Memory rant

[stelleg151]

XBOX 360 has 512MB of ram. My computer has twice that amount. I run Vista, the newest operating system on the market. Thus, you would expect it to have the most intelligent memory management. However, as most of you know, this is far from the case. Any new game on Vista takes at least 2GB of ram. Playing with 1GB is unbearable: games stutter for full seconds, continuously.

Why is memory management on PC's so miserable when it comes to gaming? XBOX 360 runs dashboard in the background, keeps track of ethernet and other peripherals. Sounds quite a bit like what a PC does, yet for some reason each byte of memory goes a lot farther on the 360. Yes I realize its easy for developers to optimize for consoles, but I'm fairly sure this isn't the problem, as you will see.

When analyzing what is using the memory and slowing down the system so much, the situation only gets more confusing. Often the games aren't using more than 400MB, and there is still 20% (200MB) free. So Vista is using 400MB while running a full screen game, while leaving 20% unused as my hard-drive weeps silently as it is murdered by the swap: Come on Microsoft. The only reason I dont use linux full time is because game developers are all leaning towards DX10. So put a little effort into making it a smooth experience please.

To answer the inevitable question as to why I dont use XP, the answer is two-fold. One: I dont own it, and got Vista through MSDNAA. Two: Crysis is coming.

I also stuck in my readyboost-capable 4gb usb pen drive, set readyboost to use the whole 4gb, and prayed it would help with the swapping speed. No change to my eye.

Microsoft, its simple: all I want is for you to let my games use my memory.

[/rant]

 

[mundane]

A hardware optimized, specific-purpose platform with less resources outperforming an extremely general purpose operating system environment running on varied hardware, including legacy support? Who'd have thunk it?

Edit: To address your concern re: memory, I'd wager the developers wanted the game playable on less capable systems. Again, the 360 devs knew exactly how much memory they would be able to work with, while those on Vista had to aim for a lower amount.

 

[VIAN]

Vista does use a lot of resources. After installing and configuring it I found that Vista used 1.5GB of RAM. XP only uses 500MB of RAM.

 

[stelleg151]

Originally posted by: mundane
A hardware optimized, specific-purpose platform with less resources outperforming an extremely general purpose operating system environment running on varied hardware, including legacy support? Who'd have thunk it?

Edit: To address your concern re: memory, I'd wager the developers wanted the game playable on less capable systems. Again, the 360 devs knew exactly how much memory they would be able to work with, while those on Vista had to aim for a lower amount.

I understand that distinction, but once a game is loaded is it really necessary to use 60% of the memory for legacy support?

Edit: Thats the problem though, the game doesnt run on less capable systems, it doesn't even run on MORE capable systems(ie: mine). I apologize if I wasnt entirely clear, but the main message is that the problem isnt with the game developers, but with the memory management of Vista.

 

[Mr Smiley]

Well in Vista, the use of most of your memory is due to its new caching system. I think its called SuperFetch? Anyway, if your system needs more memory, Im sure Vista will free up some of the memory used for caching.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Vista does use a lot of resources. After installing and configuring it I found that Vista used 1.5GB of RAM. XP only uses 500MB of RAM.

XP fails to use 1.5GB you mean. It was written when PCs had like 128mb.


There are several threads on Vista memory management over in the OS forums. If you don't understand how memory is used in an OS you'll never understand why having a high memory usage is not a bad thing. You are simply spreading FUD to others that are equally ignorant. Go learn enough to smack me, nothinman, n0cmonkey, drag and the others around and by the time you're there you'll be agreeing with us.

If your system is running like ass that's a different story. Your game stuttering for seconds at a time is a sign of a problem. If it was the memory manager everyone would be having the same issue. Find root cause, don't speculate.

 

[stelleg151]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: VIAN
Vista does use a lot of resources. After installing and configuring it I found that Vista used 1.5GB of RAM. XP only uses 500MB of RAM.

XP fails to use 1.5GB you mean. It was written when PCs had like 128mb.


There are several threads on Vista memory management over in the OS forums. If you don't understand how memory is used in an OS you'll never understand why having a high memory usage is not a bad thing. You are simply spreading FUD to others that are equally ignorant. Go learn enough to smack me, nothinman, n0cmonkey, drag and the others around and by the time you're there you'll be agreeing with us.

If your system is running like ass that's a different story. Your game stuttering for seconds at a time is a sign of a problem. If it was the memory manager everyone would be having the same issue. Find root cause, don't speculate.

I agree that memory USAGE isnt a bad thing. Swapping when theres still free memory is a bit silly, and thats exactly what Vista was doing, it wasn't speculation.

It is possible that it is a problem with Windows and the new Nvidia drivers, so I will look into that further.

Note again that it was a rant, so dont take it too seriously.

 

[Ichigo]

Vista is supposed to unload unused data in RAM when a program calls for it. So therefore, a game should be using as much memory as it asks for. Something sounds wrong with your system.

 

[DannyLove]

reinstall XP, theres your answer.

besides, aren't games supported under XP? =p

 

[Tencntraze]

Originally posted by: DannyLove
reinstall XP, theres your answer.

besides, aren't games supported under XP? =p

OP stated he doesn't own XP, didn't imply he upgraded from it. He did say that the only reason he doesn't use linux *full-time* is for gaming, which implies that he uses it otherwise. I don't think purchasing another OS is a good solution.

Sorry, that's just me nit-picking wording

 

[VIAN]

I would use linux... if it worked. The interface was good. It was refreshing to look at, but I couldn't get my sound to work despite being told that it was installed.

 

[Pwnbroker]

Linux would have better support if they could afford to pay programmers to make the software. Since most Linux distros are free, I don't see where they could make the money to pay programmers to make drivers/games/etc for it. Most linux programming is on a volunteer basis. Maybe if more programmers got paid for the work they do, Linux would be as good as MS, but then again, it wouldn't be free either.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: stelleg151

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: VIAN
Vista does use a lot of resources. After installing and configuring it I found that Vista used 1.5GB of RAM. XP only uses 500MB of RAM.

XP fails to use 1.5GB you mean. It was written when PCs had like 128mb.


There are several threads on Vista memory management over in the OS forums. If you don't understand how memory is used in an OS you'll never understand why having a high memory usage is not a bad thing. You are simply spreading FUD to others that are equally ignorant. Go learn enough to smack me, nothinman, n0cmonkey, drag and the others around and by the time you're there you'll be agreeing with us.

If your system is running like ass that's a different story. Your game stuttering for seconds at a time is a sign of a problem. If it was the memory manager everyone would be having the same issue. Find root cause, don't speculate.

I agree that memory USAGE isnt a bad thing. Swapping when theres still free memory is a bit silly, and thats exactly what Vista was doing, it wasn't speculation.

It is possible that it is a problem with Windows and the new Nvidia drivers, so I will look into that further.

Note again that it was a rant, so dont take it too seriously.

Understood. My rants get pretty bad when I'm in the middle of a problem.

Paging when there is still free memory isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Find one of the "how do I remove my pagefile" threads for long discussions on why.

One quick example though: Shove read-only/code pages out to disk preemptively but keep a copy in ram. If more physical ram is needed by something else you don't have to page, you just drop the pages from physical memory and go. Very clever but gives the appearance that lots of memory is being consumed.

I'm not saying you don't have a problem. I just don't think we're anywhere near a root cause. Simply looking at a perf problem and a few other things then making the leap to "Vista has a memory manager bug" is a big one. Also, lots of disk I/O doesn't always mean lots of paging. Use perfmon to grab paging stats.

 

[Nothinman]

XBOX 360 has 512MB of ram. My computer has twice that amount. I run Vista, the newest operating system on the market. Thus, you would expect it to have the most intelligent memory management.

Those two statements are completely orthognal. The 360 can get by with 512M of memory because it uses a very specialized embedded OS while Vista is a huge general purpose OS. I really doubt the OS in the 360 has anything like Aero, indexing, the .Net runtime, mail clients, movie maker, etc.

Why is memory management on PC's so miserable when it comes to gaming? XBOX 360 runs dashboard in the background, keeps track of ethernet and other peripherals. Sounds quite a bit like what a PC does, yet for some reason each byte of memory goes a lot farther on the 360. Yes I realize its easy for developers to optimize for consoles, but I'm fairly sure this isn't the problem, as you will see.

You realize that Vista does a lot more than "keep track of ethernet and other peripherals", right? And most drivers are small even in general purpose OSes, most of the modules on my Linux system take up between like 10K and 500K of memory, exclusing the nVidia crap which is absolutely huge, so device management shouldn't require more than a few megs of memory on either OS.

while leaving 20% unused as my hard-drive weeps silently as it is murdered by the swap:

That seems unlikely, have you actually done any real tests to prove that it's pagefile I/O? Although with Aero enabled you probably will need a good bit more memory and all of the window composition data will probably have to be put in the pagefile since it doesn't have another backingstore on disk.

Linux would have better support if they could afford to pay programmers to make the software.

So I guess all of those people working for RedHat, Novell, IBM, HP, etc are cashing fake paychecks?

Since most Linux distros are free, I don't see where they could make the money to pay programmers to make drivers/games/etc for it.

Then you haven't been looking, RedHat has been profitable for years.

Most linux programming is on a volunteer basis. Maybe if more programmers got paid for the work they do, Linux would be as good as MS, but then again, it wouldn't be free either.

A huge number of them are paid for the work they do, IMO the software is better than the stuff from MS and it's all still free.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Pwnbroker
Linux would have better support if they could afford to pay programmers to make the software. Since most Linux distros are free, I don't see where they could make the money to pay programmers to make drivers/games/etc for it. Most linux programming is on a volunteer basis. Maybe if more programmers got paid for the work they do, Linux would be as good as MS, but then again, it wouldn't be free either.

LMAO....you have no clue about Open source software....


most has decent support (free, in forums, mailing lists, and IRC from the community) and paid (from 3rd parties, such as RedHat)

OSS is usually of HIGHER quality the their closed source cousins (imho). Most programmers spend time on OSS because the believe in the cause. There is also a HUGE amount of corporations that devote LOTS of paid developer time to Linux, such as IBM, HP, etc. Saying linux sucks because nobody gets paid is ignorant.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
XBOX 360 has 512MB of ram. My computer has twice that amount. I run Vista, the newest operating system on the market. Thus, you would expect it to have the most intelligent memory management. However, as most of you know, this is far from the case. Any new game on Vista takes at least 2GB of ram. Playing with 1GB is unbearable: games stutter for full seconds, continuously.

Why is memory management on PC's so miserable when it comes to gaming? XBOX 360 runs dashboard in the background, keeps track of ethernet and other peripherals. Sounds quite a bit like what a PC does, yet for some reason each byte of memory goes a lot farther on the 360. Yes I realize its easy for developers to optimize for consoles, but I'm fairly sure this isn't the problem, as you will see.

When analyzing what is using the memory and slowing down the system so much, the situation only gets more confusing. Often the games aren't using more than 400MB, and there is still 20% (200MB) free. So Vista is using 400MB while running a full screen game, while leaving 20% unused as my hard-drive weeps silently as it is murdered by the swap: Come on Microsoft. The only reason I dont use linux full time is because game developers are all leaning towards DX10. So put a little effort into making it a smooth experience please.

To answer the inevitable question as to why I dont use XP, the answer is two-fold. One: I dont own it, and got Vista through MSDNAA. Two: Crysis is coming.

I also stuck in my readyboost-capable 4gb usb pen drive, set readyboost to use the whole 4gb, and prayed it would help with the swapping speed. No change to my eye.

Microsoft, its simple: all I want is for you to let my games use my memory.

[/rant]

What game are you playing, and how are you determining memory usage? It's at the point whether XP or Vista, 1gb is really pushing it for newer games.

