6800GT/Vista64/6gb RAM issue

RedHAF

New Member
Hello to the vista forums. First I must thank you all, because I've used your help in the past.

As far as my post, I'm trying to be slightly humorous in it, not snarky. If it comes off that way, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to give you something other than: "OMG my <insert game> dusn't work an i reely wanna play it pleez help pleez!!!! thnks!" which I'm sure must get very very tiresome.


Anyway, on to the OMG help pleez!

(tl;dr version: my computer runs very slow in 64-bit vista because it's able to address my full 6gb of memory. In 32-bit it runs great, and when I limit my memory to 3gb in 64-bit via msconfig it runs great. I'm not a complete noob, not the first rig I've built, and I think I've covered most of the basic troubleshoots. Any ideas?)


The System
i7 920 processor
x58 "Blood Rage" motherboard
DDR3 6gb 1600 Corsair "Dominator" RAM (3x2gb)
MSI 6800GT graphics card (Working on upgrading, but not anytime too soon...)
Thermaltake 850w "BlackWidow" power supply
LG Blu-Ray DVD/CD+RW/LOL/OMG
320GB sata seagate HDD
Vista "Ultimate" edition
All wrapped up in Coolermaster HAF case; water cooled northbridge and CPU

The Problem


I recently built up the awesome-sauce computer listed above. Due to, uh, a lack of foresight and funds I came up a little short on being able to purchase a GTX-285. I have the old 6800GT laying around, it was a good card and hits the minimum specs on a lot of the games I play, not to mention Vista 64.

New install, clean, fire up and... damn this is slow. I mean, really slow. Funny thing is Vista is giving me a 5.0 in my Windows Experience Index (WEI). When left on "Let my computer decide..." it runs full Aero, all effects, etc.

But damn, it's slow.

Ok, that's fine, I've heard that Vista can be slower than XP. Let's play a game anyways!

Eve-online (classic graphics) - 4 FPS
Fallout 3 (All Low settings, everything off) - 4 FPS (even at the menu)
Crysis: Warhead - Won't even start, DX10 or DX9 versions
Assassin's Creed - Can't get past menu before it locks up; also getting very very low FPS during the loading screen

The strange thing is it jumps. The frame rates go like this: "Normal for 1 second * pause for 2 seconds * normal for 1 second * pause" and etc.
For those of you wondering about the validity of the FPS, they have been confirmed in FRAPS.

Other than games, the desktop itself seems fine, although MUCH more sluggish than my dual-core XP and much slower than I would expect from mostly bleeding edge tech. I work with this a few days, then decide I'm going to try the 32-bit version of Vista, and see if it speeds things up a little.

It worked. It ran like a dream! Fast, responsive, excellent frame rates (considering the video card), even with the Aero and 3d flip. Even with the Dreamscene background running it was still faster than the bare bones Vista 64.

Huh.

Wondering if I did something wrong the first time around, and wanting the other 50% of my DDR3 ram that I paid for, I reformat my HDD yet again, install vista 64 and..... crap.
Same as before.

Like a driven beast I google and search and lurk and, uh, some other internet word meaning look really hard.
I've:
reflashed my bios with the most recent version. Talked to tech support, found out recent version isn't quite that stable, flashed to manufacturer recommended version.

checked drivers, gone to sites, installed the most recent versions. Double checked this. Triple checked this.

rolled back drivers on my video card (seemed some people were having trouble with the new drivers)

Checked temperatures; looked at charts and graphs to make sure there's no correlation between a high-heat load and low fps (there's not; GPU runs around 53C, haven't seen the CPU get over 45C and even that was during a Prime95 stress test)

Nothing. So I ask myself, what was the biggest change between 64 and 32 bit versions? Certainly drivers, but I think I've addressed that. Wait! I'm using all of my memory now, because I'm in 64 bit.

First I verified that my mem is running the correct timing. It was actually a little looser, which as far as I understand should help not hurt, but I fixed it regardless. Doesn't help.

Ran literally days of memtest on each and every stick, in each and every slot. Tried it with two sticks in. Tried with all three sticks. All passed with flying colors.

went into msconfig and limited myself to 3072mb of memory

AND IT WORKED.

It's still a little more sluggish than I was experiencing with the 32 bit version, but I'm back to over 200fps in eve-online, ~30 in fallout 3, etc.


So my question to you, almighty vista 64 forums, is why? Why does lowering my memory available speed up my computer? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

I would like to reiterate that:
I've double checked my bios settings. There are no overclocks, underclocks, alarmclocks or anything of that sort. Everything is either on auto or manually set to what it should be.

"Sounds like a memory problem!" Yeah, not really. I've checked the memory pretty extensively using two different diagnostic tools. Also, no BSOD's. I could be wrong though.

"That's an old video card. You can't expect to get high FPS!" Yup. I know that. I still think that 4fps is a little extreme. And don't forget it can be addressed by lowering the amount of memory vista uses. I do agree that it could a conflict of some sort with the video card, though.

All my drivers are up to date. Every single driver has been double checked. Including the x58 chipset, newest graphics drivers, all windows updates, etc.

Everything is hooked up right; everything has adequate power. The PSU should be good, I've ran it in a SLI rig and it powered everything fine.

I've read the manual. Twice.

I have not confused the "maximum memory" check block and been in 6gb when I've been in 3gb and vice versa. Give me a little credit. Oh and while we're on the topic the system recognizes all 6gb in every screen, cpu-z, OCCT, etc.

I've also found a couple instances where people are running very similar rigs (x58,i7 920 w/ 6800Gt) and they seem to be doing fine.

That being said, I'm sure this is something probably VERY noobish and that one of you might forumers will be able to direct to the solution with a link and a scoff. I've tried my best to fix it on my own, but to no avail..

Well, that's about it. If I left any crucial hardware out it, let me know. If you want pictures or screen shots, I'm happy to oblige. If this was tl;dr, sorry. I gotta go now, got girlfriend aggro.

Josh
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
Just for anyone else who may be encountering this problem, it's definitely a problem with the video card. Putting a GTX-285 in place of the older 6800GT allowed me to use all my RAM without the sluggishness. I'm still not sure exactly where the problem is, though; my guess it's either the BIOS, which is still a little premature on the Bloodrage, or a very rare vista bug with the MSI 6800GT. Either way, fixed, sort of.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
Just for anyone else who may be encountering this problem, it's definitely a problem with the video card. Putting a GTX-285 in place of the older 6800GT allowed me to use all my RAM without the sluggishness. I'm still not sure exactly where the problem is, though; my guess it's either the BIOS, which is still a little premature on the Bloodrage, or a very rare vista bug with the MSI 6800GT. Either way, fixed, sort of.
it sounds quite similar to memory limiting, have a look here http://www.vistax64.com/overclocking-cooling/183704-ddr-ram-explained.html#post847508
or specifically my advice to someone regarding tighter timings slowing the RAM down http://www.vistax64.com/overclocking-cooling/183704-ddr-ram-explained-2.html#post975420
 

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Custom Build
    CPU
    Intel Q6600 @ 2.8GHz
    Motherboard
    Evga NF78-CK-132-A 3-Way SLI
    Memory
    8Gb DDR2 Corsair Dominator @ 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
    Graphics Card(s)
    EVGA 560 GTX SC FTW 1GB
    Sound Card
    Realtek ALC888 7.1 Audio, Logitech G35 7.1 Surround Headset
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell S2409W 16:9, HDMi, DVI & VGA
    Screen Resolution
    1920 x 1080
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 7200rpm 250Gb SATA,
    Samsung 7200rpm 750Gb SATA,
    WD 7200rpm 1TB SCSI SATA.
    PSU
    Xigmatek 750W Quad sli quad core 80% eff
    Case
    Antec 900 Gaming Case
    Cooling
    Zalman CNPS9700-NT NVIDIA Tritium, Dominator RAM cooler
    Keyboard
    Logitech generic keyboard
    Mouse
    Razor Lachesis Banshee V2 Blue, 4000DPI
    Internet Speed
    16Mb Sky bb
    Other Info
    Wireless Gaming Receiver for Windows, Wireless Xbox 360 Pad, Wireless Xbox 360 Les Paul Guitar
I can confirm the same behavior and fix for my system.
I started with a 6800 GT paired with:
2x2GB G.SKill DDR2-800
EP45-UD3R
Core2Quad Q6600
Vista 64

I was getting poor performance in iTunes (cover art view), Sims 2 game crashed at startup, and Left4Dead and Half Life 2 had poor fps to the point it was unplayable. I observed that taking 1 of my sticks of RAM out and my system performed well--all my games played well, iTunes had no trouble displaying cover art, and overall my system wasn't sluggish.

I rma'd my board at first, only to get it back saying nothing was wrong with it. I tried different RAM and even a different motherboard to no avail. Finally, I saw this thread and tried my friend's 9800 GT and the crashes went away. I just purchased a Radeon HD 4850 and all is running well.

I'm very curious to know is going here. A simple, "that card is too old answer" may be true, but it's not a real explanation of what is happening. I'm curious to know WHY this is happening. But at the min, I wanted to say I was having the same problem and a new card also worked for me. Thanks for your original post--it helped me fix my problem too.
 

My Computer

I can confirm the same behavior and fix for my system.
I started with a 6800 GT paired with:
2x2GB G.SKill DDR2-800
EP45-UD3R
Core2Quad Q6600
Vista 64

I was getting poor performance in iTunes (cover art view), Sims 2 game crashed at startup, and Left4Dead and Half Life 2 had poor fps to the point it was unplayable. I observed that taking 1 of my sticks of RAM out and my system performed well--all my games played well, iTunes had no trouble displaying cover art, and overall my system wasn't sluggish.

I rma'd my board at first, only to get it back saying nothing was wrong with it. I tried different RAM and even a different motherboard to no avail. Finally, I saw this thread and tried my friend's 9800 GT and the crashes went away. I just purchased a Radeon HD 4850 and all is running well.

I'm very curious to know is going here. A simple, "that card is too old answer" may be true, but it's not a real explanation of what is happening. I'm curious to know WHY this is happening. But at the min, I wanted to say I was having the same problem and a new card also worked for me. Thanks for your original post--it helped me fix my problem too.

Crankerchick - Glad my fumblings could help. I definitely agree that the card being too old is just a pseudo explanation. As it's the only thing (other than Vista64) that we have in common, I'm even more convinced that it's something to do with the way Vista addresses the memory, which happens to conflict with the way that Vista addresses the 6800GT, or some variation thereof. In any case, it's a conflict. Maybe a more technical forumer can give a better explanation, since it's obviously not an isolated event.

MrNeeds - Thanks for the links. I definitely agree memory should be one of the first things you troubleshoot, but at least in my case I'm positive my timings were correct and there was no CPU<->Memory bottleneck. Thanks again, though; any help is appreciated!
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
the 6800gt is not compatable with 64 bit systems

unless of course the nvidia site on specs is wrong or out of date
 

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    me
    CPU
    intel Q6600 @3.0Ghz
    Motherboard
    gigabyte EP35C DS3R
    Memory
    8 GB OCZ 1066 HPC REAPER
    Graphics Card(s)
    Sapphire 4870 HD 1024mb gddr5
    Monitor(s) Displays
    lg flatron 20.1
    Screen Resolution
    1680x1050
    Hard Drives
    western digital 350gb
    samsung spinpoint 120gb
    PSU
    900w
    Case
    thermaltake aguila
    Cooling
    2x 120mm 2x 10cm
could you provide the link to the nvidia specs please? when I searched before deciding not to upgrade my card when rebuilding my system, I saw the 6800 was fine for Vista Home Premium, but notably, it doesn't say 32-bit versus 64-bit. I was only able to find information on the main product page, so I'm curious as to where else vista compatibility is listed. Thanks.
 

My Computer

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Custom Build
    CPU
    E6750 @ 3.6GHz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte P35 DS3
    Memory
    4GB 8500C5D
    Graphics Card(s)
    POV GTX285
    Sound Card
    Onboard
    Monitor(s) Displays
    19" Widescreen LG
    Screen Resolution
    1400x900
    Hard Drives
    2 x WD 500G
    PSU
    Coolermaster Silent Pro 700M
    Case
    Antec 900
    Cooling
    Tuniq Tower 120 LFB
    Keyboard
    Logitech EX110
    Mouse
    Logitech MX400
    Other Info
    Graphics Driver - 190.38
the 6800gt is not compatable with 64 bit systems
unless of course the nvidia site on specs is wrong or out of date
Sorry but I beg to differ.

Unless you care to explain why Nvidia offers a 64-bit driver which explicitly supports the 6800GT?

I mean, I agree that there is some conflict with the 64-bit system and the 6800GT, but summarily dismissing it by saying it's incompatible is not correct.

It also completely ignores the fact that both crankerchick and I have been able to run Vista 64 perfectly fine with reduced amounts of memory.

So, incompatible? Nope.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
Windows Compatibility just means that it boots and has drivers available.

The 6800 series has a 256-bit memory interface meaning that it will really max out at 1GB. If Windows is allocating, say, 2GB of system RAM as video memory then it may cause problems.

With a 32-bit OS or restricting the RAM to 3GB will just reduce the amount of RAM the OS can allocate to the GPU.

This is just a theory.

EDIT: WOW. The initial rendition of this post made me sound like a complete graphics card newbie. I was really tired when I wrote it so I used the wrong terms and such. Should be fixed (Kind of nulls a portion of the next post)
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Custom Build
    CPU
    E6750 @ 3.6GHz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte P35 DS3
    Memory
    4GB 8500C5D
    Graphics Card(s)
    POV GTX285
    Sound Card
    Onboard
    Monitor(s) Displays
    19" Widescreen LG
    Screen Resolution
    1400x900
    Hard Drives
    2 x WD 500G
    PSU
    Coolermaster Silent Pro 700M
    Case
    Antec 900
    Cooling
    Tuniq Tower 120 LFB
    Keyboard
    Logitech EX110
    Mouse
    Logitech MX400
    Other Info
    Graphics Driver - 190.38
Windows Compatibility just means that it boots and has drivers available.
So if something boots, runs, and has drivers for Vista 64 it's compatible and if it can't/doesn't it's not compatible? Isn't that what I just said?
The 6800 series has a 256-bit memory bandwidth meaning that it will really max out at 1GB. If Windows is allocating, say, 2GB of system RAM as video memory then it may cause problems.

With a 32-bit OS or restricting the RAM to 3GB will just reduce the amount of RAM the OS can allocate to the GPU.

Care to expound on this a little more? What problems can be caused by windows allocating more than 1GB of video memory?

It sounds like you're describing a bottleneck; the terms are correct, but in the wrong place. For example, I'm assuming you're referring to what nvidia calls the memory interface as 256 bit. The bandwidth on a 6800 GT is actually something like ~32.X GB/s. And that 256 bit interface, I'd just like to point out, is the same on the 6800GT as it is on the 48XX series from ATI - and most things in between.

The interface just dictates how wide the transfer is. The bandwidth is what dictates how much data is being pushed through that interface - how fast it actually is, which is in turn driven by the clock speed of the GPU itself and multiplied by the memory speed. And mind you, this is mostly internal - done on the GPU itself.

Just for fun, let's use your theory in an analogy. Say we have a tube discharging water from a 50 liter reservoir. The tube can discharge 1 liter per second. Will this suddenly drop to .2 liter per second if we increase the size of the reservoir to 100 liters?

In reality, we'd probably see a slight increase from the weight of the water, but in our hypothetical, the flow rate (bandwidth) isn't going to change no matter the size of the reservoir (system RAM). Now, if you were trying to grow a garden (play a game) that needed 1.5 liters (moar data) per second to grow, then you'd have a bottleneck, and your garden wouldn't grow as much as you'd like (lower FPS). I'll admit this is a crude example, but I think you get the point.

Of course, having said that... it's pointless because discrete video cards don't "share" memory like you're implying. I could be wrong, but I think in modern systems the RAM will cache data it thinks it needs from the HD, (things like maps and images to be rendered) so the GPU can access them quickly. It's no different than super fetch caching programs it thinks you might use - except they're instructions meant for your GPU.

Nothing (or very little) gets written back to system RAM; that's all done on board the GPU, and then immediately pushed to your monitor. Only in a system without a discrete video card should the RAM be shared to render images - the exact reason a integrated system is piddle-poor compared to a discrete video card. Even if the card, for whatever reason, couldn't read from the RAM properly, it would pull from the hard drive - slow, sure, but faster than 2-6 fps. It's helpful, but not necessary- the reason a game will still run even if it can't cache everything to the RAM.

Here are some examples: (Dell XPS M1530 Laptop) with a video card which has a 128 bit interface and 21 GB/s bandwidth, and comes with Vista 64. Might I add it also has 4GB RAM?

Or maybe this ridiculously overpriced Alienware - 128-bit interface, ~25GB/s bandwidth - and comes with up to 4GB RAM (Alienware)
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
Hmm, strange. Both cards I've successfully used as replacements are also 256-bit memory interface cards (9800 GT, Radeon HD 4850).

I guess this is a question I'll never know the answer to. I mean, obviously I believe its a compatibility issue, but I'm curious as to what is conflicting and how. I guess its the engineer in me, likes to know the real answers.
 

My Computer

I guess this is a question I'll never know the answer to. I mean, obviously I believe its a compatibility issue, but I'm curious as to what is conflicting and how. I guess its the engineer in me, likes to know the real answers.

