![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Vista Ultimate x64 | Vista/XP 64 - better RAM utilization? Hello, I have read a number of threads on various forums regarding the fact that XP/Vista 64 and other 64-bit OS's can, in some cases and with some tinkering, access more RAM than the 32-bit versions. There must be a million sites out there explaining why the 32-bit versions cannot access more than around 2.5 or 3 gb. I am yet to find a site, though, that demonstrates objective performance improvements in the 64-bit versions as a result of adding additional RAM - more than, say, 3 or 4 gb. Has anyone done any objective comparisons or observed any measurable improvements with the 64-bit operating systems by using addtional RAM above what can be seen in 32 bit versions? I am using 2 gb of RAM and I know I may get a slight improvement with an additional 1gb in 32-bit versions, but what about going up to,say, 8 gb or more in 64-bit versions? |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| | Re: Vista/XP 64 - better RAM utilization? "Rick Rogers" <rick@xxxxxx> schreef in bericht news:ufdRa8UHKHA.1988@xxxxxx Quote: > Hi, > > In brief: The only time extra ram available in a 64-bit OS will be useful > is when programs are written to take advantage of it. By far, the vast > majority of software currently available to the consumer market is still > 32-bit, and cannot utilize the extra memory. The problem arises in the > memory addresses, as 32-bit programs cannot use the upper memory > addresses, so when they are loaded they must be placed in the lower range, > bumping out anything that currently exists there. > > -- > Best of Luck, > > Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP For compatibility reasons programs must be marked to use more then 2GB (the same is true on 32 bit windows). I don't know wat you mean by bumping out. Addresses are local to a process and you can have multiple 32 bit programs running at the same time, that use 4GB of memory each (and without swapping if you have enough RAM on your system). Windows also uses RAM for caching files. So even if the active programs don't use more then 3Gb, performance can be increased by using the extra memory for caching. Greetings, Hans. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Vista Ultimate x64 | Thanks for the replies. I was beginning to assume what Rick had said. I would like to know if anyone has actually measured the benefits of increased RAM when multitasking or increasing cache size in 64-bit compared to 32-bit. I'm wondering, for example, how much faster tasks basic tasks would be with background video encoding in 64-bit Vista or XP compared to 2 or 3 gb in 32-bit versions. I'm using a Pentium D 3.4 GHz processor on an Asus P5B-VM motherboard. Right now I'm lucky to be able to do anything else while video encoding and burning without risking errors or crashes. My 64-bit systems seem to be working better at the moment, but I suspect it's only because there is more disk space on the latter partitions. I haven't tried additional RAM above 3gb. |
My System Specs![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Vista Windows Back-Up 100% Disk Utilization | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
GPU Utilization in Vista x64 w/ Crossfire | Graphic cards | |||
| CPU utilization spikes, quad core system, Vista Ultimate 64-bit | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| Vista Business fluxuating CPU Utilization to 100% | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| Vista Ultimate high CPU utilization problem found | Vista General | |||