RAM reservation by GPU in 32 bit Windows 7?

Discussion in 'nVidia Flavor' started by Quartz-1, Nov 17, 2016.

  1. Quartz-1

    Quartz-1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,257
    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    A friend is considering getting a Geforce 10 series GPU - likely a 1050 Ti or 1060 - but is stuck with 32 bit Windows 7. His E8400-based PC has 4 GB mainboard RAM and with his current 1 GB N9600GT installed has 3.5 GB left. How much mainboard RAM would be available to him after installing a 4 GB GTX 1050 Ti? How about a 6 GB GTX 1060?

    Moving to 64 bit Windows is NOT an option.
     
  2. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    The same 3.5GB.
     
  3. Shadohh

    Shadohh Gawd

    Messages:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Whats the purpose of the pc and the goal?
     
  4. Quartz-1

    Quartz-1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,257
    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    That's not the point of this thread.
     
  5. Shadohh

    Shadohh Gawd

    Messages:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    I am wondering if an amd apu might be a better upgrade because holy shit... e8400.....

    any way, good luck on that 1060 and that core2duo
     
    Armenius likes this.
  6. Absalom

    Absalom Gawd

    Messages:
    568
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    In my experience, he'll end up with anywhere between 3.2GB and 3.5GB addressable.

    I'm still rocking an e8500 @4GHz with a GTX670. You'd be surprised what you can get away with.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  7. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    16,811
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    You'd probably get like double the framerate if you upgraded to a modern i3.
     
    ND40oz and Shadohh like this.
  8. Absalom

    Absalom Gawd

    Messages:
    568
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Depends on the game, settings, etc. Not every game out there is well optimized for more than two threads. That's the only way an i3, even a modern one, would "double" anything.

    There simply aren't enough IPC gains since the Core 2 Duo days to amount to "double", which is where most single threaded performance comes from anyway.
     
  9. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,766
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    So 32 bit memory addresses can only see ~4gb TOTAL RAM in the system. So your OS will try to allocate the system RAM, GPU memory and CPU cache to all add up to 4GB total.
     
  10. BrianAR

    BrianAR n00b

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    physical address extension can make 32 bit windows use more than 4gb
     
  11. Absalom

    Absalom Gawd

    Messages:
    568
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    PAE wouldn't help the OP, as there is physically only 4GB (according to OP). PAE doesn't magically turn Win7 32-bit into a 64-bit OS. If anything, PAE would introduce unnecessary complexity as applications need to be PAE aware to take advantage of it.

    We've veered off topic. OP wanted to know how much usable ram would be left if an Nvidia 1000 series were installed in the PC described. Unless someone has such a configuration at their disposal to test, then it's a guess at best. If I were to guess, it would be around 3.2GB usable as the GPU would map some of that. Given a 1000 series has more vram to map, it could be less than that.
     
  12. SvenBent

    SvenBent 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,790
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/54?vs=1783
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1276?vs=1783

    yes sadly not a game buts clearly show that a new model i3 has more than twice the FPU performance of the old Core 2 duo per core.. So no you don't need more than 2 threads to theoretically double framerate.
    depending on GPU off cause.

    http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Duo-E8400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6300
    Here we can see geekbench and passmark single thread performance also show gains in the doubles ( geek bench more and passmark a little less)


    So yeah modern day I3 do seem to have the potential to double you FPS vs the core 2 duo e8500 IF the graphics card does not become the bottleneck in the game settings you are playing.
     
  13. Absalom

    Absalom Gawd

    Messages:
    568
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Well, you did pick one of the high end Skylake i3s which already has a significant clock advantage ;)

    I'll concede that under certain conditions (i.e. synthetic benchmarks), you could end up with double the performance. There's more going for Skylake than just IPC improvements, so in the case of performance improvements, it is not always black and white.

    (btw, does anyone actually put any weight in scores spoonfed from cpuboss?)

    I can even share my own, albeit synthetic, results:

    http://valid.x86.fr/bench/shm7ua/1

    I think the context in question is games, no? That's something I'm not quite sold on.

    Sadly, there is hardly any effort being made to bench games against older cpus, such as the Core 2 Duo. I would think pairing a 1080 would nearly eliminate any GPU bottleneck, but again, depends on the game, settings, etc. I do know that something heavily threaded, like GTA5, will not bode well for the older platforms. But if I take something like Dark Souls 3, which isn't known for its CPU optimizations, a Core 2 Duo seems to hold up well (if only by default).
     
    Armenius likes this.
  14. melk

    melk Gawd

    Messages:
    916
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    E8400 is a 64bit chip. I'm like 93% sure you can upgrade bitness of Windows OS with the same license key. Might need to do a fresh install but that's not so terrible.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  15. SvenBent

    SvenBent 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,790
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008



    Well, you did pick one of the high end Skylake i3s which already has a significant clock advantage ;)
    yes yes i did :)



    I'll concede that under certain conditions (i.e. synthetic benchmarks), you could end up with double the performance. There's more going for Skylake than just IPC improvements, so in the case of performance improvements, it is not always black and white.
    Agreed it all about balance of load and components

    (btw, does anyone actually put any weight in scores spoonfed from cpuboss?)
    I hope not much but was darn hard to find any comparisons


    I can even share my own, albeit synthetic, results:

    http://valid.x86.fr/bench/shm7ua/1

    I think the context in question is games, no? That's something I'm not quite sold on.


    I don't know what kind of load CPU-z does though. so it might no reflect the same as the part of a game that runs on a CPU.


    Sadly, there is hardly any effort being made to bench games against older cpus, such as the Core 2 Duo. I would think pairing a 1080 would nearly eliminate any GPU bottleneck, but again, depends on the game, settings, etc. I do know that something heavily threaded, like GTA5, will not bode well for the older platforms. But if I take something like Dark Souls 3, which isn't known for its CPU optimizations, a Core 2 Duo seems to hold up well (if only by default).
    Well the older the game the more the CPU is holding you back since there is less stuff to do for the graphics cards.
    E.G. in quake 3 my cpu is running constnats at 12% since Quake3 is singlethreade (didn set r_smp) it means it usinh a core 100% and the GPU is at 35-40% usage on a gtx970. so in this old game CPU easily is the bottleneck of the system. the singelcore perofrmance just can deliver enough prerender data to the gpu
     
    Armenius likes this.
  16. PGHammer

    PGHammer 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,315
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    It is, and the same CD key will work. In fact, the same metric applies to any flavor of Windows which is offered in both x32 and 64 bitnesses from XP forward (which is EVERY flavor of Windows from XP forward).
    I have not personally run an x32 flavor of Windows since XP except in a VM - nor have I recommended that anyone else do so - despite just since THIS build has an x64 flavor of Windows been mandatory. (Yes - you DID read that right; the ONLY reason that x32 is NOT an option this time around is due to this build's 8 GB of RAM - however, I have not had so much as ONE compatibility issue with a post-RTM flavor of x64 Windows, and only TWO compatibility issues with a pre-RTM/RTW flavor of x64 Windows from XP forward - one game and one application. That's astounding, when you think about it - two the entire run from XP64 to 10 x64. As astonishing as the compatibility is, what's even better is the stability, even with the early lack of x64 versions of software at first; remember, Office for Windows did not exist in an x64 variant until Office 2010. Still, once the lack of x64 software started getting fixed, if anything, stability and performance increased - not dropped.) It's why I have made one recommendation since I went x64 personally - it's not WHY x64, even if you have FAR less than 4 GB of RAM, but why NOT x64. And I haven't found a reason why not YET.
     
    trandoanhung1991 likes this.
  17. Quartz-1

    Quartz-1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,257
    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Le sigh. Going 64 bit is not an option here, folks.
     
  18. PGHammer

    PGHammer 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,315
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    You keep saying that - the question (literally) is why isn't it an option.

    When I first investigated x64 AS an option, the very FIRST thing I investigated was the old canard (and said canard turned out to Utterly and Flatly Wrong) that x64 was ONLY about large amounts of system memory. XP64 has no greater a system-memory floor than XP32; I personally ran XP64 on a Celeron-D with all of 512 MB of system memory - far from a behemoth, as most XP32 systems of the day had larger RAM loadouts than that.

    With RAM requirements eliminated, the only other roadblock would be the CPU being too old. THAT roadblock makes sense; not only is there pre-Intel Core hardware still running, there is even pre-P4 hardware still running; to my right is a Dell Latitude 650. This laptop (way too old to be a notebook) has a Pentium-IIIM CPU (said CPU is, in fact, utterly x64-incapable, as it predates not just Intel Core, but Intel P4 in its entirety; the lack of SSE2 means it can't run ANY version of Windows 8 or later). The CPU is, in fact, the only major flaw in a decent (otherwise) and usable laptop for content consumption or schoolwork - the GPU is the original ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 that appeared in the competing Gateway (later MPC) Solo, which was equipped with the P4 (either Williamette or Northwood); the lack of SSE2 or Intel Core dooms the Solo from advancing beyond 7 as well. If your CPU is in this category, that would be the only reason why your complaint would have ANY merit - if that is the case, why didn't you simply say so?
    Also, E8400 is, in fact, a Core 2 Duo, and of the Wolfdale iteration - it is the successor to the popular E6400 (Conroe iteration); further like Conroe, it has nerfed and coumpounded iterations - E3400 and Q8400 respectively - like E8400 itself, both are, in fact, perfectly x64-capable. (I ran Windows Server 2012R2 on an E3400 before I replaced it with a Q6600 - which I could NOT have done if it were x64-incapable, as no x32 version of Windows Server has existed since Server 2003.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2016
  19. rtangwai

    rtangwai [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,365
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    If it's about 16-bit software compatibility and/or older peripherals lacking 64-bit drivers eg. older scanners then how about installing Windows 10 Pro 64-bit and use Hyper-V to create a 32-bit VM?
     
    Armenius likes this.
  20. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    17,786
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Normally I would agree with the OP that that's not what he asked so the thread shouldn't converge into trying to change his friends mind, but it's possible that resolving the 64 bit issue (whatever it is) could be easier than resolving the issue trying to find a way around the 4GB limitation.
     
  21. kalston

    kalston Gawd

    Messages:
    980
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    They won't let it go until you tell them why :p I'm curious too I won't lie but I still don't think it's impossible to find a good reason to use 32bit in 2016.

    As for your question I am not sure how this stuff works. On my XP 32 bit machine it said 3.5Gb available when I had my 8800 GTS 512MB card and then it still said 3.5GB available when I got my GTX 275 896MB card... However I am quite sure I was able to allocate all the memory of my GPU just fine so, is it really 4GB max total, RAM + VRAM combined? What does the memory reported by Windows even mean? On some 32b rigs it says 3.25 or some other funky number instead of 3.5. Heck I've even seen 64b systems where Windows reported 8GB as "7.5GB available" while on my rigs it always reported a solid 8 (or 16 these days).
     
  22. SpasTas0917

    SpasTas0917 n00b

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    [QUOTE="kalston, post: 1042660034, member: ' What does the memory reported by Windows even mean? On some 32b rigs it says 3.25 or some other funky number instead of 3.5. Heck I've even seen 64b systems where Windows reported 8GB as "7.5GB available" while on my rigs it always reported a solid 8 (or 16 these days).[/QUOTE]

    If 7.5gb out of 8gb usable:
    That .5 Memory or whatever it has been set to in bios. It is being allocated for iGPU I am not sure if dGPU also allocates RAM always thought that modern GPU's had their own vRAM that isn't shared with system RAM?

    I might be wrong.
     
  23. Nuxius

    Nuxius Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    This. 256MB of physical address space will be reserved for various motherboard functions and another 256MB will be reserved for the graphics card.


    Actually, Server 2008 SP2 was the last version that was available in 32-bit, ran it on a old Williamette P4 for a while.
     
  24. melk

    melk Gawd

    Messages:
    916
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Re-reading OP and I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of trick question.
     
  25. Stoly

    Stoly [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,108
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    I'm also curious as to why 64 bit is not an option.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  26. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    16,811
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    In my own experience going from a Core 2 QX6700 to an i7-4770 with a GTX 570 at least doubled the framerate in most of the games I played when I did this platform upgrade back in 2012. This includes single threaded games like Fallout New Vegas and multithreaded games like Crysis. Same operating system, as well (Windows Vista 64-bit). Anecdotal, I know, but it is why I said what I said.
     
  27. PGHammer

    PGHammer 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,315
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Because an OS swap (if feasible) would be, in fact, the easiest way to resolve said limitation - even (if not especially) if his OS is legit; reinstall the x64 version, input the SAME key, problem solved. (XP32 and XP64 take the same keys, Vista x32 and x64 take the same keys, and 7 x32 and x64 take the same keys; there is NO bitness penalty, or differing keys, between x32 and x64 versions of the same OS.)
     
  28. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    17,786
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    The OP stopped responding so it's possible he has already exhausted every option regarding 64 bit compatibility.

    Remember, he is using 8 year old hardware. It's possible his friend is using a scanner or printer or some other XP era peripheral that does not have x64 drivers. if you're still using an E8400 cpu, telling them to "just buy a new printer" probably isn't an option for that person financially. They may be stuck on x86 because moving to x64 would mean hardware that cannot be replaced cannot be used any more. If that was the case it would probably be easier to explain that than expecting everyone to ignore the elephant in the room.
     
  29. Quartz-1

    Quartz-1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,257
    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Huh? The situation is what it is. No tricks, no nothing; I'm just not going to go into details as to why he can't upgrade.