64-bit Query with 128GB RAM

Dzomlija · 18 Jun 2009

I think most of you have missed the point really. While yes, Windows 7 x64 can go to a maximum of 192GB memory, what are the chances that any one of us will be around to see a consumer-level motherboard capable of loading that amount of memory?

Sure, there are some motherboards out there that can go up to 16 or 24GB, but quite frankly, the costs in going that far cannot be justified.

It took me well over a year on Vista x64 to run enough tasks and place such a load on my system resources that 4GB was not enough anymore and I crashed the memory manager. And in all fairness, that's not how I use my computer on a day-to-day basis.

I'm currently paying off a nice new 1.5TB harddisk. When that's is done, I'll be installing an additional 4GB. Afterall, I got this motherboard because it could go to 8GB of memory. If I'm not going to use that capacity, then I've wasted my money.

If I ever forsee a time for when even 8GB will not be enough, then I'll likely me buying a whole new rig....

fakeasdf · 18 Jun 2009

Dzomlija said:

I think most of you have missed the point really. While yes, Windows 7 x64 can go to a maximum of 192GB memory, what are the chances that any one of us will be around to see a consumer-level motherboard capable of loading that amount of memory?

Sure, there are some motherboards out there that can go up to 16 or 24GB, but quite frankly, the costs in going that far cannot be justified.

It took me well over a year on Vista x64 to run enough tasks and place such a load on my system resources that 4GB was not enough anymore and I crashed the memory manager. And in all fairness, that's not how I use my computer on a day-to-day basis.

I'm currently paying off a nice new 1.5TB harddisk. When that's is done, I'll be installing an additional 4GB. Afterall, I got this motherboard because it could go to 8GB of memory. If I'm not going to use that capacity, then I've wasted my money.

If I ever forsee a time for when even 8GB will not be enough, then I'll likely me buying a whole new rig....

I don't know if we really missed the point, it seems like the question was wether or not it was possible to stick that much memory in a machine or not. On top of that the system in question a SQL machine is a very likely candidate for that type of hardware. We've created a few Servers with massive amounts of memory for our VMWare Servers at my work...

Captain Zero · 18 Jun 2009

I'm running 8GB and it's easier than I thought to run out. But then again, I'm a madman. Until true x64 games come out, it won't be an issue. But I can bleed it dry;

1x Photoshop CS4 x64
1x Sony Vegas Pro x64
1x Oblivion
1x Fallout 3

Photoshop with one massive image loaded.
Vegas rendering HD video.
Oblivion running, well, everything.
Fallout because ALT-TAB rocks.

And no, I don't run a pagefile. It's disabled entirely. Never will run one again, it's useless.

usasma · 18 Jun 2009

Money for a mobo that'll support 192 gB of RAM - in excess of $1,000.00 (US)
24 - 8 gB DDR2 modules at $300 each = $7200.00 (US)

Comes with 32 mB of onboard video memory! :)

fakeasdf · 18 Jun 2009

I'm pretty sure I'd run that bad boy headless...

Mattster · 18 Jun 2009

I may have missed something that may have made you laugh actually, considering I actually forgot the incident but a friend reminded me of what happened. This is something, you may think is really laughable, I dunno.

I mentioned the physical limitations on the motherboards in the thread where I was arguing with Cat.

The argument basically went like this:

Cat said 3GB was top of the line, which I scoffed at, to which he replied Vista can only support 3GB of RAM. I said no, since 64-bit Vista can support up to 128GB. He said no, and posted a link to an error with Vista when you run more than 3GB of RAM, which is true; however, it is fixed with a patch and you can then run more. I'm currently running 8GB, the maximum my motherboard will support (I kind of wish I had a 16GB limit ).

He made no distinction between versions of Vista and instead just said "Vista can't support more then 3GB", and used that error as his proof. Only later on did he post the limitations of all the Vista versions, but it was after his 3GB limitation was shot down. It was obvious he didn't know beforehand otherwise he would've just said it.

But yeah, its all good that none of you said what Cat said. How he thought Vista could ONLY support 3GB; which he most likely said for any and all Window OSs (Including Windows 7). As for that 192GB comment, that's just insane >_>" Having that much memory is honestly asking for power hungry people like me.

FreakyFerret · 18 Jun 2009

I remember a few years back, I was working at this oil company. We just got in one of the new servers. A powerhorse! It cost thousands and thousands of dollars. But, we needed it. We needed the power. Our network and therefore work was a crawl without it.

What was so bad ass about it? It had 4 megs of RAM. Yes, 4 megs. This was back when 32 and 64 megs were high end consumer. This was just a few years ago (well a decade).

Machines with 32 and 64 gigs of RAM aren't far off. Once 64 bit becomes mainstream, computer makers will be offering computers with more and more RAM in them to show how much better their systems are. First will offer 8 gigs. Then 12. Then 16. Then some company will say, "We'll show you! 32 gigs!" That's how it happened when 32 bit became mainstream. That's what will happen with 64.

Mattster · 18 Jun 2009

4MB RAM >_>" Dayum, thats awful.

Dzomlija · 18 Jun 2009

FreakyFerret said:

I remember a few years back, I was working at this oil company. We just got in one of the new servers. A powerhorse! It cost thousands and thousands of dollars. But, we needed it. We needed the power. Our network and therefore work was a crawl without it.

What was so bad ass about it? It had 4 megs of RAM. Yes, 4 megs. This was back when 32 and 64 megs were high end consumer. This was just a few years ago (well a decade).

Machines with 32 and 64 gigs of RAM aren't far off. Once 64 bit becomes mainstream, computer makers will be offering computers with more and more RAM in them to show how much better their systems are. First will offer 8 gigs. Then 12. Then 16. Then some company will say, "We'll show you! 32 gigs!" That's how it happened when 32 bit became mainstream. That's what will happen with 64.

I remember my first 386 had 1MB of RAM in it, and how much it cost to move up to 8MB to run Windows 3.1 properly.

Windows 7 was supposed to be released in only x64, but I guess Microsoft saw that x64 adoption wasn't so good yet. If there is any truth to the rumors, Winodws 7 will indeed be the last OS by Microsoft to be released in both x86 and x64 flavours.

I started using Vista x64 about a month after it's initial release in 2007, and I'll never, NEVER go back to 32-bit. 32-Bit processors was first introduced way back in the mid-80s with the 386, and it's about time that we move on to bigger, more powerful choices and leave 32-bit where it belongs: In the history books.

macgyver2 · 18 Jun 2009

I have read that they are developing ram that will be in the Tera range for memory cards and they are coming soon (as in this year I read) So if they can make a memory card with 1-2 Tera bits then I think computers will find a way to start using this new tech to run the computer not just storage.

So I think even 64 bit should fall into history faster then 16bit or 32bit