nvxdsync.exe new startup process added on 260.63
  1 / 3    
NVIDIA:

Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?

This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.

Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.

Can you at least tell us what does it do?

I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be [b]OPTIMIZED[/b] instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.

It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).

[img]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7383/nvidiaw.png[/img]
NVIDIA:



Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?



This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.



Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.



Can you at least tell us what does it do?



I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be OPTIMIZED instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.



It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).



Image

#1
Posted 09/14/2010 10:51 PM   
NVIDIA:

Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?

This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.

Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.

Can you at least tell us what does it do?

I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be [b]OPTIMIZED[/b] instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.

It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).

[img]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7383/nvidiaw.png[/img]
NVIDIA:



Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?



This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.



Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.



Can you at least tell us what does it do?



I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be OPTIMIZED instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.



It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).



Image

#2
Posted 09/14/2010 10:51 PM   
Buy more RAM - it's available in multi-[i][b]gigabyte[/b][/i] quantities these days for practically nothing...
Buy more RAM - it's available in multi-gigabyte quantities these days for practically nothing...

Intel Siler DX79SI Desktop Extreme | Intel Core i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-Extreme | DangerDen M6 and Koolance MVR-40s w/Black Ice Stealths | 32 GB Mushkin PC3-12800LV | NVIDIA GTX 660 Ti SLI | PNY GTX 470 | 24 GB RAMDisk (C:\Temp\Temp) | 120 GB Intel Cherryville SSDs (OS and UserData)| 530 GB Western Digital VelociRaptor SATA 2 RAID0 (C:\Games\) | 60 GB G2 SSDs (XP Pro and Linux) | 3 TB Western Digital USB-3 MyBook (Archive) | LG BP40NS20 USB ODD | LG IPS236 Monitor | LogiTech X-530 Speakers | Plantronics GameCom 780 Headphones | Cooler Master UCP 1100 | Cooler Master HAF XB | Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1

Stock is Extreme now

#3
Posted 09/14/2010 11:35 PM   
Buy more RAM - it's available in multi-[i][b]gigabyte[/b][/i] quantities these days for practically nothing...
Buy more RAM - it's available in multi-gigabyte quantities these days for practically nothing...

Intel Siler DX79SI Desktop Extreme | Intel Core i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-Extreme | DangerDen M6 and Koolance MVR-40s w/Black Ice Stealths | 32 GB Mushkin PC3-12800LV | NVIDIA GTX 660 Ti SLI | PNY GTX 470 | 24 GB RAMDisk (C:\Temp\Temp) | 120 GB Intel Cherryville SSDs (OS and UserData)| 530 GB Western Digital VelociRaptor SATA 2 RAID0 (C:\Games\) | 60 GB G2 SSDs (XP Pro and Linux) | 3 TB Western Digital USB-3 MyBook (Archive) | LG BP40NS20 USB ODD | LG IPS236 Monitor | LogiTech X-530 Speakers | Plantronics GameCom 780 Headphones | Cooler Master UCP 1100 | Cooler Master HAF XB | Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1

Stock is Extreme now

#4
Posted 09/14/2010 11:35 PM   
[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?[/quote]crap

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.[/quote]so what?

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.[/quote]so what? disable it as a startup process if u want.

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Can you at least tell us what does it do?[/quote]can't you read?

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be [b]OPTIMIZED[/b] instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.[/quote]crap

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).[/quote]total crap
[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?crap



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.so what?



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.so what? disable it as a startup process if u want.



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Can you at least tell us what does it do?can't you read?



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be OPTIMIZED instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.crap



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).total crap

Case: Antec 902
Board: Asus P6T Deluxe
CPU: Core i7 950 @4.2
GPU: MSI GTX 680 Lightning
RAM: 6gb XMS3
HDD: Velociraptor 600GB
PSU: OCZ ModXStream 700W
Monitor: Samsung 37" LED TV
OS: Win 7 Ultimate 64

#5
Posted 09/15/2010 12:15 AM   
[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?[/quote]crap

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.[/quote]so what?

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.[/quote]so what? disable it as a startup process if u want.

