1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Question about "memory" in Windows7

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by 14U2DAY, 2009/10/28.

  1. 2009/10/28
    14U2DAY Lifetime Subscription

    14U2DAY Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2008/11/18
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    2
    This could be an easy one for you Gurus...

    I've installed Windows7 and so far it's running ok... I have 8GB memory and also the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 video card which has 1Gb memory.

    What I don't understand is how to remove the shared memory for the video card... right now sharing out a little over 3Gb just for the video card. I have a gigabyte ga-ep45-ud3p motherboard and the cmos does not have a setting to stop sharing the memory on the video card.

    I didn't see any conversations about memory issues with Win7... so any advice or knowledge would be welcomed!
     
  2. 2009/10/29
    Steve R Jones

    Steve R Jones SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/30
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    252
    For those of us that don't know - what are you looking at that indicates "sharing out a little over 3Gb just for the video card. "
     

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2009/10/29
    tigerbright

    tigerbright Inactive

    Joined:
    2009/04/21
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi - just open task manager > performance >advanced , then click the ram memory usage tab
    (from my recollection - I am not using win7 at the moment)
    and evaluate how the memory is being allocated in the memory monitor applet
    Unlike say XP - the Windows 7 memory usage monitor is really clear and informative for even a newbie
    basically if you have a lot of "standby" allocated memory and at least a little free memory , then I personally would have no concerns, but I stand corrected by those with more tech knowledge than I.
    The Windows 7 memory manager is very good - much better than XP at least.
    My impression using Windows 7 and installing more and more total ram memory, it did tend to increase video aperture - as noted in display> advanced > adapter
    But that was a Windows/video driver controlled increase - so I was not concerned and welcomed the extra performance
    With windows 7 I have found is best not to try to out-configure the system !!!
     
  5. 2009/10/29
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    As noted, that's a Vista & Windows 7 memory 'feature'. Nothing you can do to 'switch it off'. You wouldn't want to do that anyway!

    My 896MB GeForce GTX 260 gets 3199MB shared memory (from my 12GB) for a total of 4095MB graphics memory.
     
    Arie,
    #4
  6. 2009/10/29
    Steve R Jones

    Steve R Jones SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/30
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    252
    Doesn't it change depending on what apps are running?
     
  7. 2009/10/29
    14U2DAY Lifetime Subscription

    14U2DAY Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2008/11/18
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thank you so much... I will just leave it be...
    I was just wondering if it will be applied to an application on the fly like Pinnacle 14 to help render the edits... or will it stay with the video card?
     
  8. 2009/10/30
    tigerbright

    tigerbright Inactive

    Joined:
    2009/04/21
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi - well running 8GB total installed ram memory with even the 1/3 allocated for video tasks, you still have about 5GB left , remembering is not like cpu speed - more the better (usually) - if your running processes do not use the memory space , meaning an excessive amount of free space is present - your system will not run any quicker (in fact could be the contrary for low resource applications)
     
  9. 2009/10/30
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    I have no idea... you see, right now my usage looks like this:

    Physical Memory (MB)
    Total: 12279
    Cached: 8176
    Available: 8747
    Free: 621

    This includes an open WinXP VM with 1GB memory assigned.


    Now, after opening another VM (Vista HP with 1GB memory assigned) the system shows:

    Physical Memory (MB)
    Total: 12279
    Cached: 8308
    Available: 7952
    Free: 14

    No change in the Shared system memory value.


    Next I added a Win7 HP VM (again with 1GB memory assigned) to that:

    Physical Memory (MB)
    Total: 12279
    Cached: 7228
    Available: 7102
    Free: 19

    That's about as far as I can push it right now... I'd need to install more VM's :)
     
    Arie,
    #8
  10. 2009/10/30
    tigerbright

    tigerbright Inactive

    Joined:
    2009/04/21
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi - looking at your results each VM only used about 800MB of memory - noting the "available" ram usage - I think you will have enough excess memory to run desired programs most efficiently
    (I suspect that "free space" is defined different to XP free space, and in Window 7 is not so critical a factor - is more the "avaliable" capacities)
    You need to also note the - forgot the term - using XP now, is it "hardware reserved" or something at the first left hand block of memory usage - this will indicate video shared memory but not aperture (even for desktops - win 7 video drivers suddenly support alot of aperture memory, the amount depending upon total installed - as you have noted - I noted the same ratio even on an old socket 939 using a onboard nvidia 6100 family video device)

    BTW - As you probably know, Windows will always allocate page file memory, if you want to process more effeciently, I would recommend a dedicated 2nd drive for usage as page file
    best to use a separate controller - even if you have to use an drive host bus adapter expansion card, (a pci-e 1x bus is very high speed) , and any old cheap SATA drive with it's high burst speed will do because the page file will be located at the high speed outer edge
    Partition according to needs - say 12GiB - so the FAT is lean and mean
    I use one on my current retro-age standby internet system - and the system runs smoother and more stable
     
  11. 2009/10/30
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Well, I run 2 SAS drives in RAID0, so I' not going to bother running my pagefile off another (slower) drive... I also let Windows manage it... see no need to mess with it myself. My system is extremely stable ;)
     
  12. 2009/10/30
    tigerbright

    tigerbright Inactive

    Joined:
    2009/04/21
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    striping SAS drives ? very impressive - just wondering , did Windows system and/or chipset driver dumb down the drive array set i/o rates ? where they to your expectations ?
     
  13. 2009/10/30
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Not sure what you mean by dumb down the drive array set i/o rates ...

    WEI 'only' shows 6.3 for the Disk data transfer rate.

    I had SATA2 drives before, and get an 180MB email attachment on a daily basis. Now with my SAS drives saving the attachment only takes about 2-3 seconds while previously it used to take 5-8 seconds.

    Overall it "feels" faster :)
     
  14. 2009/10/30
    tigerbright

    tigerbright Inactive

    Joined:
    2009/04/21
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    well in my opinion is worth the extra cost investment particularly if in a professional environment - 4-5 seconds reduction in user wait state is a long time if part of a work process.
     
  15. 2009/10/31
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Well, it is quite a bit more expensive, as there aren't many motherboards with SAS capability + SAS drives are very expensive. I was able to source 2 reasonably priced Fujitsu MBA3147RC 147GB 15,000 RPM 16MB SCSI (SAS) drives.
     
  16. 2009/10/31
    tigerbright

    tigerbright Inactive

    Joined:
    2009/04/21
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    slightly off-post subject - but while discussing 15K drives, did you have any noise problems in the form of an annoying hum
    I just replaced my 15K drive with a 10K version - to get rid of that constant sound, although may be caused in part by the case design that I use
     
  17. 2009/11/02
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Yea, at times I might hear them a bit, but I always have some background music running... The HD's are the only sound from my otherwise quite silent PC though ;)
     
  18. 2009/11/02
    14U2DAY Lifetime Subscription

    14U2DAY Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2008/11/18
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    2
    ...now you're just showing off Arie... lol!
     
  19. 2009/11/03
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Yea, I know ;)

    Been a while I had up-to-date hardware. I'll be passed by soon enough, I usually only replace my hardware every 4-5 years.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.