How much memory is enough for Win 7 x64?

[wgoldfarb]

I had been trying Win 7 RC 32 bits in my system (see signature for details) with 2 GB of RAM. It felt very responsive.

I recently decided to try out Win 7 RC x64. I read here that it performs even better than the 32 bit version, but my experience has been different. It isn't slow by any means, but it is definitely not as responsive or "snappy" as the 32 bit version, at least on my system. The most noticeable impact is on application startups. Once the apps are up and running things seem ok.

I am assuming it is a combination of two things: I know the x64 version requires more RAM, so perhaps my 2GB is not enough, and I also imagine that in my 32 bit installation Superfetch was already "doing its magic", whereas the x64 install is brand new so Superfetch hasn't yet "learned" which apps to load into memory. Even if it has, perhaps 2GB is not enough for it to have as much of an impact as in the 32 bit install.

How much RAM would I need to have "enough"? With 32 bits 2GB was plenty and made the system responsive. With x64 it feels as if 2GB is the bare minimum. How much RAM is the x64 bit "equivalent" to having 2Gb in the 32 bit version?

The strange thing is that in my resource monitor it says that I have almost half of my 2GB either complete free or available. Thinking of other possible reasons, could the lag I notice upon applications startup be caused by the fact that my apps are almost all 32 bits and need to run under Wow64, and RAM will not help? Is there a way to tell whether this is having an impact?

TIA!

 

[Raduque]

4gb. Why even run the x64 version with less than 4?

 

[Nothinman]

Thinking of other possible reasons, could the lag I notice upon applications startup be caused by the fact that my apps are almost all 32 bits and need to run under Wow64, and RAM will not help? Is there a way to tell whether this is having an impact?

No, all WoW64 really needs to do for 32-bit processes is make sure they find the correct 32-bit libraries and maybe some registry redirection, but nothing major.

And the added memory will help every process, it's just that 32-bit processes will be stuck with a 2G (or 4G if they're LargeAddressAware) VM limit.

 

[junfan77]

I saw no benefit in running X64 Win7, if the 32 bit version ran better I'd say stick with that, I think the benefit at this point is still theoretical for normal day to day usage, unless if you need x64 for a specific use or program that is documented to run significantly better under x64.

 

[Nothinman]

I saw no benefit in running X64 Win7, if the 32 bit version ran better I'd say stick with that, I think the benefit at this point is still theoretical for normal day to day usage, unless if you need x64 for a specific use or program that is documented to run significantly better under x64.

I'd look at it from the opposite perspective, only run 32-bit Win7 if you have a specific reason. With the 64-bit version you can add >4G of memory later on and actually be able to use it and you'll be able to run 64-bit apps should a compelling one come along.

 

[junfan77]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I saw no benefit in running X64 Win7, if the 32 bit version ran better I'd say stick with that, I think the benefit at this point is still theoretical for normal day to day usage, unless if you need x64 for a specific use or program that is documented to run significantly better under x64.

I'd look at it from the opposite perspective, only run 32-bit Win7 if you have a specific reason. With the 64-bit version you can add >4G of memory later on and actually be able to use it and you'll be able to run 64-bit apps should a compelling one come along.

For me, the likely hood of me running into a compatibility issue or drivers issues, etc... is much more likely than me seeing the benefit of the extra RAM or an out of the blue x64 program that I HAVE to have, but again that's just me and my usage patterns. I had one or two x64 related issues with win7, the details currently escape me, but I know x86 is a better choice for me.

In XP pro with 4gb of ram I have 3.x available and I monitor it with cacheman, I hardly ever drop below 2.3gb free, except with firefox memory leaks, which have been much better with 3.5 but I think an extension I'm using might be causing it, either way if one day I find myself needing more RAM or that program does come along I'm more than willing to revisit x64, but I'm happy right now with x86.

*edit - One issue if I recall was Source games wouldn't run under x64, if I remember correctly.

 

[Nothinman]

*edit - One issue if I recall was Source games wouldn't run under x64, if I remember correctly.

I'd say something else was wrong with your setup. A little Googling shows people with Source games running on 64-bit Win7 fine. Hell, I can play source games on 64-bit Linux via WINE.

 

[junfan77]

I honestly don't remember the exact issues I was having, I know they were small and more than likely had workarounds, but I much prefer for stuff to work out of the box if possible. As I said before, for me, I have no need for x64, my personal opinion is still the benefit is only had by a small percentage of users, I think most would be fine on 32 bit.

