Quad (duel) core and 64 bit vista question
Author
Ok, I see people listing specs of duel core intels (for which I know are 32 bit) running 64 bit Vista and using 4GB of RAM. I don't really want 64bit Vista, but I need more RAM. I run a game server and it uses 1.5GB of 2GB of RAM (don't ask) which brings my computer to its knees and makes it cry for it's mommy because of the bad imgelling tormenting it, which is a first for me.
So, if I can, should I use 64-bit Vista and buy more ram? Should I find a speedy SD card and use it for ready boost? Should I just buy 2x512MB RAM chips and deal with it? Replace RAM with faster RAM? I am working on the server to use less RAM, and no, I will not turn it off. Love playing it and so do my friends. Any suggestions?
My computer
Quad core (2.5Ghz, don't know make/model)
Vista 32 home premium
2 GB RAM (slow and cheap AFAIK)
and other goodies that don't matter in this situation
Thanks!
If its 2.5Ghz, it sounds like you've got yourself an AMD Phenom, likely one from the 9x00 series, since the 9x50s are new.
Anyhow, add more RAM, make sure your existing 2GB is operating in dual channel, and be sure to buy a matched set for the new stuff as well. Check the maximum speed your processor supports and try to get that.
On a 32bit OS you'll be limited to 3.5GB, but that'll give you plenty of headroom.
A quality 2x2GB kit can be had for around 100-120 bucks. I put 4GB of RAM in my new machine for 65 bucks (after 70 in rebates [grin]) from Frys.
RAM is going to give you your biggest boost in this situation.
Also, the modern multi-core Intels *are* also 64bit chips, I have one myself.
Anyhow, add more RAM, make sure your existing 2GB is operating in dual channel, and be sure to buy a matched set for the new stuff as well. Check the maximum speed your processor supports and try to get that.
On a 32bit OS you'll be limited to 3.5GB, but that'll give you plenty of headroom.
A quality 2x2GB kit can be had for around 100-120 bucks. I put 4GB of RAM in my new machine for 65 bucks (after 70 in rebates [grin]) from Frys.
RAM is going to give you your biggest boost in this situation.
Also, the modern multi-core Intels *are* also 64bit chips, I have one myself.
Quote:Ok, I see people listing specs of duel core intels (for which I know are 32 bit)
How do you KNOW???? that they're 32-bit? http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm
Can you find any CPU besides E4700 that does NOT support 64 bits?
I think you can't even buy a new AMD nowdays that doesn't support AMD64.
Anyhow, since your not very "at home" with computer architectures, I'll give you some help.
First about the 4GB limit - all the 32-bit systems can address maximum that amount and since you need to address you graphics memory (128MB-1024MB) and other internal/external devices you may have, you are left with less than 4GB of ram EVEN if you have 4GB of RAM inside. If you ask why, then explanation is in math. 2 to the power of 32 is 4294967296 and that is the amount of different combinations in a 32-bit system.
What 64-bit does is first extend the possibilities of fitted RAM and then there isn't a 2GB virtual memory limit on your processes. Vista has not proven itself yet (at least to me) so I bet a XP64 will win your current Vista32 in any aspect. It responds better, has smaller footprint and is proven to work with most games. Its architecture is based on 64-bit Server 2003!
My laptop has 4GB on board and a Windows 2003 Server x64. Couldn't wish for anything better.
Don't know what you have against 64bit Vista since if you use it with more physical ram of course it will most likely fix your problems:
Dynamic System Address Space
In 32-bit Vista virtual memory is assigned as needed which permits larger paged, non-paged and session pools. This supports larger terminal servers, desktop heaps, etc., but components still cannot exceed 2 GB.
In order to improve virtual address space usage the kernel page tables are allocated on demand instead of at boot and the kernel stack usage has been reduced which allows more users on a terminal server system. Desktop heap expansion can also be done without requiring a reboot.
In 64-bit Vista, address space regions are configured at their maximum for all memory sizes.
Only problems I've had with 64bit Vista is lack of drivers when it first came out. Actually I've had more problems trying to find 64bit compatible drivers than problems running any software or programs. Most software that will give you problems is low-level stuff like firewall,antivirus,defragger that has to be written for 64 bits or old software that still uses 16bit installers. 16bit stuff won't run at all but hell who runs that anymore? Actually I do but it's old stuff from first Lamothe game programming book that was written for DOS and 16bit assembly programs I got. Otherwise if run alot of stuff like I do 64 bits is the way to go since 32bit Windows can't handle running even more than a couple of virtual machines before running out of memory! Oh and get more ram before readyboost since I use it with my 4GB usb stick and no improvement. If you can get 8GB ram since you'll get the most performance from Vista with that amount of ram from the testing I have seen!
[Edited by - daviangel on May 13, 2008 4:03:35 AM]
Dynamic System Address Space
In 32-bit Vista virtual memory is assigned as needed which permits larger paged, non-paged and session pools. This supports larger terminal servers, desktop heaps, etc., but components still cannot exceed 2 GB.
In order to improve virtual address space usage the kernel page tables are allocated on demand instead of at boot and the kernel stack usage has been reduced which allows more users on a terminal server system. Desktop heap expansion can also be done without requiring a reboot.
In 64-bit Vista, address space regions are configured at their maximum for all memory sizes.
Only problems I've had with 64bit Vista is lack of drivers when it first came out. Actually I've had more problems trying to find 64bit compatible drivers than problems running any software or programs. Most software that will give you problems is low-level stuff like firewall,antivirus,defragger that has to be written for 64 bits or old software that still uses 16bit installers. 16bit stuff won't run at all but hell who runs that anymore? Actually I do but it's old stuff from first Lamothe game programming book that was written for DOS and 16bit assembly programs I got. Otherwise if run alot of stuff like I do 64 bits is the way to go since 32bit Windows can't handle running even more than a couple of virtual machines before running out of memory! Oh and get more ram before readyboost since I use it with my 4GB usb stick and no improvement. If you can get 8GB ram since you'll get the most performance from Vista with that amount of ram from the testing I have seen!
