CPU and RAM ratio

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Oh god.. Totally forgot that when i changed from 32bit xp to 64bit vista.. My bad totally forgot to recheck my stressing programs.. Hmm you say 64bit has driver issues.. That could be true a few years back when vista was first launched..? Now it seems that 64bit drivers are popping out everywhere.. Reason for going to 64bit for me was basically dx10 and more then 3gb of ram that 32bit os allowed.. I'm more into image quality is a priority over higher fps offered by dx9.. :) I'll try the 64bit version of prime95 and hope it doesn't use up all the ram..
 

Kraynor

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2007
829
0
19,010
5
I've had no issues with drivers in the last 8 months, and even then it was a small company's bluetooth usb dongle thing, a quick e-mail and 2 weeks later there was a 64-bit driver.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Heh.. i7 platform itself is a force to be reckon with.. Either ways i would need the 4gb of ram.. 2gb is just isn't sufficient man..
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Okay just tested even using the prime95 64-bit still uses up 100% of my ram.. Guess i'll have to wait for 4gb of ram..
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
For Windows 32 with 4GB, Task Manager will typically show soemwhere between 3.0GB and 3.5GB. Since Windows 32 can map up to a total of 4GB, subtract your graphics card(s) memory from 4GB, and that's what remains. If you're running SLI or CrossFire with more than 1GB total graphics memory, then Windows 64 is preferred.

For example, I've built my rig around the highest possible performance for Flight Simulator X, which requires massive amounts of multi-threaded-overclocked CPU horsepower. FSX actually runs slower with multiple GPU's due to the additional clock cycles required to crunch frames for rendering on multiple cards, so in this instance, frame rate is higher on a single card.

Upgrading from XP DX9 to Vista DX10 will result in a 3% reduction in frame rate, and running Vista 64 instead of Vista 32 will result in a further reduction in frame rate of 1%.

FSX is also a memory pig, I'm running Vista 32, and when I tested Vista 64, it was using 2.0GB during the simulation, while Vista 32 was using 1.8GB. The difference of 0.2GB was being used for crunching Vista 64's extended code.
 

Ravenica

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Hmm.. So if i were to run an SLI setup with 4gb of ram installed on a 32bit os.. I would roughly left around 3gb of ram or maybe lesser if the graphics card have higher video memory..?

Regarding the XP DX9 to Vista DX10 the performance reduction is negligible like you stated.. But i have read that DX10.1 have shown to increase game performance.. It's a shame that Nvidia cards still do not support DX10.1 and the upcoming DX11..

So it seems that 64bit os has more overhead as it uses more ram for it's codes..? But in terms of system efficiency i feel that 64bit os seems to run faster.. I might be wrong though..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS