Saturday March 20, 2010 5:01 PM AEST

Memory usage myths

  • Email a Friend
  • Print Page
«  »
Memory usage myths

Physical vs virtual
Regardless of how much actual [i]physical[/i] RAM you have installed, applications run in their own virtual address space. For a 32-bit application under Windows, this is 2GB. The application doesn't have to use that much, but can if it wants to and it's up to the operating system to deliver while also keeping all other applications (including system processes) happy.

And you know what happens when the combined load of memory requested by applications exceeds physical RAM: the operating system starts swapping out to disk (actually the science of memory management will often pre-emptively swap out background programs to allow foreground ones to be more responsive as memory is required, and other such tricks).

If, of course, you do have plenty of RAM installed and the application does want to allocate lots of it, then it can do so, but it's limited by the addressable space the application can see. By default Windows limits a 32-bit application to 2GB, and if it tries to allocate more than this it will fail. Sometimes gracefully, sometimes spectacularly. Either way, it doesn't matter if you have more physical RAM, it can't be used by the program.

And this is true even if you're running 64-bit Windows. Remember, with 64-bit Windows the operating system itself can see and use more than the 4GB limitation of 32-bit Windows, but that doesn't mean applications can. A 64-bit application has a very large addressable space assigned to it by Windows - a gigantic 8TB. But as mentioned before, even today the majority of applications for Windows are still 32-bit, and with very rare exceptions, so too are games. So having 6GB to play COD4 is moot.

Overall, the breakdown looks like this for addressable space per program:

32-bit application on 32-bit Windows: 2GB

32-bit application on 64-bit Windows: 2GB

64-bit application on 64-bit Windows: 8TB

Which isn't good news for modern games. More and more are becoming demanding of available memory, but without the move to 64-bit - which so few game developers are willing to do - they will either not benefit from more memory (even using it as a local cache) or they will simply bomb out when they reach the 2GB limit of their addressable memory. Which is precisely what happens with Flight Simulator, STALKER, and Supreme Commander, and why some enterprising users have taken it into their own hands.

 
«  »
 
This article appeared in the September, 2009 issue of Atomic.

Want to check out the first Australian review of Final Fantasy XIII? We got in this month's Atomic!

Plus HD projectors, Napoleon: Total War, Intel's new six-core processor, PC upgrading guide, and a whole lot more.

ON SALE NOW!
9 Comments
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
bu14-1
Aug 14, 2009 5:04 PM
"32-bit application on 32-bit Windows: 3GB"

2GB?
SlickGrunt
Aug 14, 2009 5:08 PM
very well put. just like the article on power supplies. too much being a waste in summary. but hey let people flash their wallets with their assets :P more money for the industry... and humour from my end.
SlickGrunt
Aug 14, 2009 5:11 PM
btw thx for recommending that program; process explorer - extremely helpful for me! (was unknown to me until now)
Michel Merlin
Aug 16, 2009 11:38 PM
More RAM is ALWAYS better
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
The only exception I knew of was
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/381f4171c51ac103
« SOLVED by hotfix KB909095 (Hibernation disappears in XP if 1GB or more) »

Currently the max RAM really available and usable in the real world has stalled at 2GB for a while. With prices down and OSes up, it is 3GB under 32bit Windows, 6GB (apparent standard) for 64bit editions of XP or Vista, and given the progress and the manageability of RAM, it will soon grow much higher.

Now don't be too hurried: the memory that costs a car now will cost a hamburger in little time (hence e.g. my buying of 32MB extensible to 256MB in 1999). So, don't worry buying all you need and a little more, but don't build too much stock.

Versailles, Sun 16 Aug 2009 15:38:50 +0200
Michel Merlin
Aug 17, 2009 12:22 AM
Buy moderate RAM, but HIGHLY EXTENSIBLE
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
I forgot the main point: while being moderate in the quantity you ACTUALLY buy NOW, do choose much bigger extensibility, whatever gurus may be saying.

- In 1981, I bought the Sinclair ZX81 with its "whoppy" 1KB, that most people found unreasonably big.
- In 1999, std was 16MB (for a laptop), I bought not too much (32MB) but highly extensible (256MB), which later appeared a very good choice
- In 2006 std was 512MB (for a laptop), I bought 2GB (was cheap, currently busy nearly 100%
- In 2009 I am shopping for a new laptop, the ONLY reason being AGAIN the RAM capability (will prolly wait for an i720 laptop with Windows 7 64bits).

