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

[BFG10K]

If you've ever wondered why your gaming experience gets "chunky" after a few hours of gaming, its probably b/c of a memory leak that results in low system cache and constant accessing of the swap file. The only fix I know of is a reboot

The fix is to simply close the program and Windows will then reclaim all of the memory in use by that program.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Whitedog

Not quite.
For one thing, the FSB itself is still running at 166/333, so you won't be getting 5.2 GB/Sec of bandwidth.
And even on a P4 with DC-DDR 128 bit 166/333 RAM != 666 MHz, it's merely 2x64 bit 333 MHz DDR.

You know, I never even thought of it that way. My CPU is an 1800+ @ 266FSB... SO, What good is the NForce2's 2X memory bandwidth if it is bottlenecked by the FSB?? In actuality, it shouldn't be any slower running single vs. Dual Channel? Can anyone agree or disagree with that?

Thanks for bringing that up Sunner.

The CPU isn't the only thing that accesses system memory. Where DCDDR gives very obvious, tangible benefits is mostly when you've got an nForce2 board with onboard video: 50%+ framerate gains sound noticable? But of course an add-in 3D card will romp all over the onboard video. Then again, with the onboard video adding only about $30 to the price... *shrug*.

There are some other uses for the bandwidth, one of them being DASP: DASP gives variable results, people shouldn't expect miracles from DCDDR

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper

First thing you need, is a CPU that could use that ran. 32bit CPU's would not cut it.

MP systems are capable of addressing > 4GB memory size. Having a four way Opteron with 128GB per CPU would be nice.

Cheers!

Can they address 256Gigs of RAM? If I remember correctly, they can address 64gigs.

 

[ImmortalBlade]

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

WTH??? 666mhz??!?!?! what the hell do you have your ram running at? 333mhz? thats insane, what did you do? immerse it in liquid nitro? Did you mean 166mhz? at best 333mhz FSB(166x2 Dual Pumped) not even intell runs that high, best ive seen is 450mhz dual pumped on an AMD system

 

[moonshinemadness]

It has *nothing* to do with bad memory optimisation, there is no way in hell programmers can create a game that complex that looks so damn fine without relying on putting sh*t loads of data onto the RAM modules.

Edit 1: It seems to me that (And this is purely my view) right now 512 will do for MOST Games, there are the odd game that will completely trample on 512 and will need 1 gig. But things dont go backwards, programmers are not going to start producing games that need less RAM than previous games and that is why technology progresses. The technology for 1gig of ram is already here and is widely used, programmers are going to start taking advantage of this more and more as games become more complex and detailed and even if we dont upgrade now, it will get to the point where 512 simply isnt enough to run these games, it happened to 128 its happened to 256 and now its happening to 512 and it will happen to 1 gig, it called proggression....deal with it its going to happen at some point.

 

[sharkeeper]

Can they address 256Gigs of RAM? If I remember correctly, they can address 64gigs.

Right now they cannot. 64GB is still a lot better than the paltry 4GB that our SMP x86 workstations have. I'd kill to even have 16.

256GB (and up) would be nice to have in a few years when it will be desperately needed.

Cheers!

 

[Whitedog]

WTH??? 666mhz??!?!?! what the hell do you have your ram running at? 333mhz? thats insane, what did you do? immerse it in liquid nitro? Did you mean 166mhz? at best 333mhz FSB(166x2 Dual Pumped) not even intell runs that high, best ive seen is 450mhz dual pumped on an AMD system

It's Not running at 66mhz man... It's just being used as an indicator of the bandwidth. I believe it's something like this:
Memory clocked at 166MHz - DDR giving it 333MHz effective bandwidth. Or 2.7GB/s - (166(MHz) * 64(bit) / 8(bits per byte *2(DDR)) = 2,656
Dual Channel Memory mode from the NForce2 chipset effectively doubling your memory bandwidth because of it being 128bit instead of 64.
So... You end up with memory bandwidth that calculates out the same as 666MHz. (666*64/8) Or (166(mhz)*128(bit)/8(bytes)*2(DDR)) = 5.4GB/s

Too confusing isn't it

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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

Are you drunk?

Yeah, having started a thread that assumed the opposite a few weeks back, I can say that many games seem to need more RAM now. These include Sim City 4 (horrible mem management), Warcraft III, and BF 1942. I'll consider getting more RAM in the near future.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

If you've ever wondered why your gaming experience gets "chunky" after a few hours of gaming, its probably b/c of a memory leak that results in low system cache and constant accessing of the swap file. The only fix I know of is a reboot

The fix is to simply close the program and Windows will then reclaim all of the memory in use by that program.

You must be running Windows XP Perfect Edition or different software. The majority of us still get such fun things as BSODs, error reports, memory leaks, crashes, etc.

