| jack100 said: I just watch the Wii U "Five" episode from ZyroXZ2, not sure if that is your name on this forum, but good job. Anyways, as I forgot he said that the ps4 and xbox 1 uses a x86 prcessor, yet I remember that you can ONLY use about 4 gigs on RAM, and that includes GPU RAM. So I was thinking, do they stick 8 gigs on RAM into each console and 4 gigs NEVER gets used. I remember this cause I had a 12 gig PC and had xp 32bit and I could only see like 4 gigs, so I had to upgrade to a 64 bit operating system. So I was wondering how do they use 8 gigs each if x86 can only use 4 gigs. I did a little research and found the x86-64, which theorically see 128 GIGS on RAM. Of course I was confused a little since I haven't done hardware stuff in a while. More reseatrch revealed that x84-62 uses twice as much CPU power as a X64 processor since you constantly have to swap bits in the RAM on x86-64. So doesn't that mean the PS4 and the xbox 1, which has 8 cores, with 2 gigs reserved for the OS and 6 cores left. Isn't the 6 cores be equivalent to 3 cores since x86-64 has to use twice as much power? If it was an x64 architecture, then it could maximize all 6 cores whereas x86-64 uses much more power and can be cut in half. Also if they want to maximize the CPU power the DEV eventaully have to learn x64 platform at least for the next generation......which they now won't learn. JUst ranting, maybe I'm forgetting something. Just my 2 cents. |
Lets get some things straight.
It's not a Ram limit. It's a memory address limit when dealing with things like 32bit systems.
For isntance, Windows 32bit has a memory address limit of 4Gb.
Then every device like graphics cards, sound cards that has it's own memory is mapped into that space.
It's like a grid on a piece of paper, windows can only keep track of a finite amount of grids on that piece of paper, everything that has it's own memory takes chunks off that grid for itself, the left over pieces in the grid are then mapped onto the Ram.
Lets say you had 4Gb of Ram, then you have a 512Mb graphics card, Windows will only be able to map 3584Mb or 3.5Gb of Ram to use for itself, then say you had a network card with 128Mb of ram on it, Windows will then only be allowed to use 3456Mb of memory.
Converesly, Windows 32bit can address larger amounts of memory than that via the PAE extension which stands for Physical Address Extension, basically it extends the 32bit address space to 36bit, 40bit, 48bit and potentially 52bit.
48bit for instance would allow a 32bit PC to address 256 Terabytes of Ram.
Now to confuse matters somewhat, AMD64 allows for 52 bits for physical memory so it can address upto 4 Petabytes of Ram.
Microsoft however places artificial limitations on it's Operating Systems in regards to memory support, then people get crazy ideas that "the bits are limiting my rams".
Not to mention that most consumer motherboards only come with 1,2,4 memory slots, with enthusiast grade gear coming with 6 and 8 slots, memory sticks are usually at most 8Gb in size, it doesn't make sense to support Terabytes/Petabytes of Ram which takes away development time and wastes R&D for something that will never get used. (Not to mention the required extra debugging after launch.)
As for 64bit requiring twice the hardware of 32bit to maintain the same levels of performance? It's false. 64bit software can actually see gains over 32bit versions thanks to the increases in registers, amongst other things.
As for x86-64. It is x86. It is also x64. They are one in the same.
x64 is an extension to x86, Intel was ironically going to push IA64 via Itanium at one point, which would have been horrible for the entire market in more ways than one.
| Cobretti2 said: Fuck me the guy is trying to learn something and the so called computer experts are dissing him for wanting to learn. Help him understand where he is right or wrong and elaborate where it needs to be. Sorry OP haven't kept up with tech to give you an answer. |
Never fear, Pemalite is here.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