Are you sure you're not confusing swapping with game I/O? I've yet to see a situation in vista where there's more than 10mb actually free or so. Anything that isn't being used for resident files is being used for caching.

Vista will give the a game all the memory it wants, but it still has to do this in the context of keeping the OS running. This is surely the bane of PC gaming, but it will always be a problem. It'd be interesting if games could run in a "dedicated mode" where the OS is cut down in the background, but in the end, all that could be rectified by throwing in another 512mb of memory, which is allthe core of vista really needs in and of itself...idle cpu usage is miniscule.

 

[Jeff7181]

As others have said, open source /= free. All it means is the source code is available to anybody who wants it. Perfect example... Oracle is taking Red Hat's Unbreakable Linux, stripping all the Red Hat branding, calling it their own, and providing support for less than Red Hat is and it's supposedly 100% legal. Red Hat isn't even objecting to it from what I hear... their reaction seems to be that Oracle is providing support at a lower cost, but they're providing less support. It won't be an option for customers who need Red Hat's level of support. Even so (and correct me if I'm wrong), I believe the fact that the OS is open source doesn't necessarily mean every application written for it has to be open source as well. So writing software for an open source platform doesn't mean you're a "non-profit programmer."

*EDIT* By the way... I played WoW on my laptop running Vista with 1 GB of RAM for a few months. While it does run better now with 2 GB, it didn't perform so poorly with 1 GB that I'd assume Vista's memory manager is junk. In fact, after closing WoW after a 3-4 hour session, there was around 250 MB of physical memory used. The amount will obviously jump as Vista pulls things back into memory that it swapped out to make room for the game.

 

[Nothinman]

Red Hat isn't even objecting to it from what I hear... their reaction seems to be that Oracle is providing support at a lower cost, but they're providing less support.

A friend of mine has the displeasure of supporting some Oracle Unusable Linux boxes and from what he says the support is beyond terrible.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Red Hat isn't even objecting to it from what I hear... their reaction seems to be that Oracle is providing support at a lower cost, but they're providing less support.

A friend of mine has the displeasure of supporting some Oracle Unusable Linux boxes and from what he says the support is beyond terrible.

Makes sense... you get what you pay for, sometimes a little less. I'm sure the people at Red Hat read things like this and crack a smile.

 

[Smilin]

Jeez it's like a wrestling tag-team.

The Vista fanboys beat him up then tagged the Linux fanboys who are now having their turn.


I think (hope) he's going to take a closer look at some perf data to figure out what's really happening.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Jeez it's like a wrestling tag-team.

The Vista fanboys beat him up then tagged the Linux fanboys who are now having their turn.


I think (hope) he's going to take a closer look at some perf data to figure out what's really happening.

You act like that's out of the ordinary here...

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Jeez it's like a wrestling tag-team.

The Vista fanboys beat him up then tagged the Linux fanboys who are now having their turn.


I think (hope) he's going to take a closer look at some perf data to figure out what's really happening.

It's the condescending tone of the OP that rubbed people the wrong way.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Smilin
Jeez it's like a wrestling tag-team.

The Vista fanboys beat him up then tagged the Linux fanboys who are now having their turn.


I think (hope) he's going to take a closer look at some perf data to figure out what's really happening.

It's the condescending tone of the OP that rubbed people the wrong way.

For me it was the utter lack of understanding that translated into randomly bashing things with FUD.

 

[Nothinman]

Makes sense... you get what you pay for, sometimes a little less. I'm sure the people at Red Hat read things like this and crack a smile.

Being an open source software user who uses a ton of free software I really hate the phrase "you get what you pay for", and in this instance I think it's just a case of Oracle biting off more than they can chew.

 

[VIAN]

I misread the memory usage on Vista. The task manager changed a bit. Turns out Vista uses about 650MB of RAM idle. Although that's with PC-cillin Internet Security. It's about 150MB over my XP machine, but still only 30% of my physical memory. I also have to take into account the fact that I never used a sound scheme on XP and that I never used all of the XP interface effects. But I wouldn't know how much RAM those would take up, but I'm betting it isn't 150MB.