virtual memory size? Page file ?

February 14, 2008

My system:

OS: XP64

CPU: AMD x2-6400

RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual file? i

use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and online

Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600 it

seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i upgraded

from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but seems

to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

virtual memory size?

February 14, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

If you don't need a large page file the system simply won't use it much. In

any case you can't really keep the system from growing (or shrinking) the

page file by setting limits yourself. It will grow it if it has to no

matter what you do. The page file manager is a lot more sophisticated than

it was with Win9x so I would just leave it as is.

You will get a much better performance boost from a ReadyBoost enabled thumb

drive if your gaming is trying to do paging. Try that.

"Kahasm" <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com...

> My system:

>

> OS: XP64

> CPU: AMD x2-6400

> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

>

> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

>

> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual file?

> i

> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and online

> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

>

> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600 it

> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

> upgraded

> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

> seems

> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

> virtual memory size?

February 14, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

Set initial and maximum size both to 16 GB.

Unless you use more than 24 GB the pagefile should stay right were it is and

not grow.

Works better against fragmentation.

Concerning perceived reduced gaming performance.

You might wanna check the bios, if for example 32 bit data transfer is

enabled, this might increase performance somewhat.

Check any other harddisk / input / output related issue's.

Like virusscanners running at the background or so.

Games usually need to load lots of files, even during gameplay sometimes,

like loading new textures and/or models and such.

Also maybe you wanna adjust the performance options to for example: best

performance for background services.

Maybe background services are doing stuff for the games as well.

I have memory usage optimized for programs ;)

You might wanna try system cache instead, but for me it's not an issue it

seems.

Bye,

Skybuck.

February 14, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

thunk

"Kahasm" <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com...

> My system:

>

> OS: XP64

> CPU: AMD x2-6400

> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

>

> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

>

> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual file?

> i

> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and online

> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

>

> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600 it

> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

> upgraded

> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

> seems

> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

> virtual memory size?

February 15, 2008

RE: virtual memory size? Page file ?

Hello,

you can use the following article

889654 How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions

of Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;889654

This gives you some things to monitor to help determine if the pagefile is

appropriately sized.

Thanks,

Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights

--------------------

|> Thread-Topic: virtual memory size? Page file ?

|> thread-index: AchvKladkyZXNhFYQmijgZ2N7gCmLQ==

|> X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.46.193.207

|> From: =?Utf-8?B?S2FoYXNt?= <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com>

|> Subject: virtual memory size? Page file ?

|> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:01 -0800

|> Lines: 21

|> Message-ID: <457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com>

|> MIME-Version: 1.0

|> Content-Type: text/plain;

|> charset="Utf-8"

|> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

|> X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000

|> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message

|> Importance: normal

|> Priority: normal

|> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2992

|> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general

|> Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl

|> Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:14448

|> NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149

|> X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general

|>

|> My system:

|>

|> OS: XP64

|> CPU: AMD x2-6400

|> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

|> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

|> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

|> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

|>

|> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

|>

|> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual

file? i

|> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and online

|> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

|>

|> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600 it

|> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

upgraded

|> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

seems

|> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

|> virtual memory size?

|>

February 15, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

Hi, Darrell.

I haven't read KB889654 yet, but is there a reason that Vista x64 is not

covered there? Is there another KB article that discusses the page file

size for Vista, especially Vista x64?

RC

--

R. C. White, CPA

San Marcos, TX

rc@grandecom.net

Microsoft Windows MVP

(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <Darrellg@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:8zuqtO4bIHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...

> Hello,

> you can use the following article

> 889654 How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions

> of Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;889654

>

> This gives you some things to monitor to help determine if the pagefile is

> appropriately sized.

>

> Thanks,

> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

>

> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights

> |>

> |> My system:

> |>

> |> OS: XP64

> |> CPU: AMD x2-6400

> |> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

> |> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

> |> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

> |> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

> |>

> |> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

> |>

> |> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual

> file? i

> |> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and

> online

> |> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

> |>

> |> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600

> it

> |> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

> upgraded

> |> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

> seems

> |> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

> |> virtual memory size?

February 15, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

Hmm,

I actually have a page file on each harddisk.

I am not sure if Windows does any load balancing or so for the page files.

Or simply switches to the least active disk for paging ?

Bye,

Skybuck.

