The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official] - Page 1564 - Overclock.net

**thlnk3r** · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

Because 32bit OSes can only address up to 4gb of RAM, and VRAM (Video RAM) takes priority over system RAM.

Tator, ahhh ok that explains it. I actually sort of already knew that but just wasn't too clear in my head why. So this particular issue does not happen in a 64-bit Windows environment?

Good luck

BlackOmega · 05-17-09

It shouldn't because the OS can utilize more RAM at any one given time.

Tator Tot · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

Tator, ahhh ok that explains it. I actually sort of already knew that but just wasn't too clear in my head why. So this particular issue does not happen in a 64-bit Windows environment?

Good luck

No, in 64bit you (as I stated before) are allowed up to 128gb of RAM.

So for a desktop class computer, you don't need more. And for servers, you'd bog down the IMC most likely, before you could actually make proper use of the RAM, even at DDR3 2ghz Cas 7

Though, I'm not clear if VRAM has priority in 64bit architecture. It would be something I would have to look in to.

blitz6804 · 05-17-09

The 32-bit computer is limited to 4 GB of address space. (2^32 = 4,294,967,296 B = 4,096 MB = 4 GB.) If your address space is being used up by a sound card's memory, a video card's memory, a NIC's memory, whatever, you cannot use it for system RAM, which is lowest in priority for address space. This is what PAE is supposed to address. PAE is "36-bits," so in theory, it would have 64 GB of address space. This is how Windows Server 2003 can have up to 64 GB of memory even though it is a 32-bit operating system. 64-bit operating systems have a theoretical maximum of 16 EB. (Exabytes; equal to 16,777,216 TB.)

Sorry; I did not notice people posted above me; I've been refreshing less often than usual.

**thlnk3r** · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

The 32-bit computer is limited to 4 GB of address space. (2^32 = 4,294,967,296 B = 4,096 MB = 4 GB.) If your address space is being used up by a sound card's memory, a video card's memory, a NIC's memory, whatever, you cannot use it for system RAM, which is lowest in priority for address space. This is what PAE is supposed to address. PAE is "36-bits," so in theory, it would have 64 GB of address space. This is how Windows Server 2003 can have up to 64 GB of memory even though it is a 32-bit operating system. 64-bit operating systems have a theoretical maximum of 16 EB. (Exabytes; equal to 16,777,216 TB.)

Blitz, good explanation.

For Win2k8 64-bit, the "physical" limit I think is just 2TB. I only know this because we started deploying the OS with our MSDN package at work for testing. Standard and Web Server are limited to 32GB, the rest is 2TB. Pretty crazy. It's funny we keep talking about the 64-bit OS...you guys would be surprised on how many huge businesses and corporations out there that are still using legacy software

Good luck

**txtmstrjoe** · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

Blitz, good explanation.

For Win2k8 64-bit, the "physical" limit I think is just 2TB. I only know this because we started deploying the OS with our MSDN package at work for testing. Standard and Web Server are limited to 32GB, the rest is 2TB. Pretty crazy. It's funny we keep talking about 64-bit OS...you guys would be surprised on how many huge business/corps still use legacy software

Good luck

I for one am not.

Corporate environments tend to be very conservative in terms of allocating budgets for tech. The reason?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I believe this, more than anything, is the biggest reason so many (if not a good majority) of corporate IT environments have completely given Vista a pass. Think about it: Why spend money to replace something that works well enough for you? Whatever advances and improvements Vista may have over WinXP, IT divisions and departments don't want to go through the expense (in terms of finances as well as in man-hours spent on installing new OSes and software, not to mention the inevitable de-bugging that has to go on) when they don't have to.

blitz6804 · 05-17-09

I, for another, am not. Several of the jobs I worked for still ran some flavor of DOS, be it 5 or 6.

**thlnk3r** · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

I, for another, am not. Several of the jobs I worked for still ran some flavor of DOS, be it 5 or 6.

Blitz, ok that is just silly. Those users are still using the command base for what reason?

blitz6804 · 05-17-09

1) To save money in hardware
2) To save money in retraining users in a new interface

That is my thinking anyway.

Tator Tot · 05-17-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

Blitz, ok that is just silly. Those users are still using the command base for what reason?

The same reason some machines still pack Black & white pannels/screen in them.

They don't need more.

DOS can get a lot done. It just depends on what you want it to get done.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > AMD > AMD - General
The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
blitz6804