Question: 4GB Limit on a 32-Bit System

[Neth'zul]

I agree with all that DS had just said lol

[ace_012]

O wow, I'm sorry didn't know sarcasm wasn't accepted on this forum. I was just kidding, included quotes to make it obvious and still get flammed for just trying to be funny.

[dave_57204]

64 bit system ftw. Spend the couple extar bucks its well worth it. bottleneck ftl

[Dragonshadow]

64 bit system ftw. Spend the couple extar bucks its well worth it. bottleneck ftl

AGREED!

The only thing that doesn't work on my 64bit system is a halo 1.0 game trainer xD! Thats it!

[KuRIoS]

Learn what mutliboxing is before you make a stupid statement like that.

Multiboxing is the act of playing two or more characters (in world of warcraft specifically) at the same time.

You can't multibox crysis.

`you can multibox any game u like.

Wait till apoc or cypher gives their response in this thread, they should be able to guide u in the right section, I'm guessing windows server 2008.

[Dragonshadow]

`you can multibox any game u like.

Wait till apoc or cypher gives their response in this thread, they should be able to guide u in the right section, I'm guessing windows server 2008.

No you c- Nevermind, arguing with an admin is a recipe for disaster.

Server 2008 Enterprise x64 FTW!

[Apoc]

It really depends on the game you plan on playing. Overall, Server 2008 Enterprise x64 will perform the best. However, on more 2D heavy games, XP x64 will perform better (not including line tests, which is just something I've always found weird, it's better on x32).

My current rig uses Server 2k8 Enterprise x64, with 16GB of RAM and a nice CPU. I can multi-box WoW with (on average) 25-26 clients open, and getting 30+ FPS, with 60+ FPS on my main client. (All clients except for the main are at 200x150, main is 1440x900)

On to the point of the whole thread: x32 vs. x64 or the memory between them.

Quoted from some page I already lost the link to...

Well X86 is an Intel chip designation. X32 and X64 relate to the memory addressing ability. X32 allows 32bit addressing whereas X64 allows 64bit addressing. 32bit addressing will allow you to address up to 2048 Megs of memory and 64bit addressing allow you to address many times that. The operating system must be written to the specific addressing scheme. As operating systems get larger and larger and less efficient and you add the program requirements that are getting larger they overwhelm the memory. When you reach the limitations of your memory you only have two basic options. One increase your physical memory or two increase your virtual memory and degrade your system speed by increased swap file usage.

This turns into the following:

x32 systems can address 2^32 bits of memory at a time. (4096 MB, or roughly 4GB)

x64 systems can address 2^64 bits of memory at a time. (2199023255552 MB, or roughly 2147483648GB)

As you can see, the difference is pretty insane. Although no known OS can currently use ALL of x64's memory, it is capable of doing a lot.

Now, in the case of x32 systems, you usually see a 1GB loss in memory (if you have 4GB installed). This is usually due to your OS pre-allocating memory for kernel functions, so you don't end up running out of RAM to do required kernel level things.

However! Just because you have 3GB visible, you'll usually have more due to virtual memory (not going to bother going into it), and 'disk memory'. (Sorry, can't think of the proper term atm, really tired.)

Hope that helps a bit.

[Dragonshadow]

It really depends on the game you plan on playing. Overall, Server 2008 Enterprise x64 will perform the best. However, on more 2D heavy games, XP x64 will perform better (not including line tests, which is just something I've always found weird, it's better on x32).

My current rig uses Server 2k8 Enterprise x64, with 16GB of RAM and a nice CPU. I can multi-box WoW with (on average) 25-26 clients open, and getting 30+ FPS, with 60+ FPS on my main client. (All clients except for the main are at 200x150, main is 1440x900)

On to the point of the whole thread: x32 vs. x64 or the memory between them.

Quoted from some page I already lost the link to...


This turns into the following:

x32 systems can address 2^32 bits of memory at a time. (4096 MB, or roughly 4GB)

x64 systems can address 2^64 bits of memory at a time. (2199023255552 MB, or roughly 2147483648GB)

As you can see, the difference is pretty insane. Although no known OS can currently use ALL of x64's memory, it is capable of doing a lot.

Now, in the case of x32 systems, you usually see a 1GB loss in memory (if you have 4GB installed). This is usually due to your OS pre-allocating memory for kernel functions, so you don't end up running out of RAM to do required kernel level things.

