When will 4 gb of memory be recommended for PC games?

[imported_Imp]

When you feel like it. I'm still running with 1Gb on a single core:Q. No job, not enough things I want on PC that won't run to merit an upgrade. I definately see a 'need' for 2GB right now though. Damn Crysis...

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
With 4GB kits being far less than $100, the real question is, who cares?

Because using XP I am capped at 3.25 or whatever the maximum for the OS is.

A game that uses 4GB would also require Vista - and that's a pretty bad selling point.

Im betting Vista will be what Millenium was for 32bit. Dead in a year. My guess is the next MS OS that comes out will be better and then we will need 4gb+ at that point.

 

[venkman]

Windows 7 will come out in 32-bit flavor.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: venkman
Windows 7 will come out in 32-bit flavor.

Yes, but hopefully by then the 64-bit version will be the main version pushed by MS.

 

[toughwimp11]

tuesday maybe, possibly thursday

 

[secretanchitman]

depends...in a few years probably.

but for whatever reason, 2x2GB DDR2-800 (i got my 2x2GB DDR2-1000 for $75!) is so cheap enough that you might as well get it instead of 2x1GB.

 

[Eeezee]

Do any games requires 2GB yet? I don't usually pay attention to system requirements, my system is always good enough to run with reasonable graphics and reasonable frames/second.

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Do any games requires 2GB yet? I don't usually pay attention to system requirements, my system is always good enough to run with reasonable graphics and reasonable frames/second.

Battlefield 2 benefits from 2GB of ram, as well as Battlefield 2142. But I dont think any game REQUIRES 2GB yet.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Because using XP I am capped at 3.25 or whatever the maximum for the OS is.

A game that uses 4GB would also require Vista - and that's a pretty bad selling point.

No, no, no. You'd be capped at the same 3.25GB, no matter which 32-bit version of Windows you were using*. And you don't need Vista to run a 64-bit OS, either.



* 32-bit Windows Sever 2003 is the only exception.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: slugg
Well, just as the title suggests.... lets hear it

thanks

Some games benefit from 4GB right now,as to when 4GB is recommended I would say within 18 months,look at the game /ram history , every year its slowly moving upwards not down,now is a very good time to upgrade ram,ram prices are so cheap it makes me almost cry when I see people with new hardware/OS and only 1 GB of ram for gaming.

 

[n7]

For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

 

[Atheus]

I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: n7
For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

Don't you mean 8 GB Everyone could use more ram sooner or later.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

Maybe you should have 8 GB just in case you never know when it could come in handy. Lets say you want to run two games at one or anything else that is memory intensive ?

 

[ForumMaster]

some games already do. Supreme Commander was coded to utilize quad core and will regularly overtake 2gb of ram is you can give it that. it runs much better with 4gb of ram.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: ochadd
I may be spoiled by still running XP but what games push you over 2GB?

Age of Conan. Doesn't seem to directly use much more than 2GB, but if you ever alt-tab to check something in a browser or run Ventrillo etc you will want more than 2GB.

WoW is the same. Alt tabbing is somewhat slow and occasionally crashes on my xp 2giger. Totally different experience on the Vista 4 gig one.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: manowar821
If you run Vista, I already do recommend 4GB for gaming.

pcslookout, is that you?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: n7
For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

Don't you mean 8 GB Everyone could use more ram sooner or later.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

Maybe you should have 8 GB just in case you never know when it could come in handy. Lets say you want to run two games at one or anything else that is memory intensive ?

Sarcasm? Maight you be suggesting I don't really need 4GB? Well I'd agree with you. I bet you could run just about anything available today on 1GB if you toned it down enough. But who wants to do that when RAM is so dirt cheap?

If you're seriously suggesting 8GB the reason I don't have that is that 4GB sticks are too slow...

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: n7
For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

Don't you mean 8 GB Everyone could use more ram sooner or later.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

Maybe you should have 8 GB just in case you never know when it could come in handy. Lets say you want to run two games at one or anything else that is memory intensive ?

I can run 4 copies of wow easily with 2gb

 

[cheapherk]

Originally posted by: bamacre
With 4GB kits being far less than $100, the real question is, who cares?

The prices fluctuate- cheap today doesn't mean cheap tomorrow so - buy now!

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: n7
For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

Don't you mean 8 GB Everyone could use more ram sooner or later.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

Maybe you should have 8 GB just in case you never know when it could come in handy. Lets say you want to run two games at one or anything else that is memory intensive ?

Sarcasm? Maight you be suggesting I don't really need 4GB? Well I'd agree with you. I bet you could run just about anything available today on 1GB if you toned it down enough. But who wants to do that when RAM is so dirt cheap?

If you're seriously suggesting 8GB the reason I don't have that is that 4GB sticks are too slow...

No sarcasm. I forgot about 4 GB sticks being to slow. I can't believe they still are that sucks.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: n7
For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

Don't you mean 8 GB Everyone could use more ram sooner or later.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

Maybe you should have 8 GB just in case you never know when it could come in handy. Lets say you want to run two games at one or anything else that is memory intensive ?

I can run 4 copies of wow easily with 2gb

What about Crysis and BF2 ?

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: KMFJD
I can run 4 copies of wow easily with 2gb

no way

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: n7
For all of us running Vista, last year?

Everyone with DDR2 systems should have taken advantage of the low DDR2 prices & gotten 4 GB already...if not, they should do so now

Don't you mean 8 GB Everyone could use more ram sooner or later.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I have 4GB (and 4 cores) because I can be running ten things in the background and alt-tab out of an intensive game to any of them without things slowing down due to thrashing the swap file.

Maybe you should have 8 GB just in case you never know when it could come in handy. Lets say you want to run two games at one or anything else that is memory intensive ?

I can run 4 copies of wow easily with 2gb

What about Crysis and BF2 ?

Lol no way, you don't need a great system to run 4 wow's , 2 gb's an 8800 and dual core does it no problems with a 24" screen , using maximizer you get 4 instances running at 800/600

 

[S h o o B i E x]

December 12th, 2009

 

[pcslookout]

How much ram do you all think you would need to run Crysis and BF2 at the same time ok ? Where neither one lags to much.