OS Comparison: Graphics Resource use

[Gordon Price]

Can anyone point me to a resource that compares/contrasts OS usage of
Graphics resources? Or that addresses the XP portion of the questions below?
I consult in the Architectural field, and there is a LOT of confusion out
there, which leads to a lot of stress when trying to plan for the future.
Specifically I would like to get my head around these specific questions.

1: How does Windows XP take advantage of Graphics RAM, both the OS itself,
and non-game applications? I know that Graphics RAM must be mapped to virtual
address space, and thus impacts machines with 4G of RAM and the 3Gb switch
in use. With Autodesk Revit this is a VERY common scenario, so the issue is
salient. So, how much Graphics RAM do Windows XP and non-game applications
make use of?
2: How does Vista/7 address the above question? Specifically, will a Vista/7
machine take advantage of more/all available Graphics RAM. This is especially
important as 32 bit Vista/7 still has the same 4G issues, but as I understand
it a different level of ussage of resources.
3: How does WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) compare to the older APIs
with regards to GPU use, Graphics RAM use and general performance? Especially
with regards to DirectX and openGL Professional Graphics packages (i.e.
non-game)?
4: What are the implications of running a WPF based application on Windows
XP with the separate WPF install as compared to running that app on Vista/7?
Do you gain all the benefits, at least within the WPF based application? Or
are there tradeoffs when running WPF on XP? And what about the OS? Does it
gain anything by the presence of WPF, or only WPF based apps do?
5: With regards to the above questions and 64 bit Vista/7, are there
benefits beyond not needing to worry about the amount of Graphics RAM
impinging on physical RAM because it is mapped well above the physical RAM?

Thanks for any info or links!
Gordon

 

[Andrew E.]

For the 3GB switch,go to:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=3GB switch&ac=3
As for ram,page file,etc,read kb555223
To view how xp handles such matters in "graphics",open administrative tools
in control-panel,open performance.

 

[Gordon Price]

Andrew,
Thanks for the info, and I am familiar with the specifics of setting things
up and monitoring access. What I am not sure of is actually how Windows
actually uses what it access. And I am not sure just watching access will be
enough to give the the rational for an upgrade. Especially if each OS uses
graphics RAM (or paging for that matter) in different ways, then we are not
talking an apples to apples comparison.
For example, I know that Mac OS X actually stores the entire contents of
each window in Graphics RAM, so the more graphics RAM you have, the more open
windows you can have and maintain good performance. Thus there is value in
having more graphics RAM, especially if you work with lots of open windows.
My understanding is that Vista and 7 also behave this way. But in XP I am not
sure. My guess is that in fact only a video game in XP uses that graphics
RAM, and both Windows and Revit make little or no use. Thus in XP (32 bit)
historically we have tried to use graphics cards with as little ram as
possible, and as a fast a GPU as possible, so that the (not-utilized)
graphics RAM is not eating into the already limited system RAM. This is a
huge issue because Revit is one of the few 32 bit apps out there that really
NEEDS every drop of RAM you can throw at it. We regularly run out of RAM on a
4GB machine, so any waste due to excess graphics RAM addressing is
problematic.
But again, it is only a guess that 32 bit Vista/7 solves anything, because I
don't know for sure how XP behaves, and that is not good enough when trying
to convince management of the value of spending a ton of money to upgrade to
Vista 64, where (I believe) the extra graphics RAM is actually put to use
regularly, AND the extra graphics RAM is addressed well above the available
physical RAM, so all the physical RAM is actually available. If this is
indeed true, I have a valid argument for the upgrade. Also, if indeed XP did
not use much of the graphics RAM, but Vista/7 does, and we have switched to
64 bit for expanded system RAM, now we can start buying MUCH better graphics
cards, where the extra GPU performance helps Revit, and the extra graphics
RAM not only helps general performance, but DOESN'T impinge on system RAM
like it does in 32 bit Windows. But again, talking about an additional $500
or so per machine, so I MUST be able to prove the value to get approval.
For most users this is trivial, but for an architecture firm, already beaten
up by the economy, proposing a major overhaul of OS and hardware is a very
hard sell, and yet if I can but PROVE the value, now may be a good time to do
it.

Anyway, sorry for the novella. And again, thanks for the info.

Best,
Gordon