truth? 2gb = 32 bit vista?, 4 gb = 64 bit vista?

[zombix]

I have 2 sticks ( 2gb ) of DDR 500 PC 4000 crucial balistix memory.

I heard that if you are running 64 bit vista it would be wise to use 4 gb of memory.

Since i only have 2 gb should i be running 32 bit vista instead?

[Unknown-One]

The memory requirements should be roughly the same between both 32 and 64-bit versions, so no, you don't need to downgrade to 32bit because you 'only' have 2GB of RAM. As long at 64-bit is working for you, stick with it.

As a side note, Vista has no problems working on as little as 1GB of RAM, and most people would consider anything much over 2GB reaching into "overkill" territory.

[zombix]

i see, well im thinking of getting 2 more sticks of memory 1 gb each. Is there still the issue where nforce 4 boards or A8N32-SLI deluxe mobo wont run at max timings? And if iwere to install 1gb in each slot = 4 gb does vista fix this issue or is it still the same because of the mobo or nforce 4 chipset?

[annaconda]

Stick with 64bit it will help you in the future if you want to upgrade memory from 2GB to 4GB. THen you don;t have to reinstall windows again.

[Gatticus]

The memory requirements should be roughly the same between both 32 and 64-bit versions,

How do you figure that? 64bit programs do require more ram usage than their 32bit counterpart. Perhaps not double but if I was running Vista 64bit I would want 4gb of ram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies slightly more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization.

[jordan12]

2 gig is fine for the Vista 64 bit..

[djnes]

2 gig is fine for the Vista 64 bit..
I have it running on a test machine at work, that's a Celeron D 356 with 1 GB of memory, and Vista64 runs fine on it.

[theriverlethe]

When I attempted to use 64-bit Vista with 2 gigs, programs that I could switch out of instantly on XP, such as BF2142, now took 30 seconds or more to swap out. I don't know if this is because of the inefficiency of using 32-bit apps in 64-bit Vista, or simply the greater memory requirements of Vista. However, I would definitely recommend 4 gigs for acceptable performance.

[General Crespin]

The thing with Vista is, it will use the RAM if you have it. If you don't have the RAM, it won't use it, and it still runs fine. :) (I'm sure there's differences, just don't ask me what it is...)

[Gatticus]

Welp, from what I posted above it is saying that the cpu cache may be less efficient due to the expanded memory usage. I did have Microsoft send me the 64bit version of Vista but unless you have a need for more than 4gb of ram I really see no need to go to 64bit at this point in time. Just what benefit is a 64bit OS giving people on a PC with only 1gb of ram? My guess is; absolutely nothing. It is a benefit to people that do things like video processing and need to run with >4gb of ram.

[theriverlethe]

Welp, from what I posted above it is saying that the cpu cache may be less efficient due to the expanded memory usage. I did have Microsoft send me the 64bit version of Vista but unless you have a need for more than 4gb of ram I really see no need to go to 64bit at this point in time. Just what benefit is a 64bit OS giving people on a PC with only 1gb of ram? My guess is; absolutely nothing. It is a benefit to people that do things like video processing and need to run with >4gb of ram.

Just to clarify, you need 64-bit if you have ONLY 4Gb of RAM, or you'll only be able to use 3.25Gb, as the rest of the address space is reserved for video memory, etc.

[Sovereign]

If you're lucky you'll get 3.25GB. I've seen even less on XP machines (don't know if Vista is different), my friend only sees 2.8GB under XP Pro 32-bit. Maybe he configured something in a less-than-optimal state?

[mwarps]

i see, well im thinking of getting 2 more sticks of memory 1 gb each. Is there still the issue where nforce 4 boards or A8N32-SLI deluxe mobo wont run at max timings? And if iwere to install 1gb in each slot = 4 gb does vista fix this issue or is it still the same because of the mobo or nforce 4 chipset?

This is a limitation of 32-bit operating systems' addressing space. Vista 32 will only see around 3.25-3.5GB.

64-bit systems should see all 4GB.

[TheRapture]

This is a limitation of 32-bit operating systems' addressing space. Vista 32 will only see around 3.25-3.5GB.

64-bit systems should see all 4GB.


I run 3gb (2 x 1gb and 2 x 512mb) in Vista Ultimate 32 bit.....plennnnnty of ram for 99% of the power users. If you need more than 3gb, use the 64 bit version.

[debello_64]

I run 4gigs of ram under Vista 64 and I see the full 4 gigs. The only reason I ever get up to 70 percent ram usage is because of Lotro stupid vista memory leak but thats a different discussion. 4gigs under vista, just feels alot smoother the 2gigs, but that is probably only a personal perception on my side.

I havent got around to doing a video editing yet on my new machine so I am not sure how much performance increase there is going to be from 2gigs to 4gigs.

[dot_Zen]

Just got my other 2 gigs back from Corsair (RMA). So, I'm now up to 4 gigs--which was originally intended on this rig prior to Vista.. So far, doing some flash projects, Visual Studio and Photoshop work everything seems to be silky smooth. I can open up multiple project files without a hint of dissent from my memory. I'm sure that can be maxed out, too. But I was running into issue where a few files loaded in each slowed me down a bit; in XP and Vista.

Multi-tasking's never been better. :cool: