A little confussed

[Dogtown]

Ok i had a geforce 9600...it worked ok...just got the geforce gtx 650...and there isnt a real big difference ...im i missing something here ?????????/

[1701E]

A lot more plays into it then just the GPU. If the CPU/RAM are equally old as the 9600 it could just be a limitation there. Assuming they aren't though, it's possible there is a Driver issue, or other hardware/software issue. Mind you the 650 isn't 'amazing', but it should be a good step-up from a 9600.

The best bet would be supply a DxDiag (top ~1/3) and let someone figure it from there.
To get a DxDiag;

• Go Start > Run (or 'search' in Vista/Windows 7 Start Menu)
• Type DxDiag
• Allow any prompt about it
• Hit 'Save all Information'
• Open the Text File
• Copy/Paste down to and including the 'Sound Capture Devices' section

Should look similar to:
Note I cut a lot out so as to not be posting a wall of my own DxDiag. 

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 12/27/2012, 21:25:33
[. . .]

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
[. . .]

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
[. . .]

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
          Card name: AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series
[. . .]

-------------
Sound Devices
-------------
            Description: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
[. . .]

            Description: Speakers (Logitech G35 Headset)
[. . .]
---------------------
Sound Capture Devices
---------------------
            Description: Microphone (Logitech G35 Headset)
 [. . . ]

[Dogtown]

its not a bad computer im using,,,a few years old ...dual core....3 or 4 gigs of ram ....fresh install of xp (i think the game likes xp    I think i was just expecting more.

One thing is driving me nuts though....my frame rate still jumps around alot....i heard there is a way to lock it down ,,,is there ?

Anyway ty for ur help....its one thing i really like about our community <S>

[BaldEagl]

its not a bad computer im using,,,a few years old ...dual core....3 or 4 gigs of ram ....fresh install of xp (i think the game likes xp   I think i was just expecting more.

One thing is driving me nuts though....my frame rate still jumps around alot....i heard there is a way to lock it down ,,,is there ?

Anyway ty for ur help....its one thing i really like about our community <S>

Is that 32 bit XP?  Windows 32 bit OS's only recognize a maximum of 4 GB of RAM.  That includes your RAM and your VRAM so if you added a card with 1 or 2 GB of VRAM then at the same time you lost 1-2 GB of system RAM likely for a net no gain or maybe even a loss of performance.

You can lock your FR at max monitor refresh (usually 59-60 FPS) by enabling vertical sync in the card set-up.  It can still dip below that though.

Before you rush out to buy a 64 bit OS post your DX Diag as you may have other bottlenecks that would make it a waste of money.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

its not a bad computer im using,,,a few years old ...dual core....3 or 4 gigs of ram ....fresh install of xp (i think the game likes xp    I think i was just expecting more.

One thing is driving me nuts though....my frame rate still jumps around alot....i heard there is a way to lock it down ,,,is there ?

Anyway ty for ur help....its one thing i really like about our community <S>

Dual core what and how fast? You may be CPU limited. Easy way to find that out is download and install a tool like MSI afterburner. Play some game and check how much GPU you're using from the statistics. If you're not using anywhere near 100% GPU during gameplay then you're bottlenecked by the rest of the system.

[Debrody]

The 9600 was a decent GPU of its era, the 650 is a very weak one. The difference shouldnt be drastical, maybe 1.5 or 1.7 times faster.

[715]

Windows 32 bit OS's only recognize a maximum of 4 GB of RAM.  That includes your RAM and your VRAM so if you added a card with 1 or 2 GB of VRAM then at the same time you lost 1-2 GB of system RAM likely...

I've seen a lot of posts on the web that say the same thing, and some that say only part of the GPUs memory is mapped into RAM space.  Those say that graphics cards have their own memory controller they use to transfer data via a smaller DMA window from normal RAM space.  I know that when I added a 2G GPU card to my 4G 32bit XP system I did not lose 2Gs of RAM space; I still have 3GB of hardware RAM left.

Does anyone have a link that actually explains what is really going on?

[Skuzzy]

The video cards map in what they need to map into the 4GB address range in order to run whatever they are asked to run.  It they need 1GB of RAM, then they map in 1GB.  If they need 2GB, they map in 2GB.

It is the most efficient way to move data to/from video card memory space.  The only other way is to map in small  blocks to act act as buffers, then the GPU copies it from the buffers to other RAM on the card.  This would be horribly inefficient and would tank the performance.

They could also map in system RAM and use it.  Again, horribly inefficient and it would also kill performance.

