memory myths answered

[chinkgai]

that link that i referred to is all about benchmarks...lol

if you want a second opinion...i have a few benchmarks too

a64 at 2690mhz (269x10) with a (3/4) mem divider so my mem was at 201.75mhz at 2-2-2-10 timings:

3dmark01 - 26500ish
3dmark03 - 12500ish
3dmark05 - 5900ish
aquamark - 74300ish

now with my a64 at 2690 (269x10) with 1:1 ratio and 2.5-3-3-10 timings:

3dmark01 - 28300ish
3dmark03 - 12900ish
3dmark05 - 6000ish
aquamark - 76300ish

now i know these are all graphics benchmarks...but thats really all i care for since my system is built for graphics

 

[Jeff7181]

Actually Zebo's memory matrix thread proves that you don't need PC4000 RAM to get good performance... it shows that even cheap PC3200 value ram doesn't slow an A64 down much. You could spend $140 on some ok CAS 2.5 PC3200 RAM and get within 5% of the performance of $350 PC4200 stuff or really low latency stuff.

 

[chick3nhead]

Well thanks that does make a pretty good difference, ya thats all I care about also. Here is the ram i think ill get, not a big name, but i have yet to find a poor review...

http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/memory/Kingmax_PC4000_1.html

I think $169 at newegg, at that price ill try it out, only $40 more than value.

 

[chinkgai]

Originally posted by: chick3nhead
Well thanks that does make a pretty good difference, ya thats all I care about also. Here is the ram i think ill get, not a big name, but i have yet to find a poor review...

http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/memory/Kingmax_PC4000_1.html

I think $169 at newegg, at that price ill try it out, only $40 more than value.

bah, you dont want that stuff

buy mine instead

lol

right now stable at ddr530 and havent had time to go higher....at better timings too...and muuuuch more scalable since you can go all the way down to 200 at 2-2-2 timings

 

[Megatomic]

The last game I played with 512MB of RAM installed (temporary situation while I waited for some Corsair to arrive) was UT2K3, and it ran OK. Exiting to windows was where things got jerky and generally unpleasant. When I bumped back up to 1GB, exiting to windows became a smooth proposition once again. I'm sure UT2K4 and any modern game with large maps is the same way. The extra 512MB may not help the game much but it sure does help overall.

Especially AV, photoshop, etc...

 

[rogue1979]

1GB of memory is better than 512MB for overall gaming. Sure, some games don't need it, but many do.

I believe the biggest need for 1GB comes from running the desktop. Check your resources and I think that many people will find anywhere from 100MB to 150MB of usage just to run the desktop. This could leave as little as 362MB to run games if you have 512MB to begin with.

If you tweak your windows you can lower the desktop usage considerably. My machines use between 60-70MB of ram to run the desktop.

I have still been gaming with 512MB without any noticable slowdowns. This leaves me 452MB of ram for gaming, that extra 90MB can make a big difference if you are near full memory usage.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Don't get your shorts in a knot... I can't speak for everyone but I'm not calling you a dumbass or anything... just pointing out that there are more than just a few games that use more than 512 MB since you said you don't really know of any. I bet Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines uses more than 512 MB too after thinking about it more.
I am curious what memory myths were answered though...

When I play Vampire on my duallie with all my usual filesharing apps etc going my commit charge breaks 1.5GB. Vampire itself takes up about 850MB just for vampire.exe according to the task manager.

 

[Koyanisquatsi]

i used to have 2 gigs of ram, i think i'm getting better performance now that i'm down to 1 gig

 

[Zebo]

One gig is all you need and then only a couple games even use it. FARCRY for one can be well over 650MB with OS and other services. Performance may not suffer with less only because once the game has stuff loaded in mem it's the same. But there is an occational lag felt when game has to go to disk.


Still 512 is fine for most user.

 

[RussianSensation]

when I play HL2 I get 984MB of ram used. Last time I checked my windows system processes and everything took about 270-350 maybe. HL2 and Far Cry use way more than 512mb of RAM. I think the main point the article tried to emphasize is what Zebo pointed out - latency is a wash. Spend the rest of the $$$ towards #1 faster videocard and then #2 faster cpu. Also its obvious that 1 gig of cheap ram is > than 512mb of low latency overclockers ram.

Here is a good comparison between 256/512 and 1 gig of ram for World of Warcraft:

Memory Comparison (right corner)

"Believe it or not with 256MB of system RAM, an Athlon 64 4000+, and a GeForce 6800 Ultra, our system could barely output 0.1 frames per second during the gryphon flights." - Gamespot

 

[TekDemon]

my laptop with 1GB had noticably faster load times in a bunch of games than my desktop. The games themselves ran at crappy FPSes, but at least they loaded faster and the fps was more constant (no loading pauses).