Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Troubleshooting (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/troubleshooting/)
-   -   64 bit/4gig ram system only using 2 gigs (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/troubleshooting/10224-64-bit-4gig-ram-system-only-using-2-gigs.html)

tzetsin September 21, 2008 12:37 AM

64 bit/4gig ram system only using 2 gigs
 
heres a stupid question thats been floating around in my head for a while...

i'm running vista 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram

i'm mostly running 32 bit programs

i've YET to see my system use much more than 2 gigs of ram (couple times like 2.17 kinda thing) I know alot of the programs i use could use alot more than the paltry 1 - 1.5 gigs they're getting (vista is using around a gig on its own, i know some of that is vista making use of the ram loading whatever it decides to load that day, but still...)

i'm "assuming" that they're not using more than 2 gigs because they are only 32 bit programs, but is there a way to force the proggies to use more than 2 gigs?

i thought i saw something about this once, but google isnt coming up with it now.

enaberif September 21, 2008 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzetsin (Post 91189)
heres a stupid question thats been floating around in my head for a while...

i'm running vista 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram

i'm mostly running 32 bit programs

i've YET to see my system use much more than 2 gigs of ram (couple times like 2.17 kinda thing) I know alot of the programs i use could use alot more than the paltry 1 - 1.5 gigs they're getting (vista is using around a gig on its own, i know some of that is vista making use of the ram loading whatever it decides to load that day, but still...)

i'm "assuming" that they're not using more than 2 gigs because they are only 32 bit programs, but is there a way to force the proggies to use more than 2 gigs?

i thought i saw something about this once, but google isnt coming up with it now.

Nope.

Welcome to running 64bit with 32bit apps.

32bit apps are limited to a 2gb address aware space.

tzetsin September 21, 2008 01:24 AM

ah... i was really hoping there was a way to force this... I've been having a nightmare trying to get my flight sim working with any kind of half decent framerates with a very high resolution (3840 x 1024)... seems that i cant get to run even half smooth with autogen features turned on. seems to be a cpu limitation maby, but nothing i've tried yet has even dented it. was hoping that throwing more ram at it would help, but if i cant force it i'll have to try something else i guess.

sswilson September 21, 2008 07:48 AM

Only thing I can think of would be to set up some form of Virtual drive space for the app to improve load times. It would take a bit of research, but I'd think something like FS would benefit from much slower load times.

tzetsin September 21, 2008 11:52 AM

The biggest issue i'm having with fs at the moment is the autogen. Normally i'd say "yeah, 15 fps isnt to bad with full autogen and AI aircraft in the air and on the ground turned on" but my "getting kinda oldish" laptop is doing 25 fps pretty steady with all sliders full but AA and bloom turned off. There is no way my dual core notebook at 1.7 ghz, 2 gig of slow ass laptop ram and an integrated nvidia 7600 gpu should be outshining my 3.5 ghz quad with 4 gig high performance ram and quad SLI 9800gx2 monster of a computer....

I've got fs on my e8400 also and it runs very similar on that pc as it does my quad pc wich is hella strange because both pcs are much much more powerfull in EVERY way than that old laptop!? or do i have like the HE-MAN of laptops??

I'm beginning to think its the motherboard, when i had my p5k installed i dont remember having any trouble at all running FS at full sliders, and that was with a slow hard drive a q6600 and a single 8800 gts. all lesser than the system i'm running now.

I've thrown everything i can think of at this problem
- overclocked the ram / proc
- faster hard drive
- xp 32 AND vista 64
- vid drivers
- reinstalled fsx
- every tweak available for fsx
- wore out at least a couple google hard drives searching for people with similar issues

I think that pretty much covers all the bases for troubleshooting... I'm at the end of my knowlage here, what am i missing?

sswilson September 21, 2008 11:55 AM

Did you try re-installing the chipset drivers? That's the first thing that comes to my mind when folks are seeing less-than-stellar performance out of a new(ish) build.

tzetsin September 21, 2008 12:35 PM

i'll give that a go right now. I didnt do that before because its the same problem on two different computers, but thinking on it now, both boards are using pretty much the same drivers.

MpG September 21, 2008 01:34 PM

Sometimes you can force a large address aware tag on the executable. I had to do this for the original version of Supreme Commander, since (for some bizarre reason), it didn't come with it.

You can try downloading THIS little application, which basically tacks on the Large Address Aware tag to the executable, which I think got its roots from SupCom and Stalker problems.

tzetsin September 21, 2008 02:17 PM

the chipset driver update didnt work :(

MpG, that application only seems to work for SC, but even seeing that you can do it for sc makes me hopefull that i can do that with fsx

MpG September 21, 2008 02:27 PM

Sorry, my bad. Edit the file and change all the occurrences of "Supremecommander.exe" or whatever the executable is called to your desired target file.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 AM.