4870X2 and Vista 32bit

[GibsonEX]

I've seen people claiming that i's not going to be an issue, the others that it will, so i would like to see knowledgeable guys chip in and shed some light on this, as i'm sure that many people are waiting for this card.

If this card has indeed 2 gigs of VRAM like some rumours are suggesting, how is that going to affect people with 32 bit OS systems, whether it be Vista or XP. Let's say you have 4gb of memory, are you going to take a hit and be left with 2gb of unused memory? Would it be recommended to upgrade to 64bit to have access to all of the memory in the system and not be limited to only 4 gigs?

 

[RavenousNewt]

It shouldn't effect anyone with Vista 32-bit. There is a hack to use up to 64GB of RAM, but it is not for novices or people with short attention spans. Here is a Link : http://www.tipandtrick.net/2008/how...-physical-ram-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/
By the way... No games use more than 1.5GB of RAM right now. (That includes Crysis)
The 2GB on the 4870 X2 will be split into 1GB per core.

 

[MyIllusion]

By the way... No games use more than 1.5GB of RAM right now. (That includes Crysis)
.

Which always makes me think, as gamers why would anyone go past 2GB >.< No games use past 1.5 that I know. If you say Crysis only uses 1.5 then why do gamers have more than 2GB?? Cuz its cheap lol? comon this doesn't add up.

Shoot 2 GB system and a 4870X2 theres 2GB and 32-bit OS can last awile for gamers

 

[bangmal]

Which always makes me think, as gamers why would anyone go past 2GB >.< No games use past 1.5 that I know. If you say Crysis only uses 1.5 then why do gamers have more than 2GB?? Cuz its cheap lol? comon this doesn't add up.

Shoot 2 GB system and a 4870X2 theres 2GB and 32-bit OS can last awile for gamers

If gaming is your only use of computer then it might be correct.

 

[bangmal]

I've seen people claiming that i's not going to be an issue, the others that it will, so i would like to see knowledgeable guys chip in and shed some light on this, as i'm sure that many people are waiting for this card.

If this card has indeed 2 gigs of VRAM like some rumours are suggesting, how is that going to affect people with 32 bit OS systems, whether it be Vista or XP. Let's say you have 4gb of memory, are you going to take a hit and be left with 2gb of unused memory? Would it be recommended to upgrade to 64bit to have access to all of the memory in the system and not be limited to only 4 gigs?

I am using 4gb now and my 4850 uses 512, the ram availalbe to use is about 3500mb, for this reason I am thinking to move 64bit

 

[Hypernova]

If I get two 4870X2 2GB at the end of the year I'm going to load up XP32 just to see what happens. Currently V64.

 

[Rattle]

the 4870x2 has 2gb of physical memory, but its not like a single card with 2gb of usable memory, its like sli or xfire, if you have 512 on each card you have 512 and not 1gb, same with this card.

 

[kllrnohj]

OP: Yup, 2gb of video RAM means that the OS will be limited to less than 2gb of useable RAM in the system. So upgrade to 64-bit already

Which always makes me think, as gamers why would anyone go past 2GB >.< No games use past 1.5 that I know. If you say Crysis only uses 1.5 then why do gamers have more than 2GB?? Cuz its cheap lol? comon this doesn't add up.

Shoot 2 GB system and a 4870X2 theres 2GB and 32-bit OS can last awile for gamers

Well, for one, because there *IS* a game that uses more than 1.5GB of RAM. Supreme Commander will actually hit the 2GB limit (the exe needs to be flagged with large_addressing_aware so that windows will let it use 3gb or the game crashes). Second, I don't like my hard drive to churn every time a quit a game. 4gb means alt-tabs are always butter smooth (as everything is still in RAM).

It shouldn't effect anyone with Vista 32-bit. There is a hack to use up to 64GB of RAM, but it is not for novices or people with short attention spans. Here is a Link : http://www.tipandtrick.net/2008/how-...windows-vista/
By the way... No games use more than 1.5GB of RAM right now. (That includes Crysis)
The 2GB on the 4870 X2 will be split into 1GB per core.

Enable PAE and kiss your RAM performance goodbye. PAE is very slow, and it is not recommended for a gaming system.

 

[MyIllusion]

OP: Yup, 2gb of video RAM means that the OS will be limited to less than 2gb of useable RAM in the system. So upgrade to 64-bit already

Well, for one, because there *IS* a game that uses more than 1.5GB of RAM. Supreme Commander will actually hit the 2GB limit (the exe needs to be flagged with large_addressing_aware so that windows will let it use 3gb or the game crashes). Second, I don't like my hard drive to churn every time a quit a game. 4gb means alt-tabs are always butter smooth (as everything is still in RAM).
.

Funny you say all this Mr.SmartyPanties , anyhow I almost believed you cuz I never played SupCo yet see hehe. Then I decided to do sum googling and stumbled upon this review of Win XP vs WIn VIsta and Supreme Commander. Anandtech Link. Now what I find interesting is that with Vista and SupCo, is that your wasting 300-900mbs of address space, which I am sure is your problem your running Vista 64 . Well I run XP pro and I don't see any scenario where that game goes past 1.44 GB when used with WIn XP.