Remember that any single tiny bit swapped to the HD, takes as much time as ONE MILLION more info in RAM (access time 1E-8 sec in an 1GHz RAM, 10ms on a HD), so *the RAM size will remain paramount* until RAM is as big as the *used volume on system partition* (currently often 40GB, growing fast).

Versailles, Sun 16 Aug 2009 16:22:10 +0200
Nicolaos
Aug 22, 2009 1:32 AM
Well yeah, but some people want that number (Virtual Lenth ;) ).. even if they dont relise that most of the time having 2x6gig sets whilst trying to overclock will more then likely give you less performance then with a single 6.. as you will have to raise your V's... me i have to have 12 gig of ram, no for measurement, but to run 6 - 10 VM's on my machine at anytime...

but hey all that said, let stupid people by more ram cause that will hopefully bring down the prices.. :P
strifus
Aug 22, 2009 7:47 AM
I beg to differ Merlin. If you read the article again, and I tend to agree with it in the first place, it is the OS which decides whether or not to swap out to HDD under any circumstances. So, giving it as much RAM as you can get shoved down the slots doesnt necesarrily mean it will get used for that instance if Windows gets its way.
Michel Merlin
Aug 25, 2009 10:01 PM
Misc replies
~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Nicolaos", MOST people have to do something else than seeking "performance" on their PC, thus "have to have" enough memory that it's not the bottleneck; VMs, 1st are more frequent that you seem to think, 2nd are far from the only or main reason to need RAM; just surfing EFFICIENTLY (hence smoothly and swiftly) needs a lot, at least for the ones (still existing, albeit now a minority) who think and check before posting, which with the current sticky web requires 50-100 buttons on Taskbar, or at least 2GB RAM. And I recall, 4GB RAM in great brand and high quality is 40 EUR now in France (surely cheaper elsewhere). BTW calling "stupid" the ones you seem unable to understand lessens YOUR image more than theirs.

"strifus", I don't see anything in your post that would differ with mine - excepted that YOU appear to NOT have read me before "answering".

Versailles, Tue 25 Aug 2009 14:01:25 +0200
elmo198
Aug 26, 2009 7:54 PM
well here is a question I have been meaning to ask for sometime.

I have vista x64, running when possible 64bit apps. but I also have a vid card that has 2gb of ram ati 4870x2 and my sound card has 64mb too, along with 4gb installed system ram.

now say I am playing 32bit games. which comes first of the 2gb limit? my vram or OS installed ram? how are they doing their magic in the background?

now as far as I can tell, in x64 windows will use 6gb or so ram, this includes my 4gb system ram and 2gb vid ram is addressed. but in 32bit apps, does this mean I only have access to 2gb total system ram, because of my vid ram is 2gb?
Login or register to submit a comment.
 
 
Atomic Magazine

Issue: 111 | April, 2010

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.
 
Latest Comments
"Send your good taste to celebration by delivering our mouthwatering cakes to Dehradun and exotic ..."
by rony24 | Mar 20, 2010 4:56 PM
 
"So. Much. Awesome."
by The Manta | Mar 20, 2010 4:23 PM
 
"@sirtrancealot, BF started on the PC and BC1 only on Consoles was a kick to the PC gamers ..."
by NRUFrost | Mar 20, 2010 8:14 AM
 
"RAGE!!!"
by Hawkeye | Mar 20, 2010 1:24 AM
 
"alex - bugger all. 78mg of caffeine. About the same as a cup of instant coffee. Taurine, Gurana ..."
by tantryl | Mar 20, 2010 12:51 AM
 
1) Sony Ericsson Aino6 plans 17%
2) Nokia E7147 plans 17%
3) Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB36 plans 17%
4) Apple iPhone 8GB43 plans 1%
5) HTC Magic5 plans 17%
1) Optus41 plans 11%
2) Vodafone7 plans 7%
3) Telstra BigPond30 plans 3%
4) iiNet32 plans 8%
5) Dodo34 plans 1%

Mobiles | Broadband | Credit Cards

Haymarket - Atomic MPC
Latest User Reviews
Logitech MX518 Gaming-Grade Optical Mouse
90%
Good shape, design and Ergonomics
 
Coolermaster HAF 922
100%
A case to make a statment and give your pc the Heavy Hardcore Grunt it needs.
 
Coolermaster Excalibur
50%
Atomic is under attack
 
XFX 9300 Motherboard
40%
HUGE letdown
 
CM Storm Sentinel gaming mouse
90%
Sexy and instant geek respect.