February 16, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

Well, it seems that "thunk" didn't ring any bells, so:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896456/en-us

Specifically read "Program performance considerations". The WOW64 subsystem

is thunking the calls from the 32 bit gaming application, and there are

performance considerations. I would expect applications that require a lot

of memory like CS3 to see a performance increase due to the increased RAM

while applications that do not, like your games, to see a performance

decrease.

"John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

news:%23GZbd91bIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> thunk

>

> "Kahasm" <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com...

>> My system:

>>

>> OS: XP64

>> CPU: AMD x2-6400

>> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

>> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

>> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

>> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

>>

>> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

>>

>> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual file?

>> i

>> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and online

>> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

>>

>> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600 it

>> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

>> upgraded

>> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

>> seems

>> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

>> virtual memory size?

>

February 16, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

Interestingly, the thunking layer is really thin (because of the native

32-bit support at the hardware layer), and doesn't normally impose a

penalty. Some 32-bit applications actually run a bit faster, IME. Usually

those that are doing a lot of disk I/O, since the whole I/O subsystem in

64bit windows is faster. Others can be a bit slower. Most of us have found

it a wash in the end, except that applications that can use >2GB of RAM will

almost always be faster.

A more likely issue is that the actual RAM access speed at 8GB is slowed. I

don't know the OPs specific motherboard, but there are certainly some mobos

that have a problem handling fully populated RAM at full speed. Games are

usually pretty sensitive to that.

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

news:Ozens6LcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Well, it seems that "thunk" didn't ring any bells, so:

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896456/en-us

>

> Specifically read "Program performance considerations". The WOW64

> subsystem is thunking the calls from the 32 bit gaming application, and

> there are performance considerations. I would expect applications that

> require a lot of memory like CS3 to see a performance increase due to the

> increased RAM while applications that do not, like your games, to see a

> performance decrease.

>

> "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

> news:%23GZbd91bIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> thunk

>>

>> "Kahasm" <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com...

>>> My system:

>>>

>>> OS: XP64

>>> CPU: AMD x2-6400

>>> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

>>> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

>>> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

>>> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

>>>

>>> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

>>>

>>> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual

>>> file? i

>>> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and online

>>> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

>>>

>>> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600 it

>>> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

>>> upgraded

>>> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

>>> seems

>>> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

>>> virtual memory size?

>>

>

February 16, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

1. I have noticed specificically slower gaming performance on 64 bit XP

while other appplications tend to perform the same or better. Could be due

to processor intensive vs disk tasks?

2. I have seen some Workstation MBs where RAM access is slower over 4GB.

Has the OP contacted the vendor for a BIOS update?

John

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message

news:95239BDA-0372-4D9E-941C-AB65A211A251@microsoft.com...

> Interestingly, the thunking layer is really thin (because of the native

> 32-bit support at the hardware layer), and doesn't normally impose a

> penalty. Some 32-bit applications actually run a bit faster, IME. Usually

> those that are doing a lot of disk I/O, since the whole I/O subsystem in

> 64bit windows is faster. Others can be a bit slower. Most of us have found

> it a wash in the end, except that applications that can use >2GB of RAM

> will almost always be faster.

>

> A more likely issue is that the actual RAM access speed at 8GB is slowed.

> I don't know the OPs specific motherboard, but there are certainly some

> mobos that have a problem handling fully populated RAM at full speed.

> Games are usually pretty sensitive to that.

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>

> "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

> news:Ozens6LcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Well, it seems that "thunk" didn't ring any bells, so:

>>

>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896456/en-us

>>

>> Specifically read "Program performance considerations". The WOW64

>> subsystem is thunking the calls from the 32 bit gaming application, and

>> there are performance considerations. I would expect applications that

>> require a lot of memory like CS3 to see a performance increase due to the

>> increased RAM while applications that do not, like your games, to see a

>> performance decrease.

>>

>> "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

>> news:%23GZbd91bIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> thunk

>>>

>>> "Kahasm" <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>> news:457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com...

>>>> My system:

>>>>

>>>> OS: XP64

>>>> CPU: AMD x2-6400

>>>> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

>>>> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

>>>> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

>>>> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

>>>>

>>>> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

>>>>

>>>> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual

>>>> file? i

>>>> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and

>>>> online

>>>> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

>>>>

>>>> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600

>>>> it

>>>> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

>>>> upgraded

>>>> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

>>>> seems

>>>> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is the

>>>> virtual memory size?