So I'm good, and your wrong. Gratz on wasting money needlessly & upgrading b4 it's needed and crap mouthing off like a chimp.

But is there a PC game that uses over 2GB on WIn XP? Or is it just a case of Vista O.S. taxing memory so much because it wasn't coded as intelligently as Win XP? Thus making people think they need 4GB for gaming.

 

[GibsonEX]

If I get two 4870X2 2GB at the end of the year I'm going to load up XP32 just to see what happens. Currently V64.

That would be interesting to see .

But is there a PC game that uses over 2GB on WIn XP? Or is it just a case of Vista O.S. taxing memory so much because it wasn't coded as intelligently as Win XP? Thus making people think they need 4GB for gaming.

Not to get into all this XP vs Vista debate, but Vista is becoming "standard issue" OS whether some people like it or not. Upcoming games (in 1-3 years) are going to be only more demanding, not less, so we'll see how long these 2 gigs of memory are going to be enough for gaming. I wonder how long before something comes out that is going to make Crysis look like a Far Cry nowdays.

 

[Frostex]

It shouldn't effect anyone with Vista 32-bit. There is a hack to use up to 64GB of RAM, but it is not for novices or people with short attention spans. Here is a Link : http://www.tipandtrick.net/2008/how...-physical-ram-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/
By the way... No games use more than 1.5GB of RAM right now. (That includes Crysis)
The 2GB on the 4870 X2 will be split into 1GB per core.

Some do actually, im fairly sure large battles of supreme commander are supposed to use over 1.5Gb, Stalker was hacked to be made large memory aware and can use 1.5Gb, and so can large battles of company of heroes where you host as the server (which people need to do because theres no dedicated servers)

This is a trend that will continue especially now 64bit windows is easily accessible, it's stupid to avoid them, games like Crysis have a 64bit compiled version which do run a fair bit faster, Crysis is between 10-15% faster.

*edit*

That "fix" listed in the link requires you have a copy of windows 2008 server first before you can "upgrade" your vista 32bit, of course it's just cheaper and simpler to buy Vista x64 instead, there's really no reason why you shouldn't be using it now.

 

[kllrnohj]

Funny you say all this Mr.SmartyPanties , anyhow I almost believed you cuz I never played SupCo yet see hehe. Then I decided to do sum googling and stumbled upon this review of Win XP vs WIn VIsta and Supreme Commander. Anandtech Link. Now what I find interesting is that with Vista and SupCo, is that your wasting 300-900mbs of address space, which I am sure is your problem your running Vista 64 . Well I run XP pro and I don't see any scenario where that game goes past 1.44 GB when used with WIn XP.

So I'm good, and your wrong. Gratz on wasting money needlessly & upgrading b4 it's needed and crap mouthing off like a chimp.

But is there a PC game that uses over 2GB on WIn XP? Or is it just a case of Vista O.S. taxing memory so much because it wasn't coded as intelligently as Win XP? Thus making people think they need 4GB for gaming.

Anand doesn't say what settings they used, but I have also hit the wall in XP (which requires the same fix). They were also doing a replay, and not actually playing it (which means the AI wasn't running - kind of a major point when dealing with RAM usage ). When I get back home to my only machine still running XP, I'll do my own test

Besides, why should I downgrade to XP when I have enough RAM for SupCom in Vista x64?

 

[matrix563]

i'm thinking when i do get the 4870x2 and 8gb of ram i'll run vista64 then, cause thats 10gb of ram total in the system xD

 

[MyIllusion]

Anand doesn't say what settings they used, but I have also hit the wall in XP (which requires the same fix). They were also doing a replay, and not actually playing it (which means the AI wasn't running - kind of a major point when dealing with RAM usage ). When I get back home to my only machine still running XP, I'll do my own test

Besides, why should I downgrade to XP when I have enough RAM for SupCom in Vista x64?

Haha i hear yeah ok that AI test would be interesting I guess if you do it I'll just subtract 300-900mb for XP perhaps maybe 2GB is not enough , maybe it is just print screen your Task Manager Info sumtime I'm interested thx for the dialogue.

 

[turumbar]

Anand doesn't say what settings they used, but I have also hit the wall in XP (which requires the same fix). They were also doing a replay, and not actually playing it (which means the AI wasn't running - kind of a major point when dealing with RAM usage ). When I get back home to my only machine still running XP, I'll do my own test

Besides, why should I downgrade to XP when I have enough RAM for SupCom in Vista x64?

Because you could have plenty of ram with XP x64?

 

[kllrnohj]

Because you could have plenty of ram with XP x64?

I have a copy of XP x64 (got it from school), but why should I go to the slower XP? (honestly, superfetch is pretty damn awesome, and works like advertised)

I also really don't feel like doing an OS change when what I got works just fine, know what I mean? I only use Vista for gaming (XP is also on the machine (triple boot, yay!), but when I upgraded to 4gb, it sort of started to crap out - frequent BSODs, etc...), anyway, otherwise I just boot into Ubuntu x64

 

[MyIllusion]

I have a copy of XP x64 (got it from school), but why should I go to the slower XP? (honestly, superfetch is pretty damn awesome, and works like advertised)

I also really don't feel like doing an OS change when what I got works just fine, know what I mean? I only use Vista for gaming (XP is also on the machine (triple boot, yay!), but when I upgraded to 4gb, it sort of started to crap out - frequent BSODs, etc...), anyway, otherwise I just boot into Ubuntu x64

Yeah that is the way to go, if you want to get an O.S. that does stuff you don't really use or need because you didn't research the real world benefits in games on Win XP lmao. Also it's good for buying say DDR800-1066-1333 etc. When of course if you would have waited unlike a kid with ADHD then you would get a real 64-bit O.S. from microsoft/Linux/Apple after they get rid of addressing all these suprising bugs and a real increase in memory bandwidth like ddr3 2000+ or better when I choose to upgrade smartly/efficently.

Actually I have a lot of doubt about WIn next O.S. after seeing how this whole Vista release has taken their company for a ride after almost 2 years

But gratz I'm glad you have XP and Vista just proves my point, about needlessly upgrading even more.

Now lets see sum Taskbar pics with just Sup Com running alone and what the mem tax on sytem is.

Or you can keep saying 4 is more than 2, and i'll keep saying well 2 is all you need silly.

 

[kllrnohj]

Yeah that is the way to go, if you want to get an O.S. that does stuff you don't really use or need because you didn't research the real world benefits in games on Win XP lmao. Also it's good for buying say DDR800-1066-1333 etc. When of course if you would have waited unlike a kid with ADHD then you would get a real 64-bit O.S. from microsoft/Linux/Apple after they get rid of addressing all these suprising bugs and a real increase in memory bandwidth like ddr3 2000+ or better when I choose to upgrade smartly/efficently.

Actually I have a lot of doubt about WIn next O.S. after seeing how this whole Vista release has taken their company for a ride after almost 2 years

But gratz I'm glad you have XP and Vista just proves my point, about needlessly upgrading even more.

Now lets see sum Taskbar pics with just Sup Com running alone and what the mem tax on sytem is.

Or you can keep saying 4 is more than 2, and i'll keep saying well 2 is all you need silly.

Wait, what? I got all my copies of Windows (Vista and XP) for free (legally through school)... I installed Vista to try it out (already had XP on it), and XP broke on me, so I stuck with Vista. What don't you get? Vista works, XP BSODs - its a pretty easy choice I also happen to use the features of Vista and like it more than XP, but whatever.

I also know that 2 is all I *need*. I started with 2, and upgraded to 4 in a CPU+RAM bundle at newegg (the RAM was basically free after MIR). Why the hell would I pass up free 2gb of RAM? And I *DO* notice a difference, 4gb *does* help. Even if no single game utilizes it more than 2gb (and indeed can't by default), that still leaves 2gb left for the OS to play with, which means my swap gets used a hell of a lot less, which increase performance (especially when alt-tabbing or right after exiting a game). It also helps for *gasp* things besides just games! OMG!

 

[MyIllusion]

Wait, what? I got all my copies of Windows (Vista and XP) for free (legally through school)... I installed Vista to try it out (already had XP on it), and XP broke on me, so I stuck with Vista. What don't you get? Vista works, XP BSODs - its a pretty easy choice I also happen to use the features of Vista and like it more than XP, but whatever.

I also know that 2 is all I *need*. I started with 2, and upgraded to 4 in a CPU+RAM bundle at newegg (the RAM was basically free after MIR). Why the hell would I pass up free 2gb of RAM? And I *DO* notice a difference, 4gb *does* help. Even if no single game utilizes it more than 2gb (and indeed can't by default), that still leaves 2gb left for the OS to play with, which means my swap gets used a hell of a lot less, which increase performance (especially when alt-tabbing or right after exiting a game). It also helps for *gasp* things besides just games! OMG!

excuses! hmm haha now where's that pic of your rig going past...nvmd lol all jokes with you bro

 

[Jiggaman2576]

I went from 2GB, to 4GB and then to 6GB. I noticed performance increases each time I upgraded. I'd have 8GB if 1 stick wasn't bad If you think vista can play a game that runs 1.5gb of ram and only use 512 for itself you my friend are an idiot. Instead of looking at all the ram being used, take a look at the pagefile usage as Vista uses ALL the ram available to it ALL the time. The more ram you have the more it will use and the faster your system will be. XP tries to keep the ram free, Vista keeps it full of stuff you use the most. Crysis will easily use 1.5GB of ram if not more. If you have 2GB of ram in your system, you will not see windows let any 1 program use more then 1.5 because it wants to keep 512 for itself. Throw in another gb stick and you'll see games then use 2 or 2.5gb because it still only wants to keep 512 for itself. By your logic if you have 1gb of ram, then games would only use 512. Don't ignore the pagefile usage!

(If I mis-read something sorry, I'm slacking at work and reading fast)