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Can you at least tell us what does it do?[/quote]can't you read?

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be [b]OPTIMIZED[/b] instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.[/quote]crap

[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).[/quote]total crap
[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Why did you add another program to run on our PCs all the time?crap



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']This new "nvxdsync.exe" process uses 7MB of our RAM. You already had 2 other processes called "nvvsvc.exe" that were already eating 10MB.so what?



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Now every single NVIDIA user in the world who updates their driver will lose 7MB of pure RAM that could be used by games and by other memory-hogging programs.so what? disable it as a startup process if u want.



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']Can you at least tell us what does it do?can't you read?



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']I don't think you understand, but over the time programs must be OPTIMIZED instead of having the performance degraded like you do with your drivers.crap



[quote name='Seyss' post='1117407' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:51 PM']It took Microsoft 15 years to understand that, but they eventually got it (Windows 7).total crap

Case: Antec 902
Board: Asus P6T Deluxe
CPU: Core i7 950 @4.2
GPU: MSI GTX 680 Lightning
RAM: 6gb XMS3
HDD: Velociraptor 600GB
PSU: OCZ ModXStream 700W
Monitor: Samsung 37" LED TV
OS: Win 7 Ultimate 64

#6
Posted 09/15/2010 12:15 AM   
I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.

And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness!
I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.



And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness!

#7
Posted 09/15/2010 01:38 AM   
I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.

And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness!
I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.



And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness!

#8
Posted 09/15/2010 01:38 AM   
I'd think by the description that it has something to do with 3D or another special viewing effect, or it would be part of the UI. If you don't want it to run, disable it. I run Game Booster before I start any game, so if I want it temporarily disabled, I just use that. Also, just because it uses RAM does not mean it will degrade performance.

Also, why shouldn't an OS expand to fill a certain percentage of RAM? It will just increase the responsiveness of the OS. As long as it is not too much, it is fine. My Vista 32-bit used up about 25-30% of 2GB of RAM when idle. Once I upgraded by RAM to 3GB, it took up between 24 and 28% of 3GB of RAM. This didn't cause any performance slowdown; it actually sped up the OS by a bit.
I'd think by the description that it has something to do with 3D or another special viewing effect, or it would be part of the UI. If you don't want it to run, disable it. I run Game Booster before I start any game, so if I want it temporarily disabled, I just use that. Also, just because it uses RAM does not mean it will degrade performance.



Also, why shouldn't an OS expand to fill a certain percentage of RAM? It will just increase the responsiveness of the OS. As long as it is not too much, it is fine. My Vista 32-bit used up about 25-30% of 2GB of RAM when idle. Once I upgraded by RAM to 3GB, it took up between 24 and 28% of 3GB of RAM. This didn't cause any performance slowdown; it actually sped up the OS by a bit.

#9
Posted 09/15/2010 01:55 AM   
I'd think by the description that it has something to do with 3D or another special viewing effect, or it would be part of the UI. If you don't want it to run, disable it. I run Game Booster before I start any game, so if I want it temporarily disabled, I just use that. Also, just because it uses RAM does not mean it will degrade performance.

Also, why shouldn't an OS expand to fill a certain percentage of RAM? It will just increase the responsiveness of the OS. As long as it is not too much, it is fine. My Vista 32-bit used up about 25-30% of 2GB of RAM when idle. Once I upgraded by RAM to 3GB, it took up between 24 and 28% of 3GB of RAM. This didn't cause any performance slowdown; it actually sped up the OS by a bit.
I'd think by the description that it has something to do with 3D or another special viewing effect, or it would be part of the UI. If you don't want it to run, disable it. I run Game Booster before I start any game, so if I want it temporarily disabled, I just use that. Also, just because it uses RAM does not mean it will degrade performance.



Also, why shouldn't an OS expand to fill a certain percentage of RAM? It will just increase the responsiveness of the OS. As long as it is not too much, it is fine. My Vista 32-bit used up about 25-30% of 2GB of RAM when idle. Once I upgraded by RAM to 3GB, it took up between 24 and 28% of 3GB of RAM. This didn't cause any performance slowdown; it actually sped up the OS by a bit.

#10
Posted 09/15/2010 01:55 AM   
[quote name='gjpc' post='1117476' date='Sep 15 2010, 03:38 AM']I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.

And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness![/quote]
Actually, OS uses all your RAM, but without you knowing it..
Besides, RAM is there to use it.
Only issue is can OS (or other programs) free up RAM when other programs need it.

Btw... speaking of 'RAM usage'.. how about 'disk usage'?
Why are drivers so.. HUGE?
Why does 'hello world' program if you make it nowdays use at least few hundred KB, instead of basically less than 1KB that it should use? Etc, etc...
So yes.. stop crying about how >it was<.
[quote name='gjpc' post='1117476' date='Sep 15 2010, 03:38 AM']I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.



And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness!

Actually, OS uses all your RAM, but without you knowing it..

Besides, RAM is there to use it.

Only issue is can OS (or other programs) free up RAM when other programs need it.



Btw... speaking of 'RAM usage'.. how about 'disk usage'?

Why are drivers so.. HUGE?

Why does 'hello world' program if you make it nowdays use at least few hundred KB, instead of basically less than 1KB that it should use? Etc, etc...

So yes.. stop crying about how >it was<.

#11
Posted 09/15/2010 09:30 AM   
[quote name='gjpc' post='1117476' date='Sep 15 2010, 03:38 AM']I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.

And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness![/quote]
Actually, OS uses all your RAM, but without you knowing it..
Besides, RAM is there to use it.
Only issue is can OS (or other programs) free up RAM when other programs need it.

Btw... speaking of 'RAM usage'.. how about 'disk usage'?
Why are drivers so.. HUGE?
Why does 'hello world' program if you make it nowdays use at least few hundred KB, instead of basically less than 1KB that it should use? Etc, etc...
So yes.. stop crying about how >it was<.
[quote name='gjpc' post='1117476' date='Sep 15 2010, 03:38 AM']I am with the OP on this. The OS should not expand to fill all available memory.



And you other two repliers should banned from this forum for rudeness!

Actually, OS uses all your RAM, but without you knowing it..

Besides, RAM is there to use it.

Only issue is can OS (or other programs) free up RAM when other programs need it.



Btw... speaking of 'RAM usage'.. how about 'disk usage'?

Why are drivers so.. HUGE?

Why does 'hello world' program if you make it nowdays use at least few hundred KB, instead of basically less than 1KB that it should use? Etc, etc...

So yes.. stop crying about how >it was<.

#12
Posted 09/15/2010 09:30 AM   
I would understand your gripe if this was 1999 and we all had K6-2's and 128MB of RAM, but seriously, most computers have 2-6GB of RAM and 2-8 CPU's, that's [i]thousands[/i] of MB of RAM and [i]tons[/i] of processing power at your disposal, and you're complaining about something that takes up 7MB, and demands no process priority at all? I don't mean to be rude, but you're just being silly. This process takes up 3.56MB of RAM on my system, so I'd guess it ranges between 2-8MB, and it demands virtually no process priority at all. It's not a big deal, it's not worth being upset over and it certainly doesn't cost you a lick of performance degradation.

You can get 2-4GB of really great RAM anywhere from $30-$70. I mean we're not talking diamonds or Snow Leopard coats here, it's RAM, and it's plentiful and cheap. If you go through life all hung up on things that don't matter like this, you're going to have high blood pressure in no time. Just chill out, end task the process, or don't, and enjoy your graphics card.
I would understand your gripe if this was 1999 and we all had K6-2's and 128MB of RAM, but seriously, most computers have 2-6GB of RAM and 2-8 CPU's, that's thousands of MB of RAM and tons of processing power at your disposal, and you're complaining about something that takes up 7MB, and demands no process priority at all? I don't mean to be rude, but you're just being silly. This process takes up 3.56MB of RAM on my system, so I'd guess it ranges between 2-8MB, and it demands virtually no process priority at all. It's not a big deal, it's not worth being upset over and it certainly doesn't cost you a lick of performance degradation.



You can get 2-4GB of really great RAM anywhere from $30-$70. I mean we're not talking diamonds or Snow Leopard coats here, it's RAM, and it's plentiful and cheap. If you go through life all hung up on things that don't matter like this, you're going to have high blood pressure in no time. Just chill out, end task the process, or don't, and enjoy your graphics card.

#13
Posted 10/28/2010 06:02 PM   
I would understand your gripe if this was 1999 and we all had K6-2's and 128MB of RAM, but seriously, most computers have 2-6GB of RAM and 2-8 CPU's, that's [i]thousands[/i] of MB of RAM and [i]tons[/i] of processing power at your disposal, and you're complaining about something that takes up 7MB, and demands no process priority at all? I don't mean to be rude, but you're just being silly. This process takes up 3.56MB of RAM on my system, so I'd guess it ranges between 2-8MB, and it demands virtually no process priority at all. It's not a big deal, it's not worth being upset over and it certainly doesn't cost you a lick of performance degradation.

You can get 2-4GB of really great RAM anywhere from $30-$70. I mean we're not talking diamonds or Snow Leopard coats here, it's RAM, and it's plentiful and cheap. If you go through life all hung up on things that don't matter like this, you're going to have high blood pressure in no time. Just chill out, end task the process, or don't, and enjoy your graphics card.
I would understand your gripe if this was 1999 and we all had K6-2's and 128MB of RAM, but seriously, most computers have 2-6GB of RAM and 2-8 CPU's, that's thousands of MB of RAM and tons of processing power at your disposal, and you're complaining about something that takes up 7MB, and demands no process priority at all? I don't mean to be rude, but you're just being silly. This process takes up 3.56MB of RAM on my system, so I'd guess it ranges between 2-8MB, and it demands virtually no process priority at all. It's not a big deal, it's not worth being upset over and it certainly doesn't cost you a lick of performance degradation.



You can get 2-4GB of really great RAM anywhere from $30-$70. I mean we're not talking diamonds or Snow Leopard coats here, it's RAM, and it's plentiful and cheap. If you go through life all hung up on things that don't matter like this, you're going to have high blood pressure in no time. Just chill out, end task the process, or don't, and enjoy your graphics card.

#14
Posted 10/28/2010 06:02 PM   
The OP is right. I'm not concerned about the occupied memory, my 6GB are more than enough, but why should be there another process for windows start up? Yeah, I can stop the process from starting up and/or kill the service or do whatever you like. That's not the point. As the OP said, why should be there another process, what's it's role, or it's logic. Is it really necessarily to be there, is it related to any graphical functionality? Or is it only another crap which comes with the driver kit and which we must accept without asking. Look for example at Nero (yes, it's not in the same field, but it's only an example). Ten years ago it was a really great CD burner which worked great. And I remember that it's size was under 100MB. And now the latest version of Nero has lots of GB s!! And for what? I (and maybe we) only need a simple CD/DVD burner.

All in all, I am an old nVidia customer (I used to have an GTX925 until this summer when I changed it for a brand new GTX480) so I think I have all the right to ask you not to do the same thing with these driver kits as they did with Nero.

Keep it simple and small. Please!

- Mike
The OP is right. I'm not concerned about the occupied memory, my 6GB are more than enough, but why should be there another process for windows start up? Yeah, I can stop the process from starting up and/or kill the service or do whatever you like. That's not the point. As the OP said, why should be there another process, what's it's role, or it's logic. Is it really necessarily to be there, is it related to any graphical functionality? Or is it only another crap which comes with the driver kit and which we must accept without asking. Look for example at Nero (yes, it's not in the same field, but it's only an example). Ten years ago it was a really great CD burner which worked great. And I remember that it's size was under 100MB. And now the latest version of Nero has lots of GB s!! And for what? I (and maybe we) only need a simple CD/DVD burner.



All in all, I am an old nVidia customer (I used to have an GTX925 until this summer when I changed it for a brand new GTX480) so I think I have all the right to ask you not to do the same thing with these driver kits as they did with Nero.



Keep it simple and small. Please!



- Mike

#15
Posted 10/29/2010 05:37 PM   
  1 / 3    
Scroll To Top