Will 32-bit Windows hold back the evolution of RAM capacity?

[Eeqmcsq]

I have a Gigabyte motherboard which supports up to 16 GB, which means a 4x4GB configuration. I currently have a 4x2GB kit installed which I got from Newegg for about $110. Just for fun, I decided to look up how much it would cost to go up to 4x4GB. To my surprise, the 4x4GB kit is $450, about 4 times the average 4x2GB kit. Individual 4 GB sticks average about $100.

Conventional wisdom would say that in a year or two, those 4 GB sticks will eventually come down in price as they become more popular and become "the standard". However, a little deeper thinking made me wonder if that will happen any time soon.

The most popular OS right now is 32-bit Windows, which means the theoretical absolute max RAM one can install and use is 4GB. Any more and 32-bit Windows can't see the extra RAM. The most popular RAM configuration right now is dual channel mode. This means that the memory configurations that should be most popular is 2x2GB or even 2x1GB. This is reflected on Newegg, as there are 238 2x1GB products, and 187 2x2GB products right now. This shows that the 1GB and 2GB sticks are currently "the standard".

The inertia of 32-bit Windows seems to be as huge as a mountain right now. Do you think this will cause RAM capacity to stagnate and hang around the 1GB and 2GB size per stick? Or do you think the temptation of breaking the 4GB barrier is enough to entice people to upgrade/switch to a 64-bit OS? Or has there been a slow unreported shift towards 64-bit OSes already?

 

[masteryoda34]

There has been a shift towards 64bit already. Even Dell and HP have 64bit options, and sometimes its even the default option. You can find 64bit machines in Best Buy too.

Personally, I think Microsoft should completely ditch 32bit with Windows 7. Any non 64bit CPU isn't fast enough for decent Vista/Win7 performance anyways.

They probably won't totally ditch 32bit, but I do hope they push 64bit versions of Win7 as the "default" option.

The mass migration to 64bit will probably occur during 2009 IMO. Cheap RAM will fuel this. Even people who are computer illiterate know that more RAM is better, and very soon they are going to start wanting >4GB. This will force the 64bit migration.

 

[imported_Scoop]

I don't know about about you, but I'd like to manage with JUST 4GB thank you very much. I don't have an urge to spend more money on RAM.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
...

Personally, I think Microsoft should completely ditch 32bit with Windows 7. Any non 64bit CPU isn't fast enough for decent Vista/Win7 performance anyways.

...

I read one of the things they're focusing on with W7 is low-power performance. So I don't think your second statement above necessarily holds. With Vista, yes. But with W7, I don't think so.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Personally, I think Microsoft should completely ditch 32bit with Windows 7. Any non 64bit CPU isn't fast enough for decent Vista/Win7 performance anyways.

They probably won't totally ditch 32bit, but I do hope they push 64bit versions of Win7 as the "default" option.

Truth. Maintaining a 32-bit OS that's popular is a horrible hinderance to most mainstream software going 64-bit. The problem is, there is already a huge installed base of computers running 32-bit operating systems (XP32 + Vista32) and most of these machines are "at least" adequate for what typical users require (heck - a netbook with a stripped down XP install is enough for most users).

The mass migration to 64bit will probably occur during 2009 IMO. Cheap RAM will fuel this. Even people who are computer illiterate know that more RAM is better, and very soon they are going to start wanting >4GB. This will force the 64bit migration.

Doubtful due to reasoning above. I seriously doubt there will be a "mass migration" to 64-bit computing until a few years after 32-bit operating systems are no longer offered.

A good analogy is the SATA interface for HDD/DVD drives. It was originally launched in 2003 but was very slow to catch on for mainstream use until Intel introduced the 965P/975X chipsets that no longer even offered PATA connectivity (most motherboards still offer a single port but it's a cobbled on extra provided through a second controller added specifically for that purpose). The shift to SATA accelerated drastically once Intel made this move in 2006 alongside the launch of the C2D/C2Q chips that quickly siezed the majority of the market. As everyone upgraded to the new faster processors they found that their motherboards would only support at most two PATA devices. Even today I still deal with people wanting upgrades that have 2+ PATA drives and get pissed when they learn none of the new motherboards will support all their components.

