![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should 32bit OS users avoid 4870X2?
- Thread starter Conman
- Start date
Oh God damnit just upgrade to 64-bit and stop bitching. Join the 64-bit revolution before we all murder you.
Seriously. This post may be hyperbole but it's basically the level of "meh" those of us who have been running 64-bit for a long time now have for threads like this. All you have to do is search for video in the memory subforum.
These threads are as effective as QQ threads in the Mage Forum at WoW Forums. You'll always get the same answers and nobody really gives a shit after the 100th new thread. The topic has been done to death.
Should be fine. Wont make a difference with the ram limitations as you wont need more then 2gigs for most things these days. I'm holding on to XP for a while, when I can't use it anymore I am likely to become a console only gamer as I can't stand the new windows stuff.
It looks like there is a bit of mess in this thread. My personal experience, the 4870 X2 as has been stated numerous times does not have a shared frame buffer, therefore the 2GB of memory that it carries will decrease the amount of system ram available in 32-bit windows by 2GB.
Hardware requirements - This many have been of concern in 2006 when Vista luanched..But it runs fine on any system with a 128MB DX9 card or better and 2GB of RAM. Can't blame Microsoft if your P3-800 MHz with 256MB of RAM doesn't run Vista.
Licensing and cost - Agree about the US vs UK/EU costs. I ordered my copy from the US since it cost about half as much as it does in Sweden. Home Premium is all you need and it's not that expensive in the US
Digital rights management - Yes it "supports" new DRM, but you don't need to use it. Vista will play your pirated movies just fine.
User Account Control - It's a good feature IMO, but you can always disable it if you don't like it.
Also, check out the Windows Supersite to get the other side of the story..
Quit spreading FUD.
How is XP the de facto standard for gaming when you can't run DX10 on it? Reviewers use Vista because you need it to run all available tests out there. Performance-wise it's about the same as XP nowadays.
If you really want to avoid Vista for whatever reason, then there's XP 64-bit. Use that and quit spreading FUD.
Chameleoki
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 479
No. It's addressable space. Vista 32bit has only an allowed max of 4 GB. Thus, if you have 4 GB RAM, 2 GB video then max "free" ram is 2 GB Video + 2 GB RAM (out of 4) to reach the 4 GB limit. Thus, since it can only use 2GB out of your 4GB of RAM, you only have 2 GB for O/S, apps, etc.
If you have Vista 64bit, it can address 16GB. So if you had 8GB RAM, you have 2GB Video + 8 GB RAM and it's still under the 16 GB limit. So you will have 8 GB free for O/S, apps, etc.
You just have a maximum addressable memory limit. Video goes in FIRST. Then RAM up unto the limit.
Clear as mud?
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,462
You obviously know nothing about addressable memory. Let me enlighten you...
Granted, a 32-bit OS will NOT take memory from the video card. However, if a person has 4 or more GB of system memory, whatever is on the video card will push that same amount out of the system memory to make it work.
Look at the machine in my sig. In XP x64, all 6GB of my system memory is there. However, under Vista x86, only 4GB is addressable (obviously). Now, my video card has 512MB.
So, after the OS can only address about 3.75GB of memory, the video card's 512MB shoves that memory down to only 3.25GB of available memory. If I put in a 256MB card, then I have 3.5GB of system memory.
So if I were to put in a 2GB video card, only 1.75GB of system memory would be addressable. This may cause some problems with a few games (not big problems or anything, but the system may be starved of memory).
So, using a 64-bit OS with this card is advisable.
I don't think so, from what I understand of programing you are only addressing 1gb, that is that is what you write to. the other 1gb is a mirror image of the 1st and shares the same addresses. so as far as windows is concerned it the video card takes up 1gb
Not entirely true.
Vista Basic: 8 GB
Vista Home Premium: 16 GB
Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate: 128+ GB
Source: http://compreviews.about.com/od/memory/a/Vista4GB.htm
So technically you can have way more than just 16 GB.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
I think ATI's changed that to where both GPU's share all the ram on the card. I'm not sure though.
funnily enough, i did run vista on a 800Mhz P3 with 512MB of ram..
ran suprisingly well, and with an fx5200.. it actually seemed a bit smoother than XP.
the only problem i had with it was the boot time being 3x longer.
i did this when doing the powercooler worst gaming PC evar contest. came in 2nd =/ 1 point behind some dude who's multiplier and FSB didnt match the total speed of his rig.. pissed me off a bit.
no that rumor was false. (unfortunately) its still the mirrored memory setup
you know this entire thread would be unnecessary if they made introduction to ANSI C a mandatory class. I am surprised at how far we are from the hardware now, the degree that we work on such an abstracted platform is actually a little disconcerting here.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
Going on 64-bit addressing space alone, you can have up to of 17,179,869,184GB of addressable memory. Current hardware though (If I remember right) has a 44-bit limitation that knocks that down to 16,777,216GB of addressable memory. So instead of a physical hardware issue that 32-bit OS's encounter, 64-bit OS's are artificially limited.
