mathew7 said:
I did not say 32-bit is better, I just said that reinstalling will bring too small benefits. And installing the same packages (maybe 64-bit counterparts) could bring the same problems back. So the main problem should be identified first. Windows reinstallation should be a last resort, as it's time-consuming.
But regardless, here are the facts:
A 32-bit application (which most current games are) can use only 4GB of adress space (2 at 32). But this address space is divided 2GB for the application itself and 2GB for kernel mapping (i.e.:when the app calls a kernel service, it will use a call to such a 2GB+ address and the kernel knows it's for it). Some apps can use up to 3GB if they are marked as such (they were designed to allow it) and windows is booted with the /3GB switch (which is considered an advanced, use at your own risk setting). So any specific 32-bit application can never exceed 2GB from a new installation (at least until the switch is set).
Quotes from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardwar... :
"The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. "
note: NX-bit requires PAE to be enabled. And NX-bit is automatically enabled since XP SP2 if the CPU supports it.
Regarding performance, a 32-bit app will have the same performance regardless the OS bitness, since 32-bit instructions are still used. A slight advantage could come only from drivers, but that is too small to be noticeable (since the game itself is what uses the CPU much and drivers usually move and wait for data).
More than 4GB RAM for 32-bit windows (server editions could use up to 64GB since the 90s) is benefical for workstations were a lot of memory-hungry apps are used at once. Hence the used mapping on server/workstation OSes (note: WinXP Pro SP0 and SP1 could use more than 4GB of physical RAM, but due to some driver developers which did 32-bit assuptions, chose to limit IN SW to 4GB). On our current gaming systems, it brings too small advantages for those that know how to keep their systems clean.
So to the OP: think hard and try to remember the sequence of what was installed when the problem appeared.
Your link and quotes are all about Windows XP. XP's primarily used OS version was 32-bit, and got the most love. The OP has Windows 7, which is just the opposite. You'll see a lot of people with driver issues on the 32-bit version a lot, because the 32-bit version is rarely used.
While I agree that you shouldn't willy nilly be switching OS installs, but the OP is wasting a lot of RAM as a result of his install, and the sooner he fixes it, the less painful it'll be. He'd most likely want to do this regardless.
Now, he is having troubles with BF3, a game known to use a ton of RAM and VRAM by todays standards. I personally play a lot of cutting edge games that requires me to turn off Aero to have enough RAM and VRAM to play games without crashes and I have 6 GB of RAM. Imagine having 4 GB?
Rather than wasting time trying to solve something that could very well be a RAM or driver issue, I'd advice first taking care of the most obvious problem that should be resolved regardless. If it fixes the issue, then it saves everyone a lot of time and frustration. If it doesn't, then we can resume.