[Edited by - daviangel on May 13, 2008 4:03:35 AM]
Author
Quote:
How do you KNOW???? that they're 32-bit? http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm
Can you find any CPU besides E4700 that does NOT support 64 bits?
The (for which I know are 32 bit) was a typo, I meant, for what I know. Sorry for disturbing your greatness.
Quote:
First about the 4GB limit - all the 32-bit systems can address maximum that amount and since you need to address you graphics memory (128MB-1024MB) and other internal/external devices you may have, you are left with less than 4GB of ram EVEN if you have 4GB of RAM inside. If you ask why, then explanation is in math. 2 to the power of 32 is 4294967296 and that is the amount of different combinations in a 32-bit system.
This is why I was asking the question, I am not sure. I came here for an answer because gdnet has ALWAYS given a knowledgeable answer. But, now I know not to come to the hardware forum, because of idiots like you.
As a response to the XP64 bit of your post, my Linux boots using only 128 megs of RAM and I am sure that beats what your XP boots to. But, I program with DX10, I play games that require dx10 (without hacks), Linux Wine doesn't cover it, my game server uses the same amount of RAM Linux or Vista, XP doesn't fit my needs for games or programming, I use Vista with absolutely no problems, no errors, no crashes (my computer has been running for a month currently, 24/7, not using auto update; but yes I reboot everyonce in a while just because its a good thing). In total, my Vista 32bit is a dream for me, I just need more RAM and that would have been a simple answer for you to post, but you decided to be a dick and think your knowledgeable of all people and their problems.
My laptop has 4GB on board and a Windows 2003 Server x64. Couldn't wish for anything better.
Why?!?! If you needed that much, you could have gotten a desktop, that was more powerful, more upgradeable, and for cheaper. If you wanted a server, a laptop, which is commonly used for portability, and if its not, you should of bought a desktop, is not good. <I apologize for grammatical hell>
It seems your not "at home" with common f***ing sense.
@Ravyne:
Thanks for your reponse, very informative without the "I'm smarter than you" crap. Thanks again.
@daviangel:
From what I have read, many of the common programs I run have problems with 64bit Vista (all hear say). Not really a problem, just wanna get the facts before I shell out $$$.
Sorry for sounding so angry, my personal fault :P
What I was aiming to was a surprised look, rather than a "I'm smarter" look. I didn't understand all your thoughts as you hoped firstly because its not my native language and you blamed grammar.
I wish to correct some statements and thoughts:
Actually I don't like XP and Vista at all, and if I could, I would use something else, but I've landed on 2003. Thats the best of the worst :)
Linux is known to use its resources wisely opposed to Windowses, but I tend to think it still is laggy when using as a desktop. Console is great! of course.
From 64-bit OSs I recommended XP for its known lightness versus Vista64, but both are able to use large resources better than their 32-bit variants.
The 4GB is because RAM nowdays is so cheap and when you've got Apache, SQL Servers, Google Earth running in the back- or foreground, you will use that amount. Another thing is that you can have a fairly small swap file when you've got 4 gigs of RAM. I love to keep my processes warm on RAM, opposed to HDD (which are fast, but not fast enough).
I don't need to upgrade my laptop. This maxed out piece of equipment will last longer. I do have a desktop, but its of different class and its needed for other type of tasks.
Sorry if I got you all worked up. I don't know why my posts seem so mean to other people :S
Madis
What I was aiming to was a surprised look, rather than a "I'm smarter" look. I didn't understand all your thoughts as you hoped firstly because its not my native language and you blamed grammar.
I wish to correct some statements and thoughts:
Actually I don't like XP and Vista at all, and if I could, I would use something else, but I've landed on 2003. Thats the best of the worst :)
Linux is known to use its resources wisely opposed to Windowses, but I tend to think it still is laggy when using as a desktop. Console is great! of course.
From 64-bit OSs I recommended XP for its known lightness versus Vista64, but both are able to use large resources better than their 32-bit variants.
The 4GB is because RAM nowdays is so cheap and when you've got Apache, SQL Servers, Google Earth running in the back- or foreground, you will use that amount. Another thing is that you can have a fairly small swap file when you've got 4 gigs of RAM. I love to keep my processes warm on RAM, opposed to HDD (which are fast, but not fast enough).
I don't need to upgrade my laptop. This maxed out piece of equipment will last longer. I do have a desktop, but its of different class and its needed for other type of tasks.
Sorry if I got you all worked up. I don't know why my posts seem so mean to other people :S
Madis
What common programs do you have that you hear can't work on Vista 64? Most likely at least one person on these forums will have the program and Vista 64, and can tell you if he/she has gotten it to work, or at the very least, someone here can point you in a better direction of where to look.
Outside of a few pieces of old 16 bit software, some low level junk, some programs which use DirectSound, some programs which use 32 bit DRM drivers, and some virtualization software, the majority of the programs I have work flawlessly (or at the very most, require a little bit of tweaking to work flawlessly). I'd say about 80% of the software I have which also works on XP. It's honestly a much better compatibility rate than when I went from Win9x to Win2k/XP.
Outside of a few pieces of old 16 bit software, some low level junk, some programs which use DirectSound, some programs which use 32 bit DRM drivers, and some virtualization software, the majority of the programs I have work flawlessly (or at the very most, require a little bit of tweaking to work flawlessly). I'd say about 80% of the software I have which also works on XP. It's honestly a much better compatibility rate than when I went from Win9x to Win2k/XP.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