>>>

>>

>

February 16, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

It seems to be an issue with some consumer mobos. It is apparently due to a

combination of things including the memory controller. Lowering the dram

speed is sometimes necessary when fully populating these boards. In

particular, pc6400 is problematic on these mobos and running at 667 is

sometimes necessary to even boot. I suspect that the engineering on

consumer mobos has a ways to go to support a fully populated board. The

issue is coming up constantly in the vista.hardware_devices newsgroup.

"John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

news:%23qFVzLMcIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> 1. I have noticed specificically slower gaming performance on 64 bit XP

> while other appplications tend to perform the same or better. Could be

> due to processor intensive vs disk tasks?

>

> 2. I have seen some Workstation MBs where RAM access is slower over 4GB.

> Has the OP contacted the vendor for a BIOS update?

>

> John

>

> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message

> news:95239BDA-0372-4D9E-941C-AB65A211A251@microsoft.com...

>> Interestingly, the thunking layer is really thin (because of the native

>> 32-bit support at the hardware layer), and doesn't normally impose a

>> penalty. Some 32-bit applications actually run a bit faster, IME. Usually

>> those that are doing a lot of disk I/O, since the whole I/O subsystem in

>> 64bit windows is faster. Others can be a bit slower. Most of us have

>> found it a wash in the end, except that applications that can use >2GB of

>> RAM will almost always be faster.

>>

>> A more likely issue is that the actual RAM access speed at 8GB is slowed.

>> I don't know the OPs specific motherboard, but there are certainly some

>> mobos that have a problem handling fully populated RAM at full speed.

>> Games are usually pretty sensitive to that.

>>

>> --

>> Charlie.

>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>

>> "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

>> news:Ozens6LcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> Well, it seems that "thunk" didn't ring any bells, so:

>>>

>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896456/en-us

>>>

>>> Specifically read "Program performance considerations". The WOW64

>>> subsystem is thunking the calls from the 32 bit gaming application, and

>>> there are performance considerations. I would expect applications that

>>> require a lot of memory like CS3 to see a performance increase due to

>>> the increased RAM while applications that do not, like your games, to

>>> see a performance decrease.

>>>

>>> "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message

>>> news:%23GZbd91bIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> thunk

>>>>

>>>> "Kahasm" <Kahasm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:457367C0-77BD-4CFD-B1A0-A55F03ED1620@microsoft.com...

>>>>> My system:

>>>>>

>>>>> OS: XP64

>>>>> CPU: AMD x2-6400

>>>>> RAM: Corsair XMS (8gbs @ 4x2gb)

>>>>> VIDEO: two BFG 7900 GT w/ 512mb ddr2 in SLI

>>>>> HDs : one programs, one data - both sata2's 500gbs each

>>>>> MB: ASUS M2N32-SLI

>>>>>

>>>>> Current Pagefile set to system managed size.

>>>>>

>>>>> My question: since i am running 8gbs ram, do i need a large virtual

>>>>> file? i

>>>>> use my computer for graphic editing (adobe CS3 + Illustrator) and

>>>>> online

>>>>> Gaming like World of Warcraft, LoTR, Starcraft2, etc...

>>>>>

>>>>> it seems when I was running xp64 with 4gbs of ram, and an amd x2-4600

>>>>> it

>>>>> seemed to run faster; i upgraded the CPU and doubled the ram when i

>>>>> upgraded

>>>>> from CS2 to CS3 more ram and faster processor works great in CS3, but

>>>>> seems

>>>>> to have slowed my gaming experience. im wondering if the culprit is

>>>>> the

>>>>> virtual memory size?

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

February 16, 2008

Re: virtual memory size? Page file ?

on #1, I tend to suspect the quality of drivers, frankly. From what I've

seen so far, the drivers for 64bit are not of the quality level they could

be. Most are simple ports of the 32-bit drivers, not really doing anything

to take advantage of the features of the x64 architecture. Things like more

and wider registers, wider access to memory, etc. Just taking advantage of

the extra registers can make a huge difference in some applications. I know

when I was talking to the chief architect of SONAR (a professional audio

mixing application), he said that they got ~20% improvements in speed across

the board, and that was in an application that was not memory constrained,

or particularly tuned. He attributed it to the doubling of both the size and

the quantity of registers, since they were able to do far more direct

register arithmetic.

#2 - good question.