Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do I really need 4 Gigs for Vista 64bit?

Last response: in Memory
Share
May 19, 2007 6:50:24 AM

I heard that to fully benefit from 64 bit system you need 4 gigs of memory, is that true? I will not be doing any hardcore encoding or rendering, just games and stuff.

More about : gigs vista 64bit

May 19, 2007 6:56:24 AM

Nope. However, to fully benefit from 4GB of memory, you do need a 64-bit OS.
May 19, 2007 7:07:48 AM

"Do I really need 4 Gigs for Vista 64bit?"

No, you need Vista 64-bit for 4 Gigs.
Related resources
May 19, 2007 7:26:21 AM

Or Ubuntu. :wink:
May 19, 2007 7:35:53 AM

If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.

If your graphics card is a bit behind the times or your not bothered about high graphical settings or the latest games then you may get away with less.

Generally, with Vista 4GB seems to be best for gaming and memory intensive applications such as Photoshopping, CAD, Video Encoding. General applications or surfing will get away with much less.

At the end of the ay it all comes down to the fact that Vista itself is much more memory intensive that XP.
May 19, 2007 7:43:02 AM

For games generally speaking 2,048 megabytes of RAM is more then enough for now. 3,072 megabytes is what you'd want to use if you stick with a 32-bit operating system, since other sources of memory subtract from the ~4,294,967,296 bytes it can access/address across the system. If you go with a 64-bit operating system the system can access/address ~18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of data in regards to RAM. 18 exabytes of RAM probably won't be realized in a mainstream system for decades.

Disclaimer: The above is gathered knowledge on this minor subject, and granted, any piece of it could be incorrect. However, I hope it helps a bit.
May 19, 2007 8:15:30 AM

Vista 64 bit uses up to 1.3GB at desktop. With 2Gb thats only 700mb free, not enough to run a game without the swap file.

Another poster pointed out elsewhere that on his system with 2Gb it uses 800mb (obviously scales). However this still only leaves 1.2GB which is likely to insufficient for the very latest games.

So if your going to game on high settings you need to be looking at 4GB.
May 19, 2007 9:33:48 AM

Quote:
If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.


Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.
May 19, 2007 9:59:50 AM

Quote:
Vista 64 bit uses up to 1.3GB at desktop. With 2Gb thats only 700mb free, not enough to run a game without the swap file.

Another poster pointed out elsewhere that on his system with 2Gb it uses 800mb (obviously scales). However this still only leaves 1.2GB which is likely to insufficient for the very latest games.

So if your going to game on high settings you need to be looking at 4GB.


windows reserves it for apps etc.

vista with 2gb is like 1gb for xp (by the feel of it, reacting etc)
May 19, 2007 10:04:16 AM

640k is all you will ever need :-)
May 19, 2007 10:05:27 AM

Quote:
If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.


Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

Here is my experience. I have Vista X64 slimmed down by gutting many of its services on 2GB of Ram. However, when I load up Vanguard: Saga of Heros I hit the swap file enough to make readyboost make a noticable difference. X64 is more memory intensive than X86, so yes, 4GB of Ram is needed to not hit the swap file on many modern games. I'm not even taking extra stuff into account like antivirus, ventrillo, fraps, or anything like that. A gutted Vista + Vanguard on 2GB will max out 2GB of Ram. End of story. I'll be moving to 4GB shortly.
May 19, 2007 10:13:11 AM

No, not really. I hit the swap rarely with 2GB.

Vista unloads a lot of cache when games run, so often I've found games in total using less ram than what they did with XP.

Game in particular is Vanguard, runs better in vista and doesn't swap, wich it does in XP. I've turned off all the security features in vista... But that's it for tweaks from my side.
May 19, 2007 10:19:33 AM

Quote:
No, not really. I hit the swap rarely with 2GB.

Vista unloads a lot of cache when games run, so often I've found games in total using less ram than what they did with XP.

Game in particular is Vanguard, runs better in vista and doesn't swap, wich it does in XP. I've turned off all the security features in vista... But that's it for tweaks from my side.


Hard for me to believe given that I can run Vanguard at 80-90% just by turning it on (1280X1024 and on performance settings too). A guy in my guild who has 4GB of ram says he can frequently get his to 70% with Vanguard, Vent, and other similar gaming activites.

4GB isn't needed, but some of it will get used for sure.
May 19, 2007 10:26:39 AM

Well, according to Microsoft Vista will use as much ram as it can.

And if an application, say Vanguard, needs lots of ram, and you only have 2gb total, it will unload the prefetcher and other crap you don't really need all the time.

And assuming you have 4gb, it doesn't have to unload cache, so it doesn't.
Using more ram.

XP has a bit of this too, install XP on a 128mb system, and then on a 2gb system. You'll see XP on the 128mb system, all else equal, using somewhere of 70mb on boot. The 2gb install uses 300+.

Supposedly Vista is smarter, and unloads in realtime, not just on first install... O_o
Well.. It works and the performance loss is getting smaller with each driver release.
May 19, 2007 10:31:55 AM

Quote:
If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.


Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

Do you even have Vista 64 because I do and have been running it since February and monitored memory usuage on my system. Also search the net and you'll find most of the experts saying gaming on Vista requires 4GB. Some games due out shortly are even going to specify 2GB of Ram for the high settings on the box as I understand it. Considering current games such as BF2 specify 512mb on the box, but need 2Gb on high, you work it out.

I have to say I'm getting very tired of people who don't want to recognise the need the spend money on their tired systems for upgrades to Vista and DX10 and who prefer to deny the need the for fast cpus, lots of memory and expensive graphics cards in favour of denying what others know is true.

Their are plenty on here and elsewhere posting we don't DX10 because DX9 will do everything it can do, we don't need 4GB of memory because 2Gb is fine on XP, we don't need a fast cpu because MS say it will run on a Pentium 4. Well wake up and smell the sh*t. PC's have changed big time in the last 3 or 4 months and its time to put your hands in your pockets and spend big bucks.

Don't like it, fair enough you don't have to, but in that case stay on Xp with 1Gb and ram and your P4 and stop moaning and denying the truth about the new system requirements for gaming brought about by the changes, either that or buy yourself a console!
May 19, 2007 10:40:57 AM

He's right though, you don't indiscriminately NEED 4GB of ram. At least 75% of the PC-world doesn't play heavy games.

These people probably doesn't even "need" 1gb of ram, since all they do is use Office...

And you might need something calming, like a cup of herbal tea...
May 19, 2007 1:42:43 PM

yeah, if you have 4gigs you should go x64 visata, but if you want vista in x64, 2gig is more than adiquete for now. that the setup i have and it really quick and that with a e6300.

-while im here i will add that if your going for 2gb get 2x 1gb, that why its dual channle, but also it leaves room for when 4gb requirements come around
May 19, 2007 2:53:11 PM

Quote:
If your gaming and the rest of your system can handle HIGH graphical settings on the latest games then yes, you want 4GB or your likely to hit the swap file.


Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.

For anything, huh? Ever heard of Solidworks? Just to name one...
a c 107 } Memory
May 19, 2007 2:57:50 PM

What benefits are you looking for? I am currently testing 64-bit vista premium on my backup/test machine. It only has 1gb of memory, and basic operations seem to run fine. With 32-bit vista, 4gb of memory will only address about 3.3gb. As far as I can tell, vista and xp work equally well with the same amount of memory. How much you need is determined mostly by the sum of the memory working sets of the tasks you have running concurrently. If you need more than 3.3gb, then vista 64-bit will be required.
May 19, 2007 3:27:09 PM

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

or

512mb on vista is an joke

1gb min it work ok but games will take long time to load + Lots of pageing so game will stutter alot (try and Alt tab out of an game heh)

2gb recommended Most games will work good unless the game it self is useing more then 1gb then pageing will happen an little

3gb or 4gb(64bit) for gaming or any One program that use more then 1gb of system ram (stops pageing as it can happen on 2gb of ram on vista)

Vista starts Pageing at 90-95% Ram use (1.8GB ish)

As an rule take 700mb-1gb system ram when Vista is installed (the lower number with nothing installed) (thats why recommend min 3gb ram for an gameing system or Video editing)

games that use upto or more then 1gb of ram will most likey suffer on 2gb systems an little

if you wish to see the last 1gb of ram in an 4gb system you need to use Vista 64

--
like some one els posted
Vista is 3gb -
XP is 2gb
for best gameing an no lag or stuttering from pageing
Just buy the 2x2gb Dual chan pack then your set for later on
May 19, 2007 3:49:04 PM

The reason why Vista uses so much RAM is because it caches more things than XP. As it stands right now, XP is the better overall performance Windows OS.

If you want a streamlined Vista installation, just trim down your installation DVD with a program called vLite. It will modify the Vista installation image to your specifications, then create you a new .iso that you burn to a DVD again (or a CD, depending on how much you take out :wink:) . Also lets you make unattended installations.

There's also a version for XP called nLite, I'm using it now.
May 19, 2007 3:55:03 PM

Quote:
For games generally speaking 2,048 megabytes of RAM is more then enough for now. 3,072 megabytes is what you'd want to use if you stick with a 32-bit operating system, since other sources of memory subtract from the ~4,294,967,296 bytes it can access/address across the system. If you go with a 64-bit operating system the system can access/address ~18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of data in regards to RAM. 18 exabytes of RAM probably won't be realized in a mainstream system for decades.

Disclaimer: The above is gathered knowledge on this minor subject, and granted, any piece of it could be incorrect. However, I hope it helps a bit.

it would have been easier to say address space of
32 bit os is : 2 to the power of 32
64 bit os is : 2 to the power of 64

1 gig = 2 to the power of 30, therefore max for 32 bits is 4Gigs( 1 x 2 x 2 ), although M$ reduced this to around 3 Gigs for its 32bits OS's and in vista the max is set at 8Gigs for all 64 bit OS's except Vista Ultimate where the max is 64 Gigs i think

Maybe im even more confusing 8O
May 19, 2007 6:07:17 PM

I killed readyboost, prefetcher and some other junk.. and I made it run with 300mb ram... =]
May 19, 2007 6:20:08 PM

Quote:
I killed readyboost, prefetcher and some other junk.. and I made it run with 300mb ram... =]


Yes, that's easy to do with 32-bit. Gutting the services in 32-bit (Aero Glass is a ram hog too, but I like it and so I'll keep it for sure) can lead to a very slim and fast vista. I use a gutted Vista Home Basic on my notebook, and man, it's almost as slim as Ubuntu.

However, 64-bit seems to just take up quite a bit more memory even when it's not caching, etc. Righ now with Aero glass on, a few IE pages, notepad, and nothing in the startup tray, I'm using 42% of my 2GB. That's what, 700-800MB? Sometimes I see it drop lower, into the 35% range, but it usually like to sit in the 40's.
May 19, 2007 6:40:35 PM

I have been using vista x64 wit 2 gigs of ram, and it does feel more sluggish compared to XP. Kind of like when I ran XP on 1 gig of ram. I will most surely get 4 gigs when I build a new quad core system down the road.
May 19, 2007 6:43:17 PM

Quote:
Thats grossly untrue.

There is NO need for more than 2GB for ANYTHING.


Hahaha I hope this guy is joking...
May 19, 2007 7:11:03 PM

The answer to this is really going to vary.

My personal experince thus far, is that for most of the game I play nowadays, 2GB is fine. a few times I've been able to get to 95% memory usage, but that's normally at teh end of a very long RTS game, though at times I see S.T.A.L.K.E.R getting into the 90s. My video card can't handle running the game on full detail, so maybe I could get more. Though from the reading I've seen in the forums, even teh 8800GTX gets stutters.

Anyways, I will note that I don't run stuff like Aero and turned off Superfetch. Some games, like Flight Sim, turn off Aero when it runs, to free up System and Video memory.

If you are building a new system, then going with a 2x2GB memory solution would be ideal, but that doubles you're memory cost of a 2x1GB solution.

Do you need 4GB ? no, 2GB would work 90-95% of the time just fine. Unless you're really loading up some heavy duty apps and want to run your games with everything maxed out. Of course, if you have 2GB now, then just load up V64 and see what happens, if it's not enough then you can add another GB or 2GB. You'llhave to determine for yourself if cost of another 1-2GB of ram is worth whatever minor performance problems you encounter
May 19, 2007 7:56:20 PM

Just get Vista64 and 4 gigs and be done with it for the next few years.

Am I the only one who thinks VISTA using a lot of memory is actually a GOOD thing? As long as it provides at least marginal benefits - more services available more quickly, nicer graphics, and so one - I'm actually happy that it uses a lot of RAM. That's what your memory is there for, and it's now CHEAP - you can get decent 2x1GB kits for $100! Just buy two, and be happy =D

EDIT

Windows hitting my swap file is not a minor performance problem to me - it's unacceptable. Why do I have a quick access interface to RAM only to have my system chug for a few seconds while it reads/writes the swap to the HDD? Makes absolutely no sense, and doesn't have to happen (at least much less often, I think windows does voodoo with the swap regardless of how much memory you have) with the way RAM prices have fallen.
May 19, 2007 8:39:11 PM

If you're only hitting the page file for 10-50 mb of space, that is a minor performance problem. If you're hitting it for 200-400MB of space, it's a major performance problem.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but all the games I have, I play with Vista64 and 2GB of ram. I use a 2nd monitor to look at disk activity (via resource monitor) and I don't see any pagefile use, if there is, it's a quick 1-2MB write, which is nothing.

I don't run 60+ processes, so that's probably why my ram usage is low.

Quote:
Am I the only one who thinks VISTA using a lot of memory is actually a GOOD thing? As long as it provides at least marginal benefits


I don't have a problem with Vista using more, but it needs to offer me something more than XP, other than higher ram usage to do the exact same tasks.

If XP can play a game or run an app fine with 2GB of ram, then why should we be happy that Vista uses 4GB of ram to play the same games ? That makes no sense to me

Maybe you're experience\use is alot different then mine, but there is nothing I can do with Vista, that I can't do with XP and normally faster at that. So why should anyone be happy that Vista64 takes twice as much, to do it slower or if nothing else, at the same speed ?

Funny enough, this is the very thing most of us complain about. Bloated software. Since ram is so cheap, developers have no incentive to write more clean efficent programs. Just double the lines of code and not worry about optimizing very much, we'll just bank on everyone getting 8GB of ram in 2010.

If nothing else, the OP and everyone else should ask themselves. Getting more RAM will add $100-200 to my upgrade to Vista costs. So if Vista32 works just fine with 2GB, or if I can stick with XP for a while longer, Is it worth it to go to Vista64 ?
May 19, 2007 9:10:21 PM

Well it's okay we might need 4Gb ram in the coming future of pc gaming. For now 2Gb will work just fine.
May 19, 2007 10:38:28 PM

i just had a thought about this, a 64bit OS will use more memory than a 32bit by default simply because some data that could be stored in 32bits are not stored in 64 bits. Ive never programmed in assembly on a 64 bit, but i have on a 16 and 32 bit and lazy programming, dumb compiler decisions can lead to more memory consumption

Along with the above im sure theres extra crap running on the 64bit version also, the most i could reduce Vista 64 bit down to was 490Meg with Aero and all o the required services and processes running
May 19, 2007 11:07:38 PM

Quote:
i just had a thought about this, a 64bit OS will use more memory than a 32bit by default simply because some data that could be stored in 32bits are not stored in 64 bits. Ive never programmed in assembly on a 64 bit, but i have on a 16 and 32 bit and lazy programming, dumb compiler decisions can lead to more memory consumption

Along with the above im sure theres extra crap running on the 64bit version also, the most i could reduce Vista 64 bit down to was 490Meg with Aero and all o the required services and processes running


Yes you're very much right. I switched between 32 and 64 just to be a geek and check it out, and the difference is VERY noticable. I was usually sitting around 23% of 2GB for 32bit, and I can climb as high as 44% in 64bit just idling. I know much of that has to be "other cap," but there's no doubt that 64bit code itself will use up more ram.
May 20, 2007 12:47:46 AM

Quote:

Yes you're very much right. I switched between 32 and 64 just to be a geek and check it out, and the difference is VERY noticable. I was usually sitting around 23% of 2GB for 32bit, and I can climb as high as 44% in 64bit just idling. I know much of that has to be "other cap," but there's no doubt that 64bit code itself will use up more ram.

can you post screenies of the mem usage of each task in task manager for the 32bit and 64bit,id check myself but i didnt install the 32bit version, its more of a curiosity than anything
May 20, 2007 2:46:06 AM

That's just the point though... optimizing code is a necessity when resources are scarce - when they're not scarce, you can spend the time you would spend otherwise optimizing code doing other things - ie, a net imporvement in your software.

Is there really NOTHING that Vista adds to your desktop experience? My feeling has been that yes, it isn't superb all around, but saying it brings nothing over XP is just the usual geek sniping at MS...

And 4GB of RAM now isn't adding anything to your computer expense.. it costs the same now as 2GB did 3 months ago. If you're talking about having to upgrade your existing system, well that's the way it goes - I bought 1 MB (MEGAbyte) of RAM for $100 only 14 or so years ago...
May 20, 2007 3:20:10 AM

well if they fix vista to provide the same performance as XP and solve some of the crashes( not all M$'s fault ) then ill be happy, im not happy to use Vista as a sole OS though, will be installing Linux during the week to use as my OS, Vista screwed my XP install, ill fix that later
May 20, 2007 4:33:28 AM

Quote:
Is there really NOTHING that Vista adds to your desktop experience? My feeling has been that yes, it isn't superb all around, but saying it brings nothing over XP is just the usual geek sniping at MS...


I don't know how you can say that I'm just sniping at Microsoft. I didn't say Vista sucked, I said it didn't offer me anything over XP. Can you tell how Vista adds to my dekstop experince ? I'm a pretty basic guy, alot of what Vista seems to be aimed for are Novice Home users that need help sorting their photos and music and hooking up their Xbox360. And that's great for those who like that stuff. I don't have any need for it.

As a gamer, XP is still beating Vista in performance so how can Vista add to one's gaming experience ? Granted, my performance between Vista64 and XP are pretty darn close. In the Case of F.E.A.R ,they are within 2-3 fps of each other and pretty much all my games score over 100fps in Vista, so it's performance isn't hurting me, but it's not helping me either.

Getting back to the actual topic of this thread. I don't get stutters while gaming in Vista32 or V64. Which is why I'm stickign with 2GB of ram is enough for most users. If I really liked Vista and I was getting stutters, then I wouldn't have any problems spending another $300 on another 2GB of ram.

Here is a screenshot of me playing Battlefield 2, with the game settings on High. I'm running all the default Vista Services and I even turned on Aero and DreamScene.
you'll see a some minor pagefile hits, but those are not by the game and they are in the 280KB and less reads. But also noticed that my Memory usage is only at 65% and BF2 is using 1.2GB of ram. So why is Vista touching the pagefile at all ? It's not due to a lack of memory on my part
May 20, 2007 4:39:32 AM

bf uses at a max 1.5Gigs, i know this because ive had about 10 different setups with it and i play a lot :) , that means it shouldnt page at all if you have 2 gigs( excluding OS differences where some progs/mem must remain resident )
a c 107 } Memory
May 20, 2007 5:37:26 AM

I think there is some misunderstanding of the statistics and how paging works. In xp, memory was precious. If a task needed a page, and it was not in memory, xp had first to page it out(if it had been changed) so a more needed page could be brought in. To reduce this delay, xp wrote out pages preemptively to make room. It tried to keep plenty of room to bring in more pages. As a result, what the task list will show will be the pages currently in memory, but not necessarily what the task will need.
Vista, on the other hand, was designed knowing that memory would be plentiful, so it tries to make use of it. Vista will try to load into memory in advance, what it thinks you might need. This is good, because if it guesses correctly, you are not delayed when you ask for those pages. As a result, the task list will show how many pages are in memory, related to your task. The more, the better. Think of it positively: Vista makes use of all the memory you have; xp wastes it.
What is really important is the working set size of what you run concurrently. This is how many pages your jobs need to be in memory at the same time without causing excessive i/o to the page device. Ideally, this would be none. Look at the number of hard faults per second(i/o's to the page file). If it is a small number such as 1 or 2 per second, then you have enough memory.
May 20, 2007 5:50:26 AM

i disable superfetch as soon as i found out it was it that was killing my hd on windows start :) 
May 20, 2007 6:01:18 AM

The only thing I don't like about Superfetch and why I have it turned off, is because it loads up games files, I may not want loaded. I tend to jump around with games, Today BF2, tomorrow C&C3, Next STALKER. When I watch Superfetch it's loading up whatever I either play the most or sometimes files out of the blue, like if I run 3dmark06, it seems to want to load that on the next boot.

When they make suerpfetch have the option of letting me exclude or add files I want pre-loaded, then I'll use it more. Until then, it's just time wasted loading the wrong apps.

Quote:
can you post screenies of the mem usage of each task in task manager for the 32bit and 64bit,id check myself but i didnt install the 32bit version, its more of a curiosity than anything


Here's my two different installs with the defautl services turned on and Aero running

Vista32


Vista64


**Corrected V64 image
May 20, 2007 6:43:28 AM

Quote:
The only thing I don't like about Superfetch and why I have it turned off, is because it loads up games files, I may not want loaded. I tend to jump around with games, Today BF2, tomorrow C&C3, Next STALKER. When I watch Superfetch it's loading up whatever I either play the most or sometimes files out of the blue, like if I run 3dmark06, it seems to want to load that on the next boot.

When they make suerpfetch have the option of letting me exclude or add files I want pre-loaded, then I'll use it more. Until then, it's just time wasted loading the wrong apps.

can you post screenies of the mem usage of each task in task manager for the 32bit and 64bit,id check myself but i didnt install the 32bit version, its more of a curiosity than anything


Here's my two different installs with the defautl services turned on and Aero running

Vista32


Vista64

This post shows things well! There is a good reason why Vista 64 sucks up more Ram. Has something to do with doing twice as many instructins at the same time, even the 32 bit code only uses one. Maybe somone else can explain better.
May 20, 2007 3:38:22 PM

Mad_Murdock - great post man, finally get a comparison, i wonder what those 2 extra processes & threads are running on the 64 bit version?

enewmen - its not twice as many instructions its the possibility o having twice as many instructions compared to a 32bit, this is more CPU than OS, but if the OS supports 64 bit then it just means CPU can run on full. I doubt however i any chip exists that has 2 to the power of 64 instructions in its instruction set :) 

64bit should allow 64bits to be moved around in full instead of 2 32 bits on a 32 bit OS( when shifting large data around ), memory consumption in lazy programming e.g. for storing 1 on 32 bit would be in hex 0x00000001 whereas 0x0000000000000001 in a 64 bit OS, in that example its obviously using twice as much mem to store 1 but as i said earlier should only be lazy programming or junky compilers
May 20, 2007 4:05:56 PM

Quote:
Mad_Murdock - great post man, finally get a comparison, i wonder what those 2 extra processes & threads are running on the 64 bit version?


I believe that is some VPN software I use. I had it installed and they both have their own services. I'll have to re-look at the Vista64. I might have forgottent to start a service, like IP helper or something. Though nothing adds any real memory usage. Also after re-installing BF2 and BF2142 I now have a PnkbusterA and B service, so I have ot make sure I stop those as well

Here's an update photo with all the serive going in it
May 20, 2007 4:41:37 PM

Quote:
Mad_Murdock - great post man, finally get a comparison, i wonder what those 2 extra processes & threads are running on the 64 bit version?


I believe that is some VPN software I use. I had it installed and they both have their own services. I'll have to re-look at the Vista64. I might have forgottent to start a service, like IP helper or something. Though nothing adds any real memory usage. Also after re-installing BF2 and BF2142 I now have a PnkbusterA and B service, so I have ot make sure I stop those as well

Here's an update photo with all the serive going in it

You should remove your activation code from that pic, i dont know if it can be reused or not, but err on the side of caution :) 
Actually youve reminded me about the punkbuster A and B service that they introduced recently, thats why i was getting booted last night, must install it now
a c 107 } Memory
May 20, 2007 8:07:29 PM

Very interesting. I turned on task manager on vista 32(w/4gb of memory), and have a kernel size of 114 mb compared to yours of 144mb. On my 64-bit test machine with 1gb, my kernel size is only 81, compared to yours of 196. The non-paged part is about 31 on both. One explanation is that you have ultimate, while mine is home premium.
A better way to see what is going on is to turn on the performance monitor in control panel/performance info/etc... In there, it lists the working set of all the tasks, and their hard faults. I think the true amount of memory needed is much more complicated than just what the task manager says. The most important part is what tasks are used. The only way to really compare would be to reduce the amount of real memory available(through loading a virtual=real task?) until the hard faults per minute start to get unacceptably high, perhaps to 1 or 2 per sedond.
May 20, 2007 11:19:52 PM

The kernel Memory seems ot be a moving target. While last boot it was 196, this go around it's at 146. My GF is running Home Prem 32 with 2GB and she's at 160. So I dunno if those numbers mean anything or they closely tie in with the different apps and services one has running.

I look at this in a more basic view. How much ram is reported in use, How much ram is reported in use when I'm playing my games and most importantly am I seeing any performance issues.

Thus far 2GB on all flavors is getting the job done nicely. If Crysis comes out and demands more than 2GB then I'll be upgrading, but I don'tupgrade until I see (feel) a need.
!