W64 and 4GB RAM: How much do you have available?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:31 am

Most Windows 32 bit systems have something like 3.3 GB maximum available to the user, a 64 bit OS is needed to be able to use more than that.
A 64 bit version of Windows seems like a good idea if you what to use more than 4 GB, but what if you have 4 GB?

I've seen users with 3.5 GB available when running Windows 64 bit, a 0.2 GB gain in worst case scenario that's not worth the trouble of changing OS.
This could be explained with the kind of video card used, although I'm not sure.

How much RAM is available in Windows 64 on your 4 GB system?
Also how much RAM does your video card have?

psiu · Post by **psiu** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:42 am

4GB, 256MB discrete card.

BillyBuerger · Post by **BillyBuerger** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:44 am

Vista Business 64 + 4GB ram = 4.0GB according to computer properties, 4061MB according to Task Manager. I only have 32MB assigned to the onboard video as I don't use it for anything more than normal desktop applications. It can do up to 128 or 256. If you're using your onboard video and it has the option of 512MB for the video, then yeah 3.5GB would make sense.

But really, going from 3.3GB in 32bit windows to 4GB in 64bit windows will probably overall leave you with less available memory. As 64bit windows uses more memory to do the same things. I used 64bit XP for a long time at work and 1GB was a minimum where as 32bit XP you can get by with 512MB as a minimum. Although I recommend 1GB for 32 and 2GB for 64 bit. Now that I'm on Vista though, I'm glad I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB as I'm currently using 2.91GB of memory. Three instances of Visual Studio 2008 is a big part of that.

psiu · Post by **psiu** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:49 am

Are you sure it wasn't 32 bit Vista? Or discrete graphics pulling (!!!) 512MB?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:01 am

BillyBuerger: Yeah, 64-bit applications needs more RAM. To me it seems like 6 GB is the practical minimum (or 4.6 GB, less convenient) for actually see the benefits of having more RAM, even though there are other benefits with 64-bit.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:14 am

Someone on SPRC once said they had a mobo with integrated graphics and Win 32 OS. They remapped where the graphics memory was placed via the BIOS, and then all 4 GB of memory showed up as available. Not sure if that option is available on most mobos.

Wish I has bookmarked that post.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:57 am

4gb + 896x2 GPU RAM =)

Kaleid · Post by **Kaleid** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:14 am

4GB memory according to Windows 7 but it gets the CPU speed completely wrong..says its 4.25Ghz but its at 3.8Ghz actually.
512MB gfx RAM.

Couple days ago I filled the entire RAM space. System locked for like 2 minutes.. probably messing around with swapfile. I may go for 8GB again...RAM is cheap.

Btw, only 2.5GB RAM according to WinXP32, sp2.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:37 am

Kaleid wrote:
Btw, only 2.5GB RAM according to WinXP32, sp2.

How many video cards do you have and how much memories they have?

Kaleid · Post by **Kaleid** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:32 pm

One Powercolor 4830 with 512 mB vram. Modified bios to lower 2d clocks.
I only keep WinXP 32 for legacy support.

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:25 am

Windows XP x64, 6gb of RAM + 512mb on my 9600GT.

5.3gb of RAM is available right now, as i only have FF open, no multiple tabs, trillian, and winamp.

once i break out multitrack editing in Adobe Audition, that 5.5gb can be demolished, as well as when working with VMWare (for ubuntu 9.04 as well as windows 7 beta).

granted i moved from 3gb of RAM to 6gb of RAM in one day, i saw huge performance gains, even though i can't say i have much dedicated x64 software (comodo is probably the only software that is 64bit native).

i will say, unless you're really doing a lot of work, 64bit is pointless for the average user, between driver issues and software issues.

Nick Geraedts · Post by **Nick Geraedts** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:12 pm

bonestonne wrote:i will say, unless you're really doing a lot of work, 64bit is pointless for the average user, between driver issues and software issues.

How so? The 4GB "barrier" aside, there are other reasons for using a 64-bit architecture over 32-bit. First off - it's faster. There are 16 registers available to a x86-64 app compared to the 8 used in the x86 instruction set. SSE and SSE2 instructions are guaranteed on 64-bit capable systems, making software performance improvements that much easier (just look at the performance benefits in 64-bit Photoshop CS4). No execute bits are also guaranteed, increasing system security for operating systems that make use of it (XP and onwards do for sure, and I'm fairly sure that the 2.4 linux kernel onwards does as well).

