Vista x64 8GB + Video RAM?

Hello everyone,

This is my doubt,

I have 8GB RAM installed (max for my MoBo) and 2 Video Card 512MB.

So this will mean that my Vista Home Premium x64 have to deal with 9GB
RAM.

How can I be sure that it takes full advantage of all RAM?
In My Computer > property shows 8196MB RAM, my doubt is if really when
I am in Crossfire mode, my PC is able to use the 1024MB Video Ram to get
the best performance in 3D Game.

If somebody can give me a way to check and even better to allow Vista
to use all 9024MB it will be great.

Thks in advance foryour answers


--
PaxeSalute

If it is showing that much RAM already then rest assured it is using all of it.


Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums

You are well beyond Vista 64 RAM requirements. Vista 64 is not even
-close- to using all of that RAM. You've got nothing to be concerned
about. No need to tweak anything.


--
bistro

Please post back with results! Help others to learn!

intel q6600 cpu @ 3.2ghz - evga nforce 680i sli mobo - 4gb ocz reaper
pc2-8500 - vista ultimate 64-bit
two evga 8800 gts 320mb in sli - x-fi fatal1ty platinum champion
soundcard
harddrives: 150gb wd raptor, 320gb wd sata, 2x 500gb wd sata
pioneer 2810 dual layer sata dvd/cd writer
antec truepower quattro 850w psu - antec 900 gaming pc case - viewsonic
19\" va912b lcd monitor

bistro;680302 Wrote:
> You are well beyond Vista 64 RAM requirements. Vista 64 is not even
> -close- to using all of that RAM. You've got nothing to be concerned
> about. No need to tweak anything.


Thks Bistro and Jason,
I just wanted to make sure that Vista with 8GB RAM will not just forget
about the 2X512 Video RAM, because as you say it doesn't need 8GB memory
to run but my 3D games will make good use of the 1024MB video RAM.

Since my RAM Memories are DUAL Channel I think that I cannot just leave
6GB which will be enough to run Vista, and I certainly don't want to go
lower to 4GB RAM.

Thks


--
PaxeSalute

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:46:09 -0500, PaxeSalute
<PaxeSalute.37pv63@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:


> bistro;680302 Wrote:
> > You are well beyond Vista 64 RAM requirements. Vista 64 is not even
> > -close- to using all of that RAM. You've got nothing to be concerned
> > about. No need to tweak anything.
>
>
> Thks Bistro and Jason,
> I just wanted to make sure that Vista with 8GB RAM will not just forget
> about the 2X512 Video RAM, because as you say it doesn't need 8GB memory
> to run but my 3D games will make good use of the 1024MB video RAM.


Two points here:

1. It's not a matter of "Vista 64 RAM requirements." How much RAM you
need for good performance depends on what apps you run and how large
are the files you open with them. Although it's true that very few
people need as much as 8MB, depending on how *you* use your computer,
it's at least possible that you might.

2. You are apparently confused in your understanding of main memory
(your 8GB) and the 1GB video RAM. They are not the same and not used
in the same way at all. You can't add them together (as you did in
your original message) to get a total of 9GB because they are two
completely different resources. It's like apples and oranges.

Adding main memory and video memory together is sort of like adding
together the size of your hard drive and the capacity of your DVD
drive. They are used completely differently and separately, and their
sum is meaningless.

Yes, if you have 1GB of video RAM, your games (and everything else)
should use them properly. That's a lot of video RAM, and whether that
much will improve performance depends on what the games are, but not
being a player of computer games myself, I couldn't comment on what it
might do for you even if you told me what games they were.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

: Two points here:
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup[/quote Wrote:
>
>
> Thks Ken for the explanation, with your explanation I got clearly that
> my 8GB RAM won't limit the use of the 1024mb of Video Ram. (I had the
> doubt because I read for example that with XP x32 even if you had 4GB
> RAM install the OS will show only 3.5GB since it was subtracting other
> type of RAM present on the system.
> So I though my Vista x64 could do the same, but I saw that the Home
> Premium Version of Vista can manage till 16GB of RAM so I suppose my
> actual System is not limited with 8GB RAM)
>
> Thks again.
>
> Also I 'd like to take advantage of your expertise, I read that with
> enough RAM I should be able to put NO PAGING FILE active for my Vista
> x64, do you think 8GB will be enough to do so and not getting Crash? If
> not I have still the option to move my Paging File to my Second HDD with
> its' own partition.


--
PaxeSalute

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:17:43 -0500, PaxeSalute
<PaxeSalute.37rog0@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>
> : Two points here:
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup[/quote Wrote:



Is this your message below? It's very had to understand it as such
because it appears that for some reason you put a > sign in front of
every line. That makes it look like quoted material instead of
something you typed.