Possibly Nvidia and their lackadaisical support for older products, that seems to appear as soon as the newest products hits the shelves.
 

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Me
    CPU
    Athlon x2 7750 BE
    Motherboard
    Asus M4A78 Pro
    Memory
    2x2gb Kingston
    Graphics Card(s)
    Sapphire HD 4830
    Sound Card
    X-Fi Xtreme Music
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Acer P221w and Acer 1916w
    Screen Resolution
    1680x1050 and 1440x900
    Hard Drives
    2x80 GB Seagate 7200.10 in RAID0, 500 GB Seagate 7200.12
    PSU
    Antec Earthwatts 500W
    Case
    Antec Sonata III
    Cooling
    AC Freezer 64 Pro and a couple of 120 mm case fans
    Keyboard
    Logitech Wave
    Mouse
    Logitech G5 v2
    Internet Speed
    10000/1000
So if something boots, runs, and has drivers for Vista 64 it's compatible and if it can't/doesn't it's not compatible? Isn't that what I just said?

No. Just because it boots and looks pretty at the desktop does not mean that it is compatible with games or any intensive graphics apps.

It all depends on your definition of 'runs'. Mine is that it will run anything you throw at it (doesn't have to do it well but their is a minimum somewhere)

EDIT: @ RedHAF

Now you are just being pedantic.
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Custom Build
    CPU
    E6750 @ 3.6GHz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte P35 DS3
    Memory
    4GB 8500C5D
    Graphics Card(s)
    POV GTX285
    Sound Card
    Onboard
    Monitor(s) Displays
    19" Widescreen LG
    Screen Resolution
    1400x900
    Hard Drives
    2 x WD 500G
    PSU
    Coolermaster Silent Pro 700M
    Case
    Antec 900
    Cooling
    Tuniq Tower 120 LFB
    Keyboard
    Logitech EX110
    Mouse
    Logitech MX400
    Other Info
    Graphics Driver - 190.38
So if something boots, runs, and has drivers for Vista 64 it's compatible and if it can't/doesn't it's not compatible? Isn't that what I just said?

No. Just because it boots and looks pretty at the desktop does not mean that it is compatible with games or any intensive graphics apps.

It all depends on your definition of 'runs'. Mine is that it will run anything you throw at it (doesn't have to do it well but their is a minimum somewhere)

So, by your definition, my GTX-285 in SLI is not Vista 64 compatible since it can't run Mac applications? I mean, it'll boot to the desktop, looks pretty, but won't run "anything you throw at it". Likewise, there's some old programs I have that need a native MS-DOS environment to run in. If I can't run those, is my system not Vista 64 compatible?

That's like saying my car is not gasoline compatible if it starts and runs, but can't go off road.

Nothing will run anything you throw at it; that's completely unreasonable, and, frankly, an absolutely horrible litmus test for "compatibility". Furthermore, throwing the arbitrary label "incompatible" out there obfuscates the original problem that while the 6800 GT is compatible, it has a conflict when greater than 3GB of ram is being used. That is what we're discussing here.

The bottom line here is regardless of how you want to argue semantics, the 6800 GT is 64 bit compatible. It can understand 64 instructions, and it does have drivers for Vista 64. It runs just fine with less than 3GB of RAM - it's compatible, so let's just put that theory to rest once and for all.


I want to be clear that I'm not attacking anyone personally, but I've seen a fair bit of poor advice being thrown around on these forums, and it's just disappointing. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that these posts can be seen by unregistered users. This thread is listed second in google when using keywords like 6800 GT and vista 64. Bad posts with bad information get perpetuated, and may end up costing people time or money (or both) like crankerchicks RMA'd boards.

I'm just asking everyone to remember that these are technical help forums, and semantics and baseless theories just muddy the already murky waters. If anyone really has a problem with that then I question what you're doing here in the first place.

EDIT: @ RedHAF

Now you are just being pedantic
Why? Because I insist on accuracy? Or because I don't blindly smile and nod thank-you when somebody spouts absolute rubbish?
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
Hello to the vista forums. First I must thank you all, because I've used your help in the past.

As far as my post, I'm trying to be slightly humorous in it, not snarky. If it comes off that way, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to give you something other than: "OMG my <insert game> dusn't work an i reely wanna play it pleez help pleez!!!! thnks!" which I'm sure must get very very tiresome.


Anyway, on to the OMG help pleez!

(tl;dr version: my computer runs very slow in 64-bit vista because it's able to address my full 6gb of memory. In 32-bit it runs great, and when I limit my memory to 3gb in 64-bit via msconfig it runs great. I'm not a complete noob, not the first rig I've built, and I think I've covered most of the basic troubleshoots. Any ideas?)


The System
i7 920 processor
x58 "Blood Rage" motherboard
DDR3 6gb 1600 Corsair "Dominator" RAM (3x2gb)
MSI 6800GT graphics card (Working on upgrading, but not anytime too soon...)
Thermaltake 850w "BlackWidow" power supply
LG Blu-Ray DVD/CD+RW/LOL/OMG
320GB sata seagate HDD
Vista "Ultimate" edition
All wrapped up in Coolermaster HAF case; water cooled northbridge and CPU

The Problem


I recently built up the awesome-sauce computer listed above. Due to, uh, a lack of foresight and funds I came up a little short on being able to purchase a GTX-285. I have the old 6800GT laying around, it was a good card and hits the minimum specs on a lot of the games I play, not to mention Vista 64.

New install, clean, fire up and... damn this is slow. I mean, really slow. Funny thing is Vista is giving me a 5.0 in my Windows Experience Index (WEI). When left on "Let my computer decide..." it runs full Aero, all effects, etc.

But damn, it's slow.

Ok, that's fine, I've heard that Vista can be slower than XP. Let's play a game anyways!

Eve-online (classic graphics) - 4 FPS
Fallout 3 (All Low settings, everything off) - 4 FPS (even at the menu)
Crysis: Warhead - Won't even start, DX10 or DX9 versions
Assassin's Creed - Can't get past menu before it locks up; also getting very very low FPS during the loading screen

The strange thing is it jumps. The frame rates go like this: "Normal for 1 second * pause for 2 seconds * normal for 1 second * pause" and etc.
For those of you wondering about the validity of the FPS, they have been confirmed in FRAPS.

Other than games, the desktop itself seems fine, although MUCH more sluggish than my dual-core XP and much slower than I would expect from mostly bleeding edge tech. I work with this a few days, then decide I'm going to try the 32-bit version of Vista, and see if it speeds things up a little.

It worked. It ran like a dream! Fast, responsive, excellent frame rates (considering the video card), even with the Aero and 3d flip. Even with the Dreamscene background running it was still faster than the bare bones Vista 64.

Huh.

Wondering if I did something wrong the first time around, and wanting the other 50% of my DDR3 ram that I paid for, I reformat my HDD yet again, install vista 64 and..... crap.
Same as before.

Like a driven beast I google and search and lurk and, uh, some other internet word meaning look really hard.
I've:
reflashed my bios with the most recent version. Talked to tech support, found out recent version isn't quite that stable, flashed to manufacturer recommended version.

checked drivers, gone to sites, installed the most recent versions. Double checked this. Triple checked this.

rolled back drivers on my video card (seemed some people were having trouble with the new drivers)

Checked temperatures; looked at charts and graphs to make sure there's no correlation between a high-heat load and low fps (there's not; GPU runs around 53C, haven't seen the CPU get over 45C and even that was during a Prime95 stress test)

Nothing. So I ask myself, what was the biggest change between 64 and 32 bit versions? Certainly drivers, but I think I've addressed that. Wait! I'm using all of my memory now, because I'm in 64 bit.

First I verified that my mem is running the correct timing. It was actually a little looser, which as far as I understand should help not hurt, but I fixed it regardless. Doesn't help.

Ran literally days of memtest on each and every stick, in each and every slot. Tried it with two sticks in. Tried with all three sticks. All passed with flying colors.

went into msconfig and limited myself to 3072mb of memory

AND IT WORKED.

It's still a little more sluggish than I was experiencing with the 32 bit version, but I'm back to over 200fps in eve-online, ~30 in fallout 3, etc.


So my question to you, almighty vista 64 forums, is why? Why does lowering my memory available speed up my computer? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

I would like to reiterate that:
I've double checked my bios settings. There are no overclocks, underclocks, alarmclocks or anything of that sort. Everything is either on auto or manually set to what it should be.

"Sounds like a memory problem!" Yeah, not really. I've checked the memory pretty extensively using two different diagnostic tools. Also, no BSOD's. I could be wrong though.

"That's an old video card. You can't expect to get high FPS!" Yup. I know that. I still think that 4fps is a little extreme. And don't forget it can be addressed by lowering the amount of memory vista uses. I do agree that it could a conflict of some sort with the video card, though.

All my drivers are up to date. Every single driver has been double checked. Including the x58 chipset, newest graphics drivers, all windows updates, etc.

Everything is hooked up right; everything has adequate power. The PSU should be good, I've ran it in a SLI rig and it powered everything fine.

I've read the manual. Twice.

I have not confused the "maximum memory" check block and been in 6gb when I've been in 3gb and vice versa. Give me a little credit. Oh and while we're on the topic the system recognizes all 6gb in every screen, cpu-z, OCCT, etc.

I've also found a couple instances where people are running very similar rigs (x58,i7 920 w/ 6800Gt) and they seem to be doing fine.

That being said, I'm sure this is something probably VERY noobish and that one of you might forumers will be able to direct to the solution with a link and a scoff. I've tried my best to fix it on my own, but to no avail..

Well, that's about it. If I left any crucial hardware out it, let me know. If you want pictures or screen shots, I'm happy to oblige. If this was tl;dr, sorry. I gotta go now, got girlfriend aggro.

Josh

6GB of Ram on any Vista x64 will work like a charm for anybody, dude.
Now installing Vista x64 is quite different from a regular 32bit system. Mainly the issue with missing chipset drivers. You must install all 64bit drivers prior to Vista installation otherwise Vista after complete installation will engage errors. Those errors might be something like yours. There is nothing wrong with your setup and 6800gt is fine unless it is trully obsolete for x64 Vista (you'll have to research for that on your own).
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 965
    Motherboard
    Asus Rampage II Extreme
    Memory
    Corsair TR3X6G1333C9 x 2
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte GTX295 SLI
    Sound Card
    SB X-Fi MB
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Samsung Syncmaster T240
    Screen Resolution
    1900x1200
    Hard Drives
    2x1TB Western Digital Black (Raid 0), 150GB WD Raptor
    PSU
    1200W Thermaltake Toughpower
    Case
    Lian Li PC80P
    Cooling
    Chassis - 3 Front 140mm, Top 140mm, Rear 140mm
    Mouse
    Logitech MX Revolution
    Other Info
    Fold up beast by me :-)
6GB of Ram on any Vista x64 will work like a charm for anybody, dude.
Now installing Vista x64 is quite different from a regular 32bit system. Mainly the issue with missing chipset drivers. You must install all 64bit drivers prior to Vista installation otherwise Vista after complete installation will engage errors. Those errors might be something like yours. There is nothing wrong with your setup and 6800gt is fine unless it is trully obsolete for x64 Vista (you'll have to research for that on your own)
I guess this is something I wasn't aware of. How do you install a driver for an OS prior to the OS being installed? Also, why does it only happen for 6800 GT users, not everyone? And finally, why did the problem clear up when the amount of RAM was reduced?

I could be wrong but I get the distinct impression you didn't really read the thread.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
Red

You might not know the horribly bad and long history of the 6800GT.
That card was notorious for being a bad reference model.
Google "problems with 6800GT" and you will get more hits of bizarre behavior than with any other card I've worked with. Well there was that one Matrox and that was amazingly bad, but that was.... a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

The 6800GT burns out flares up falls out of sockets, causes artifacting, heats up, memory leaks, on and on ad infinitum.

There doesnt "need" to be a reason, just trust me, that card has bad voodoo in it, which is funny cause nvidia bought voodoo just for the technology put into that card.

Also, why does it only happen for 6800 GT users, not everyone?
It is a fundamentally flawed reference board.

And finally, why did the problem clear up when the amount of RAM was reduced
It is a fundamentally flawed reference board.

Seriously I cant stress that enough, I Have actually RMA'd more of those particular cards than I care to remember. In one particular case I had to re-RMA the SAME 6800GT 7 times before we got a working one from the manufacturer, and even after that it failed after 6 months.
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Dell vostro 1500
    CPU
    core duo 1.6
    Memory
    4gb + 1gb turbocache
    Graphics Card(s)
    8600m GT 256mb
    Sound Card
    Onboard Sigmatel
    Screen Resolution
    1280x800
Red

You might not know the horribly bad and long history of the 6800GT.
That card was notorious for being a bad reference model.
Google "problems with 6800GT" and you will get more hits of bizarre behavior than with any other card I've worked with. Well there was that one Matrox and that was amazingly bad, but that was.... a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

The 6800GT burns out flares up falls out of sockets, causes artifacting, heats up, memory leaks, on and on ad infinitum.

