Do I really need 4 Gigs for Vista 64bit?

[pinwanger]

I heard that to fully benefit from 64 bit system you need 4 gigs of memory, is that true? I will not be doing any hardcore encoding or rendering, just games and stuff.

 

[Mondoman]

Nope. However, to fully benefit from 4GB of memory, you do need a 64-bit OS.

 

[Track]

"Do I really need 4 Gigs for Vista 64bit?"

No, you need Vista 64-bit for 4 Gigs.

 

[Mondoman]

Or Ubuntu.

 

[Alsone]

If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.

If your graphics card is a bit behind the times or your not bothered about high graphical settings or the latest games then you may get away with less.

Generally, with Vista 4GB seems to be best for gaming and memory intensive applications such as Photoshopping, CAD, Video Encoding. General applications or surfing will get away with much less.

At the end of the ay it all comes down to the fact that Vista itself is much more memory intensive that XP.

 

[darious00777]

For games generally speaking 2,048 megabytes of RAM is more then enough for now. 3,072 megabytes is what you'd want to use if you stick with a 32-bit operating system, since other sources of memory subtract from the ~4,294,967,296 bytes it can access/address across the system. If you go with a 64-bit operating system the system can access/address ~18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of data in regards to RAM. 18 exabytes of RAM probably won't be realized in a mainstream system for decades.

Disclaimer: The above is gathered knowledge on this minor subject, and granted, any piece of it could be incorrect. However, I hope it helps a bit.

 

[Alsone]

Vista 64 bit uses up to 1.3GB at desktop. With 2Gb thats only 700mb free, not enough to run a game without the swap file.

Another poster pointed out elsewhere that on his system with 2Gb it uses 800mb (obviously scales). However this still only leaves 1.2GB which is likely to insufficient for the very latest games.

So if your going to game on high settings you need to be looking at 4GB.

 

[Track]

If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.

Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

 

[apache_lives]

Vista 64 bit uses up to 1.3GB at desktop. With 2Gb thats only 700mb free, not enough to run a game without the swap file.

Another poster pointed out elsewhere that on his system with 2Gb it uses 800mb (obviously scales). However this still only leaves 1.2GB which is likely to insufficient for the very latest games.

So if your going to game on high settings you need to be looking at 4GB.

windows reserves it for apps etc.

vista with 2gb is like 1gb for xp (by the feel of it, reacting etc)

 

[EnigmaGY]

640k is all you will ever need 🙂

 

[bardia]

If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.

Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

Here is my experience. I have Vista X64 slimmed down by gutting many of its services on 2GB of Ram. However, when I load up Vanguard: Saga of Heros I hit the swap file enough to make readyboost make a noticable difference. X64 is more memory intensive than X86, so yes, 4GB of Ram is needed to not hit the swap file on many modern games. I'm not even taking extra stuff into account like antivirus, ventrillo, fraps, or anything like that. A gutted Vista + Vanguard on 2GB will max out 2GB of Ram. End of story. I'll be moving to 4GB shortly.

 

[asdasd123123]

No, not really. I hit the swap rarely with 2GB.

Vista unloads a lot of cache when games run, so often I've found games in total using less ram than what they did with XP.

Game in particular is Vanguard, runs better in vista and doesn't swap, wich it does in XP. I've turned off all the security features in vista... But that's it for tweaks from my side.

 

[bardia]

No, not really. I hit the swap rarely with 2GB.

Vista unloads a lot of cache when games run, so often I've found games in total using less ram than what they did with XP.

Game in particular is Vanguard, runs better in vista and doesn't swap, wich it does in XP. I've turned off all the security features in vista... But that's it for tweaks from my side.

Hard for me to believe given that I can run Vanguard at 80-90% just by turning it on (1280X1024 and on performance settings too). A guy in my guild who has 4GB of ram says he can frequently get his to 70% with Vanguard, Vent, and other similar gaming activites.

4GB isn't needed, but some of it will get used for sure.

 

[asdasd123123]

Well, according to Microsoft Vista will use as much ram as it can.

And if an application, say Vanguard, needs lots of ram, and you only have 2gb total, it will unload the prefetcher and other crap you don't really need all the time.

And assuming you have 4gb, it doesn't have to unload cache, so it doesn't.
Using more ram.

XP has a bit of this too, install XP on a 128mb system, and then on a 2gb system. You'll see XP on the 128mb system, all else equal, using somewhere of 70mb on boot. The 2gb install uses 300+.

Supposedly Vista is smarter, and unloads in realtime, not just on first install... 😵
Well.. It works and the performance loss is getting smaller with each driver release.

 

[Alsone]

If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.

Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

Do you even have Vista 64 because I do and have been running it since February and monitored memory usuage on my system. Also search the net and you'll find most of the experts saying gaming on Vista requires 4GB. Some games due out shortly are even going to specify 2GB of Ram for the high settings on the box as I understand it. Considering current games such as BF2 specify 512mb on the box, but need 2Gb on high, you work it out.

I have to say I'm getting very tired of people who don't want to recognise the need the spend money on their tired systems for upgrades to Vista and DX10 and who prefer to deny the need the for fast cpus, lots of memory and expensive graphics cards in favour of denying what others know is true.

Their are plenty on here and elsewhere posting we don't DX10 because DX9 will do everything it can do, we don't need 4GB of memory because 2Gb is fine on XP, we don't need a fast cpu because MS say it will run on a Pentium 4. Well wake up and smell the sh*t. PC's have changed big time in the last 3 or 4 months and its time to put your hands in your pockets and spend big bucks.

Don't like it, fair enough you don't have to, but in that case stay on Xp with 1Gb and ram and your P4 and stop moaning and denying the truth about the new system requirements for gaming brought about by the changes, either that or buy yourself a console!

 

[jordanwise]

lol

 

[asdasd123123]

He's right though, you don't indiscriminately NEED 4GB of ram. At least 75% of the PC-world doesn't play heavy games.

These people probably doesn't even "need" 1gb of ram, since all they do is use Office...

And you might need something calming, like a cup of herbal tea...

 

[dobby]

yeah, if you have 4gigs you should go x64 visata, but if you want vista in x64, 2gig is more than adiquete for now. that the setup i have and it really quick and that with a e6300.

-while im here i will add that if your going for 2gb get 2x 1gb, that why its dual channle, but also it leaves room for when 4gb requirements come around

 

[carver_g]

If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.

Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

For anything, huh? Ever heard of Solidworks? Just to name one...

 

[geofelt]

What benefits are you looking for? I am currently testing 64-bit vista premium on my backup/test machine. It only has 1gb of memory, and basic operations seem to run fine. With 32-bit vista, 4gb of memory will only address about 3.3gb. As far as I can tell, vista and xp work equally well with the same amount of memory. How much you need is determined mostly by the sum of the memory working sets of the tasks you have running concurrently. If you need more than 3.3gb, then vista 64-bit will be required.

 

[leexgx]

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1667273#1667273

or

512mb on vista is an joke

1gb min it work ok but games will take long time to load + Lots of pageing so game will stutter alot (try and Alt tab out of an game heh)

2gb recommended Most games will work good unless the game it self is useing more then 1gb then pageing will happen an little

3gb or 4gb(64bit) for gaming or any One program that use more then 1gb of system ram (stops pageing as it can happen on 2gb of ram on vista)

Vista starts Pageing at 90-95% Ram use (1.8GB ish)

As an rule take 700mb-1gb system ram when Vista is installed (the lower number with nothing installed) (thats why recommend min 3gb ram for an gameing system or Video editing)

games that use upto or more then 1gb of ram will most likey suffer on 2gb systems an little

if you wish to see the last 1gb of ram in an 4gb system you need to use Vista 64

--
like some one els posted
Vista is 3gb -
XP is 2gb
for best gameing an no lag or stuttering from pageing
Just buy the 2x2gb Dual chan pack then your set for later on

 

[yourmothersanastronaut]

The reason why Vista uses so much RAM is because it caches more things than XP. As it stands right now, XP is the better overall performance Windows OS.

If you want a streamlined Vista installation, just trim down your installation DVD with a program called vLite. It will modify the Vista installation image to your specifications, then create you a new .iso that you burn to a DVD again (or a CD, depending on how much you take out ). Also lets you make unattended installations.

There's also a version for XP called nLite, I'm using it now.

 

[lmimmfn]

For games generally speaking 2,048 megabytes of RAM is more then enough for now. 3,072 megabytes is what you'd want to use if you stick with a 32-bit operating system, since other sources of memory subtract from the ~4,294,967,296 bytes it can access/address across the system. If you go with a 64-bit operating system the system can access/address ~18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of data in regards to RAM. 18 exabytes of RAM probably won't be realized in a mainstream system for decades.

Disclaimer: The above is gathered knowledge on this minor subject, and granted, any piece of it could be incorrect. However, I hope it helps a bit.

it would have been easier to say address space of
32 bit os is : 2 to the power of 32
64 bit os is : 2 to the power of 64

1 gig = 2 to the power of 30, therefore max for 32 bits is 4Gigs( 1 x 2 x 2 ), although M$ reduced this to around 3 Gigs for its 32bits OS's and in vista the max is set at 8Gigs for all 64 bit OS's except Vista Ultimate where the max is 64 Gigs i think

Maybe im even more confusing 8O

 

[asdasd123123]

I killed readyboost, prefetcher and some other junk.. and I made it run with 300mb ram... =]

 

[bardia]

I killed readyboost, prefetcher and some other junk.. and I made it run with 300mb ram... =]

Yes, that's easy to do with 32-bit. Gutting the services in 32-bit (Aero Glass is a ram hog too, but I like it and so I'll keep it for sure) can lead to a very slim and fast vista. I use a gutted Vista Home Basic on my notebook, and man, it's almost as slim as Ubuntu.

However, 64-bit seems to just take up quite a bit more memory even when it's not caching, etc. Righ now with Aero glass on, a few IE pages, notepad, and nothing in the startup tray, I'm using 42% of my 2GB. That's what, 700-800MB? Sometimes I see it drop lower, into the 35% range, but it usually like to sit in the 40's.