Installing 64-bit Vi$ta on Intel motherboard with >2G RAM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)
  • Start date Start date
No because you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No point arguing with me. Tell it to Microsoft. If you think
Microsoft is wrong about that, please explain why you think that
Microsoft is wrong.

In other words, my stating that 1.5GB of RAM is where Vista maxes out,
performance wise, is not my opinion. It is a fact, according to
Microsoft. But if Microsoft is wrong on that, it wouldn't shock me too
much. -Dave
 
PLenty of other sites that do benchmarking have said different,
that's all.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...I'd be interested to know what software was running other than
the benchmark software. According to Microsoft, Vista will not run any
better if you install more than 1.5GB of RAM. You can slow down Vista
by giving it LESS than 1.5GB of RAM, but you can't speed it up by
adding more RAM to it, if you are at 1.5GB already. But obviously
there are some applications that can use more than 1.5GB of RAM.
It's just that your average home user (or even gamer) doesn't even
know what these apps. ARE, let alone need to run them. :) -Dave
 
You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly 1.5GB
of physical RAM. Right? -Dave
Click to expand...

Actually, I am referring to KB 929777. I don't have an Intel
motherboard to verify it. SO I asked.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.6
^ ^ 12:24:01 up 2:18 2 users load average: 1.01 1.10 1.06
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
Can you supply a reference (link) to that?
Click to expand...

It's built into Vista. If you run Vista (I triple boot Vista home
premium), run the performance index. It'll give you a numerical rating
of your hardware, based on the "weakest link". In other words, if your
video card scores 4, it's not going to matter that your hard drive
scored 6, your performance rating of your hardware will be 4. You
achieve top score in RAM with exactly 1.5GB, and a lower score
(variable) with less than 1.5GB. In other words, 2GB or 4GB or 8GB is
no better than 1.5GB, according to Vista (aka Microsoft programmers).

But then I've never seen a 1.5GB stick of RAM. So for the average
computer builder, I'd suggest using exactly 2GB of RAM (1 or 2
sticks). Even if you are a gamer, as no game written so far is going
to use that much RAM anyway. -Dave
 
No point arguing with me. Tell it to Microsoft. If you think
Microsoft is wrong about that, please explain why you think that
Microsoft is wrong.

In other words, my stating that 1.5GB of RAM is where Vista maxes out,
performance wise, is not my opinion. It is a fact, according to
Microsoft. But if Microsoft is wrong on that, it wouldn't shock me too
much. -Dave
Click to expand...
PLenty of other sites that do benchmarking have said different, that's
all.
 
Hmmmm...I'd be interested to know what software was running other than
the benchmark software.
Click to expand...

These were mostly gaming sites and I suppose gaming is software most
likely to hammer a system.
 
Dave said:
It's built into Vista. If you run Vista (I triple boot Vista home
premium), run the performance index. It'll give you a numerical rating
of your hardware, based on the "weakest link". In other words, if your
video card scores 4, it's not going to matter that your hard drive
scored 6,
Click to expand...

Firstly level 6.0 of the Windows Experience Index hasn't been defined yet.
Currently 5.9 is the highest achievable score.
your performance rating of your hardware will be 4. You
achieve top score in RAM with exactly 1.5GB, and a lower score
(variable) with less than 1.5GB. In other words, 2GB or 4GB or 8GB is
no better than 1.5GB, according to Vista (aka Microsoft programmers).
Click to expand...

I believe you have misinterpreted the intention of the WEI and RAM ratings.
The WEI rates the RAM on bandwidth (or access speed if you will) but because
not having enough RAM degrades system performance the WEI also constrains
the
results depending on rhe amount of physical RAM available to the Operating
System.

The memory sub-score
Less than 256 MB scores 1.0
Less than 500 MB scores 2.0
512 MB or less scores 2.9
Less than 704 MB scores 3.5
Less than 960 MB scores 3.9
Less than 1.5 GB scores 4.5

The base score itself is supposed to be used as a guide to indicate how well
your system will run the eye candy in Vista itself and for software vendors
to put on the boxes to indicate minimum and recommended hardware
requirements to run the software. Obviously it was an idea that didn't take
off.
I've got a super duper high speed bells and whistles graphics card that
scores exactly the same WEI (5.9 max) as a mediocre graphics card
But then I've never seen a 1.5GB stick of RAM. So for the average
computer builder, I'd suggest using exactly 2GB of RAM (1 or 2
sticks). Even if you are a gamer, as no game written so far is going
to use that much RAM anyway.
Click to expand...

If you peruse the Windows physical memory limitations here you will see that
in Windows 32-bit under default conditions the Kernel (or Windows itself) is
limited to 2GB of address space. Each 32-bit user process (or program) is
also limited to 2GB of address space along with the usual 4GB total
addressable physical memory limitation.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista
 
On an Asus P5E, 64-bit Vista installed fine with 4GB RAM installed.
That's an Intel X38 chipset.
Click to expand...

Without SP1?

Gee.. so that 3G RAM bug is limited to Nvidia chipset.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.6
^ ^ 18:04:01 up 2 days 7:58 2 users load average: 1.00 1.02 1.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) said:
Without SP1?
Click to expand...

Yes months ago before sp1 was released.
Gee.. so that 3G RAM bug is limited to Nvidia chipset.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is restricted to nVidia chipsets but the kb article
mentions 32bit direct memory access controllers, Storport miniport driver
and more than 3GB of RAM as the conditions required for the problem to occur
when installing Vista.
 
Firstly level 6.0 of the Windows Experience Index hasn't been defined yet.
Currently 5.9 is the highest achievable score.
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot that, as it's been a while since I've run it. But this
machine gets 5.9, with 2GB of RAM.
I believe you have misinterpreted the intention of the WEI and RAM
ratings.
The WEI rates the RAM on bandwidth (or access speed if you will) but
because
not having enough RAM degrades system performance the WEI also constrains
the
results depending on rhe amount of physical RAM available to the Operating
System.

The memory sub-score
Less than 256 MB scores 1.0
Less than 500 MB scores 2.0
512 MB or less scores 2.9
Less than 704 MB scores 3.5
Less than 960 MB scores 3.9
Less than 1.5 GB scores 4.5
Click to expand...

OK, but... is there any RAM sold today that is slow enough to drop below 5.9
if you have 1.5GB or more of it installed? I don't believe so. So my
point still stands. If you have 1.5GB, you aren't going to increase system
performance by adding more.

If you peruse the Windows physical memory limitations here you will see
that in Windows 32-bit under default conditions the Kernel (or Windows
itself) is limited to 2GB of address space. Each 32-bit user process (or
program) is also limited to 2GB of address space along with the usual 4GB
total addressable physical memory limitation.
Click to expand...

So that would seem to suggest that 2GB is the most that should be used for
Windows, anyway. -Dave
 
Dave said:
Yes, I forgot that, as it's been a while since I've run it. But this
machine gets 5.9, with 2GB of RAM.


OK, but... is there any RAM sold today that is slow enough to drop below
5.9 if you have 1.5GB or more of it installed? I don't believe so. So
my point still stands. If you have 1.5GB, you aren't going to increase
system performance by adding more.



So that would seem to suggest that 2GB is the most that should be used for
Windows, anyway.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the extra system performance gained from being able to do
everything in RAM and relying very little on writing to the page file.
An example of extra RAM increasing system performance. My current system
with 8GB of RAM. Simultaneous programs open.
Windows can have the full use of 2GB. Photoshop can have 2GB. Dreamweaver
can have 2GB. Another specific program I use can have 2GB.
 
Back
Top