PDA

View Full Version : Vista : GPU/grabs system mem (Cool!)


garikfox
09-09-06, 12:23 AM
http://members.cox.net/garikfox/gpushared.jpg

K007
09-09-06, 12:35 AM
Intresting..

mike2h
09-09-06, 01:35 AM
dont think i like that. while having more mem is nice, system mem is so much slower than vid mem youl would lose any perf gains & end up slower than if you just utilised
what was on the card.
dont think that would work anyway, the vid bios & drivers are built to address what is in the card only.

garikfox
09-09-06, 01:46 AM
Ohh, Before i get bashed here too, lol

Old news I guess...

Im just stoked, is all..... :D

garikfox
09-09-06, 01:47 AM
dont think i like that. while having more mem is nice, system mem is so much slower than vid mem youl would lose any perf gains & end up slower than if you just utilised
what was on the card.
dont think that would work anyway, the vid bios & drivers are built to address what is in the card only.

its windows based, So doesnt really effect the BIOS.

K007
09-09-06, 01:49 AM
It must be using that for Aero..or w/e..and maybe wokring with the gpu...either way..GX2 wont work so GAJK:LDSKAL:D(@I#)_...soz..i am so angry :(

jAkUp
09-09-06, 02:07 AM
Its like Turbo Cache on faster cards :D But yea, system memory is incredibly slow in comparision to the GDDR3/GDDR4 found on decent cards.

Phyxion
09-09-06, 02:12 AM
It will/should only be used for stuff which is always in the memory. This shouldn't effect performance much, in fact, it should improve performance. Also, it is only in use when your RAM isn't full, when your pc needs more RAM, video stuff will get cleaned, in order to get RAM. Everything is completely different in Vista :)

SH64
09-09-06, 02:43 AM
I guess that puts the extra VRAM on the 7950GX2s to good use :D

Slammin
09-09-06, 03:38 AM
dont think i like that. while having more mem is nice, system mem is so much slower than vid mem youl would lose any perf gains & end up slower than if you just utilised
what was on the card.
dont think that would work anyway, the vid bios & drivers are built to address what is in the card only.


You should see it in action.

Really, just looking at the Performance tab in Taskman baffles me. The numbers don't make sense anymore, but all the same, everything really is snappier. I think they are taking memory management to whole new levels; Flash cards as ramdisks, etc.

As was said, everything is different with Vista.

So far, I really like Vista and cannot wait until Sli works. Will definitely be my primary OS then, until my key expires :-)

Redeemed
09-09-06, 05:55 AM
Well, I have no opinion of Vista- but from what I'm hearing I'll probably be apart of the enthusiast wave that grabs a copy right when it is released- or I'll follow my usual trend of giving it time to "mature" first. Not sure, with this being my first copy of Windows that I have purchased- I finally have money at stake: Buy now and have a copy full of "holes", or wait and let it mature and purchase a copy that has "less holes" as in "Vista SP1" or "Vista SP2". Hmm...

I know all this is off topic, but what would you guys recommend? Do you feel it is going to be a solid enough version of Windows to merit picking up a copy as soon as I have the $ to, or waiting and allowing the greater part of the bugs to get worked out? What is your opinion given your experience with Vista to this date?

And thanks in advance for your responses. :D

K007
09-09-06, 08:20 AM
I guess that puts the extra VRAM on the 7950GX2s to good use :D

That depends if it sees it as 512..or 1024..cause it is SLI..from what i am guessing its gonna be using off 1 gpu..with 512..

tacos4me
09-09-06, 01:54 PM
Well, I have no opinion of Vista- but from what I'm hearing I'll probably be apart of the enthusiast wave that grabs a copy right when it is released- or I'll follow my usual trend of giving it time to "mature" first. Not sure, with this being my first copy of Windows that I have purchased- I finally have money at stake: Buy now and have a copy full of "holes", or wait and let it mature and purchase a copy that has "less holes" as in "Vista SP1" or "Vista SP2". Hmm...

I know all this is off topic, but what would you guys recommend? Do you feel it is going to be a solid enough version of Windows to merit picking up a copy as soon as I have the $ to, or waiting and allowing the greater part of the bugs to get worked out? What is your opinion given your experience with Vista to this date?

And thanks in advance for your responses. :D

They're not going to charge you for service packs or patches, so I don't see what the point in waiting would be if you're planning on buying it anyway.

Redeemed
09-10-06, 02:45 AM
They're not going to charge you for service packs or patches, so I don't see what the point in waiting would be if you're planning on buying it anyway.

Well, that is a logical way to look at it.

Here was my stance. Back when XP was first released, no hard drive as huge as mine existed (300GB, and I have two of them). As such, when I install XP on my rig I have to partition and format only 127GB of my 300GB- cause Windows can't recognize any more. Thus, once Windows is up and running with all the updates and SPs, I end up with three drives due to having two partitions on one of my drives. Gets kind of annoying.

I don't want to end up in the same or a similar situation with Vista. That is all. I know that as of now such things wouldn't be a problem. But I'm referring to later on down the road.

Then again, it really isn't a major issue- so maybe I should just pick up a copy when it is released.

K007
09-10-06, 04:36 AM
The idea behind large hdd is to have SP1 installed..ie slipstream?

Dont think Vista has this problem besides..who uses 127GB for main os anyway -.-..i got like 40GB for the main os/c:/program files and 260gb for games ><..and another 120GB hdd for downloads.

HighTest
09-11-06, 02:42 PM
Yawwnn. Just shows that PCIe cards are treated like UMA IGP in Vista. That's "Unified Memory Architecture" for those that missed that.

I'll unwrap Vista in Christmas '07. Even with RC1, there are so many little issues, I'm going to let this one bake in the oven longer. Probably wait at least until SP1.

mike2h
09-12-06, 02:13 AM
i'm with you. waiting to sp1 also.

Redeemed
09-12-06, 06:50 AM
i'm with you. waiting to sp1 also.

Actually, my copy of XP is one of the "originals" from September of 2001. I don't have any serius problems with it at all. Sure, it is a bit annoying not having SP1 or SP2 installed, thus having to go through all those updates after the installation of Windows. Again, it might be annoying that it doesn't support anything larger than 127GB upon installation. But other than that, I haven't found a single reason to complain.

I'm obviously undecided as of now, but I'm leaning more towards picking up a copy of Vista once it is out. And, I'll probably be getting the top-end (most expensive) 64bit version as well. Granted, I'm going to wait just long enough to read reviews and then make my purchasing decision. And as SPs are released, I'll update.

K007:

In regards to more than 40GB for the OS installation- that isn't necessary for me, just a pet peve. I prefer having everything on my "C:\" drive. As such, anytime I go to install a program, I just install it to its default folder on the "C:\" drive. I have that second 300GB hard drive cause I aim to run a RAID 0 array eventually.

And as for slipstreaming:

I have tried it with no success. I am aware that MikeC probably doesn't like me saying this- but my copy of Windows is a burned one. I'm sure that has something to do with slipstreaming not working. And no, I didn't burn the CD either. A friend did it for me. As such, I have no idea how CD-Key cracking, protected program (new games, Windows, etc) copying, and other such "duplication" is done. Slipstreaming is something I have never done or even attempted untill just recently. It could be that I'm just doing something wrong.

But, with Vista being as close as it is, I'll just use my copy of XP as is it and pick up a copy of Vista shortly after it is released.

K007
09-12-06, 07:12 AM
heck i used a burned XP disc as well..with the price tag on the disc i have it safely stored away incase i need to take it out..i will be doing the samething to my vista as well because it is a very expensive software and without the OS the computer is not gonna go anywhere...and i rather have the copy stuff up than the original ><.

I am sure Vista will have support to detect those big HDD..but as for me..i rather have a small partition for the OS/programs..having soo much space free cauld lead to a really fragmented hdd....or that is how i understand it..

FearMeAll
09-15-06, 05:28 PM
heck i used a burned XP disc as well..with the price tag on the disc i have it safely stored away incase i need to take it out..i will be doing the samething to my vista as well because it is a very expensive software and without the OS the computer is not gonna go anywhere...and i rather have the copy stuff up than the original ><.

I am sure Vista will have support to detect those big HDD..but as for me..i rather have a small partition for the OS/programs..having soo much space free cauld lead to a really fragmented hdd....or that is how i understand it..
diskeeper is your friend. I keep 0%-1% fragmentation all the time. Everytime my pc hits the screensaver diskkeeper starts defragging. Keeps everything running great. Highly recommend it.

rewt
09-15-06, 05:36 PM
Auto defragmenting is a bad idea IMO. What happens if you're away from home, defrag starts in the middle of a lightning storm, power goes out during a defrag.. Lost data, thats what usually happens.

K007 I don't believe having more free space causes higher fragmentation. In fact I think it's the opposite. Smaller amount of free space = smaller amount of place to store files = files being more scattered on this disk = higher fragmentation.

Stoneyguy
09-15-06, 05:49 PM
The reason you want a small partition where your OS is installed is not because small space equals less fragmentation. It's because you don't want to keep writing and deleting things that can cause high fragmentation. The only thing you should have on your "C:" drive is the OS and drivers. If you defrag on a regular basis then of course you won't notice much of a difference in using this method, but if your like me and don't do it as regularly as you should then this is an ideal method.

jolle
09-15-06, 06:43 PM
I keep a rather small OS partition cause I want to use as much space on another partion as possible.
I only keep the OS itself on that partition, so if everything goes wrong I can just format and reinstall windows without loosing any files.