• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question If I buy 2 or 4 GB graphics card, how will this change RAM for processor?

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
W7-64. 24 GB RAM installed. 1GB on current Graphics card. From desktop Gadget: 9GB used, 6 spare.
Would anything be different if I switch to W10?

I have 12 GB Ramdisk which is rarely unused, so I would eliminate or reduce it to keep it from impacting usable RAM to OS.
 
Last edited:

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
VRAM can only be accessed through specific APIs, normal software won't benefit at all from more VRAM.
I'm not trying to access VRAM.

Since VRAM usurps installed RAM address space, the more VRAM, the less left over RAM available for the processor.

So since I have unused RAM in the system, would more of that currently unused 16 GB be utilized to back up the additional VRAM so 9 GB 'used' would go up and 'available' go down or would 16 GB remain unused and more of the 9 GB be stolen from OS by the additional VRAM?
 
Last edited:

fralexandr

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2007
2,109
93
91
www.flickr.com
I'm not trying to access VRAM.

Since VRAM usurps installed RAM address space, the more VRAM, the less left over RAM available for the processor.

So since I have unused RAM in the system, would more of that currently unused 16 GB be utilized to back up the additional VRAM so 9 GB 'used' would go up and 'available' go down or would 16 GB remain unused and more of the 9 GB be stolen from OS by the additional VRAM?
VRAM on dedicated cards for the most part doesn't impact system RAM as the dedicated cards have their own dedicated ram. There are some old lower end cards that had hypermemory or turbocache which would cut into system memory, but nothing recent. For the most part only integrated graphics use system ram, since they don't have dedicated VRAM.
Most modern implementations adjust the igp ram usage automatically as it's needed.

Address space shouldn't be a limitation on a modern 64bit OS and isn't related to system ram usage. The problem is that windows 7 home premium has a max of 16gb. If you do a free upgrade to 10 that limit will be increased to 128gb
 
Last edited:

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
VRAM on dedicated cards for the most part doesn't impact system RAM as the dedicated cards have their own dedicated ram. There are some old lower end cards that had "hypermemory" which would cut into system memory, but nothing recent. For the most part only integrated graphics use system ram, since they don't have dedicated VRAM.
I was taught that graphaics card RAM is ALWAYS assigned true RAM address space, making that much RAM inaccessible.

Just today, I read that W7 no matter what will never use more than 4GB RAM. I had not seen that before.

Then Bill Gates himself told me this
1612488114447.png
which I had never found before today. It seems to say that my 24GB RAM might as well be 4GB and that the video RAM uses part of that space.
The card specs:
1612488464588.png
This is not my clock speed and I do not have GDDR5 RAM. It's either DDR2 or 3 - I forget.

And Gates doesn't show any of the numbers my Gadget gives: 9.2 used of 24 leaves 14.9
1612488607894.png

Today, the more information I get, the less clear anything is.
 

fralexandr

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2007
2,109
93
91
www.flickr.com
I was taught that graphaics card RAM is ALWAYS assigned true RAM address space, making that much RAM inaccessible.

Just today, I read that W7 no matter what will never use more than 4GB RAM. I had not seen that before.

Then Bill Gates himself told me this
View attachment 39183
which I had never found before today. It seems to say that my 24GB RAM might as well be 4GB and that the video RAM uses part of that space.
The card specs:
View attachment 39185
This is not my clock speed and I do not have GDDR5 RAM. It's either DDR2 or 3 - I forget.

And Gates doesn't show any of the numbers my Gadget gives: 9.2 used of 24 leaves 14.9
View attachment 39186

Today, the more information I get, the less clear anything is.
You are running win 7 64bit home premium which has a limit of 16gb

32bit windows has a limit of 4gb.
Any 32bit program you run will similarly have a 4gb ram limit.

If you upgrade to windows 10, you have a 128gb ram limit

The 3gb of shared memory isn't actually used by the gpu unless the dedicated ram is exhausted and the program you're running asks for more than the dedicated 1gb vram.
 
Last edited:

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
You are running win 7 64bit home premium which has a limit of 16gb

32bit windows has a limit of 4gb.
Any 32bit program you run will similarly have a 4gb ram limit.

If you upgrade to windows 10, you have a 128gb ram limit

The 3gb of shared memory isn't actually used by the gpu unless the dedicated ram is exhausted and the program you're running asks for more than the dedicated 1gb vram.
By W764, I mean 64-bit as in:
View attachment 39187
 

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
You are running win 7 64bit home premium which has a limit of 16gb

32bit windows has a limit of 4gb.
Any 32bit program you run will similarly have a 4gb ram limit.

If you upgrade to windows 10, you have a 128gb ram limit

The 3gb of shared memory isn't actually used by the gpu unless the dedicated ram is exhausted and the program you're running asks for more than the dedicated 1gb vram.
1612492657701.png
The OS says I have 24 GB installed and running 64-bit, which is true.

But the calculations it shows [in previous reply] do not use your 16GB max or the 8-9GB my Gadget says are used in its calculations. It starts with 4GB. So I have no idea what it is trying to tell me.

So the situation is this:

1 I have some RAM available to OS, application & data. I don't know what that number is.

2 If I buy a video card with 1GB more RAM on it than my present card [specs above] the RAM available to OS, application & data will either [since there is 15GB more/unused RAM available on the mobo] stay the same since only video RAM was change. Or it will go down since another GB of address space will have been usurped by the video RAM.

3 I would like to know the answer before I buy a new card.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
14,945
5,629
146
If you already have 24 GB of memory, why are you so concerned even if a GPU would use another 1-2 GB of RAM? I guess I could understand if you had some small amount like 4 GB.

My desktop (which has 8 GB 1070ti) shows no shared usage between my RAM and GPU since the VRAM is dedicated. My laptop (which has GTX 1650, with Intel graphics used for most uses outside gaming), shows it can use some system memory in some cases paired with Intel graphics. That is expected for a cut-down laptop GPU. Here is the shot from my laptop (Windows 10 Home).

2.jpg
 

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
Why is your subject question completely different than the question in the post o_O
The question hasn't changed. The replies have not lead toward the answer/question and this last statement is revealing more motivation as to why I am asking [still] what would be the effect on my cpu-available RAM if I bot a graphics card with a bigger RAM on it.

I was hoping for answers like "Graphic memory is entirely separate from computer RAM and bigger/smaller/no RAM has no effect on CPU RAM. If they were ever in overlapping memory address space, that is no longer the case." I did not get that definitive answer. Closest I got to that was introduction of hypermemory and I confirmed that the card does have RAM on it, so it's not using system RAM undercover.

The corollary would be the Gadget arithmetic would be the same after the new card was inserted.
An alternate possibility would be that there would normally be some interaction/reduction, but since I had unused/available RAM, more of the unused RAM would be sacrificed to overlap with the enlarged video RAM, resulting no change that the Gadget could see. It already doesn't see my RAM disc.
 

Fuzzbob

Junior Member
Feb 4, 2021
9
0
6
If you already have 24 GB of memory, why are you so concerned even if a GPU would use another 1-2 GB of RAM? I guess I could understand if you had some small amount like 4 GB.

My desktop (which has 8 GB 1070ti) shows no shared usage between my RAM and GPU since the VRAM is dedicated. My laptop (which has GTX 1650, with Intel graphics used for most uses outside gaming), shows it can use some system memory in some cases paired with Intel graphics. That is expected for a cut-down laptop GPU. Here is the shot from my laptop (Windows 10 Home).

