Vista/XP 64 - better RAM utilization?

Hello

I have read a number of threads on various forums regarding the fac
that XP/Vista 64 and other 64-bit OS's can, in some cases and with som
tinkering, access more RAM than the 32-bit versions. There must be
million sites out there explaining why the 32-bit versions cannot acces
more than around 2.5 or 3 gb. I am yet to find a site, though, tha
demonstrates objective performance improvements in the 64-bit version
as a result of adding additional RAM - more than, say, 3 or 4 gb. Ha
anyone done any objective comparisons or observed any measurabl
improvements with the 64-bit operating systems by using addtional RA
above what can be seen in 32 bit versions? I am using 2 gb of RAM and
know I may get a slight improvement with an additional 1gb in 32-bi
versions, but what about going up to,say, 8 gb or more in 64-bi
versions

--
archp2008

Hi,

In brief: The only time extra ram available in a 64-bit OS will be useful is
when programs are written to take advantage of it. By far, the vast majority
of software currently available to the consumer market is still 32-bit, and
cannot utilize the extra memory. The problem arises in the memory addresses,
as 32-bit programs cannot use the upper memory addresses, so when they are
loaded they must be placed in the lower range, bumping out anything that
currently exists there.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
Vote for my shoe: http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"archp2008" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Hello,
>
> I have read a number of threads on various forums regarding the fact
> that XP/Vista 64 and other 64-bit OS's can, in some cases and with some
> tinkering, access more RAM than the 32-bit versions. There must be a
> million sites out there explaining why the 32-bit versions cannot access
> more than around 2.5 or 3 gb. I am yet to find a site, though, that
> demonstrates objective performance improvements in the 64-bit versions
> as a result of adding additional RAM - more than, say, 3 or 4 gb. Has
> anyone done any objective comparisons or observed any measurable
> improvements with the 64-bit operating systems by using addtional RAM
> above what can be seen in 32 bit versions? I am using 2 gb of RAM and I
> know I may get a slight improvement with an additional 1gb in 32-bit
> versions, but what about going up to,say, 8 gb or more in 64-bit
> versions?
>
>
> --
> archp2008

"Rick Rogers" <> schreef in bericht
news:...
> Hi,
>
> In brief: The only time extra ram available in a 64-bit OS will be useful
> is when programs are written to take advantage of it. By far, the vast
> majority of software currently available to the consumer market is still
> 32-bit, and cannot utilize the extra memory. The problem arises in the
> memory addresses, as 32-bit programs cannot use the upper memory
> addresses, so when they are loaded they must be placed in the lower range,
> bumping out anything that currently exists there.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

With 64 bit Windows each 32 bit program can use up to 4GB address space.
For compatibility reasons programs must be marked to use more then 2GB (the
same is true on 32 bit windows).

I don't know wat you mean by bumping out. Addresses are local to a process
and you can have multiple 32 bit programs running at the same time, that use
4GB of memory each (and without swapping if you have enough RAM on your
system).

Windows also uses RAM for caching files. So even if the active programs
don't use more then 3Gb, performance can be increased by using the extra
memory for caching.

Greetings,
Hans.

Thanks for the replies. I was beginning to assume what Rick had said.
I would like to know if anyone has actually measured the benefits o
increased RAM when multitasking or increasing cache size in 64-bi
compared to 32-bit. I'm wondering, for example, how much faster task
basic tasks would be with background video encoding in 64-bit Vista o
XP compared to 2 or 3 gb in 32-bit versions. I'm using a Pentium D 3.
GHz processor on an Asus P5B-VM motherboard. Right now I'm lucky to b
able to do anything else while video encoding and burning withou
risking errors or crashes. My 64-bit systems seem to be working bette
at the moment, but I suspect it's only because there is more disk spac
on the latter partitions. I haven't tried additional RAM above 3gb

--
archp2008