Recommended Posts

I've got a question about 4GB RAM and x64.

Well,with 32bit and 4GB RAM, it only sees 3.25GB(round it to 3GB). Application that are used only use half of the available RAM, so that would be 1.5GB.

2.6GB is available on the task manager but the extra 1GB isn't used.

I'm not sure what you mean by only use half of the available RAM.

The issue in the 32-bit consumer versions of Windows is that the kernel has a 32-bit virtual address space (VAS). This is essentially a list of 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 (4GB) of numbers (addresses) that can point to anything. It is not a 1:1 map of the physical RAM, and something that takes up part of virtual address space is not necessarily using the same amount of physical RAM.

For performance reasons, all the hardware resources on the motherboard have to be mapped into this VAS so that the various components of Windows can access them directly by simply looking at a certain address in the VAS list. If Windows has to map 1GB of these resources into the VAS. That means that it now only has 3GB of addresses left that it can map to the addresses of the actual physical RAM. If you have 4GB of physical RAM, the last GB simply remains unused and ignored by the system.

Now, that was the kernel's VAS, but in addition to that each process (application) on the system gets assigned its own unique and private 4GB (32-bit) VAS, where the lower 2GB belong to the process and are dynamically mapped to various addresses in physical RAM as the process allocates memory, and the high 2GB which are fixed and map to various resources in the kernel (for performance reasons.)

In other word, the most memory a single application can use (without resorting to manual memory management) is 2GB. However, since the VAS is unique to the process, two processes could if they wanted to each allocate 1.5GB on a machine with 3GB available RAM.

And like I said, if a process requires it, it can request chunks of memory and do its own memory management, and thus allocate as much memory as it wants. In other words, there is no restriction that make applications only capable of using half the available RAM.

If 64bit was installed, how much RAM would be available for that one application?

If system uses 1GB ram, then would 3GB be used for the application or would it be the same?

With Vista, Home Basic can support 8GB of ram, Home Premium 16GB, and the other versions up to 128GB. As for the physical limit, on the AMD64 (x64) platform, memory addressing is 48-bit. Not that you'd have that much memory anyway, most chipsets support far less.

The VAS each process is assigned on AMD64 Windows is divided 50/50 between allocatable memory and mapping to kernel resources just like on 32-bit, except instead of 2/2 GB (32-bit), it is 8/8 TB (43-bit). This can be gradually extended towards the full 64-bit in the future as/if it becomes necessary (it isn't done at present for performance reasons).

In other words, if you are running Home Premium 64-bit, an application can, without any extra work, allocate 8 TB of memory, where up to 16GB (128 for Ultimate) can be physical RAM and the rest swap on disk. That basically means all your RAM.

Sorry if this was a little too technical.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

It should be noted that most consumer 32-bit operating systems limit memory usage to 4GB and hardware may limit this further. 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista have memory limits of 128GB with the exception of Vista Home Premium and Vista Home Basic which have limits of 16GB and 8GB respectively. Vista Starter and XP Starter have no 64-bit versions and are limited to 1GB and 512MB respectively.

Each 32-bit process on a 64-bit operating system can use up to 2GB of RAM

Note: This can be increased by setting IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

Each 64-bit process on a 64-bit operating system can use up to 8TB of RAM

other than safer surfing, no.

32-bit drivers do not penetrate 64-bit operating systems.

That is a common misconception. Most browsers are still 32-bit, thus any browser extensions are still 32-bit. Very few virus or spyware attacks use system drivers and usually rely on installing services, start-up items and BHO's which could care less if the operating system is 32 or 64-bit.

Anti-virus applications are another story altogether. All of the major anti-virus vendors rely heavily on drivers thus must be specifically designed for a 64-bit operating system. Most of the vendors have already addressed this and have products on the market that are compatible. Users will find that with most of these, there will be increased scanning speeds on the 64-bit varieties versus the 32-bit counterparts.

When buying software for Windows Vista, look for the logo, it ensures that the vendor has met compatibility standards for both 32 and 64-bit.

It should be noted that most consumer 32-bit operating systems limit memory usage to 4GB and hardware may limit this further.

You mean most versions of Windows. Other modern 32-bit OSes generally have no such restriction as long as the hardware supports more. Mac OS X is an example of this (and I suppose the only other OS that qualifies as "consumer").

Also, your numbers aren't really correct. What you are describing is the size of the default virtual address space, not the most memory a process can use (which is any amount up to the available physical/virtual amount available).

It could have been a bit more simple. If you plan on having/have more then 3GB of RAM use a 64-bit operating system.

Outside of that, beyond rumors etc 2 or 3GB or lower with 64 bit operating system will not actually be any faster or anything in real world use or anything.

You mean most versions of Windows. Other modern 32-bit OSes generally have no such restriction as long as the hardware supports more. Mac OS X is an example of this (and I suppose the only other OS that qualifies as "consumer").

Also, your numbers aren't really correct. What you are describing is the size of the default virtual address space, not the most memory a process can use (which is any amount up to the available physical/virtual amount available).

I stand corrected. OSX does not have the 4GB limit that 32-bit Windows had although the applications had a 4GB limit prior to Tiger. It should be noted though that this thread is generally refering to Windows although I was ambiguous in my post.

Please cite your source regarding process memory usage.

It could have been a bit more simple. If you plan on having/have more then 3GB of RAM use a 64-bit operating system.

Outside of that, beyond rumors etc 2 or 3GB or lower with 64 bit operating system will not actually be any faster or anything in real world use or anything.

I have used Vista Home Premium 32-bit and 64-bit on the same hardware with 2GB of ram and in some applications I have noticed significant performance improvements. It is all dependant on whether the application was optimized for 64-bit calculations

Your source does not provide proof of your rebuttal. If I am wrong on my information I would like to know but thus far you have not shown me that 32-processes can use more than 2GB of memory without IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE being set.

Did you look at it, because it's purpose is to allocate any amount of memory you want (up to the physical limit). Similar mechanisms exist on all modern operating systems, it's nothing special.

Understood, but unless the flag is set in the OS, it is irrelevant what the programmer did. Windows will still limit memory allocation to 2GB per process.

Understood, but unless the flag is set in the OS, it is irrelevant what the programmer did. Windows will still limit memory allocation to 2GB per process.

Uh, no. 2GB (3GB with 4GT and 4GB on WOW64 if large address aware) is the size of the virtual address space. No more, no less. The function I linked to allocates any number of pages (as long as they're available) which you can then map as you wish.

Uh, no. 2GB (3GB with 4GT and 4GB on WOW64 if large address aware) is the size of the virtual address space. No more, no less. The function I linked to allocates any number of pages (as long as they're available) which you can then map as you wish.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see an application that can use more than 2GB on a 32-bit desktop Windows operating system.

No offence dude, but you're basically claiming that the earth is flat -- even after having been shown conclusive evidence that it is not. SQL Server is one example of a product that uses said API to support large amounts of RAM, so you can't have looked very far. There's no reason why you can't give it 60GB if you have it and an OS edition that is licensed to support that much RAM (i.e Datacenter).

Whether it's a desktop or server OS has no relevance, they both work the exact same way.

This is just a silly discussion.

No offence dude, but you're basically claiming that the earth is flat -- even after having been shown conclusive evidence that it is not. SQL Server is one example of a product that uses said API to support large amounts of RAM, so you can't have looked very far. There's no reason why you can't give it 60GB if you have it and an OS edition that is licensed to support that much RAM (i.e Datacenter).

Whether it's a desktop or server OS has no relevance, they both work the exact same way.

This is just a silly discussion.

Hrmm.... after some more reading, I stand corrected. It seems that you are correct about applications being able to use more than 2GB of ram. Aside from SQL Server, there seems to be little use of this so for all intensive purposes, this debate seems to be a moot point as there is little documented use of said API in applications that the average user would encounter on their home or office workstation. Considering that the 32-bit OS memory limit is 4GB it would stand to reason that anyone needing more than 2GB for any one application would be best to move to a 64-bit OS anyway to allow further memory expansion and to gain a mathematical advantage as such applications usually benefit noticeably from 64-bit operating systems

  • 2 months later...

I currently have 3.0 Gb of some off brand memory that I never heard of. My machine is capable of running 64 bit. I am going to install the 64 bit version of Windows 7 RC1. My question is. Memory is pretty cheap right now and I can get 8GB of Crucial Ballistix Ram for around $98.00.

Will that much ram generate allot of heat and is it over kill?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Trailer park trash “sport “, fits the current White House
    • KataLib 5.3.0.0 by Razvan Serea KataLib is more than just a music player — it's a complete audio suite designed for music lovers and creators alike. It combines a powerful audio player, a flexible metadata editor, a capable audio converter, and a music library manager into one streamlined application. Core Features: Audio Player Enjoy seamless playback of virtually any audio format or even streaming video files. DJ Mode lets you mix tracks with manual or automatic crossfades. You can also load and save WinAmp-style playlists for quick access to your favorite sets. Audio Converter Convert between a wide range of audio formats effortlessly. Trim or normalize your output automatically, and even extract audio from streaming video sources. Ideal for preparing files for different devices or platforms. Metadata Editor View and edit ID3v2 tags and other metadata. Batch edit multiple files at once, and fetch missing information directly from the MusicBrainz database. You can also apply or update album art with ease. Music Library Manager Organize your entire audio collection, search across tracks instantly, and download cover images from the internet — or use your own custom artwork. KataLib makes it easy to keep your library tidy and enriched with useful info. Supported Formats: KataLib supports a wide range of both lossy and lossless audio formats: Input: OPUS, AAC, FLAC, M4A, MP3, MP4, MPC, APE, AIF, MKV, AVI, MOV, FLV, WEBM, Ogg Vorbis, WAV, WAVPack, WMA, AC3, OGA, MP2, MPGA, MPEG, DTS, M4B, DSD (DFS) Output: OPUS, FLAC, M4A, MP3, Ogg Vorbis, WAV Under the hood, KataLib uses the trusted FFmpeg engine for audio conversion and media playback, ensuring compatibility with virtually all mainstream media formats. KataLib 5.3.0.0 changelog: Added Option to select the Zoom level of the Oscilloscope visualizer. The taskbar button of the app now displays the progress of its processing tasks. The metadata text of the Visualization Video can now be aligned by the user. We can now reorder the order of the Visualizers and Metadata, in the Visualization Video Setup dialog, by removing any item and adding it again. It will be added at the end. Changed The font size of the Visualization Video can now be more than 30 points. Updated yt-dlp library to version 2026... Fixed Opening the Visualization Video Setup dialog could fail if the settings were wrong. Sometimes there were false duplicates in the Rename Tracks dialog. Tracks without metadata appeared without title in the Recent menu. Download: KataLib 5.3.0.0 | 90.0 MB (Open Source) Links: KataLib Home Page | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • EA Sports UFC 6 review: Brutal, satisfying, and surprisingly accessible to newcomers by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe EA’s UFC series of fighting games has been putting out games for over 10 years now, but it’s a series I have never spent any time with. As a PC guy, the series being console-exclusive is the primary reason for that. The latest entry to the series, EA Sports UFC 6, is still not coming to PC, but I have an Xbox now. When EA reached out to see if I could have a crack at the game and give my opinion about it, I finally got the chance to see what this franchise is about. I have spent about a week playing UFC 6 on the Xbox Series X. Despite my lackluster skill with fighting games, I still have fun with entries like Street Fighter and Tekken. I quickly came to realize this is a different kind of fighting game, not the arcade titles I am usually dabbling with. Most of the week that I spent playing UFC 6 was in the career mode, trying not to get knocked out while slowly improving my combos and reactions. The review below will be from the perspective of a newcomer to the series and an amateur fighting game fan, so please forgive any mistyped lingo or series-staple mechanics I am not comprehending. In the Ring Getting a solid hit in UFC 6 is satisfying. It’s probably the most satisfying impact reaction I have seen in a fighting game. The ripples in the muscles, the spray of sweat (and blood), the meaty sound, and the subsequent stumble all carry a lot of weight. If I miss a heavy swing like that, though, I already know that I'm in for a world of hurt from the incoming counters. The fighting is a real treat. The actions aren’t as snappy as arcade titles, so a miss feels like a much bigger mistake here. This slowness did take some getting used to, but I felt the improvement in my abilities even after a few drills with basic punch and kick combos. If I’m not deliberate with my actions in the ring, whether it be a hasty retreat or a flying punch, the possibility of getting instantly knocked out is always there. The head, chest, and legs all come with their own health bars, so guarding just one area is just asking for trouble. A few hits to the head, and it's game over. Meanwhile, you won’t even be able to stay on your feet if they get damaged enough, drastically lowering the total amount of stamina available for the rest of the match. I was also encountering a large range of fighting styles to customize my own fighter with. There are a huge number of real-life superstars here from multiple eras. It’s not as exaggerated as Street Fighter or Tekken, but the way they move, evade, throw punches, or even take steps is based on their real-life counterparts. I can see this being a big draw for any mixed martial arts fan. One feature I was surprised to see here was the 'Flow State' ability. As rounds progress, a power-up meter can give a temporary boost to the unique fighting style of the selected fighter, essentially boosting what they are good at. There is an entire visual effect that kicks in when activating this, too. The surprising part was seeing something like this in a game that feels like it’s aiming to be more of a simulator than an arcade fighter. My skill level is too low to use this exactly how the game wants me to, so I ended up triggering it whenever the opponent did it as well. Streamlined vs Authentic When I first started it up, UFC 6 asked me about my experience with the series. Being genuinely new, I took its advice and opted for a lowered difficulty level and 'Streamlined' controls. Quickly, I realized that this wasn’t for me. My chosen fighters were throwing random attacks, no matter what combination the game was trying to teach me. Win streaks were happening, and I was already getting bored out of my mind just a few matches in. Turning off this mode and switching to 'Authentic' controls fixed everything right up. I was now able to control my fighter with more precision than I expected. I could control each arm and leg, which body part my attacks would aim at, and the fully customizable controls for setting up unorthodox moves were a cherry on top. None of these made me an expert at the game, but at least I was being beaten up fairly. This is not a point against UFC 6, though. Giving the option for anyone to enjoy the game is always a good thing in my eyes. There is a lot of customizability in the difficulty, with everything from slow-motion reactions to specific assists being offered as toggles. If I had a friend coming over and wanted to try a quick 1v1, the streamlined controls option is one I’d consider to make it a light and fun fight. The one part of the fighting that did not click with me was the grappling. Being taken to the ground brings in an entirely new control mechanism involving mounts and submissions that feel more like quick-time events than the heavy, tactical fighting I had seen so far while standing. The game wants me to hold sticks in certain directions to change the position or pull off submissions, trying to do the opposite actions of the opponent. Even though I tried to get used to this gameplay, it just felt like a momentum killer, and I eventually just wanted to get back on my feet to get back into the action. Legacy and Career It was UFC 6’s career mode that I wanted to play the most when I started it up. I grew up with EA Sports games, and taking my team from the ground to the top has always been my favorite task. UFC 6 has that same option but also offers a more cinematic entrance to the career experience than I expected with ‘The Legacy’ mode. This mini-campaign follows an up-and-coming fighter, Chris Carter, who is attempting to reach the heights his father had reached in the sport. Starting with a small-time gym and coach, the story follows both his growth in the space as well as the growing rivalry with a friend and fighter, Danny Lopez. The fights in this mode are very good at introducing a newcomer like me to the sport and its varying techniques. Cinematics land between the major fights, showing the growing tension between the two fighters as the years go by, feeling the pressure to not miss out on the hard-earned chances. The dialogue can be a little corny at times, especially when the bar fights kick off, but I largely enjoyed the storyline. At the end of it, I was pretty much familiar with all the mechanics of the career mode, unlocking new skills and moves, and how I needed to approach fights, both outside and inside the ring. This story mode isn’t a very lengthy one, so don’t expect an hour-long campaign. Once the conclusion is reached, Carter’s journey continues as if it’s a normal career playthrough, though I decided to start over from scratch now that I have some know-how about the basics. The career mode is very streamlined, which is to be expected considering there isn’t a team to manage like in other EA Sports games. It’s the journey of one fighter. When a fight comes up in the calendar, I could choose how many weeks I dedicate to preparing for it at the gym. A longer prep time gives the opportunity to get my fighter’s fitness up (giving a bonus during fights), earn more money and points for unlocking new skills, and gain more fans to fast-track the rise to stardom. While that sounds like a lot of things to manage, it’s more like a few clicks. There is a social media menu that sometimes pops up with canned replies I can send to fans, and the sponsors are once again a single click away from being assigned as finished. It’s the training aspect that adds a gameplay angle. Using the money from winnings and sponsorships, I was hiring different types of trainers and learning fancier moves to use in the ring. One small thing I appreciated was that it was possible to injure each other during these training sessions. If a trainer goes down in a bad way while sparring, they won’t be available for the remainder of training. If my fighter is injured, it takes valuable time and resources to heal and recuperate. Just like in real life, it makes sense not to go so hard during training sessions and save that energy for the main event. Every training or sponsorship activity I took part in used up the days and weeks I had before the next fight, bringing a balancing element to the whole ordeal. There were times I simulated most of these to just get to the next fight, but the grind for gaining even the slightest bit of advantage while trying not to overdo it is an enjoyable one. Outside of quick fights and career modes, UFC 6 also introduces an almost museum-like mode to explore a trio of fighters considered to be legends of the sport: Max Holloway, Alex Pereira, and Zhang Weili. The aptly named Hall of Legends mode is unlike everything else seen in the game. Each of these fighters has entire levels dedicated to them that I could walk around in and explore their journey into the UFC. This includes footage from real-life fights and interviews about their original inspirations and training methods. Each of these spaces is almost like an interactive documentary. Once the highlights are done, the mode offers the opportunity to take over a deciding fight from the superstars. It’s an impressive transition. Going from the real-life televised event with crowds and commentary to immediately taking over in the game has some real hype behind it. Performance and visuals It’s clear to see that UFC 6 is going for a photo-realism look with its visuals compared to any other fighting game. The fighters don’t look great in selection screens. But inside the arenas, under the flood lights, surrounded by crowds, and facing an opponent, the visuals are more than impressive. As ghastly as it is to witness, things like blood spraying into the mat and muscles reddening as they get pummeled keep improving the immersion. The fluid animations help sell the illusion even further. A missed kick carries the momentum to require a corrective step. Hard punches that glance off blocks give off the air of a hit that still took some wind off the opponent’s guard. The special moves with flips and spins look mega awkward when missing, just as they do in real life. Suffice to say, the Frostbite Engine powering this game is one of the biggest strengths of EA development studios. Playing on the Xbox Series X, the 60 FPS gameplay did not miss the mark or cause any slowdowns that I could detect. I still wish this series were on PC to see just how far the developer can push the engine. One area I continue to have issues with, surprisingly enough, is the menus. The game has fast loading screens, but almost every menu I click through has a large amount of noticeable lag before it registers. This is immensely painful in the career mode, since I have to go through multiple menus between fights to train and do sponsorships, and having a 3-second pause when selecting a simple move between pages is the only time that made me quit the game. Thanks to Xbox’s quick resume, though, I was able to instantly jump back in the next day to the same point (and wade through more laggy menus). Conclusion My primary mission going into this EA Sports UFC 6 review as a newcomer to the series was to find out if this is a good jumping-in point for someone like me. Suffice it to say, the game passed that test with flying colors. Despite the high skill ceiling, the legacy mode introduction campaign, multiple types of accessible controls, and streamlined career had me picking up the basics and fighting styles much faster than I expected. I wish I had gotten to try out competitive multiplayer during my time with the game, too, but the lack of players in the pre-release version prevented this. The impressive visuals and animations, coupled with the impact physics that let me feel every punch and kick easily, made this the most immersive fighting game I have played. The only part that gave me pause was the grappling gameplay, which killed the momentum in most fights. The Flow State amplifying system didn’t hamper the experience, but I also felt like it made more sense for an arcade fighter, not this. Easily the most annoying thing about UFC 6 was its laggy menus, which I hope get some sort of fix later. Returning series veterans might have a completely different experience from me. But for a new fan like me looking to climb ranks and see fighters get floored in spectacular ways, UFC 6 doesn’t miss a step. EA Sports UFC 6 is releasing on June 19 across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5 for $69.99. Ultimate Edition owners can already jump in via advanced access. This review was conducted on the Xbox Series X version of the game provided by EA.
    • No, Microsoft is obviously just spending money on maintaining a product with 0 users.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      ssd21345 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Contributor
      MarkHughes4096 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Dedicated
      jordanspringer earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Rookie
      Rimplesnort went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Markus94287 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      486
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      173
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      138
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      94
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      79
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!