[Chalenge]

In other words; the RAM on your video card and your system RAM are mutually exclusive. The memory of the GPU (VRAM) is not written to RAM. The available address range of the OS will have the GPU memory size taken from the overall space. So in the case of a 32-bit OS you have 3.5GB of RAM possible but if you use a 1GB card then the only RAM space left is 2.5GB because the OS can only address 3.5GB.

Because a 64-bit OS can address (lets say) 128GB (varies by version actually) then the address space is 128GB. If you install 64GB of RAM and a 4GB card then the available RAM to the OS is 64GB and the VRAM is mapped into the 128GB address range but takes up no physical RAM other than VRAM. When the OS/application writes to that memory space the bits and bytes are written directly to the VRAM.

I think I have that right.

[Skuzzy]

Close Chalenge.  The 32bit OS does have access to the entire 4GB address space, but you instantly lose system RAM space due to all ROMS, I/O address space, I/O buffers (i.e. any RAM associated with sound cards, ethernet cards, and so on), and video card RAM.

Video card RAM can be paged in.  It is more inefficient to do so, but with cards that have a large amount of RAM (i.e. >512MB) that is what the drivers can do in order to prevent too much loss of system RAM.  However, the video drivers also grab a chunk of system RAM to use while they are paging in the video card RAM.  It really is quite messy.

Now, here comes the freight train.  With a 64bit OS, the video card RAM will get mapped to the last address space the OS will address (say 16TB), which is a long way from the physical system RAM space.  The exception is for 32 bit applications.  32 bit applications have to have the video memory space still located in first 4GB of system RAM space.

It is less of an issue as the 64bit OS can allocate itself and anything else not directly addressable by the 32bit application to address space above 4GB which allows more physical space for the 32bit application.

Once you get into video cards with more than 512MB of video RAM, it is far more efficient to run a 64bit OS, such as Windows 7.  The 64bit version of Windows 7 is, currently, the most stable and best supported 64bit OS.  It still has some issues with flooding any given application with "USB Device Change" messages if the USB bus power drops too low, but that can be worked around using an externally powered USB hub.

[715]

With a 64bit OS, the video card RAM will get mapped to the last address space the OS will address (say 16TB), which is a long way from the physical system RAM space.  The exception is for 32 bit applications.  32 bit applications have to have the video memory space still located in first 4GB of system RAM space.

Do all running 32bit applications have to use the first 4GB of RAM space or do they each get their own?  If they all have to use the first 4GB how does anyone every make use of more than 4GB of memory unless they have 64bit applications?  Are there really many 64bit apps?  (I'm guessing video editing apps?)

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Do all running 32bit applications have to use the first 4GB of RAM space or do they each get their own?  If they all have to use the first 4GB how does anyone every make use of more than 4GB of memory unless they have 64bit applications?  Are there really many 64bit apps?  (I'm guessing video editing apps?)

In theory no but practically speaking yes, all 32-bit apps are limited to the first 4gb.

[Chalenge]

Close Chalenge.  The 32bit OS does have access to the entire 4GB address space, but you instantly lose system RAM space due to all ROMS, I/O address space, I/O buffers (i.e. any RAM associated with sound cards, ethernet cards, and so on), and video card RAM.

Yeah I was subtracting all the hardware latches and motherboard resources right off the top, which obviously wasnt clear. Still, since AH only requires 1GB on XP it would appear to most people that the larger video cards would be fine, but still often times they run into issues not related to the game itself.

When you say 'paged in' I get nervous, because it sounds like memory swapping. I know that can be done, but I have seen how terrible that can be and I think that is exactly the issue a lot of XP users run into. I realize a lot of this is out of your hands. There is almost nothing you can do about it since you are forced to use DirectX which is why we all have the frustration pointed at MS.

I also have to point out to any 'drive-by' readers that SLI systems do not use card1+card2 memory size. So if you are using XP with 2GB and have two 2GB video cards you will get away with it, but it is also a great time to move to 64-bit.

[Skuzzy]

Do all running 32bit applications have to use the first 4GB of RAM space or do they each get their own?  If they all have to use the first 4GB how does anyone every make use of more than 4GB of memory unless they have 64bit applications?  Are there really many 64bit apps?  (I'm guessing video editing apps?)

In theory no but practically speaking yes, all 32-bit apps are limited to the first 4gb.

Bingo.

The Microsoft memory manager is a pretty pathetic piece of code.  It uses technology from the 90's.  They are pretty much stuck with it though, as to update it would break so many ill behaved applications they would get baked for it.