To sum it all up, I doubt we will see the price drop significantly for 4GB DDR2 sticks. I think 4+GB DDR3 sticks will become cheap because as people upgrade to the systems that require DDR3 they will want more so the shift will take place on that memory instead.

 

[ochadd]

I don't think it's Windows XP directly that will be holding back memory capacities. The "issue" is that the functionality users want can be done w/ Windows XP 32 bit and 4GB of memory.

Internet, email, watching videos, gaming, etc are near instantaneously assuming there aren't any other bottlenecks with just 2GB. Everyday tasks don't call for 4Gb of memory. I've been running 2GB of memory for the last 5 years probably. There have been very few games that would have liked more than that. 4Gb means you don't even need to consider it for anything out right now.

Imho anything over 4GB means you are doing professional level work and might as well write off whatever amount of RAM you need.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i've been fine with 4gb of ram. the programs i use dont and shouldn't use up all my ram anyway. i usually float around 2gb-3gb of usage in my system

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Personally, I think Microsoft should completely ditch 32bit with Windows 7. Any non 64bit CPU isn't fast enough for decent Vista/Win7 performance anyways.

Which part of the OS is being 'accelerated' by the additional general purpose registers or operations on 64-bit integers? Would that be I/O manager, cache manager, process manager, boot manager, service control manager, or kernel transaction manager?

Even people who are computer illiterate know that more RAM is better, and very soon they are going to start wanting >4GB.

For what? Mine Sweeper, Internet Explorer, and Notepad? Computer illiterate people don't use their computer for anything that would benefit from more than 2GB. You seem to believe that if you just add more CPU bits and RAM bytes, software has no other choice but to run faster and faster.

If you hop-up Grandma's engine from 180HP to 300HP, does she automatically arrive at all her destinations earlier? Were Grandma's drive times limited by horsepower?

Software has no choice but to run faster when CPU clock frequencies increase. Or when the CPU can execute more instructions per clock without explicit programming. But to take advantage of the 64-bit registers, software must have some explicit support for it, and the vast majority of applications currently do not. Even if an application is purpose-built to take advantage of the 64-bit registers, does NOT mean it will actually benefit from them.

e.g. you think a real native 64-bit version of Notepad is going to run 'faster' or 'better' than 32-bit?

If computer illiterate users will very soon start wanting >4GB, its because they are computer illiterate (i.e. they don't know enough to serve as a check against the people who will be telling them they need or should have >4GB).

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Personally, I think Microsoft should completely ditch 32bit with Windows 7. Any non 64bit CPU isn't fast enough for decent Vista/Win7 performance anyways.

Which part of the OS is being 'accelerated' by the additional general purpose registers or operations on 64-bit integers? Would that be I/O manager, cache manager, process manager, boot manager, service control manager, or kernel transaction manager?

He had a valid point, it has nothing to do with the OS taking advantage of X86-64 functionality. Anything without 64-bit support on the desktop side is going to be an Athlon XP or lower-clocked P4 at best. These CPU's are already too slow to run Vista comfortably in many cases. A lot of the extra performance you're going to get on Windows 7 is due to WDDM 1.1 and the DWM now supporting Dx10 (literally cuts the resource requirements for compositing in half). Almost no one has a CPU that old paired with modern video hardware.

You have a valid counterpoint with regards to mobile chips, however. The original Core Solo/Duo is still a capable CPUs and will run Windows 7 x86 fine.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
He had a valid point, it has nothing to do with the OS taking advantage of X86-64 functionality. Anything without 64-bit support on the desktop side is going to be an Athlon XP or lower-clocked P4 at best.

Thanks. I misread his statement to mean that 32-bit OS was somehow unacceptably 'slow' because it doesn't use 64-bit capability. My apologies to masteryoda34 on that point.

However, there were a number of Pentium 4 models up to 3.80GHz for LGA775 and 3.40GHz for mPGA478 that do not support Intel EM64T (in addition to Celeron D, Mobile Pentium M and Core models). On the AMD side, there were a number of S754 and S939 Semprons (desktop and mobile) up to 2.0GHz that did not support AMD64.

Most of which would yield reasonable performance on Vista/Win7 for undemanding users, while the higher P4 models would yield reasonable performance for many moderately demanding users.

 

[Nothinman]

But to take advantage of the 64-bit registers, software must have some explicit support for it,

Actually they don't, as long as you use a proper 64-bit compiler the additional registers, SSE, etc will be used automatically. Whether it provides a noticeable difference or if the compiler even did it right is another issue altogether.

e.g. you think a real native 64-bit version of Notepad is going to run 'faster' or 'better' than 32-bit?

Not faster but it'll be able to open larger files.

 

[SickBeast]

I think alot of the motherboard manufacturers are holding back ram capacity.

Case in point: My A8N-E will not let me use more than 3.2gb due to chipset limitations despite the fact that my Opteron 165 is clearly 64-bit capable along with my OS.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I think alot of the motherboard manufacturers are holding back ram capacity.

Case in point: My A8N-E will not let me use more than 3.2gb due to chipset limitations despite the fact that my Opteron 165 is clearly 64-bit capable along with my OS.

That's an old board. Newer boards have no problem with >=4GB of RAM.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I think alot of the motherboard manufacturers are holding back ram capacity.

Case in point: My A8N-E will not let me use more than 3.2gb due to chipset limitations despite the fact that my Opteron 165 is clearly 64-bit capable along with my OS.

That's an old board. Newer boards have no problem with >=4GB of RAM.

Well, they could also be adding more slots to the motherboards.

There's also the problem with the i7 chips where they can only use 6gb of ram due to 3 slots only and a 2gb limitation per stick.

There are a few factors that are limiting how much ram we use.

 

[kajko]

My two cents..
The shift to 64-bit is slowly taking place and is clearly the future. Many mid to high-range laptops/desktops come with 64-bit systems as the default and this trend will trickle down to the mainstream Best Buy etc. machines. I've heard Balmer and Paul Thurrott talk about how 64-bit will be making big gains in the market with Windows 7 and hopefully take over with the next OS. Most importantly, at this point any decent hardware manufacturers and software companies recognize and support the evolution, making all their products compatible soon enough, which will also fuel the shift.

I personally can't wait..right now I'm still crippled by the lack of 64bit drivers for Hauppauge TV-Tuner cards which drives me insane as it's the only reason I have to run 32bit XP/Vista.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
There's also the problem with the i7 chips where they can only use 6gb of ram due to 3 slots only and a 2gb limitation per stick.

Uh...

A quick search, just on Newegg, reveals 22 boards with the X58 chipset. Of those:
6 memory slots - 19
4 memory slots - 2
3 memory slots - 1

So you pretty much have to be a dumb f*ck to pick a board that only has 3 memory slots. A blind monkey picking completely at random only has a 4.5% chance to get a board with 3 slots and less than 14% chance to get a board with less than six slots.

Over 86% of the boards will support 12GB using today's 2GB sticks. And I doubt it will be long before the memory makers begin rolling out the 4GB sticks.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: SickBeast
There's also the problem with the i7 chips where they can only use 6gb of ram due to 3 slots only and a 2gb limitation per stick.

Uh...

A quick search, just on Newegg, reveals 22 boards with the X58 chipset. Of those:
6 memory slots - 19
4 memory slots - 2
3 memory slots - 1

So you pretty much have to be a dumb f*ck to pick a board that only has 3 memory slots. A blind monkey picking completely at random only has a 4.5% chance to get a board with 3 slots and less than 14% chance to get a board with less than six slots.

Over 86% of the boards will support 12GB using today's 2GB sticks. And I doubt it will be long before the memory makers begin rolling out the 4GB sticks.

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I read something to do with a 6gb ram limitation with the i7. I think it had to do with the HardOCP review of the P2.

Forgive me if I am wrong here. I read it somewhere else. It's not like I have an i7 to test.