Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help! Windows-7 is eating all my ram.

Last response: in Memory
Share
July 23, 2009 12:16:26 AM

hello i am using windows 7, everytime i start up a game i can play for like 5 minutes and then my ram is at 90% i've got 4gigs of 1066mhz, then i quit the game and wait for like 15 minutes and then its using 20% of my ram, it happends with all my games. will it make any differents if i reinstall win-7. if not please tell me what to do.

my components :

2x2gb ocz 1066mhz memory
sapphire pure corssfireX 790GX + sb750 chipset
sapphire hd radeon 4850 512mb
AMD athlon 7750 - 2700mhz

More about : windows eating ram

July 23, 2009 12:25:31 AM

wats the name of the process thats eating all the ram?

does it ahppen in all games?
m
0
l
July 23, 2009 3:09:57 AM

yeah all games, but when i look in the task manager its not there :(  so i dont know its just something that comes and goes dunno what it is :( (((
m
0
l
Related resources
a b } Memory
July 23, 2009 4:15:29 AM

If you're running a 32-bit games then every variable they address will take up twice as much space in a 64-bit OS. If they are using a 32-bit variable, it will go into a 64-bit address space with the other 32-bits just sitting there. Unless your system is seriously slowing down because it's using most of its RAM I don't see a problem.

For now download 64-bit patches for games that have them and make sure to turn off any services you're not using.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 6:55:30 AM

It sounds to me like you're seeing the results of Superfetch. It's role is to pre-load into memory program and library files it thinks you may need - that way when you come to use them you don't have to wait for them to be loaded from disk.

You could try turning off the Superfetch service to see if it makes a difference. But the pre-fetched stuff isn't hurting anything, if it's not needed it will yield the memory to whatever requests it - so having that memory used is probably not something to loose any sleep over.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 6:59:38 AM

megamanx00 said:
If you're running a 32-bit games then every variable they address will take up twice as much space in a 64-bit OS. If they are using a 32-bit variable, it will go into a 64-bit address space with the other 32-bits just sitting there.
No, this is wrong. 32-bit program code is still 32-bit when run under a 64-bit OS. The program's variables don't change and they don't move around. You'd have to recompile the program as a 64-bit executable to do that, and even then it's just the pointers that would change, not the data variables.

There are different Windows DLLs loaded into the address space of a 32-bit process to handle the translation between the 32-bit calls made by the program and the 64-bit operating system - those DLLs may take up a little more virtual address space - but they're shared among all the 32-bit programs so it shouldn't be a huge hit overall.
m
0
l
a b $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 12:20:44 PM

Technically, variables vary in size depedning on their type, but a 32-bit integer is 4 bytes (32/8=4), and a 64-bit integer is double that (8 bytes: 64/8 = 8)). So actually, a 64-bit OS would use MORE space for integer variables.

Of course, most languages could simply use either the Int16, Int32, and Int64 (or equivalent) calls as needed to ensure the proper size and scope is used, instead of the generic Int (which is compiled based on the OS support in most languages...). Example: If you have an integer that will always be <255, there is no reason for it to be any larger then 1byte (8bits = 0-255) in size, so using a 64-bit int in that situation does nothing but waste space.

Of course, there is a compatability layer in both compilers and the OS. On a 64-bit Windows system, all 32-bit programs go through a compatability layer to work properly, but usually this doesn't affect memory usuage much. Of course, the X86/X87 arch is fully backward compatable, so regardless of size, the CPU can handle and send back that data, regardless of OS support. Most of the gains of the 64-bit arch, performance wise, are the result of the CPU's full register set being open, and as the result of a higher celing on installed RAM/devices.

m
0
l
a b } Memory
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 3:30:12 PM

gamerk316 said:
Technically, variables vary in size depedning on their type, but a 32-bit integer is 4 bytes (32/8=4), and a 64-bit integer is double that (8 bytes: 64/8 = 8)). So actually, a 64-bit OS would use MORE space for integer variables.
True, but the size of the variables that the programmer chooses depends on data he's putting into them, not on the OS (32-bit vs. 64-bit) he's using. For example, a program should use 64-bit integers to deal with file and disk sizes because they can easily exceed the limit of a 32-bit integer. Such a program will run equally well on 32-bit Windows or 64-bit windows. The space taken by the variable will be the same in both operating systems.