I understand that they are artificially limited, but I was merely pointing out that what he said was false because not every version of Vista 64 has the same memory limitations.
Chameleoki
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 479
Yes, I was actually using just a low arbitrary number for the example but that is a good point for clarification sake in case someone wanted over 16 for video editing or something.
Hell, my wifes kitchen computer is running Vista Home Basic and it is a P4 3.0Ghz with 2gb DDR233 and onboard shit video and it runs fine. Some of you just need something to hate.
That is a little pretentious of you. I know C very well, but if you want to understand memory and addressing you play with ASM. The moniker of C being a high level assembler is bullocks and doesn't give C programmers the right to call them self memory masters. I highly doubt you know as much as you think you know.
The key is to have 2GB of RAM to be able to do some multitasking and to give Superfetch some room to work its magic. "Onboard shit video" is enough - my old lappy with a 128MB 9600 Mobility ran Aero fine.
So it shows up as a 1GB card and only takes up that much of the addressable space?
So basically from what I can gather from people respouting the same crap is that if you are running XP with 2gb of ram you should still be able to make full use of the 4870X2 and therefore there is no need for 32bit OS users to avoid the 4870X2.
I did program in assembler code. though if I came off as such I apologize, even if your taking things way to seriously.
However I still stand buy my point, we are very far removed form the hardware now, back when I did actually program you HAD to be able to do such things if you were doing anything more then a com file. now days people configure systems and write programs (beyond anything I ever did) with almost no knowledge of the underpinnings. Or at least that is my impression of it (to be less pretentious as you put) Looking at this thread it seems so as well.
one of these day I am going to sit down and learn some of the visual tools
That hasn't been my experience.
yes. 2gb is plenty for xp. the 4870X2 should only take 1gb + misc system leaving you with around 2.5 to 3gb available addressing.
you will of course be missing direct x 10, not that it does much but it might limit the games you play in the future.
*facedesk* Some people in here truly are the definition of EPIC FAIL.
2+2=4. Yet you cannot seem to figure out why if what you all keep saying is true, your PC doesn't report 2.6GB of memory when you have 2GB and an 8800GTS 640MB. Not a one of you has any concept of how peripheral device memory - or even SYSTEM DRAM is addressed, either.
This is exactly why I recommend ignoring the "experts" on the internet.
2+2=4. Yet you cannot seem to figure out why if what you all keep saying is true, your PC doesn't report 2.6GB of memory when you have 2GB and an 8800GTS 640MB. Not a one of you has any concept of how peripheral device memory - or even SYSTEM DRAM is addressed, either.
This is exactly why I recommend ignoring the "experts" on the internet.
You good sir have no idea what address space is or how it works. Even though the system memory and the video card memory aren't one and the same, they are still using up addresses (so are your PCI buses, IDE/SATA buses, etc.), and the 4GiB limit applies to them. Please, stop taking before you hurt yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_address
OP, basically, you may be a little limited, but you should be fine. PAE makes the issue transparent but you might not get full use out of the video memory. Though I see no reason NOT to move to a 64-bit OS if you have the opportunity (64-bit Vista is just as well supported as 32-bit).
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
Why in the world would a system report 2.6GB of System RAM if you only had 2GB. Why do you think we're saying that it would? In order to access the memory on a video card, it has to be mapped into the useable address space, which is 4GB. It doesn't get counted as part of system memory because it's not system memory, but it's still taking address space. That means that less system memory can be addressed.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
The real question is "Should 4870x2 users avoid a 32bit OS?". I think they prolly should. Games coming out in the near future are prolly going to start taxing the 2.5 to 3gigs of ram Vista32/Xp32 will have available after the video card and system gets done taking up the mappable space.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
no. there's no reason to. It only takes up 1GB of address space. That still leaves 2.5-3GB free for system memory. XP and most apps behave very well with 2GB of RAM.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
Most apps, yeah, they will behave fine. I am thinking that games will start needing or at least wanting more than 2.5 gigs in the near future. And the 4870x2 is a high end gaming card, so one would expect that people buying them intend to play the latest titles on them.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
and at some point they'll want 3, then 4, then 5, then 8. If it gets to the point that games require that much RAM to run decently, then yeah I'd agree. But we're not there yet. Even then, it's not like the OS it melted into the system and the users can't upgrade to 64-bit should the need arise.
