32 bit is no longer valid

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: 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, given your BIOS experience, can you summarize for us how you see the effects of various video card configs on a 4 GB 32-bit system? For example:

1 256 MB video card
1 512 MB card
2 512 MB cards in SLI
1 768 MB card
2 768 MB cards in SLI

I wish I had the money and time to throw at actually establishing empirical evidence for how this actually works. Since I have no interest in SLI, it really doesn't affect me.

 

[Tempered81]

to the op, I would embrace 64bit in xp, but probably not in vista or any future M$ operating systems

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: cputeq
Frankly, if I'm doing something like working with large images in Photoshop or other RAM-intensive tasks, I'd be highly pissed if the app (if capable) didn't make use of the RAM "above 60%". I don't understand the logic of it being "good" to not use your RAM. Maybe system responsiveness would take a nosedive because you're running 18 apps at once, but it's not inherently "bad" to do so.

CPUTeq: Hell, I run 18 apps or so for breakfast. XP's gonna be history for me later this year. The more I hear about Vista 64, the more I like it.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: 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.

The small resource bits are the card's register set, and these don't increase in size for a given chip series.

You need to look at the single big resource - and if it all adds up to 320 total, the biggest one (the RAM aperture) is 256.

Right?

Knowledge, huh? Don't try to drag me into your mudflinging war please. If you want to prove something, post a screenshot of your Device Manager - Resources By Type - Memory, and I'll dissect it.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: Peter

Originally posted by: 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.

The small resource bits are the card's register set, and these don't increase in size for a given chip series.

You need to look at the single big resource - and if it all adds up to 320 total, the biggest one (the RAM aperture) is 256.

Right?

Knowledge, huh? Don't try to drag me into your mudflinging war please. If you want to prove something, post a screenshot of your Device Manager - Resources By Type - Memory, and I'll dissect it.

Who's slinging mud? I said 'seems.' Some of the address space seems to be doubled over. The largest of them is 256. Some of the address space is shared by the PCI bus. Not double counting the address space, all tallied, I got 320MB, which seems mighty coincidental. Now, I have no idea how to post a screen shot on the forums. I didn't know one could at all.

 

[Peter]

The card's address space is not 'shared' by the PCI bus, it is bridged (since PCIE ports inherently are all bridged). The primary VGA card gets some legacy space too, like the 128K from 000A0000..000BFFFF, and the legacy VGA ROM space from 000C0000..000CFFFF (typically, this one might be smaller). These exist only once per system, and do not reappear on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th card. Then there's the card's specific register set, which may be divided into up to five individual resources. And then there's the card's memory aperture, which is what interests us here, which is the one really big resource the card claims.

So if all that mess happens to add up to 320MB, it is indeed mighty coincidental, but sure as hell not conclusive for the assumption that "a 320MB card claims 320MB resource size" - not the least because a PCI resource can't even be of that size at all. If it really were linear-mapping its entire 320MB, the resource size would have to be 512MB, which is clearly not the case if you say everything adds up to 320. Thus, the card is using the "aperture window" technique I mentioned earlier, by means of which a reasonably small PCI resource lets the driver access all of the card's RAM anyhow (moving its view into the card RAM via register set programming).

You can post links to screenshots uploaded elsewhere.

 

[Mem]

Anybody got a crossfire setup with Vista x68(32 bit)?


I read this over at OCUK,

I only get 2.75 on my setup because of 1900xtx/CF 512MBx2 when i installed vista 32bit by mistake.
Just think if i had 2900xt/CF1GBx2 versions that would put me down to 1.75 system give or take.

Link. .

Don't shoot the messenger .

 

[Blacklash]

I've got Vista HP x64 on two Intel systems and one AMD. I like it a lot. I recently installed SP1 RC and have no issues with that either. I've tested HD 3850 crossfire on a BX2 motherboard and on a MSI K9A2 CF with 4Gb of ram installed. No problems.

HD 3850s turn in just over 17k under Vista x64 in 06 supported by a Q6600 G-0 @ 3.53GHz

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4459470

I could get more and the BX2 won't do above 393x9 with a Quad core.

I really like the sound stack in Vista as well.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: Mem
Anybody got a crossfire setup with Vista x68(32 bit)?


I read this over at OCUK,

I only get 2.75 on my setup because of 1900xtx/CF 512MBx2 when i installed vista 32bit by mistake.
Just think if i had 2900xt/CF1GBx2 versions that would put me down to 1.75 system give or take.

Link. .

Don't shoot the messenger .

This is exactly what's NOT going to happen, simply because cards with more RAM do not consume more address space. See above.

When you come out at 2.75 with two 512MB cards, that's because

* You got 4 to begin with
* Your system core resources eat .5 - we're down to 3.5
* Both your graphics cards eat .25, total .5 - down to 3
* There's other peripherals in the machine, small resources - further down a bit
* and hey presto, we're down to below 3.

If the graphics cards actually took .5 each, you'd be down to slightly above 2. And if 1GB cards actually took a gigabyte of address space, then you'd be down to 1GB of RAM or less - simply because a resource address aligns to its size. 1GB resource can only map to 00000000h, 40000000h, 80000000h, C0000000h. Bottom and top spots are already taken, so you'd have your cards at 4... and 8..., which leaves 1GB for RAM - if there's nothing else in the system.

And that's exactly why graphics chip makers decided to stop mapping the entire card RAM linearly as a PCI resource. It used to be that way when cards were smaller in RAM size, but they stopped doing that when they went past 256MB.

 

[wordsworm]

And that's exactly why graphics chip makers decided to stop mapping the entire card RAM linearly as a PCI resource. It used to be that way when cards were smaller in RAM size, but they stopped doing that when they went past 256MB.

Considering how often technology goes around in circles, I wouldn't be surprised to see RAM stacking revisited as one of the benefits of 64 bit computing is huge address space, in the not so distant future. It will be a looong time before the argument over 128 vs 64 bit takes place (which is about the same time having a huge - petabytes, right? - amount of video card RAM will be an issue)

Of course, I don't know if crossfire with 1GB cards x 4 would see any practical use.

I was recently surprised to discover that SLI mode disenables dual monitor support, whereas Crossfire will allow 4 monitors. Makes me regret abandoning AMD altogether after the Phenom let down.

 

[Peter]

Well, PCI(E) resources mapped into above-4G territory will only happen when and if the given system is designed to exclusively run 64-bit operating systems. With the whole x86 market being obsessed with backwards compatibility, it ain't going to happen anywhere near soon. And even then, very very few devices are capable of being mapped this way.

Add to this the fact that a 64-bit OS doesn't even care whether the system RAM has an I/O hole in it, and you'll see that it probably isn't going to happen, ever.

By the way, physical address space is nowhere near 64-bit as yet. AMD currently use 40-bit physical addresses, and Intel uses only 36. AMD can easily extend that without changing any external bus.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: 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.

Read my reply too... I know about that 3rd party driver and I tried it... while it works it has the issue of casing crashes whenever you try to update itunes. So be aware that when you update itunes you have to uninstall it first.

 

[wordsworm]

By the way, physical address space is nowhere near 64-bit as yet. AMD currently use 40-bit physical addresses, and Intel uses only 36. AMD can easily extend that without changing any external bus.

Yes, I've heard that as well. On the bright side, 2^36=68GB. Now that should be enough for me for a good 8-10 years (based on doubling every 24 months).

I agree that it's probably going to be at least 2 years before things start moving exclusively into 64 bit territory. I wonder, though, how much of an impact Leopard is going to create on the migration. Itaniums and Opterons are pure 64 bit aren't they?

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Anything new to report, guys...?

Is the testing coming to fruition...?

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: apoppin

Anything new to report, guys...?

Is the testing coming to fruition...?

Yes...we have proven that the USPS is unreliable...
...nearly two weeks...and no 64-bit for apoppin to test...

That will change tomorrow.


Also, he and I were having some PC problems that are nearly resolved now. :thumbsup:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Peter
Remember NEAT chipsets and HIMEM.SYS?

That was a very informative post, but please don't even joke about HIMEM.SYS. I still have post-traumatic stress disorder from HIMEM.SYS, XMS and EMS. :Q If we have to relive those days, I'm moving in to a cave.

LOL...I remember all those autoexec.bat and config.sys tweaking exercises...trying to squeeze enough ram out to run a game while still having your mouse and soundcard functional.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: apoppin

Anything new to report, guys...?

Is the testing coming to fruition...?

Yes...we have proven that the USPS is unreliable...
...nearly two weeks...and no 64-bit for apoppin to test...

That will change tomorrow.


Also, he and I were having some PC problems that are nearly resolved now. :thumbsup:

Excellent!

Even though I believe I know the final score already...


My 3DMark06 scores:

XP Home - 11,600
Vista 64 - 10,700

Both, obviously, the DX9 scores.


However, I can't wait for the "real-life" comparison.

Good luck, guys! :thumbsup:

 

[JustaGeek]

BTW, the opening page poll should also have "both" to vote for.

I strongly believe that testing should be done in both 32- and 64-bit systems.

I vote for testing in both operating systems!

Only then we would be able to clearly see the difference, which would allow for much more educated decision choosing an OS.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
BTW, the opening page poll should also have "both" to vote for.

I strongly believe that testing should be done in both 32- and 64-bit systems.

I vote for testing in both operating systems!

