Gaming with 2gb vs 4gb, 4gb FTW!

[Yellowbeard]

One of our guys, Gareth Ogden, did some extensive testing and found some interesting results when gaming with 2gb vs 4gb. One thing a lot of people that read this tend to overlook is the minimum frame rate. If you have gamed on older gear or bought some new title that brings your system to its knees then you'll realize what he's talking about. Max frame rate is a pretty number but, playability is most affected by the minimum framerate and how long a system stays at that minimum frame rate. Who cares if your system can do 500 FPS on an intro screen. When you drop to 10 FPS during a heavy fight you get killed.

It's sorta long but a good read. http://www.corsairmemory.com/_...rformance_Analysis.pdf

 

[taltamir]

4GB is the minimum... I seen single game instances take 2.1 GB already, (WIC and Supreme commander... and just cause I only saw those two doesn't mean there aren't MORE).
so 2.1 GB for the game, + 1.3GB for the OS and backgrounds processess... 3.4GB total... How do you expect to fit this on 2GB of ram is beyond me. Sites testing with 2GB of ram should not be taken seriously.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: taltamir
4GB is the minimum... I seen single game instances take 2.1 GB already, (WIC and Supreme commander... and just cause I only saw those two doesn't mean there aren't MORE).
so 2.1 GB for the game, + 1.3GB for the OS and backgrounds processess... 3.4GB total... How do you expect to fit this on 2GB of ram is beyond me. Sites testing with 2GB of ram should not be taken seriously.

Doesn't leave much left over does it ? As time goes by I seeing 8 GB of ram more and more likely with the next Windows OS when gaming. Even now 8 GB of ram would not be a bad idea with how cheap it is.

 

[pcslookout]

Two bad they did compare 8 GB of ram as well vs 2 GB and 4 GB ram just to see if it increased minimum frame rate enough in some games to be worth it. Like Crysis and Company of Heroes.

 

[pcslookout]

I don't get it the review said they were using the 512MB Geforce 8800 GT and 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS in their tests but I see 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS results no where? It would of been interesting to see if the less video ram made a difference or not on on gaining more of a higher minimum frame rate when having 4 GB of system ram vs only 2 GB. Though we can see from the general result that no matter how much video ram you have, sense now a days most videos cards have at least 512 mb of video ram some more, that it does not matter because 4 GB vs 2 GB of system ram makes a huge difference in a good amount gaming and just general multitasking

 

[chizow]

Well done white paper that reaffirms a lot of what I've experienced gaming over the last year. Will definitely reference it and point it out to others who are contemplating 2GB+.

A few things though:

1) Did they fix Process Explorer so that it can run on Vista without nuking your system?

2) I don't really agree with disabling SuperFetch as that's a major advantage of more RAM, but I can understand why you did it for more consistent results. Still, would've been interesting to see how much benefit SuperFetch has.

3) When testing loads and save games, I think it would've been better without the reboots inbetween. Faster loads and zone transitions are a major benefit of more RAM, particularly with FPS games (map changes) and MMOs (zone transitions/free movement).

Probably a few more things I can't think of atm, but I think it was well done overall. You should consider posting it in the gaming forum.

 

[myocardia]

I'd like to point out one other thing that this comparison didn't mention, but I've personally noticed. Even if you don't have/play any games that use more than 1.4-1.5 GB of RAM, with 2GB of system RAM, you need to shut down all of the apps you have running, before you start gaming, so the game doesn't have to use the swap file. With 4GB, even running 32-bit Windows XP, you can leave those 15 or 20 tabs of Internet Explorer or FireFox that some people like to have open, along with your antivirus, software firewall, etc, without effecting the gameplay experience. With only 2GB of system RAM, playing that same game, that's not possible.

 

[AmberClad]

@ Myocardia - You just hit on the #1 reason I use 4GB. It's to be able to use the OS without having to micromanage things and close down apps to free up memory. It's not unusual for me to have two games minimized in the background, Firefox open with almost a dozen tabs, a half dozen processes used for my input device profilers, etc. Firefox itself can use up several hundred megs, depending on the content being viewed and possibly the settings.

In practice, the only game I personally play that seems to require more than 2GB is Oblivion (I used to get >93% memory usage with only 2GB) - the vast majority of the others will work fine with only 2GB. But it's the convenience of being able to use Windows transparently without micromanaging the other apps that might be running in addition to the game that makes 4GB well worth it.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Two bad they did compare 8 GB of ram as well vs 2 GB and 4 GB ram just to see if it increased minimum frame rate enough in some games to be worth it. Like Crysis and Company of Heroes.

We have not done 8gb testing extensively yet but, initial tests show virtually no improvement over 4gb. But, I'm sure it is still application limited in most cases.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Two bad they did compare 8 GB of ram as well vs 2 GB and 4 GB ram just to see if it increased minimum frame rate enough in some games to be worth it. Like Crysis and Company of Heroes.