2+2 may equal 4, but it has no relevancy at all to what is being discussed.
It's one thing to say everyone in the entire thread is wrong. It's another thing to say that none of us have any concept about how memory mapping works, since many of us (including myself) are computer scientists and actually know a fucking thing or two about what we're saying.
No, Windows XP doesn't report 2.6GB of memory when you have 2GB and a 8800GTS 640MB. Duh. It's not system memory. When you have 4GB of memory on a 32-bit OS, though, the OS will subtract memory for a needed memory hole, which is more or less a limitation in the operating system left over from the DOS days to make everything compatible. The memory hole exists between the 3GB and 4GB range, where mapped memory addresses are essentially much larger than they used to be underneath the 3GB barrier. What's worse, these mapped memory addresses balloon in size when using devices which would use more mapped memory anyway (makes sense).
We can see mapped memory in systems with 3GB of memory or lower too - however, the mapped memory only takes up at most maybe 3MB of system memory. You can understand why we don't notice it. But it also explains why people with 1GB of memory (1024MB) will see it as 1021MB.
However, none of these problems exist if you don't have more than 3GB of memory because the memory hole does not exist. So, if you're that concerned about memory in Windows XP with a 4870x2, only having 3GB of memory will solve your problem.
The problem is also fine if you just switch to a 64-bit OS. There aren't any OSs that support the maximum right now (16 million terrabytes of memory) but if there were, the memory hole would also be there, but it wouldn't exist until you got close to 12 million terrabytes of system ram. So I think we're good for a while.
In conclusion... you, sir, are the very definition of "epic fail."
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,462
Arrogance at it's finest.
You obviously have no clue about addressable memory or how it works. Read what PWMK2 wrote.
Why would a system with 2GB and a 640MB video card show up as 2.6GB? WTF are you on?
So based on this and the wiki page, 32 bit os can support up to 4 gigs, but it only runs with 3 due to a memory hole. But i can have 3 gigs on 32 bit with the 4870 x2 being able to utilize all 2 gigs of its own memory.
On 64 bit i can pretty much have as much ram as i want, and be able to have the 4870 x2 utilizing all of it 2 gigs of memory.
Correct me if im wrong plz!
Why would the 4870X2 only take up 1GB of address space? As I understand it, it is crossfire on a card, meaning it will show up as 2x1GB cards, meaning it will take up 2GB of RAM.
Of course, if someone has one, they can check for us. If anyone wants to see what is currently reserving their RAM, it is really easy to check.
Open up the device manager, and hit View->Resources By Type. Then just expand the Memory section, and look at all the holes in yer addressable address
Why would the 4870X2 only take up 1GB of address space? As I understand it, it is crossfire on a card, meaning it will show up as 2x1GB cards, meaning it will take up 2GB of RAM.
Of course, if someone has one, they can check for us. If anyone wants to see what is currently reserving their RAM, it is really easy to check.
Open up the device manager, and hit View->Resources By Type. Then just expand the Memory section, and look at all the holes in yer addressable address
the memory is mirrored in crossfire and SLI. the OS only has to address the memory on one of the GPU, so while you have 2gb of actual ram from the OS point of view its only 1gb. The issue only applies to memory that the OS has to address, not all memory has to be address but most does, in this case the second GB does not.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
Hahaha. Oh wow. Ohhh wow.
Perhaps we should define this memory issue with multiple variables.
Total_Addressable_Memory(32b) = 4gb or 4096mb.
System_RAM + V_RAM + Device_RAM must < Total_Addressable_Memory.
if System_RAM + V_RAM + Device_RAM is less or equal to 4096mb, your system memory will equal System RAM.
If System_RAM + V_RAM + Device_RAM is greater than 4096mb, your system memory will be equal to 4096mb - V_RAM - Device_RAM.
As to the OP's question, I'm actually unsure. I'm not sure if the new bridge chip mirrors RAM on the card, or whether the OS is in charge of it...