Only then we would be able to clearly see the difference, which would allow for much more educated decision choosing an OS.

we are going to start a new thread this weekend ... if you have suggestions for what and how you want tests run, make them.

the 64-DVD got lost in the mail ... and another one got dispatched
:Q

if we can show "no difference" in a 4GB Gaming rig, then Vista32 should be 'default' ... if there is a difference, then you will know and can roughly deduce from either benchmarks what it will be due to OS differences.


EDIT: someone very kindly brought this to my attention ... someone across the Pond is doing it also ... but XP 32 vs. XP 64-bit

http://forums.overclockers.co....wthread.php?t=17823231

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: apoppin

the 64-DVD got lost in the mail ... and another one got dispatched

Hmmm.... Gremlins....? Spirits of Microsoft victims...?

Terrorists...? :shocked:

Nah, it happens... The tests will go on, regardless of the obstacles, and the truth will prevail!

I would start with the "tried, tested and true" (?!?) 3DMark06. As I mentioned above, the Vista 64 score of 10,700 is lower by about 900 points than the XP Home score of 11,700.

However, the gaming experience in Vista seems to be smoother, so the gaming "potential" of my system seems to be using the resources better.

But if you do decide to go with the 3DMark06 (and perhaps 05 and 03 - if they can run on both operating systems), please post the FPS of the feature tests, too, not only the final score.

And remember to update the OpenAL file here, or the 3DMark06 will not run on the 64-bit platform!

The other benchmarks all depend on what games both of you have.

Again - good luck! :thumbsup: Can't wait for the results!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: apoppin

the 64-DVD got lost in the mail ... and another one got dispatched

Hmmm.... Gremlins....? Spirits of Microsoft victims...?

Terrorists...? :shocked:

Nah, it happens... The tests will go on, regardless of the obstacles, and the truth will prevail!

I would start with the "tried, tested and true" (?!?) 3DMark06. As I mentioned above, the Vista 64 score of 10,700 is lower by about 900 points than the XP Home score of 11,700.

However, the gaming experience in Vista seems to be smoother, so the gaming "potential" of my system seems to be using the resources better.

But if you do decide to go with the 3DMark06 (and perhaps 05 and 03 - if they can run on both operating systems), please post the FPS of the feature tests, too, not only the final score.

And remember to update the OpenAL file here, or the 3DMark06 will not run on the 64-bit platform!

The other benchmarks all depend on what games both of you have.

Again - good luck! :thumbsup: Can't wait for the results!

thanks ... it's the Post Office
- and weather was pretty bad all across the USA ... we live near opposite coasts ... i pictured the Vista DVD frozen in a block of ice at Denver.

we do have about ten gaming benchmarks between us ... i am not so sure what 3DMarkXX will actually show.

We need to do tests that "time" loading and saving
:clock:
.... We also need to compare FPS [graphs] and study the system resource monitoring tools :camera:


Also, i just got a report that Hg:L runs *much better* without Ready Boost enabled ... on my own partition with RB it also runs much worse then on the one with it disabled - but i had put that down to a patch and more RAM - so we need to test RB enabled and disabled in games [with Vista32]

lotsa work

think of more



btw, the Witcher runs really well on my system - all in game settings 100% maxed at 16x10 - *except* for an occasional irregular rare crash with an 'infinite loop' that appears to be [onboard] audio.

it's a pretty good game too

 

[nullpointerus]

Apple just released 64-bit iTunes:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/

But you must use IE to view that link due to Apple's stupid script that only spits out the 64-bit download link when the web browser reports itself as running on 64-bit Windows. A big...
:thumbsdown:
...to Apple for that little problem.

iTunes 7.6 still has NO support for 64-bit XP, unfortunately.

 

[apoppin]

OK, i got TWO Vista 64 DVDs at the Post Office today ... the "priority" one - mailed Jan 02 and the Express one mailed yesterday!

i also got my SATA DVD burner, USB bluetooth adapter and expanded unlimited data plan for my cell phone [$20] - and the DVDs - all today!!!
(i intend to use my cell phone as a dial-up modem and bluetooth to my PC so i can dump dial-up)

So i got my work cut out for me ... expect a new thread this weekend ... and the Vista 32 vs. 64-bit showdown.
... when the hell do i have time to play the Witcher?
--it's all about gaming, isn't it? ... and i ain't getting enough :lips:


Anything you want us to look at - especially?

 

[konakona]

heh I must be lucky as hell - never saw any unexplicable crashes or incompatibilities with anything on my vista 64. In fact, it runs noticeably smoother than a equivalently equipped vista 32 machine with half the memory that I gave away to my sister.

I concur that price is what drives people to upgrade to 4gb, and I say why the hell not? I just ordered 5GBs of ddr2 for under $15 AR; known to be super reliable HP rebates, what makes you say no?

 

[Avalon]

What exactly will you guys be testing? I've got tons of benches and such I could possibly throw into the mix if you want.