However! Just because you have 3GB visible, you'll usually have more due to virtual memory (not going to bother going into it), and 'disk memory'. (Sorry, can't think of the proper term atm, really tired.)

Hope that helps a bit.

But (If I may add on), when you access your virtual memory (also known as a page file), it "pages" your hard drive (Reads/Writes to it). Hard drives are immensely slow compared to RAM, and as such, paging slows down your computer.

I used to have an old computer with only 1, 1.5GB ram, but it's page file was 3-5GB (can't remember exact). Well, that bitch paged like a madman, the system stutters were bad enough, but the constant hard-drive grinding was worse xD.

So yeah, go with x64, more ram = less paging = less stutter.

Just my input, hope I didn't fudge anything Apoc, I just woke up :P

And buy the way, it is x86, not x32 :P

[Apoc]

But (If I may add on), when you access your virtual memory (also known as a page file), it "pages" your hard drive (Reads/Writes to it). Hard drives are immensely slow compared to RAM, and as such, paging slows down your computer.

I used to have an old computer with only 1, 1.5GB ram, but it's page file was 3-5GB (can't remember exact). Well, that bitch paged like a madman, the system stutters were bad enough, but the constant hard-drive grinding was worse xD.

So yeah, go with x64, more ram = less paging = less stutter.

Just my input, hope I didn't fudge anything Apoc, I just woke up :P

And buy the way, it is x86, not x32 :P

Check again. It's 32 bit and 64 bit. (Hence the x32 and x64).

Originally this code referred to Intel's x86 series of CPUs (eg. 286, 386, 486) but now refers to the underlying architecture and instruction set that handles 32-bit integer operations in a modern desktop CPU.

Taken from here: YouGamers - Hardware - Hardware Dictionary - V - Z

Again, too lazy to explain myself.

x86 is just an easy way of encompassing x32 and x64 under the same erm... 'structure' for lack of a better word.

[Dragonshadow]

Check again. It's 32 bit and 64 bit. (Hence the x32 and x64).



Taken from here: YouGamers - Hardware - Hardware Dictionary - V - Z

Again, too lazy to explain myself.

x86 is just an easy way of encompassing x32 and x64 under the same erm... 'structure' for lack of a better word.

It has always been (for as long as I've used a computer) X86 (32bit), X86_64 (32bit with 64bit extensions, "un-pure 64bit", the normal for all current OS's 'cept for a few linux distros), and X64 ("Pure" 64bit)

/Argue.

Edit:

Originally this code referred to Intel's x86 series of CPUs (eg. 286, 386, 486) but now refers to the underlying architecture and instruction set that handles 32-bit integer operations in a modern desktop CPU.

Um, yeah. That still doesn't mean it is x32.

[Cern]

Just dont get over 4.2GB.
Why? => 2^32 = 4294967296 (bit)

[ace_012]

I myself don't refer to 32-bit as x32. Mostly refer to 32bit as x86 and 64 bit as x64. At least, in some things such as certain copies of a Vista installation (that installs either 32 bit or 64 bit) it will be referred to as x86 and x64. I've also never heard of x86-64 being referred to as 32bit either. I've always thought it meant 64bit. Not sure what you mean by pure 64 bit either. I will look it up to make sure I am right

A x32 is a type of fighter jet, also. (pointless info)

Ah see, if wikipedia is also right, x86-64 is 64bit, same thing as x64.

As the x86 term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies a binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit x86-16 or from the newer 64-bit x86-64 (also called x64).

[Dragonshadow]

I myself don't refer to 32-bit as x32. Mostly refer to 32bit as x86 and 64 bit as x64. At least, in some things such as certain copies of a Vista installation (that installs either 32 bit or 64 bit) it will be referred to as x86 and x64. I've also never heard of x86-64 being referred to as 32bit either. I've always thought it meant 64bit. Not sure what you mean by pure 64 bit either. I will look it up to make sure I am right

A x32 is a type of fighter jet, also. (pointless info)

Ah see, if wikipedia is also right, x86-64 is 64bit, same thing as x64.

I didn't mean x86_64 was 32bit, its 32bit with 64bit extensions, otherwise known as unpure 64bit. All current 64bit OS's (with the exception of some linux distros" are x86_64. They can run 32bit apps right alongside 64bit apps.

A pure 64bit (-just- x64) OS can't run 32bit apps.

Hope I cleared that up. I'll edit my post.