On the other hand, the programmer is more likely to choose a 32-bit integer to hold the number of items on hand in an inventory, since it's unlikely to exceed the maximum value that can be held in 32 bits. A program that uses such a variable would again run perfectly well under either a 32-bit or a 64-bit OS, and the amount of space used by the variable would not change in either case.

gamerk316 said:
Of course, most languages could simply use either the Int16, Int32, and Int64 (or equivalent) calls as needed to ensure the proper size and scope is used, instead of the generic Int (which is compiled based on the OS support in most languages...).
Even programs that define generic "Int" variables don't change unless you recompile them. If you have a program using "Int" compiled in 32-bit mode, each "Int" will take 32 bits (4 bytes) whether the program is run on 32-bit OR a 64-bit operating system. It will only take 64 bits (8 bytes) if you recompile it in 64-bit mode. That gives you a different .exe file, one in which the extra space will be used even if it's run in a 32-bit operating system.


So to summarize, the same .exe file run in different (32-bit vs. 64-bit) operating systems uses the same amount of memory, with the exception of the different system DLLs that are loaded to interface with the OS.
m
0
l
July 23, 2009 6:20:12 PM

disabling the superfetch didnt work :( 

notice: 3 weeks ago i built my this pc, after 2weeks my pc started doin what its doin today. could it be some program starting and then closing ? :( :( :( :( 

thanks for helping this 'noob (me)'
m
0
l
July 23, 2009 6:38:08 PM

what build of windows 7 do you have? its possible you hit some bug in an earlier version
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 7:20:47 PM

You need to see what all is running in the background, could be any number of things using up the memory. But, as already stated, why is this a problem?
m
0
l
July 23, 2009 7:51:59 PM

Windows will use over 1GB by itself, and depending on the game, that can use up to 2GB in itself therefore bringing it up to 75% memory usage with just OS and game. Anything else in the background such as IE, music players or whatever will obviously bring that up. So while the game is running you'll have to open Task Manager and sort processes by memory usage to see what's eating up your space.
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b $ Windows 7
July 24, 2009 2:41:56 PM

OP - You need to figure out what is using all that memory. To be honest, the issue sounds more like a memory leak than anything else. Contrary to popular belief, Superfetch is a lot more 'polite' than what you're relating.

Reach out and grab a copy of Process Monitor. It's basically Task Manager on some decent steroids and provides the ability to drill down into what is the program behind generic process - svchost being an example of a generic process that comes up a lot in posts. "OMG!! svchost is killing my computer!..." whereas it's really a 3rd party program/driver that's causing the issue.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb89665...
m
0
l
July 24, 2009 2:58:06 PM

tonyn84 said:
what build of windows 7 do you have? its possible you hit some bug in an earlier version


the only version of windows 7 i ever had is the candidate release
m
0
l
July 24, 2009 3:00:37 PM

when i play my games i have like 40 fps in farcry 2, but when the ram thingy goes on i get 15 fps. :( 
m
0
l
July 24, 2009 4:45:11 PM

Scotteq said:
OP - You need to figure out what is using all that memory. To be honest, the issue sounds more like a memory leak than anything else. Contrary to popular belief, Superfetch is a lot more 'polite' than what you're relating.

Reach out and grab a copy of Process Monitor. It's basically Task Manager on some decent steroids and provides the ability to drill down into what is the program behind generic process - svchost being an example of a generic process that comes up a lot in posts. "OMG!! svchost is killing my computer!..." whereas it's really a 3rd party program/driver that's causing the issue.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb89665...


oh my god! thank you so much ur program showed me what was running and it was windows media sharing.. or somthing like that taking 2.4gb ram :) )))) thnx so much
m
0
l
a b } Memory
a b $ Windows 7
July 24, 2009 8:06:50 PM

OK - What you can do now is kill that process, or remove the app, and see does that solve the issue. If so, then sweet! Look for an updated version or alternative program that works.
m
0
l
July 26, 2009 10:20:31 PM

Scotteq said:
OP - You need to figure out what is using all that memory. To be honest, the issue sounds more like a memory leak than anything else. Contrary to popular belief, Superfetch is a lot more 'polite' than what you're relating.

Reach out and grab a copy of Process Monitor. It's basically Task Manager on some decent steroids and provides the ability to drill down into what is the program behind generic process - svchost being an example of a generic process that comes up a lot in posts. "OMG!! svchost is killing my computer!..." whereas it's really a 3rd party program/driver that's causing the issue.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb89665...



Yes, that is a good program. Thanks for telling.
m
0
l
!