1 gig ddr or 512?

[mrgoblin]

I always see people testing systems with 512 mb of ddr and then I see people saying 1 gb is better. Whats the real deal. How much do you really need? I can see you need more if you do alot of video editing but if you do alot of gaming is 512 alright? What about for the future? Do you see yourself upgrading to 1 gig of ddr in the next year since ddr2 will likely be overpriced and wont be compatable for a bit? What would YOU do? 512 mb or 1 gig?

 

[Schadenfroh]

you dont NEED 1gig BUT 1 gig does improve load times in 1942

 

[JSSheridan]

512 is fine, 1GB will reduce the amount of swapping you do though. I wonder if any of these tech sites have done a comparision of systems to see how much 1GB improves performance over 512MB. I'd like to see it done here on Anandtech actually. Peace.

 

[Budman]

1 gig user here,that's one less thing to worry about.

 

[Nebor]

If we could all work together, we can post this same question every day forever! It will be forever front page material! BTW, make sure to get a 19" 16ms monitor w/ your 1GB of ram.

 

[OverVolt]

Check in Task Manager how much RAm your using and judge for urself. I always like to have at least 100mb free so it can still cache more programs.

And i always end up getting more and more programs starting up at boot as time goes on. Take that into considertation too.

But i run 1Gig here and i hit 750mb ish all the time so that leaves some head room for the future. Ifn u have the money i;d say go for the gig

 

[BaboonGuy]

i like to run a lot of apps at the same time. such as gaming while on AIM/winamp and all that good stuff. i've gone from 1GB of RAM to 512 and i can tell you it really does help a lot. my system runs super smooth with 1GB and no doubt the future games will be memory hogs. go for a 2x512 setup with dual channel on an intel board and you'll be set.

 

[randumb]

Unless you do a lot of large photo editing, cad, or really love BF1942, I'd get 512. You can always upgrade later when u need 1gig.

 

[m1ke101]

I seriously did not notice much difference between 512 and a gig unless I was playing a game like planetside or bf1942.

 

[0roo0roo]

even simcity likes 1gb. and taskmanager should be left open on a 2nd monitor to see the true usage. minimizing lowers mem usage.

i'll be damned if i paid this much for computer stuff if i still have to close word processors and email programs to play a stupid game.

 

[charlie21]

Just depends on what you do. Heavy multitasking, or memory intensive programs (CAD, video editing) warrant more RAM. If I was building a system today, 512 would be the minimum, 1 GB if my budget allowed it.

 

[BFG10K]

512 MB is good, 1 GB is better. There are a few games already that load/reload faster with 1 GB RAM.

 

[x3m]

A couple of years ago: "You don't need 256Mb RAM, you'll NEVER EVER use that much..!!"

So go for 1gig

 

[Auric]

This was discussed in a previous thread (go figure) and specifically in relation to BF1942. I have read of these curiously long load times and whatnot but have not experienced them with 512MB. 20s or so seems the norm (I have not timed it but even the largest map can't take any more than 30s). So I still think it is due to slow HDD's or fragmentation, or something that I thought of since -CD checks, since I use "virtual CD" images. Game play is as smooth as butter made from baby's bottoms (network willing).

The Task Manger -> Commit Charge -> Peak tells you how much memory was used so if it is more than the physical then you know that HDD paging was necessary and more RAM may be a benefit. Now, since getting into the DesertCombat mod again recently I have noticed that it definitely would benefit from more RAM as my CCP is over 750MB with all the usual crap running in the background and also it is evident during game play, most notably at the start of a new game but still with the occasional hicup during play. I guess it uses more because it is loading all the original as well as added files. Maybe it would be possible to create custom trimmed down RFA's and such if you only played DC -or maybe if they eventually sell it as a stand-alone it will not be such a hog. But I do plan on getting another 512MB.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Auric
, since I use "virtual CD" images. Game play is as smooth as butter made from baby's bottoms (network willing).

What program do you use to burn the cd image? I have been using no cd patches, as I do not like the noise of the cd spinning, but a virtual image is a great idea.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Auric
This was discussed in a previous thread (go figure) and specifically in relation to BF1942. I have read of these curiously long load times and whatnot but have not experienced them with 512MB. 20s or so seems the norm (I have not timed it but even the largest map can't take any more than 30s). So I still think it is due to slow HDD's or fragmentation, or something that I thought of since -CD checks, since I use "virtual CD" images. Game play is as smooth as butter made from baby's bottoms (network willing).

The Task Manger -> Commit Charge -> Peak tells you how much memory was used so if it is more than the physical then you know that HDD paging was necessary and more RAM may be a benefit. Now, since getting into the DesertCombat mod again recently I have noticed that it definitely would benefit from more RAM as my CCP is over 750MB with all the usual crap running in the background and also it is evident during game play, most notably at the start of a new game but still with the occasional hicup during play. I guess it uses more because it is loading all the original as well as added files. Maybe it would be possible to create custom trimmed down RFA's and such if you only played DC -or maybe if they eventually sell it as a stand-alone it will not be such a hog. But I do plan on getting another 512MB.

yup, everyone i know upgraded from 512 to 1gb after they got that game, and esp noticed a load difference during desert combat

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: ronnn

What program do you use to burn the cd image? I have been using no cd patches, as I do not like the noise of the cd spinning, but a virtual image is a great idea.

It is not the burning program that matters per se (I happen to use Nero) but the image making and image mounting programs as they must be able to copy and emulate SafeDisc 2 copy protection. I use Alcohol 120% for both. CloneCD is similar. There is are some freebies available too like Daemon Tools for mounting. Check out cdfreaks.