There doesnt "need" to be a reason, just trust me, that card has bad voodoo in it, which is funny cause nvidia bought voodoo just for the technology put into that card.

Seriously I cant stress that enough, I Have actually RMA'd more of those particular cards than I care to remember. In one particular case I had to re-RMA the SAME 6800GT 7 times before we got a working one from the manufacturer, and even after that it failed after 6 months.


Kladius - thanks for the response, and thanks for giving a little more background on your answer. You're right, I didn't know the GT had such a bad history; honestly I thought it was supposed to be the cream of the crop (back in the day). Guess not.

Just to play devils :devil: advocate, you can google pretty much any card and start pulling up random problems (9600 problems, 4850 problems, 8800 GT, etc...) but I get your point - some cards are worse than others.

That being said, though, the fundamentally flawed reference board tells us part of the "why" it's happening. Do you by any chance know the "how"? (memory addressing, memory leaking, etc.)
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 920 (slight OC)
    Motherboard
    x58 "Blood Rage"
    Memory
    6GB (3 x 2 GB) Corsair Dominator
    Graphics Card(s)
    2x GTX 285 SSC (SLI)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    24" LG
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1200
    PSU
    800w "Black Widow"
    Case
    HAF 932
    Cooling
    Liquid Cooled NB and CPU
I guess this is something I wasn't aware of. How do you install a driver for an OS prior to the OS being installed? Also, why does it only happen for 6800 GT users, not everyone? And finally, why did the problem clear up when the amount of RAM was reduced?

I could be wrong but I get the distinct impression you didn't really read the thread.

No, I didn't read the thread entirely because I only read thorougly your post and wanted to address it.
A chipset driver is basically a list of built in, different, functionalities for the given hardware component. Now, on any given motherboard there is a variety of chipsets installed for example, the Northbridge, the Southbridge, the PCI-ex, the Sata, RAID, etc. They all acquire a driver in order for the OS to acknowlegde what these chipsets are meant to do.
How do you install a driver prior to OS? If you do have a current computer, aquire a floppy disk or usb driver (I'd prefer this device) & the motherboard disk. You will have to install all the necessary 64bit drivers from the CD/DVD. Scan thoroughly searching all the .ini 64bit files. Sometimes within the CD/DVD there is already a 64bit folder with all the necessary pre-installation drivers written for fast copy & pasting, if so, then create a folder in the USB drive, copy & paste the entire 64bit folder from the disk. If not, depending on what your planning actually to do with the system you have to search manually then copy & paste to the usb drive.
If your looking to create any type of RAID, locate the RAID folder & 64bit chipset driver. 95% of the time why we experience errors after completion of installation is because we fail to install the onboard SATA/RAID/IDE drivers which are vital for proper functionality of the hard drives.
You should install the rest of the supplied drivers from the CD/DVD after the completion of installation because it's just finalization of the chipset drivers to function as an entirety within the motherboard and OS.
Why does it happen to 6800GT users? I don't know dude.
Why did the problem clear up when the amount of RAM was reduced? To answer that question you must know why you do that in the first place. Reducing the amount of memory is just testing which memory slots work. Check the rest of the individual slot with a stick and see if Vista boots, if all work then your memory slots are 100% functional and stop messing around with one 2GB sticks and keep 6GB installed :) however if one the slots is disfunctional return the board to the manufacturer because this could be the root of all your problems!

Note 1: When all drivers are installed on the USB driver, to install them is simple. Boot from the Vista, follow the procedures and on the allocation size unit display on the bottom of the screen you will locate a load driver, press it and then locate the USB drive from the browse option. Locate the 64bit folder and press OK. Vista will search through the folder and acknowledge the driver that is needed to be installed (usually 1 or 2 is needed). Install it & install Vista finally.
 
Last edited:

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    i7 965
    Motherboard
    Asus Rampage II Extreme
    Memory
    Corsair TR3X6G1333C9 x 2
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte GTX295 SLI
    Sound Card
    SB X-Fi MB
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Samsung Syncmaster T240
    Screen Resolution
    1900x1200
    Hard Drives
    2x1TB Western Digital Black (Raid 0), 150GB WD Raptor
    PSU
    1200W Thermaltake Toughpower
    Case
    Lian Li PC80P
    Cooling
    Chassis - 3 Front 140mm, Top 140mm, Rear 140mm
    Mouse
    Logitech MX Revolution
    Other Info
    Fold up beast by me :-)
Back
Top