Jump to content



Photo

>4GB ram in win x86 possible?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
87 replies to this topic

#46 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:59

dated is still faster if you use a web browser other than ie.... which i suppose everyone does ALL the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2D

Internet Explorer 9 and Mozilla Firefox 4 and later use Direct2D and DirectWrite for improved performance and visual quality.

Your information seems quite dated and it's definately not faster.

I also spent a good five months using IE10.


#47 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2D


Your information seems quite dated and it's definately not faster.

I also spent a good five months using IE10.


install xp and run it. lets not waste time on this.

#48 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:12

install xp and run it. lets not waste time on this.

I just threw away my XP and XP x64 CDs, So yes, I won't waste time on them.

#49 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:24

I just threw away my XP and XP x64 CDs, So yes, I won't waste time on them.


relax man. take it easy.

#50 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:27

relax man. take it easy.

Just saying, I just did it a few days ago :) (I'm overcaffeinated and underfed and can't be arsed to go fix that heh, but nevermind that.)

I should toss Vista too since I'll never use it again, but I liked Vista.

#51 pickypg

pickypg

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 28-January 10

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:42

Why bother looking for hacks that require paging in the OS? It's certainly possible that a 32-bit OS can access more than 32-bit's worth of RAM (4 GB) via paging, but there is definitely a performance hit in doing so.

If you already have a 64-bit processor, then I see no reason to punish yourself with a 32-bit OS.

To be clear, 32-bits represents 2 to 32nd power, 232, number of uniquely mappable addresses, which is 4294967296, better known as 4 giga[bytes]. Each address, in a modern processor, is a single byte, which is why the number of addresses equals the number of bytes. As pointed out by others, there are processor extensions that can enable further memory mapping, but similar to that being done for 16-bit processors, it was done as a stop-gap for those unable to get 64-bit processors.

Besides, most consumer motherboards do not support more than 4 GB of RAM for 32-bit processors. And if you are going to buy a new motherboard, then you should definitely buy a 64-bit processor.

dont know 32 bit is just generally more reliable and fast, did see some benchmarks to that effect..

This is unlikely considering that 64-bit processors have wider registers (64-bits) to push more data through the pipes. It should be the same or better.

#52 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:47

is unlikely considering that 64-bit processors have wider registers (64-bits) to push more data through the pipes. It should be the same or better.

The amount of data doesn't affect the speed at which a smaller amount of data goes through it. It's pretty close to the same. It does depend on the processor arch and there is a tiny translation penalty for 32 bit apps.

Of course, there's also the portion of memory the GPU takes, 32 bit apps with LAA and all that to consider so it's not a simple comparison.

#53 xWhiplash

xWhiplash

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:03

Isnt XP support ending in a year? Why do you want to keep using it?

#54 Torolol

Torolol

  • Joined: 24-November 12

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:11

you know its possible for Pentium Pro processor can have up to 64 GB memory,
but only 4 GB can be accessed at a time.

PAE is an ancient old technolgy (1995), its already there before x86-64 CPU exisited,
but Microsoft only actively used it in their 64-bit OS.

Its not a Software limitation

yes it is, unless you're talking about CPU before 1998 that is.

#55 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:16

XP pre-dates multicore CPUs, it isn't optimised for them in the slightest (let alone low power/scaling stuff which CPUs do now). Newer versions of Windows make much better use of the underlying hardware (DWM offloads all desktop drawing to the GPU, Direct2D/DirectWrite offloads all application drawing to the GPU, etc.)

What a load of crap. Multiple CPU systems were in use for many many years, the difference to the OS between a different CPU and a different core is very small.

#56 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:36

What a load of crap. Multiple CPU systems were in use for many many years, the difference to the OS between a different CPU and a different core is very small.

The apps are capable of using more than one core. The OS does not. DirectX 9 also does not.

#57 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:14

What a load of crap. Multiple CPU systems were in use for many many years, the difference to the OS between a different CPU and a different core is very small.

For server class systems, yes. But the desktop certainly didn't have multiple core/CPU systems as the norm.

When XP was released, a system with 4 CPU cores and 4GB+ of RAM was a high end server and well outside the design specifications.

#58 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:49

Slumdog - Normally people are willing to give some consideration to alternative views, but you have pretty much the entire of the posters against you on this.

32bit will run more slowly on x64 enabled chips. The x64 chips either have less registers for x86 instructions, or virtualise the calls and instructions. Since the Core range, this has been the case, but it's becoming more pronounced over time as Intel and AMD start to push for more x64 usage. I am aware there was a register issue with certain batches of Core processors, but the Core2 range had fixed that and begun this trend.

On top of this, XP doesn't have access to DirectDraw/Direct2D, thus it IS slower for more complex graphical browser based workloads. Chrome and Firefox both leverage varying levels of Direct2D or proprietary hardware acceleration. Thus, both will be faster on 7/8.

A lot of the people in this thread are extremely knowledgeable in a vast array of disciplines. Pretty much everyone is saying you're wrong on this. If you choose not to regard this point of view, fine, but you shouldn't expect us to blow smoke up your ass to validate your views.

PAE cannot (to the best of my knowledge) be enabled on XP. Consider 64 bit systems, and consider Windows 7. Even if you don't like the interface, there are significant improvements to thread handling, core allocation, memory management, graphical interfaces, Direct X draw and layers. Hell, consider 8 and user Start8 or whatever you want. I don't care about the interface disagreements, but the kernel is much improved.

Even if you insist on using FIrefox in CPU rendering modes, you will find noteworthy performance improvements from the better process scheduling on 7.

Lastly: Even if you enable PAE on XP, there are issues with process limitations (something people mistook for threads.. seriously) and most apps are compiled to only address 2GB of space at a max. Unless you enable particular compiler flags, most compilers will automatically compile for a maximum of 2gb of addressable space per process.

So.. Time to move on.

EDIT:: It's worth noting my CPU knowledge is a little out of date. The_decryptor pointed out some changes to the Core iX processors that invalidated much of what I said about performance overheads. Either way, x64 is still faster >.<

#59 greenwizard88

greenwizard88

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 04

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:56

For server class systems, yes. But the desktop certainly didn't have multiple core/CPU systems as the norm.

When XP was released, a system with 4 CPU cores and 4GB+ of RAM was a high end server and well outside the design specifications.

I remember when XP came out, I installed it on a 2 year old laptop. It had a 300mhz processor, and 64mb of RAM. At school, the best computer was a 900mhz PC with something insane like 128mb of RAM. A year later, I was talking to a friend who built a computer with 256mb of RAM in his computer. This was enough for him to disable his page file.

I mean, I guess it's like using puppy Linux as your main OS. I don't know why but to each their own.

#60 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:59

I remember when XP came out, I installed it on a 2 year old laptop. It had a 300mhz processor, and 64mb of RAM. At school, the best computer was a 900mhz PC with something insane like 128mb of RAM. A year later, I was talking to a friend who built a computer with 256mb of RAM in his computer. This was enough for him to disable his page file.

I mean, I guess it's like using puppy Linux as your main OS. I don't know why but to each their own.

My first build had 1GB of RAM on a Prescott based Pentium 4. I was blown away by the speed, XP screamed along.

I disabled PageFile and was blown away with the speed :D Now days, You don't need to disable paging because your system will have so much memory it only pages when MS's algorithm is being ****..

I liked XP (hated it when I first started using it) but 7 was a mile forwards in all regards. Vista was an improvement, but Microsoft has their priorities wrong. Even if you don't like Vista, there's nothing not to like about 7 >.<

EDIT::
Might I just add Greenwizard, your app isn't really a productivity app, some might contend it does the exact opposite :p