*edit - I do see your perspective before though, perhaps if x64 was more widespread more dev's would have more incentive to program specifically x64 versions of software.

 

[coreyb]

Shell out the extra $40 and get another 2gb?

 

[rackley]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I saw no benefit in running X64 Win7, if the 32 bit version ran better I'd say stick with that, I think the benefit at this point is still theoretical for normal day to day usage, unless if you need x64 for a specific use or program that is documented to run significantly better under x64.

I'd look at it from the opposite perspective, only run 32-bit Win7 if you have a specific reason. With the 64-bit version you can add >4G of memory later on and actually be able to use it and you'll be able to run 64-bit apps should a compelling one come along.

I absolutely agree. If you're installing a new OS, make sure it is 64 bit unless you have a very specific and very important need to run 32-bit (i.e. business critical device driver is only available for 32-bit platforms). 32-bit is obsolete at this point.

I recommend a MINIMUM of 4gb. The more RAM you have, the more Win7 will cache from your HD into RAM. This will make your system feel much faster since it won't hit as many hard page faults when starting programs. Personally I have 8gb in all my systems, I usually use about 4gb with all the programs I have running (a lot...) and Win7 caches stuff in the other 4gb. Plus RAM is dirt cheap anyhow, so the trade off in saving yourself time and aggravation is pretty much a no-brainer.

One thing that may have affected your perception of 32-bit vs. 64-bit is WHEN you were test driving the apps. After boot, the system doesn't have much cached in RAM. If you tool around for a few minutes though it loads your frequently used programs and files into RAM in the background, making your perception of how fast it runs much better after it has been running for a little bit. Personally I don't ever shut down my PCs unless there is a very specific need (patches/updated driver/etc).

Ray
[MSFT]

 

[wgoldfarb]

Thanks to everyone for the great input. I think I'll stick with 64 bits fo now, adding some more RAM, assuming I don't run into any major problems with drivers or software.

 

[Gamingphreek]

This will make your system feel much faster since it won't hit as many hard page faults when starting programs.

Umm when a program starts on a "cold" machine it definitely shouldn't be page faulting - that would be bad. You are referring to a cache miss because the principles of locality cannot apply given a "cold" start.

-Kevin

 

[Nothinman]

Umm when a program starts on a "cold" machine it definitely shouldn't be page faulting - that would be bad. You are referring to a cache miss because the principles of locality cannot apply given a "cold" start.

No, when a program starts for the first time it should be hard faulting because it and it's dependencies aren't in memory yet. A hard fault is when something isn't in memory at all and needs to be loaded from somewhere else (i.e. the hard disk) and a soft fault is when it is in memory but isn't mapped into the current virtual memory space so all the OS has to do is setup the mapping.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Umm when a program starts on a "cold" machine it definitely shouldn't be page faulting - that would be bad. You are referring to a cache miss because the principles of locality cannot apply given a "cold" start.

No, when a program starts for the first time it should be hard faulting because it and it's dependencies aren't in memory yet. A hard fault is when something isn't in memory at all and needs to be loaded from somewhere else (i.e. the hard disk) and a soft fault is when it is in memory but isn't mapped into the current virtual memory space so all the OS has to do is setup the mapping.

Oh! My mistake

 

[Caminetto]

Could there be a performance difference between 32 and 64 on a 2 yr. old laptop maxed with 2 GB ram?

 

[flexy]

I think i am doing "ok" with 4GB, but cant help but think that 8GB would benefit tremendously. Mem is not that expensive anymore.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: flexy
I think i am doing "ok" with 4GB, but cant help but think that 8GB would benefit tremendously. Mem is not that expensive anymore.

I'm , anyway I think sweet spot is 4GB with Win 7 x64, mind you ram is so cheap that going 8GB(my next upgrade will be 8GB in Oct) is not that expensive.

 

[geokilla]

I'm currently stuck with 2GB on Windows 7 RC 64 too. I'm running Folding@Home in the background and there's a bit of a lag compared to Windows XP Pro 32. I was surprised to find out that Windows 7 runs this fast with just 2GB of RAM though, since the "minimum requirements" for Windows 7 RC 64 is 2GB of RAM.

 

[Nothinman]

Could there be a performance difference between 32 and 64 on a 2 yr. old laptop maxed with 2 GB ram?

Depends on what you do.