Windows 7 64-bit memory requirements

Stark

Just looking at the hardware requirements for Windows 7.

For 32-bit, they recommend 1GB of RAM minimum. However, for 64-bit they require a minimum of 2GB. Does 64-bit really consume that much more memory? I'm going to be upgrading from 2GB to 4GB in a few weeks time (4GB requiring 64-bit to get full use), am wondering if installing 64-bit in the meantime is going to kill performance or even if I'm better off just upgrading to 3GB and going with 32-bit.

cpu-dude

Stark wrote: »

Just looking at the hardware requirements for Windows 7.

For 32-bit, they recommend 1GB of RAM minimum. However, for 64-bit they require a minimum of 2GB. Does 64-bit really consume that much more memory? I'm going to be upgrading from 2GB to 4GB in a few weeks time (4GB requiring 64-bit to get full use), am wondering if installing 64-bit in the meantime is going to kill performance or even if I'm better off just upgrading to 3GB and going with 32-bit.

64-bit doesn't use more RAM as a normal running version of Windows compared to 32-bit (a common misconception) 32-bit is limited to utilise approx. 3.3GB of RAM, 64-bit can use 1TB. Since your going to be upgrading to 4GB of RAM, stick with 64-bit - you never know, you may want more in the future and your current setup with handle the 4GB no problem. Enjoy the new computer speed (make sure any other upgrades in the near future are compatible with 64-bit Windows (most are, just be sure because drivers not be readily available).

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Computer_Science/2004/64_bit.asp

Stark

cpu-dude wrote:

64-bit doesn't use more RAM as a normal running version of Windows compared to 32-bit (a common misconception)

I think it uses slightly more as data structures are larger but obviously not twice as much. Just wanted to make sure they weren't doing anything funny like loading both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of every library or something. Cheers.

Naikon

64bit simply allows you to address a larger amount of general ram
in a system. 2^32 will give you around 4gigs to play with, minus the
kernel allocating 1gb of an upper bound of memory for itself.

This is why Windows 32 bit can not use more than around 3gb normally.
Now 2^64 on the other hand...

Still, this does not explain why Win7 requires twice as much
memory as the 32-bit version. I reckon the code is to blame.

dloob

Well all the pointers and register values will be twice as big, but overall they won't add too much.
I suspect they are just being very conservative
I'm running windows 7 64bit right now and it is using 1.08Gb of physical memory with several firefox tabs open and other bits and bobs.
That's almost identical if not less than what 32bit vista used on the same machine.
It has 2Gb of physical memory.

Stark

Cool. I installed it today and it's very fast so far Internet Explorer is flying along and IE is a browser I couldn't bear to use under any other version of Windows. Hopefully it continues to work well. XP is getting a tad old at this stage.

komodosp

Saw a lap-top on sale with Win 7 on a 2.2GHz Celeron C900, with 2GB mem... A C900 is 64-bit I gather, but I'm a bit concerned that the memory is exactly the minimum specified. Suggests that after some time and some apps are installed, it will slow down... But can I take from the post above it I needn't worry? It'll be a work PC so only office-type stuff will be on it... (i.e. no games or other really heavy stuff)

DarrenMSP

dloob wrote: »

I suspect they are just being very conservative

I'd agree with this and In fairness your not gonna load a 64bit OS onto a machine with anything less than 2GB anyway ya know?!