> > Thks Ken for the explanation, with your explanation I got clearly that
> > my 8GB RAM won't limit the use of the 1024mb of Video Ram. (I had the
> > doubt because I read for example that with XP x32 even if you had 4GB
> > RAM install the OS will show only 3.5GB since it was subtracting other
> > type of RAM present on the system.
> > So I though my Vista x64 could do the same, but I saw that the Home
> > Premium Version of Vista can manage till 16GB of RAM so I suppose my
> > actual System is not limited with 8GB RAM)
> >
> > Thks again.
> >
> > Also I 'd like to take advantage of your expertise, I read that with
> > enough RAM I should be able to put NO PAGING FILE active for my Vista
> > x64, do you think 8GB will be enough to do so and not getting Crash?



What you read is very much wrong. You should *never* disable the Page
File, no matter how much RAM you have. Windows preallocates memory to
the Page File in anticipation of possibly needing to use it. If you
disable the Page File, those allocations necessarily get made to real
memory instead, and the result is that you can never use that part of
your RAM.

Moreover, there is no possible benefit to disabling it. If it's not
needed, it won't be used. Disabling it can only hurt you, and never
help.


> > If
> > not I have still the option to move my Paging File to my Second HDD with
> > its' own partition.


If you have a second *physical* drive (not just a second partition),
moving it there is normally a good idea. Your objective should be to
minimize head movement to and from the page file, and the way to
accomplish that is to put it on the most-used partition of your
least-used physical drive. However if you move it away from C:, also
keep a small (200MB) page file on C:.

For more information on this, read this excellent article by the late
MVP, Alex Nichol: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Also note that with as much as 8GB of RAM, you will very likely never
(or hardly ever) use the page file at all, so any changes you make to
its settings will have no effect on your performance one way or
another. Still, I wouldn't disable it.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Thks you again Ken,

I will take good advise from your posts, keep the thinks as they are
since so far I did not experience performance problem with the
applications I use on this PC, mostly 3D games.

Thks again


--
PaxeSalute

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:42:46 -0500, PaxeSalute
<PaxeSalute.37rup0@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>
> Thks you again Ken,
>
> I will take good advise from your posts, keep the thinks as they are
> since so far I did not experience performance problem with the
> applications I use on this PC, mostly 3D games.


You're welcome. Glad to help.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Side question, same topic:

If I have 8 GB RAM, I no longer expect the pagefile to be accessed
(except the rare occassion.) What is the recommended size for this file that
will not be used?

The old thumbrule was one for one, or so (when systems were small,) but
if it is not being used, why would I let it default to 8GB in size?
As you stated, the idea is to keep head movement to a minimum. The size
alone is begining to defeat it's own purpose.

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
newsa3204di1jefu16h51h8ob74m787tm0o25@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:17:43 -0500, PaxeSalute
> <PaxeSalute.37rog0@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > : Two points here:
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup[/quote Wrote:
>
>
>
> Is this your message below? It's very had to understand it as such
> because it appears that for some reason you put a > sign in front of
> every line. That makes it look like quoted material instead of
> something you typed.
>
>
> > > Thks Ken for the explanation, with your explanation I got clearly that
> > > my 8GB RAM won't limit the use of the 1024mb of Video Ram. (I had the
> > > doubt because I read for example that with XP x32 even if you had 4GB
> > > RAM install the OS will show only 3.5GB since it was subtracting other
> > > type of RAM present on the system.
> > > So I though my Vista x64 could do the same, but I saw that the Home
> > > Premium Version of Vista can manage till 16GB of RAM so I suppose my
> > > actual System is not limited with 8GB RAM)
> > >
> > > Thks again.
> > >
> > > Also I 'd like to take advantage of your expertise, I read that with
> > > enough RAM I should be able to put NO PAGING FILE active for my Vista
> > > x64, do you think 8GB will be enough to do so and not getting Crash?
>
>
>
> What you read is very much wrong. You should *never* disable the Page
> File, no matter how much RAM you have. Windows preallocates memory to
> the Page File in anticipation of possibly needing to use it. If you
> disable the Page File, those allocations necessarily get made to real
> memory instead, and the result is that you can never use that part of
> your RAM.
>
> Moreover, there is no possible benefit to disabling it. If it's not
> needed, it won't be used. Disabling it can only hurt you, and never
> help.
>
>
> > > If
> > > not I have still the option to move my Paging File to my Second HDD
with
> > > its' own partition.
>
>
> If you have a second *physical* drive (not just a second partition),
> moving it there is normally a good idea. Your objective should be to
> minimize head movement to and from the page file, and the way to
> accomplish that is to put it on the most-used partition of your
> least-used physical drive. However if you move it away from C:, also
> keep a small (200MB) page file on C:.
>
> For more information on this, read this excellent article by the late
> MVP, Alex Nichol: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
>
> Also note that with as much as 8GB of RAM, you will very likely never
> (or hardly ever) use the page file at all, so any changes you make to
> its settings will have no effect on your performance one way or
> another. Still, I wouldn't disable it.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup