Insane memory usage under Windows Vista 64 bit Ultimate Ed.

[Dragex]

Well I just noticed today an incredible slow down on performance. I went to check task manager and memory usage was over 407. Then I opened firefox and it went up to 615 or so. Is this normal?

[moshpit]

ROFL!!! Yes, quite normal... Shouldn't be trying to run Vista x64 on 1Gb. That's the largest part of your problem. Unless your using 2Gb or over, don't even bother with x64 Vista, it's out of your league if you don't have enough ram for it to run smoothly. For example, I'm BARELY feeding it enough with 2Gb.

[oasked]

Vista works differently from XP, it uses more RAM then before so things run more smoothly AFAIK. And yes, you need 2-4Gb really for 64-bit Vista.

[warriorking]

Vista 64bit runs best at 4Gig, its the sweet spot...went from 2 to 4Gig and the difference was quite noticable...

[moshpit]

Vista 64bit runs best at 4Gig, its the sweet spot...went from 2 to 4Gig and the difference was quite noticable...

Sweet spot or not, 2Gb is the real minimum for smooth use of x64. 4Gb is the sweet spot, yes, I know this well myself since I obviously have both a 2Gb rig and a 4Gb rig side by side, and both multi-boot 3 OS's including Vista x64. BUT, by sweet spot, lets be clear here. Gaming benchmarks for the most part will show NO advantage for a 4Gb rig over a 2Gb rig in x64 Vista. The difference is the same percieved difference people noticed back in Battlefield 2 on XP when it was discovered that the game FELT smoother on 2Gb over 1Gb even tho benchmarks culdn't find the FPS difference. That difference IS real, but it's very small, and in fact could be called the difference between REAL minimum and REAL recommended versus MS's idea of minimum and recommended.

[-n7-]

Haha, did you call that insane RAM usage?

Here's what my OS is using right now w/ my normal stuff running.
(Firefox, mIRC, MSN, Rivatuner, Winamp, Ultramon, Xfire.)



Vista certainly uses more RAM if you have it, & more w/ 64-bit than 32-bit (or it seems that way).

But due to Superfetch, i'm okay w/ it's excessive RAM whoring.

[Dragex]

Oh damn... thanks guys.

Btw n7 I didn't know you were an enthusiast. Gamer or 3D designer?

[-n7-]

I play games once n a while

But i'm really a hardware enthusiast...it's an expensive hobby...

[Crisler]

If you are running 2 gig of RAM I would stay with the 32bit versions. There is no real advanatge to 64 bit except the extra RAM you are able to use.

[Shloppy]

If you are running 2 gig of RAM I would stay with the 32bit versions. There is no real advanatge to 64 bit except the extra RAM you are able to use.

.. that and consequently performance improvements when running 64-bit workstation applications.

Autodesk 3DS Max 9 (64-bit)
Autodesk Maya Unlimited 8.5 (64-bit)
LightWave 9.0 (64-bit)
Mathematica 6.0 (64-bit)
Maxon CINEMA 4D (64-bit)
Maxon CINEBENCH (64-bit)

For example.

[caveman-jim]

And the fact that x64 OS's emulate 32-Bit better than a 32-Bit OS can do provided with proper hardware and drivers. There are many better advantages running 64bit than 32bit.

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying 32bit apps run better in emulation under 64bit than in native 32bit? This seems contrary to most preliminary 32bit vs 64bit benchmarks, where an ~%10 drop in performance was shown.

[Raged_Fanatic]

.. that and consequently performance improvements when running 64-bit workstation applications.

Autodesk 3DS Max 9 (64-bit)
Autodesk Maya Unlimited 8.5 (64-bit)
LightWave 9.0 (64-bit)
Mathematica 6.0 (64-bit)
Maxon CINEMA 4D (64-bit)
Maxon CINEBENCH (64-bit)

For example.

None of those will work on a 32-bit OS.

[caveman-jim]

None of those will work on a 32-bit OS.

I think you misunderstood Shloppy's reply. Crisler said:

There is no real advanatge to 64 bit except the extra RAM you are able to use

To which Shloppy listed applications that would take advantage of a 64-bit OS- not only in terms of memory space, but how that memory is used, and the increase in performance in mathematical operations from using 64-bits vs 32-bits.

So, yes, 64-bit applications won't work on a 32-bit OS. This would be self evident. There are of course 32-bit versions of those applications. But I suspect that Lighwave, for example, in 64bit with 8Gb of RAM would be quite fun.

[nycdarkness]

... my vista 64 bit fresh install with like couple pages up in IE uses close to 800mb easy.

[kubstix]

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying 32bit apps run better in emulation under 64bit than in native 32bit? This seems contrary to most preliminary 32bit vs 64bit benchmarks, where an ~%10 drop in performance was shown.

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html

[caveman-jim]

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html

Both 32-bit and 64-bit tests were done on a budget AMD Sempron 2800+ powered desktop PC, featuring Asus K8U-X motherboard with 512MB of main memory.

The 32-bit Windows Vista Ultimate achived 99.8 GeekBench points, while the 64-bit version of the same OS gained 110.7 points. The higher number of points is better. This Windows Vista 32-bit vs 64-bit benchmark consist of measuring integer performance, floating point performance, as same as memory and stream performance.

That shows 64-bit benchmarks running faster than 32-bit. The questions I asked was what 32bit applications run faster in a 64bit OS mode than 32-bit?

[kubstix]

Both 32-bit and 64-bit tests were done on a budget AMD Sempron 2800+ powered desktop PC, featuring Asus K8U-X motherboard with 512MB of main memory.

The 32-bit Windows Vista Ultimate achived 99.8 GeekBench points, while the 64-bit version of the same OS gained 110.7 points. The higher number of points is better. This Windows Vista 32-bit vs 64-bit benchmark consist of measuring integer performance, floating point performance, as same as memory and stream performance.

That shows 64-bit benchmarks running faster than 32-bit. The questions I asked was what 32bit applications run faster in a 64bit OS mode than 32-bit?

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=19

This could indicate that AMD and NVIDIA's OpenGL ICDs benefit from 64-bit processing, even if the game itself does not.

Not an application but your theory would disprove a 32-bit game as well and it does not. The point is, 64-bit has caught up with correct hardware and drivers and is beginning to surpass as well even in games and applications.

[caveman-jim]

OK. I don't think you understand what I'm asking, or what you think you've shown; but nevermind, this thread is supposed to be about 64bit memory usage, not 32bit vs 64bit performance. Enough derailing from me, back to topic!

I would naturally expect to see applications use more memory because of the nature of 64bit memory addressing - each memory address is now 64 bits instead of 32, thus an bit pattern of 2^1 and an a bit pattern of 2^64 will use the same amount of memory to be stored, versus 32bit where only patterns less than 2^32 will be stored in a single memory location.

[kubstix]

OK. I don't think you understand what I'm asking, or what you think you've shown; but nevermind, this thread is supposed to be about 64bit memory usage, not 32bit vs 64bit performance. Enough derailing from me, back to topic!

I would naturally expect to see applications use more memory because of the nature of 64bit memory addressing - each memory address is now 64 bits instead of 32, thus an bit pattern of 2^1 and an a bit pattern of 2^64 will use the same amount of memory to be stored, versus 32bit where only patterns less than 2^32 will be stored in a single memory location.

I know exactly what you wanted. You wanted an application but I provided a factual statement from anandtech about games. You want me to prove how a 32bit application OR we can say game, will run faster on a 64-bit OS when using emulation. I believe I have provided that pretty clear in the statement about games from anandtech. Application or not, it is saying games built on 32-bit platform ARE going to run faster on a x64 bit platform which is using 32-bit emulation.

[caveman-jim]

The Anandtech article you linked to shows the following, as well:

Clearly the 64-bit application runs slower than the 32-bit, especially at CPU limited resolutions.

See, I can cherry pick quotes, too. But, enough.

[moshpit]

Kubstix, cease argueing with limited details against somebody who WORKS in this industry. Why you choose to argue with those who obviously know more about the subject from direct experience then you'll EVER learn reading reviews, I'll never know.

Just stop it already. SOME LIMITED SCENARIOS shows 32bit apps running faster under 64bit, that is the EXCEPTION, not the rule, and that exception is NOT an indication of things to come. Nvidia's OpenGL implementation does NOT show a continueous lead in 32bit apps under a 64bit OS, SOME do, not all, nor will all ever show that.

If your going to argue with Caveman, better have your ducks in a row or don't even bother wasting time, he'll eat your lunch. I HIGHLY respect his knowledge even when I think he's wrong (this ISN'T one of those times tho, he's on target totally with this one). Listen to him and you might learn something. Argue with him and learn nothing.

[moshpit]

Oops did I strike alittle nerve by proving points to your boyfriend? Just so you know, I do work in the industry. And I will guarentee my job not only pays more than yours, but requires much more experience then you will ever see. I just like to see little trolls like both of you cry and whine like babies because your opinion is different. OOOOOHHH but wait, since you have thousands of posts, you guys are gods gift to the world.

