1GB of Memory is (((NOT))) TOO MUCH RAM!!... Not anymore.

[Whitedog]

For those who keep asking the Question "Should I upgrade to 1GB of RAM?", or have asked "Is 1GB of RAM too much?"

Here's Today's answer... 1. It Depends, 2. Absolutly NOT!

I've been running an XP1800+ w/512MB PC133 for sometime now. It's been good, but as of late is starting to show it's age. I buy a lot of PC games. New ones at that. I'm starting to see where 512MB of RAM is getting maxed out pretty easily with TODAY'S PC games.

Here's an example:

I got SimCity4. If you run this game with all the goodies turned on, it will bring a system such as mine to it's knees. The main contributing factor is the amount of RAM this game gobbles up. I ran the game with system monitor running and checked it afterwards... It IMMEDIATELY gobbled up every bit of free RAM I had when I loaded the city.

Giving the amount of data in RAM running on the pissy 133MHz bus, the game crawled.

SO... This weekend I went out and bought an ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Mobo (NForce2) and put in a "pair" of Samsung 512MB PC2700 DIMMS.

NOW, let me tell you. Just upgrading to 1GB RAM with the faster bus (666MHZ effectively I think) made ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD! I had a city loaded up with population over 200,000 and it was still running very nicely (comparatively speaking).


Summing it up - If you're looking to Building a new system, OR just going to upgrade... Do yourself a Favor. Don't buy a DIMM smaller than 512MB. Get 1GB if you can afford it. I know for the most part, games will not use that much memory, but there are more and more coming out that DO Take full advantage of having that "extra" RAM.

The reason I say not to buy any DIMMS smaller than 512 is simple, you don't want to have a drawer full of 256MB modules (like I do now) you can't use.

For those who think 256 or 512 is "enough" RAM... well, in some cases.... IT'S NOT!

Upgrading to Dual Channel DDR and 1GB of RAM was a VERY Sweet upgrade for me. (and NOT just for SimCity! It was just the most noticable).

.02

 

[CurtCold]

Comparing Dual Channel 2700 DDR to 512MB of PC133 isn't even remotely fair. Considering the A7N8x has a different chipset to boot.


Yes I will agree with BF, and Sim City more ram is def helpful. 512MB is the new standard for gamers.

 

[EXman]

oh great mucho $ I'm upgrading this week want a gig but wanna OC like a banshee...

 

[RSMemphis]

Yeah, SimCity 4 is pretty extreme.
Most games are still satisfied with 512MB of RAM.

 

[Chadder007]

SimCity 4 = bad programming for memory optimization.

 

[loco21]

 

[Paulson]

I don't game too much so I'm still satisfied with my 512 megs...

 

[AtomicDude512]

Originally posted by: Whitedog
For those who keep asking the Question "Should I upgrade to 1GB of RAM?", or have asked "Is 1GB of RAM too much?"

Here's Today's answer... 1. It Depends, 2. Absolutly NOT!

I've been running an XP1800+ w/512MB PC133 for sometime now. It's been good, but as of late is starting to show it's age. I buy a lot of PC games. New ones at that. I'm starting to see where 512MB of RAM is getting maxed out pretty easily with TODAY'S PC games.

Here's an example:

I got SimCity4. If you run this game with all the goodies turned on, it will bring a system such as mine to it's knees. The main contributing factor is the amount of RAM this game gobbles up. I ran the game with system monitor running and checked it afterwards... It IMMEDIATELY gobbled up every bit of free RAM I had when I loaded the city.

Giving the amount of data in RAM running on the pissy 133MHz bus, the game crawled.

SO... This weekend I went out and bought an ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Mobo (NForce2) and put in a "pair" of Samsung 512MB PC2700 DIMMS.

NOW, let me tell you. Just upgrading to 1GB RAM with the faster bus (666MHZ effectively I think) made ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD! I had a city loaded up with population over 200,000 and it was still running very nicely (comparatively speaking).


Summing it up - If you're looking to Building a new system, OR just going to upgrade... Do yourself a Favor. Don't buy a DIMM smaller than 512MB. Get 1GB if you can afford it. I know for the most part, games will not use that much memory, but there are more and more coming out that DO Take full advantage of having that "extra" RAM.

The reason I say not to buy any DIMMS smaller than 512 is simple, you don't want to have a drawer full of 256MB modules (like I do now) you can't use.

For those who think 256 or 512 is "enough" RAM... well, in some cases.... IT'S NOT!

Upgrading to Dual Channel DDR and 1GB of RAM was a VERY Sweet upgrade for me. (and NOT just for SimCity! It was just the most noticable).

.02

Well duh it made a difference. Your new ram has about 1.5 times the bandwidth, not to mention Dual-Channel...

 

[loco21]

well let me tell u something i just got the game command & conquer generals and i have 512 pc2100 and i have a p4 2.0A @ 2.56 and in the begining he star good but more far a got playing the game he star slow down so tha mean new game new technologi and the will need more from u old computer. i think what Whitedog say is true so i will upgrade to a least 1gb ram

 

[Whitedog]

SimCity 4 = bad programming for memory optimization

I won't completely dissagree with that. However, there are several other games out there RIGHT NOW that Greatly benifit from having upwards of 1GB RAM... It's not really so much BAD Programming, but rather a simple fact of a TON of data to process. a TON!

If what you mean by "bad programming" is that they are putting too much stuff on the screen to process? Well, there is an option panel to Turn everything off but Buildings and Streets so that the game will run using the "famous Minimum System Requirements", but I believe they just programmed the game to look as BEST as they could... sort of catering to those who have Loaded to the hilt computers. I can't argue with that tactic. I think it's "good" programming to do that. It would be a total waste to build a system with, say, 3GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, Radion 9700 Pro Video....etc... IF the gaming industry didn't provide software that would actually USE that kind of computing power. I'm just glad some do.

 

[bgeh]

yup, that's why i'll be getting me and my friend 1 GB RAM

 

[erikiksaz]

If what you mean by "bad programming" is that they are putting too much stuff on the screen to process? Well, there is an option panel to Turn everything off but Buildings and Streets so that the game will run using the "famous Minimum System Requirements", but I believe they just programmed the game to look as BEST as they could... sort of catering to those who have Loaded to the hilt computers. I can't argue with that tactic. I think it's "good" programming to do that. It would be a total waste to build a system with, say, 3GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, Radion 9700 Pro Video....etc... IF the gaming industry didn't provide software that would actually USE that kind of computing power. I'm just glad some do.

It has nothing to do with that. Think of unncessary bloat, un-efficient methods, etc. Bad programming doesn't have anything to do with what's on the screen. I do not know much about this, but know enough that a few handul lines of code in a certain language can always be written in fewer lines. Fewer lines of code = less bloat, more efficient. Can anyone correct if it's wrong?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
SimCity 4 = bad programming for memory optimization.

I doubt it. I am not suprised SimCity4 is a memory hog. It has to store a whole lot of variables inside memory, as opposed to most other games. If you have a huge city, image the huge number of objects that need to be created and easily query-able. Not to mention the fact that they have to be somewhat visible when you scroll across your city. While I dont think any program is memory optimized to the maximum, SimCity's excessive use of memory cannot be blamed on bad programming alone.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
SimCity 4 = bad programming for memory optimization.

yep.
i thought about upgrading to 1GB but for the price of my PC3500 I can't do it just yet.

 

[mee987]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
SimCity 4 = bad programming for memory optimization.

have you played the game? have you seen the detail? it has nothing to do with poor memory optimization, theres just an assload of data to deal with.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Whitedog

SimCity 4 = bad programming for memory optimization

I won't completely dissagree with that. However, there are several other games out there RIGHT NOW that Greatly benifit from having upwards of 1GB RAM... It's not really so much BAD Programming, but rather a simple fact of a TON of data to process. a TON!

If what you mean by "bad programming" is that they are putting too much stuff on the screen to process? Well, there is an option panel to Turn everything off but Buildings and Streets so that the game will run using the "famous Minimum System Requirements", but I believe they just programmed the game to look as BEST as they could... sort of catering to those who have Loaded to the hilt computers. I can't argue with that tactic. I think it's "good" programming to do that. It would be a total waste to build a system with, say, 3GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, Radion 9700 Pro Video....etc... IF the gaming industry didn't provide software that would actually USE that kind of computing power. I'm just glad some do.

It's not "having too much on the screen at once". It's just bad memory management, probably because they think it's easier for people to just upgrade their ram than handle it better in the program.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Battlefield 1942 is a memory hog too. I'm hoping the price of 512MB Crucial PC2100 DDR falls to $70.

 

[chizow]

Interesting, I've always felt 512MB was the standard for gaming for about a year now. I just upgraded to 1024MB a few weeks ago, and I must say that the difference is quite remarkable. If you're running XP, 512MB just got about 200MB smaller. I've seen the difference in everything from the way web pages pop up to app launches, working with large files in Photoshop, and any app. (especially multimedia) that requires sustained HDD accesses.

The most noticeable difference though is in games, particularly ones with high detail textures or large maps that can be quickly accessed in memory. BF1942 is an obvious example, as many have noted long load times and in-game stutter as their swap file is being accessed. Swap hasn't been touched at all since I upgraded; Maps loaded fast when I upgraded to RAID 0, but now its near instantaneous. HDD doesn't even spin on a map change and I'm sitting in a plane or a tank before most people spawn Also, I loaded up NWN (b/c I noticed it ran somewhat choppy before), silky smooth as well at 1280x1024x32 with 4x AA and 8x AF, with 64MB texture packs.

Arguing about a game's performance and scalability is silly, the answer is simple: Money buys you performance. Does it provide an unfair advantage to those with rigs loaded to the hilt? Absolutely. Hardcore gamers are willing to pump endless streams of money into their rigs, and the end result is a much smoother game play experience. You can concentrate on beating your opponent instead of struggling with your rigs performance. Minimum system reqs. listed on the boxes of games are pure marketing so that a game sells multiple copies. I don't even think the rec'd system reqs. are enough in most cases. I've often changed out a part and revisited a game, and found myself saying in awe......"Man, this is how this game is supposed to play."

Lately I've been recommending a single 512MB dimm over a 2 x 256 as Whitedog does, even with the emergence of nForce2 as the board of choice for AMD users. This should apply to Intel users as well, with GB here and Canterwood on the horizon. Although the benefits of dual channel on Canterwood are still yet unknown, I don't feel the benefits of dual-channel on GB and nForce2 justify buying 2 dimms that you may find yourself replacing when you want 1024MB (possibly in the near future). Not only will you be eating any depreciation on the 2 256MB sticks, but buyers may be scarce as they may be looking for 512MB sticks as well. On top of that you'll have to shell out the premium on 2 x 512MB sticks. With RAM prices so low, good quality 512MB sticks can be had for less than $100.

Even if you don't feel 1024MB is right for you now, its a good idea to start planning, especially if you are concerned with overclocking.

Chiz

 

[AluminumStudios]

What AfterEffects does to my system and why I need a gig of RAM. (but don't have it unfortunatly.)

 

[hdeck]

i hope you noticed a difference going from pc133 to pc2700.

 

[AtomicDude512]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Battlefield 1942 is a memory hog too. I'm hoping the price of 512MB Crucial PC2100 DDR falls to $70.

I got 512MB PC2700 for $85 at here

 

[sharkeeper]

I never thought 1GB was too much back in 1998. Boy did it sure cost a lot back then! :Q

I wish motherboards supported bigger size memories. 256GB of RAM would be real nice. Having support for that in XP would be nice too.

You can NEVER have too much ram! Never!

Well, unless this happens!!!

Cheers!

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
I never thought 1GB was too much back in 1998. Boy did it sure cost a lot back then! :Q

I wish motherboards supported bigger size memories. 256GB of RAM would be real nice. Having support for that in XP would be nice too.

You can NEVER have too much ram! Never!

Well, unless this happens!!!

Cheers!

that is so sweet!

 

[Whitedog]

Originally posted by: erikiksaz

Fewer lines of code = less bloat, more efficient. Can anyone correct if it's wrong?

erik, I'm a programmer and I can tell you that is not all that true as it may seem.... as far as memory is concerened anyway. "Extra" and unnecessary lines of code won't affect "memory management" so-to-speak, however, too much of it "could" cause the execution part to run slower, though I highly doubt this is the case here.

I believe what he means by "bad programming" is - he doesn't really know what he means. It's just his excuse.

 

[Whitedog]

i hope you noticed a difference going from pc133 to pc2700.

Not just PC2700, but DUAL CHANNEL!

Yes, I am positive this has a LOT to do with it, but again, I checked the System monitor after running the game with the extra memory and the game DOES load a TON into memory. I don't have numbers, perhaps some more extensive testing can be done. Maybe it will shed some light to what's going on with this game.

Thanks