We have not done 8gb testing extensively yet but, initial tests show virtually no improvement over 4gb. But, I'm sure it is still application limited in most cases.

This jibes with my own experience going from 4 to 8 - no real difference. Though presumably the results would be different were the testing involving heavy video editing En~ & De~coding and other tasks of that nature, rather than frames per second in a game.

 

[Yellowbeard]

This jibes with my own experience going from 4 to 8 - no real difference. Though presumably the results would be different were the testing involving heavy video editing En~ & De~coding and other tasks of that nature, rather than frames per second in a game.

We have done some encoding, rendering, editing, etc etc in the lab aside from Gareth's testing. So far, 8gb is cool but it's just not showing a great improvement. About the only thing I have seen so far is manipulating HUGE files in Photoshop. Except for some specialized programs that are large address aware, the average user just does not use anything yet that really shows 8gb being significantly better than 4gb.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: myocardia
I'd like to point out one other thing that this comparison didn't mention, but I've personally noticed. Even if you don't have/play any games that use more than 1.4-1.5 GB of RAM, with 2GB of system RAM, you need to shut down all of the apps you have running, before you start gaming, so the game doesn't have to use the swap file. With 4GB, even running 32-bit Windows XP, you can leave those 15 or 20 tabs of Internet Explorer or FireFox that some people like to have open, along with your antivirus, software firewall, etc, without effecting the gameplay experience. With only 2GB of system RAM, playing that same game, that's not possible.

Yeah but I was thinking that is why I need to go 8 GB of ram from 4 GB sense I like to leave my programs and firefox running in the background at the same time while gaming. Maybe I am wrong though ? I guess I like to have enough room to breath so I don't go right to the limit.

 

[BassBomb]

I have never seen myself run out of RAM with 2GB (got in January)

except when using 3D Studio Max and rendering out of control

 

[THUGSROOK]

most professional testing ive seen shows 2gb is better then 1gb or 4gb.

most testers claim 4gb is a complete waste, but that would depend on what kind of user you are i guess.
if youre a computer slob then you might just need 4gb

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
most professional testing ive seen shows 2gb is better then 1gb or 4gb.

Do you have some links so we can evaluate the info?

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
most professional testing ive seen shows 2gb is better then 1gb or 4gb.

Do you have some links so we can evaluate the info?

Looks like he doesn't.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

This jibes with my own experience going from 4 to 8 - no real difference. Though presumably the results would be different were the testing involving heavy video editing En~ & De~coding and other tasks of that nature, rather than frames per second in a game.

We have done some encoding, rendering, editing, etc etc in the lab aside from Gareth's testing. So far, 8gb is cool but it's just not showing a great improvement. About the only thing I have seen so far is manipulating HUGE files in Photoshop. Except for some specialized programs that are large address aware, the average user just does not use anything yet that really shows 8gb being significantly better than 4gb.

I believe it, too


Though - "Because We Can" can sometimes still be a pretty good reason for going over the top.


Thank you for the testing, BTW - Answers a lot of questions.

 

[pcslookout]

Yellowbeard where are the 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS test results?

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Yellowbeard where are the 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS test results?

LOL...on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm in the USA and Gareth is in the UK.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Yellowbeard where are the 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS test results?

LOL...on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm in the USA and Gareth is in the UK.

Explain please.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Yellowbeard where are the 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS test results?

LOL...on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm in the USA and Gareth is in the UK.

Explain please.

Gareth has the test results with him. All I have seen is the final white paper. So, the results are in the UK at his lab.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Yellowbeard where are the 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS test results?

LOL...on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm in the USA and Gareth is in the UK.

Explain please.

Gareth has the test results with him. All I have seen is the final white paper. So, the results are in the UK at his lab.

Ok so they haven't been posted yet and still going on ?

 

[THUGSROOK]

nice add,
4gb for sloppy computer users.

this isnt a comparison, its common sense :roll:

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
@ Myocardia - You just hit on the #1 reason I use 4GB. It's to be able to use the OS without having to micromanage things and close down apps to free up memory. It's not unusual for me to have two games minimized in the background, Firefox open with almost a dozen tabs, a half dozen processes used for my input device profilers, etc. Firefox itself can use up several hundred megs, depending on the content being viewed and possibly the settings.

While there are other advantages, that' the biggest for me, also. Games do load faster, though, which is nice.

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
most professional testing ive seen shows 2gb is better then 1gb or 4gb.

How many years ago was this, and using what software? Some games these days can use over 3GB, and Photoshop can use 8GB or more.

if youre a computer slob then you might just need 4gb

I'd hardly call not wanting to shut down every app and/or process running on your system, just to be able to play a game a computer slob. Then again, people with only 2GB might.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Yellowbeard

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Yellowbeard where are the 320 MB Geforce 8800 GTS test results?

LOL...on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm in the USA and Gareth is in the UK.

Explain please.

Gareth has the test results with him. All I have seen is the final white paper. So, the results are in the UK at his lab.

Do you have any idea if we will ever get to see them?