virtual memory size? Page file ?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Kahasm, Feb 14, 2008.

  1. Kahasm

    Kahasm Guest

    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?
     
    Kahasm, Feb 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Feb 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Feb 14, 2008
    #3
  4. thunk


    "Kahasm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
     
    John Fullbright, Feb 14, 2008
    #4
  5. 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?= <>
    |> Subject: virtual memory size? Page file ?
    |> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:01 -0800
    |> Lines: 21
    |> Message-ID: <>
    |> 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?
    |>
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Feb 15, 2008
    #5
  6. Kahasm

    R. C. White Guest

    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

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

    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
     
    R. C. White, Feb 15, 2008
    #6
  7. 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.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Feb 15, 2008
    #7
  8. 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:%...
    > thunk
    >
    >
    > "Kahasm" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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?

    >
    >
     
    John Fullbright, Feb 16, 2008
    #8
  9. 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:...
    > 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:%...
    >> thunk
    >>
    >>
    >> "Kahasm" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 16, 2008
    #9
  10. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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:...
    >> 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:%...
    >>> thunk
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Kahasm" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    John Fullbright, Feb 16, 2008
    #10
  11. 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:%...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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:...
    >>> 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:%...
    >>>> thunk
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Kahasm" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Feb 16, 2008
    #11
  12. 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.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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:...
    >>> 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:%...
    >>>> thunk
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Kahasm" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 16, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Phil
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,111
    Wyatt M. Portendt
    Mar 4, 2004
  2. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    14,896
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  3. mark heinemann

    jpg file size ---> print size problem

    mark heinemann, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,735
    Jonathan Wilson
    Apr 29, 2004
  4. One4All

    Disconnect Between HD File Size & PS's File Size

    One4All, Sep 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    372
    One4All
    Sep 12, 2007
  5. Paul

    Re: Virtual Memory size

    Paul, Jul 26, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,059
    Superaffiliate7.com
    Aug 19, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page