Oh child, NOW you F-'d up. You've done nothing but show your ignorance this week. Who are you and who CARES about your experience when it makes you spread the FUD you spread around here? Nobody, that's who. A loser like you has no business spreading misinformation and thinking they can get away with it. Keep on making yourself look stupid, it's amusing at this point, BOY.

Furthermore, just for your info, unless you have over a decade of direct tech support experience that led up to a HIGH paying consultant job, then you just made yourself look even MORE stupid, son. How many people have you helped here with all that experience YOU have? Oh, that's right, almost NONE. Because your too STUPID to help people, you just spout whatever nonsence that springs to mind, eh? Go home, son, mommy is calling you...

Edit: Oh yeah, if you actually spent any of your free time using your "experience" helping people out, your post count might be higher instead of wasting everybodies time with attacks on weak crap like complaints about high post counts...

[cjl64]

Oops did I strike alittle nerve by proving points to your boyfriend? Just so you know, I do work in the industry. And I will guarentee my job not only pays more than yours, but requires much more experience then you will ever see. I just like to see little trolls like both of you cry and whine like babies because your opinion is different. OOOOOHHH but wait, since you have thousands of posts, you guys are gods gift to the world.

sounds like someone has some major issues jesus If you are so great and knowledgeable then why word your post in such a childish way. Caveman and Moshpit are gods here not because of there post counts, but do to there helpful advice and willingness to help random people. If you wanted to be taken seriously you would not post that crap you just posted

[caveman-jim]

Oops did I strike alittle nerve by proving points to your boyfriend? Just so you know, I do work in the industry. And I will guarentee my job not only pays more than yours, but requires much more experience then you will ever see. I just like to see little trolls like both of you cry and whine like babies because your opinion is different. OOOOOHHH but wait, since you have thousands of posts, you guys are gods gift to the world.

If you want to debate an issue, I'm willing to listen and learn, and post my views. Posts like the above however, are trolling. Infraction issued.

Caveman and Moshpit are gods here

:embarrased:

[cjl64]

:embarrased:

[nextbillgates]

Although the performance difference between native 32-bit code and 32-bit code running in WoW64 is minimal, there is some overhead. Saying that 32-bit code will run faster in Wow64 than it will natively is laughable. The only possible performance advantage I can see with Wow64 is being able to use 4GB of physical memory without running into the memory addressing limits of native 32-bit OS's.

[caveman-jim]

[moshpit]

Hehehe, and back on topic now, insane memory usage. Give MS an excuse to need more memory, and they'll jump on it like fly's on poo-poo.

[Destroy]

Can some one explain why Task Manager says 41%memory free yet shows Free=0 in Physical Memory?

Also since I'm asking dumb questions, what does the blue line (vs the green line) represent in the 4 Resource Overview charts?

[stormy13]

One word, cache. Read up on it.

[Destroy]

Found a bit more info,

[I]"If you are consistently seeing a non-zero
value for "Hard Faults/sec" over long periods of time, you could probably
get a significant performance improvement by adding more RAM to your
computer. Check the value of "Used Physical Memory"; if this is close to
100% this also indicates a shortage of RAM. In Windows Task Manager, on the
Performance tab if "Memory" is consistently a higher number than the amount
of RAM installed, this is also an indication that more RAM would be useful.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with your existing RAM, you just
don't have enough of it for the work you're asking the computer to do."[/I]

Here's what I now have with 4gigs installed,

[-n7-]

What are you confused on?

You are running Vista x86, which cripples you to around 3.5 GBs useable.

You are actively using 2.18 GBs.
The rest is cached by Superfetch.

Everything is how it should be.

[Hidavi]

what?! Why are you using 1GB with Vista anything? Dude, at least 2GB. Even then its kinda slow. 4GB is the ticket and its pretty cheap! You can get two sticks of 2GB for less than $60 total on Newegg.

EDIT: I see you upgraded already. Well in that case, thats very odd. Even when I'm running a couple proggies, my memory is around 40%. It only reaches 70% when playing The Witcher. What can I say... check for viruses?

[cjl64]

what?! Why are you using 1GB with Vista anything? Dude, at least 2GB. Even then its kinda slow. 4GB is the ticket and its pretty cheap! You can get two sticks of 2GB for less than $60 total on Newegg.

EDIT: I see you upgraded already. Well in that case, thats very odd. Even when I'm running a couple proggies, my memory is around 40%. It only reaches 70% when playing The Witcher. What can I say... check for viruses?

Could have something to do with the fact that this thread is ancient.

[moshpit]

Necroposting FTW