View attachment 39191
My concern is that I have 24 GB installed, but most of it is unused. AND I am under the impression [might be right, might wrong; be nicest if it's wrong] that the graphics ram eats away at the cpu address space so I don't know if the system that just won't use more than 9 GB no matter what I do [in its current configuration] might NOT overlap address space with some of the otherwise 'unused' 15-1 GB if graphics RAM is increased.
AND there is that

Then there's that most disturbing Window report [pictured above] that shows that in fact, the system is starting with 4 GB [not even 8 GB as indicated it should be according to one respondent] and subtracting 1 GB from it - exactly what I originally thought would be happening [see previous paragraph] and is exactly why I am posing this question.

Nobody has addressed that report or even challenged/questioned it.

To directly address your point/question: if any necessary adjustment was taken out of the unused RAM and the cpu-space RAM is left entirely alone, that would be the best of all worlds. But nobody seems to be able to say whether it will or it won't.

And it would be nice to be shown that when the OS says I really only have 3GB available to the cpu, it is either wrong [not a very positive condition for W764 to be that wrong so many years after its release] or that it was only talking about 'graphics ram' [or some such term] and there is more/other-named RAM out there, too. And here is where you can find out how much of that [or the total of the 2] is:_________________

That's what I am hoping for.
I looked where you got your data [task manager] and went to see what mine says:
1612503924891.png
This is the first time I've seen the total 24.
The last figure [Free] looks consistent with the other OS report showing 4 total/max -1 graphics = 3 free/available. The 16 'available' figure looks like something from the Gadget. I don'td know what 'cached' means but it looks like

cached + free = available and
total - available = the 8-9 that the Gadget reports.
1612504289017.png
Teh Gadget's 7978 'used' is not shown anywhere in teh OS that I can see/have seen. It looks like the best/usable number, though, if it means the cpu can do what it wants [mostly page/buffer HD segments?] with it.
Can you tell me what these terms/things are?
Recall that I have a 12 GB RAM disc running, tho it is always empty.
 

Attachments

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
14,945
5,629
146
My concern is that I have 24 GB installed, but most of it is unused. AND I am under the impression [might be right, might wrong; be nicest if it's wrong] that the graphics ram eats away at the cpu address space so I don't know if the system that just won't use more than 9 GB no matter what I do [in its current configuration] might NOT overlap address space with some of the otherwise 'unused' 15-1 GB if graphics RAM is increased.
AND there is that
Yeah, I don't if any of that has ever been something I've even really thought about.

For me, you buy a GPU to play games with (or mine), and as long as a person has enough RAM installed to smoothly use their computer for whatever reason they use it for, that's all that matters. If a game I am playing is really demanding, and Windows somehow uses some of the available RAM to make the experience enjoyable, that great!

Unless you plan on staying with Windows 7 and a video card with 1 GB of memory, it wouldn't be something I would worry about (especially since you have so much RAM that you say stays unused). From your posts here, I see this is a major concern for you, however I just don't really get it. I understand what you are saying, I just don't see why a person would be so concerned about something like this?
 

zir_blazer

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,060
285
136
My concern is that I have 24 GB installed, but most of it is unused. AND I am under the impression [might be right, might wrong; be nicest if it's wrong] that the graphics ram eats away at the cpu address space so I don't know if the system that just won't use more than 9 GB no matter what I do [in its current configuration] might NOT overlap address space with some of the otherwise 'unused' 15-1 GB if graphics RAM is increased.
I have two great news for you.

First, x86-64 doesn't implements a 64 Bits Physical Address Space. The original 2003 K8 Athlons 64 had a 40 Bits Physical Address Space, but that is still enough to address 1 TiB (2^40). Newer generations have 48 Bits or maybe even more.

Second, until recently, the RAM of the Video Cards was NEVER fully mapped to the Processor Address Space. For the most part, they just used a default 256 MiB window as defined by the PCI specification. If you have recently hear about AMD SAM (Smart Access Memory), it implements full mapping of the VRAM to the Processor Address Space, so if you have a Video Card with 16 GiB RAM with SAM enabled, it is actually using that much. Otherwise, they just took 256 MiB.

And you can fit a lot of 256 MiB cards into at a bare minimum of 1 TiB Physical Address Space. Do I have to say anything else?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY