32 bit and 64 bit RAM access

If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
than 2 GB?
Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?

Hi Alan,

A 32-bit version of Vista can only access a maximum of 3.7GB of physical
memory that it can access (the rest of the 4GB address space is taken up by
the minimum page file allocation, which should be left as 'System Managed').
For practical purposes, I would recommend a maximum physical RAM size of 2GB
for 32-bit versions. The 64-bit versions do not have this limitation, so if
you have this version you can access much more memory and can fill your
motherboard up to its total memory capacity.
Dwarf


"Alan T" wrote:

> If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
> than 2 GB?
> Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?
>
>
>

Dwarf,

I'm curious why you wouldn't recommend 3Gb of RAM rather than only 2GB for
32 bit systems.
Is there a particular reason?

Cheers

"Dwarf" <> wrote in message
news4E1F510-43D8-4D62-A86A-...
> Hi Alan,
>
> A 32-bit version of Vista can only access a maximum of 3.7GB of physical
> memory that it can access (the rest of the 4GB address space is taken up
> by
> the minimum page file allocation, which should be left as 'System
> Managed').
> For practical purposes, I would recommend a maximum physical RAM size of
> 2GB
> for 32-bit versions. The 64-bit versions do not have this limitation, so
> if
> you have this version you can access much more memory and can fill your
> motherboard up to its total memory capacity.
> Dwarf
>
>
> "Alan T" wrote:
>
>> If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
>> than 2 GB?
>> Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?
>>
>>
>>

In message <4DDF5041-4187-45FE-B5B9->
"Rutetuti" <> wrote:

>I'm curious why you wouldn't recommend 3Gb of RAM rather than only 2GB for
>32 bit systems.
>Is there a particular reason?

2GB keeps you in dual-channel mode (although technically 2x1GB+2x512MB
sticks would get you in dual-channel mode on some chipsets)

Most users don't even need 2GB though, so upgrading beyond that is
usually less useful, especially if you're upgrading because your
existing RAM is all in use (Vista tries it's best to use all RAM, so
having most/all of your RAM in use isn't always a bad thing)

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

Hi Rutetuti,

The reason that I recommend 2GB rather than 3GB in 32-bit systems is to do
with bandwidth. The bandwidth of a single stick of DDR PC3200 is 3200 Mb/sec
(single channel mode). In a dual channel configuration, this doubles to 6400
Mb/sec. This makes for a much more responsive system. This only works if the
memory is balanced - any inbalance (different module capacity, number of
slots occupied per channel) will cause the system to work in single channel
mode. Of course, if your system doesn't support dual channel memory you can
use 3GB of RAM.
Dwarf

"Rutetuti" wrote:

> Dwarf,
>
> I'm curious why you wouldn't recommend 3Gb of RAM rather than only 2GB for
> 32 bit systems.
> Is there a particular reason?
>
> Cheers
>
> "Dwarf" <> wrote in message
> news4E1F510-43D8-4D62-A86A-...
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > A 32-bit version of Vista can only access a maximum of 3.7GB of physical
> > memory that it can access (the rest of the 4GB address space is taken up
> > by
> > the minimum page file allocation, which should be left as 'System
> > Managed').
> > For practical purposes, I would recommend a maximum physical RAM size of
> > 2GB
> > for 32-bit versions. The 64-bit versions do not have this limitation, so
> > if
> > you have this version you can access much more memory and can fill your
> > motherboard up to its total memory capacity.
> > Dwarf
> >
> >
> > "Alan T" wrote:
> >
> >> If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
> >> than 2 GB?
> >> Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:47:05 +1000, "Alan T"
<> wrote:

> If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
> than 2 GB?


No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Two points.

1. All 32-bit versions of Windows, even though they have a 4GB address
space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that
space is used by hardware and not available to the operating system
and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what
hardware you have installed, but is usually around 3.1GB. But I've
seen numbers as high as 3.7GB.

2. That means that 3.1 *may* be an improvement over 2GB. If 3.1GB is
better than 2GB, then 4GB is also better than 2GB (but not better than
3.1GB, or however much of the 4GB your computer can use).

Note that I say "*may* be an improvement." Despite what many people
think, more RAM is *not* always better. It's true only up to a point.
You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from
using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Once you
stop using the page file, adding more RAM does almost nothing for you.
That's true, not only in Vista, but in all versions of Windows.

Most people running Windows Vista, unless they perform particularly
memory-hungry tasks like video or large photo-editing, will see little
or no improvement past 2GB.


> Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?


64-bit Windows will let you use the full 4GB--and more. Whether that
translates into better performance, again depends on what apps you
run. For most people, as I said above, that much RAM is overkill, and
simply a waste of money.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Dwarf wrote:
> Hi Rutetuti,
>
> The reason that I recommend 2GB rather than 3GB in 32-bit systems is to do
> with bandwidth. The bandwidth of a single stick of DDR PC3200 is 3200 Mb/sec
> (single channel mode). In a dual channel configuration, this doubles to 6400
> Mb/sec. This makes for a much more responsive system. This only works if the
> memory is balanced - any inbalance (different module capacity, number of
> slots occupied per channel) will cause the system to work in single channel
> mode. Of course, if your system doesn't support dual channel memory you can
> use 3GB of RAM.
> Dwarf
>

But of course, if you install 4GB, and Windows only sees 3.5GB, you have
1.5GB more than if you only installed 2GB, and you still have dual channel

On Oct 9, 3:16 am, Dwarf <Dw...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> A 32-bit version of Vista can only access a maximum of 3.7GB of physical
> memory that it can access (the rest of the 4GB address space is taken up by
> the minimum page file allocation, which should be left as 'System Managed').
> For practical purposes, I would recommend a maximum physical RAM size of 2GB
> for 32-bit versions. The 64-bit versions do not have this limitation, so if
> you have this version you can access much more memory and can fill your
> motherboard up to its total memory capacity.
> Dwarf
>
>
>
> "Alan T" wrote:
> > If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
> > than 2 GB?
> > Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Go with that!

"Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:47:05 +1000, "Alan T"
> <> wrote:
>
>> If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
>> than 2 GB?
>
>
> No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Two points.
>
> 1. All 32-bit versions of Windows, even though they have a 4GB address
> space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that
> space is used by hardware and not available to the operating system
> and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what
> hardware you have installed, but is usually around 3.1GB. But I've
> seen numbers as high as 3.7GB.

I get 3582MB of RAM with my 4GB 32-bit system. I have a 320MB graphics card

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:14:04 GMT, "Brian W"
<> wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:47:05 +1000, "Alan T"
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >> If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
> >> than 2 GB?
> >
> >
> > No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Two points.
> >
> > 1. All 32-bit versions of Windows, even though they have a 4GB address
> > space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that
> > space is used by hardware and not available to the operating system
> > and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what
> > hardware you have installed, but is usually around 3.1GB. But I've
> > seen numbers as high as 3.7GB.
>
> I get 3582MB of RAM with my 4GB 32-bit system. I have a 320MB graphics card


As I said, it varies. 3.5GB is very good, more than most people would
get.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup