think you were arguing similarly for AGP and socket A around this time last year. LOL.

This post made me seriously LOL. As in, laugh out loud for real. It's funny, and it's even funnier because it's true! Chizow, Avalon and others have (for some reason) been providing proof after proof after statistics after screenshot supporting their claims, and apoppin comes in to argue (troll) with a bunch of bolded text, uncapitalized letters and emoticons. I've seen him do it before...

Back to the reading! I just had to log on to post that.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: Peter
Yet still, a 768MB card does NOT consume 768MB of system address space. You've "lost" 768MB with one graphics card because a PCIE system already consumes 512MB all for itself, before the graphics card gets its (typical) 256MB viewport assigned. Another graphics card of the same type will set you back another 256MB.

Look at Device Manager, View - Resources by Type, unfold Memory, and see for yourself. Being able to read hex numbers is prerequisite.

My video card is GTS 320 takes up 320 MB of address space. I can't read Hex, but my calculator is good at converting stuff like that for me. Now, I'm feeling unconvinced that a GTX would be different.

I think you'd better come up with a source to backup your claim there Peter. I'm hoping to one day stick another GTS in my computer. As far as I can tell from what the nVidia guy said, video card memory doesn't stack. Does anyone have a GTX or HD2900XT w/1GB to verify Peter's claim? Anyone with SLI who can check to verify that memory doesn't stack? I'm confident with the nVidia dude that it doesn't, but it doesn't hurt to check.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: taltamir
iTunes cannot burn audio CDs on vista... because it uses its own driver for burning CDs, and thats only available in 32bits. It warns you that it is not compatible with 64bit OS but aside from not burning CDs it works perfectly... personally I wouldn't touch that piece of crap, but my brother who uses it on vista64 never had any trouble with it, ever (he doesnt need it to burn audio cds, not only does he never do so, he has nero in case he wanted to for some reason).

Yes, iTunes can burn Audio CDs on Vista, both 32 and 64 bit flavors. I know, because I do it all the time on x64 and I've done it on x86 several times too. The 64-bit requires the 64-bit GEAR drivers, and then it works just fine.

Pabster, that is a great tip. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
My video card is GTS 320 takes up 320 MB of address space. I can't read Hex, but my calculator is good at converting stuff like that for me. Now, I'm feeling unconvinced that a GTX would be different.

It is technically impossible for a PCI(E) resource to be 320MB. By matter of how PCI(E) resource allocation technically works, resource sizes are always a power of two - so it's either 256 or 512.

How do I know all this? I've been a BIOS writer for a decade, so trust me, when things dive down into how stuff works on that level, I do know, and I do have my sources - few of which are meant to be read out in public, sorry.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
What happens with a 1 GB video card, and then SLi/CFX -- 256 MB or 512 MB v. address space per card?

Well, as we just established, the RAM size on the card is not necessarily connected to its system resource needs. Let's assume the latter is 256MB for a single card, then it's 2x 256MB for two cards and 3x 256 for three. The decision whether they're going to run coupled or independent doesn't come until MUCH later during the boot process, way past the point when resources are mapped.

(I have heard cases of only 2.5 GB addressable system RAM although I do not know what else was in the PCs.)

Last thing I did before the holiday was look at a customer support case, where the CPU board showed only 384 of 512 MBytes of RAM as soon as all the I/O cards were added to the system. Yes, this system added so much peripheral resources that even 512MB of RAM were no longer possible. (And no, that wasn't a "normal" computer.)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

LMAO, like I said, even if I explained the difference you wouldn't UNDERSTAND it. I've already posted screenshots and links to support my position and you still don't understand.

But I'll try one more time in a language you understand:
Green Bar (1.2) + Green Bar (2.0) + 32-bit Vista = :thumbsdown: :roll:

:beer: :thumbsdown:

Ironically I don't need to explain any practical advantage, I can just let you contradict yourself with your comments about the "amazing" difference in HG:L with 3.25GB. Now imagine if you had an OS that actually allowed HG:L to use most of that memory.

But ya I think Avalon hit the nail on the head earlier. You're just going to argue for the rest of the hardware "minimalists" and insist its not needed or necessary until you finally make the switch so you can come back and say "I told you so!" 2 years down the road. I think you were arguing similarly for AGP and socket A around this time last year. LOL.

This post made me seriously LOL. As in, laugh out loud for real. It's funny, and it's even funnier because it's true! Chizow, Avalon and others have (for some reason) been providing proof after proof after statistics after screenshot supporting their claims, and apoppin comes in to argue (troll) with a bunch of bolded text, uncapitalized letters and emoticons. I've seen him do it before...

Back to the reading! I just had to log on to post that.

So you logged-in just to call someone a troll? i think you should go back to just reading.
--i guess you also missed the part about nullpointerous and me actually *testing* and benchmarking 64-bit vs. 32-bit starting this weekend.
--Perhaps the "proof" these guys give - a couple of screenshots, flawed logic and a whole lot of FUD - is good enough for you ... but i want to know the quantifiable difference ... the "how much"

i.e.

-Is it enough to make 32-bit "invalid" for 4GB gaming rigs?

--Should we all dump WinVista32 for 64-bit to enjoy the 64-bit "advantages" in 32-bit gaming?

--Finally, what *practical* advantage does Vista64 enjoy over Vista32 in a 4GB gaming rig with today's 32-bit games. How much better performance - if any?

i am 100% certain no one here knows ... yet. If they did, we would see the benchmarks posted. A troll will only endlessly 'argue' without contributing ... at least some of us are willing to invest the time and the work to find out the facts for everyone.

 

[wordsworm]

It is technically impossible for a PCI(E) resource to be 320MB. By matter of how PCI(E) resource allocation technically works, resource sizes are always a power of two - so it's either 256 or 512.

Well Peter, when I followed your instructions I found the video card listed 4 times in the memory allocation table. When all the address space was added up together, I got 320 MB. So, you're arguing over what it listed. So, your claim seems fallacious, regardless of how elite your knowledge is.

 

[formulav8]

MY experience with Vista Home Premium 64 Bit has been just fine. I guess some people will have problems, but I have had Vista 64 for months now on my wifes tivo computer and not any problems to speaks of.



Jason