Driver issues are becoming a non-issue today. Aside from certain OEMs who refuse to release 64-bit drivers (*cough* Toshiba *cough*), finding drivers for modern hardware is just as easy in 32-bit as it is for 64-bit. Go to ASUS, Gigabyte, Dell, Lenovo, MSI, ATI, nVidia, Creative, or any other major hardware manufacturer's support website and you'll be able to find 64-bit drivers for your hardware. Software compatibility is also a fairly large non-issue today. Most 32-bit software will run seemlessly (and with little-to-no performance hit) on 64-bit operating systems.

If there are issues with 64-bit, they're definitely becoming the exception rather than the norm. I use all kinds of software on my systems, ranging from web browsers, FTP clients and servers, simulation tools, Office, Photoshop, etc etc etc. I'd be hard pressed to find software these days that causes problems simply because the OS I run is 64-bit (I did have problems with some installers back when I was using XP64, but that's beceause the install program mistook NT 5.2 for being Server 2003 - which XP64 technically is).

The problem with 64-bit today is the lack of education and exposure. Computers are being sold from OEMs with 3GB of RAM these days, just so that people don't start complaining that the 32-bit version of Vista that comes shipped with the computer can't access all 4GB of the RAM that should be installed. Why are they being sold with 32-bit operating systems? I really don't know. There's no price difference between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Leopard, Linux, or Vista today. Software (in)compatibility is a very minor issue now, two years after Vista's release (and IMO, the real rise in 64-bit "awareness") and nearly a year and a half after Leopard's release.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:37 pm

3.25 gigs, 3870 ati card with 512megs on it. xp pro sp3.

shrugs.

1066mhz ddr2 ram from ocz is awesome btw. I heartily recommend it!@

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:40 pm

Nick Geraedts wrote:
bonestonne wrote:....The problem with 64-bit today is the lack of education and exposure. Computers are being sold from OEMs with 3GB of RAM these days, just so that people don't start complaining that the 32-bit version of Vista that comes shipped with the computer can't access all 4GB of the RAM that should be installed. Why are they being sold with 32-bit operating systems? I really don't know. There's no price difference between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Leopard, Linux, or Vista today. Software (in)compatibility is a very minor issue now, two years after Vista's release (and IMO, the real rise in 64-bit "awareness") and nearly a year and a half after Leopard's release.

You know, the cool thing about the i7 platform is that it goes in 3 gb chunks. just a random tidbit of info.

SebRad · Post by **SebRad** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:25 am

64bit Vista doesn't support 16bit code but you can get round it with DOSBox or you could run a Virtual PC. I was playing around with Microsoft's free VirtualPC the other day as found it very easy to use.
Regards, Seb

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:25 am

The question is, how accurate is the Task manager in Windows?
Mine says 410 MB in use, while Informer (Yahoo widget) says 590 MB.
At the same time, IntelBurnTest says 940 MB free.
590 + 940 = 1530 is very close to what I actually have installed.

I have 1536 MB, running XPP32 SP3. Mobile X1600 256 MB.
I rarely use more than 1 GB RAM, but I'm wondering if 3 GB would make it faster/more responsive anyway?

psiu · Post by **psiu** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:53 am

Update to mine, same system with XP SP3 x86, 3.25GB, 256MB graphics.

Nick Geraedts · Post by **Nick Geraedts** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:19 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:You know, the cool thing about the i7 platform is that it goes in 3 gb chunks. just a random tidbit of info.

Not necessarily true - the memory controllers on the i7 CPUs supports triple-channel memory access. The lowest "common" packs that are sold today are 3x1GB. That being said, that's still no reason not to use 64-bit.

As for my system info...

8GB, ATI 4870 512MB + ATI 4850 512MB, Vista64 - all 8GB available.

Kaleid · Post by **Kaleid** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:33 am

Bah
Forget everything I said previously.

WinXP32, sp3: 3.25GB available
Windows7 beta 7000 64bit 4GB available.