memory myths answered

[chick3nhead]

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=ddr400myths&page=5

Check this out i found it helpful

Just to prove that more isnt always better, for those people who think their ultimate gaming machine is going to have 4gb of ram....

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: chick3nhead

I understand now!

 

[LTC8K6]

An A64 system might have shown different results, and LL modules will usually run faster when you loosen the timings up.

They should have tested how fast the regular vs LL could be run reliably.

 

[chick3nhead]

Well the point of it is that if you are a gamer, then i really dont know of ANY game that takes up more than 512mb of ram. This means that the rest of the ram(if using a large number like 2gb or 4gb) is sitting there not being used, but it still is addressed so it will be slower to game with 3gb, and 4gb. Just shows that more ram can def. make a computer faster, but you have to use it for it to do so, and as a gamer you pretty much wont need a great amount, with 1gb being the best choice. I thought someone who is considering overclocking an amd 64 winchester and is considering buying too large amount of ram. It seems about half this forum is doing this.... mine is on the way also.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think that's true anymore. I am certain that several posters here have demonstrated that 1GB of ram sped up a few games. Particularly load times.

All you have to do is check to see how much physical memory your system is using. Several folks showed well over 512Mb being used if I recall correctly.

I have 1Gb of ram on my home machine. I will see if Windows XP uses it or not.

I think the recommended memory of a few games is now 384 to 512MB.

 

[PascalT]

plenty of games take 512mb+ of ram. take in account windows/apps take about 150mb-250mb of that to begin with. Try playing Battle for Middle Earth at high settings without 1gb of ram. I have and it slows down. 1gb is the new basic ram level. I run 2gb because of photoshop.

 

[McArra]

I right know have 512mb and a lot of thinks (including HL2 and another games) where a lot faster loading, and a lot smoother playing when I had 1Gb.... hopefully my new 2x512 A-Data DDR566 TCCD is coming next week

Even playing DVDs was smoother and i could do quite a lot more things at the same time... 1Gb rules!

 

[McArra]

Conclusion : Gamers, stick to 1GB of memory if possible. Content creation guys, 1GB should be minimum, 2GB if possible. Most of you do NOT need 3-4 GB of memory, even for production level / high-end work.

From the review, so 512mb is NOT enough whatever you say....

 

[chick3nhead]

Yall really dont understand what im trying to say....having more ram than you use is like carrying around dead weight....and i said I dont know of a game that takes more than 512mb, i didnt say with all the windows processes combined into it. So I am saying no more than 512mb for a game, then no more than another 512mb for all other stuff(necessary Windows processes), probably will put you at using around 600 to 700mb at most, I would hope anyway. When I run HL2 I use right over 550 or so. Just saying most gamers should go with 1gb of ram...not all, cus im sure many do other things like video encoding...

Also, I never said anyone should get 512mb, that was the whole point of the thing....why in the world do yall try to find stuff to argue about when i was just trying to help people out by sharing info with them.

 

[chinkgai]

i noticed a difference going from 512 to 1gb...not in gaming...but in multitasking and having a million things open

for example...i used to play warcraftIII and i would alt tab out cuz someone instant msged me...i noticed a lag in the wc minimizing and the IM window coming up was slow as well

with a gig...no slowdown whatsoever

gameplay itself i did not notice anything since i dont think warcraft III is that system intensive until have like a 4v4 going or something

 

[chick3nhead]

Comeon guys, read what i have said, dont skim, I NEVER SAID GO WITH 512MB(yelling at the top of my lungs hoping yall will hear me this time), I dont have 512mb, and i wouldnt recommend going with it to anyone building. I belive 1GB is optimal, that was the point of the thread! I am agreeing with yall and the link.

 

[Lord Banshee]

I notice my AMD64 machine works alot better with 1 GB of ram then 512... And doom3 use more than 512MB ram..

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: chick3nhead
Well the point of it is that if you are a gamer, then i really dont know of ANY game that takes up more than 512mb of ram. This means that the rest of the ram is sitting there not being used, but it still is addressed so it will be slower to game with 2gb, 3gb, and 4gb. Just shows that more ram can def. make a computer faster, but you have to use it for it to do so, and as a gamer you pretty much wont. I thought someone who is considering overclocking an amd 64 winchester and is considering buying 2gb or 1gb of ram. It seems about half this forum is doing this.... mine is on the way also.

BF1942 (esp. Desert Combat)... HL2... Doom 3... Far Cry... just off the top of my head

That article is over a year old... things have changed since then... out of the 4 I mentioned, BF1942 was the only game around back when that article was written.

 

[chick3nhead]

Ok, I give up, yall are hopeless non-post reading idiots....

I am not saying anyone should have 512mb

Also, those games dont take up 512mb, the windows processes + those games use more than 512mb.

In case you didnt get that again

I am not saying anyone should have 512mb
I am not saying anyone should have 512mb
I am not saying anyone should have 512mb

Did you understand now, go back and read what i posted, I love 1gb ram, i love it, i love it, i love it

I wish people didnt come to forums just to argue with people......

 

[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...

 

[Machine350]

You're the one that keeps contradicting yourself. Make up your mind. The article was good and I thank you for posting it. My experience has been that I see quicker loading times and less stuttering when going from 512 to 1 GB of ram.

 

[chick3nhead]

Well I havnt seen any game, that uses more than 512mb ALONE. Im not talking about total here. Go into your processes and tell me how much ram hl2 takes up...mine takes up maybe 300mb.


Also i again agree for the 5th time, going from 512mb to 1gb will help, i never said it didnt, i said do not go with 4gb of ram for a gaming system.

 

[chinkgai]

Originally posted by: chick3nhead
Well I havnt seen any game, that uses more than 512mb ALONE.

dude...who cares if any no game uses more than 512mb "alone"...what do you need to run the game? windows right? so thats a constant in the equation, not a variable...so it must ALWAYS be included

unless you got linux or something...but thats not the case for the majority of us

maybe you need to watch your phrasing or something because it certainly SEEMED like thats what you were saying (about how you only need 512mb) even tho you've tried to emphasize that you dont actually think so

telling us we're idiots :roll:

 

[chick3nhead]

Sorry then, my way of thinking is that when i go to look at my processes, im not like oh crap my system is using 600mb of ram, im like oh crap this or that process is using a lot of ram. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I just dont think it is a constant because people have a large variety of processes running that vary from user to user. I was saying the single <game>.exe file was the constant.

 

[mindless1]

Generally the best combination on a dual channel board is 2 x 512MB. 3 or more modules typically means looser timings are needed per same modules and one module rules out dual channel mode. Quite a few games benefit from more than 512MB, and even those that only need ~400MB will still cause some of the system cache to be flushed, so even if the game didn't play faster, when you exit that game and go to resume using the system there won't be that lag while the files are reloaded into memory again.

The ideal amount of memory is such that you never have to reread the same file twice from the HDD, except for gaming where the aforementioned memory timings can matter a little more, or another dedicated use system where particular app needs performance more than a balance stuck as is usually desireable in a "PC".

 

[chinkgai]

yes windows processes vary...

i meant "windows + watever processes" = constant, which has a minimum even if you only have necessary windows processes up

i remember alt tabbing outside of windows with warcraft running and my useage was at 700ish or 800 mb of ram...with wc taking like...3-400mb

misunderstandings are okay...name calling will only result in flaming here

welcome to anandtech btw

 

[chick3nhead]

Yeah, thanks for an actual response, im planning on going with 2x512 here very soon, my 3200+ winnie and Epox 9nda3+ ship out today from newegg. Would it be worth it to get som pc4000 ram or just some mushkin value ram with memory dividers?

And i wasn't seriously name calling yall, I was kidding by calling yall a very long, obvious name sarcastically(sorda like monty python type name calling), I just found it funny yall didnt understand what I was talking about.

 

[chinkgai]

decide for yourself after you read this thread

me personally...i want the best...so 1:1 will always be what i opt for

 

[McArra]

1:1 is very desirable, the performance is better.

 

[chick3nhead]

Thats interesting....seems like a lot of people say 1:1 then a lot of people say it doesnt cause a performance hit by not running 1:1. That would be a good benchmark to see....

And thanks, I just recently realized that I was going to anandtech to look at amd64 stuff all the time, tomshardware used to be my fav...but this is better for sure.