Unfortunately, Windows isn't perfectly efficient at reclaiming memory from buggy programs, which is why such bugs are called memory "leaks".
Its also why its not recommended to close a program from task manager without allowing the program to run through its normal closing processes.

Chiz

 

[WyteWatt]

Does anyone here have 2 or 3 gigs of ram yet ?

Also how are you all going to upgrade to 2 or 3 gigs of ram sense you only have 3 dimms?

You need to buy 1 gig ram sticks to beable to have 2 gigs or 3 gigs of ram. The most ram you can have with 512 mb ram sticks is 1.5 gigs of ram So you may have to buy more ddr ram to beable to have 2 gigs or 3 gigs of ram whenever you need to.

 

[DX2Player]

I dont know, ever since I built my new system with 512 of RIMM 4800 RDRAM on Win XP I have never even encountered a symptom of low memeory. I sometimes go into Asus Probe and watch my memory come back after closing a program. I can have my computer on forever play UT 2K3, RTCW, WC3 nonstop and still be fine. Hell for my own amusement iv run stress tests multitasking and still am fine, I can have UT 2K3, WC3, Kazaa, Windows Media Player, DIVX, all running soemthign at the same time while surfing the net and never lag. And after i close ill get all my memory back. Now some people might need more for some reason, I might need more some tiem down the road but no way your gonna convice me that I need more now.

 

[sharkeeper]

Does anyone here have 2 or 3 gigs of ram yet ?

Also how are you all going to upgrade to 2 or 3 gigs of ram sense you only have 3 dimms?

You need to buy 1 gig ram sticks to beable to have 2 gigs or 3 gigs of ram. The most ram you can have with 512 mb ram sticks is 1.5 gigs of ram So you may have to buy more ddr ram to beable to have 2 gigs or 3 gigs of ram whenever you need to.

See my system rigs page. We have no interest in mainboards with less than 4 memory sockets (8 banks total) for this reason.

It's good to get drunk every now and then even if it's not alcohol!

Cheers!

 

[WyteWatt]

sharkeeper wow 384 to 6 gig of ram in all your systems! I bet having 6 gigs of ram is very nice! Even 2 gigs seems very nice! I disagree that its good to get drunk every now and then even if it's not alcohol.

DX2Player i only have 256 mb of pc133 cas 2 sdram but i don't think i will go 512 mb of ram or 1 gig intill i go ddr sense i could be wasting my money going to 512 or 1 gig with pc 133 cas 2 sdram.

 

[codehack2]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Does anyone here have 2 or 3 gigs of ram yet ?

Also how are you all going to upgrade to 2 or 3 gigs of ram sense you only have 3 dimms?

You need to buy 1 gig ram sticks to beable to have 2 gigs or 3 gigs of ram. The most ram you can have with 512 mb ram sticks is 1.5 gigs of ram So you may have to buy more ddr ram to beable to have 2 gigs or 3 gigs of ram whenever you need to.

I've got another gig coming that will put me @ 2gb of Samsung pc2700. BTW... I've got a 8inxp (granitebay) with 4 dimm slots that will support 4 x double sided dimms. Adobe afterEffects & adobe premier are eating memory for lunch. At $70 a dimm, the price was just too good to pass up.

CH2

 

[DX2Player]

Well ya i never said to get more sdram, Im just saying that I dont need mroe than 512 RDRAM. If you got a lot of money what the hell go for it but for most ppl 512 will be fine.

 

[Rectalfier]

Whitedog

Try taking 512 out of your system and see how it compares with your pc133 old setup. I think that will make it single channel, but if it performs the same as 1Gig, you will then know that it is the chipset and the ddr that is giving you the performance increase, rather than the 1gig.

 

[Instigator]

Jeez codehack2, if you keep this crap up I'll have to order another 1gb of memory! Hey Whitedog, why you got to be like that? I was perfect content with 512mb of memory. Then I read this thread and bingo....googlegear is deliverying another 1gig of Corsair XMS PC3200 tomorrow. I don't know if you or codehack2 are worst. J\K by the way and I do agree that 512mb is the minimum anymore and that 1gig will help with current and future games.

 

[BFG10K]

You must be running Windows XP Perfect Edition or different software.

Nope, I'm running an NT based OS which isn't perfect but it's quite close to it.

The majority of us still get such fun things as BSODs, error reports, memory leaks, crashes, etc.

Only if your system is badly set up. And it's certainly not a majority, I can tell you that.

Unfortunately, Windows isn't perfectly efficient at reclaiming memory from buggy programs,

Yes it is. On a NT based system (or any other system with a modern memory manager) it's not possible for programs to touch any memory without the OS allocating it to them first. As such at any one time Windows knows exactly what programs are using what memory and also where it's located.

If you still think you're not getting your memory back then there's probably a process left from the program that is using it. If you kill it, you'll get it all back.

which is why such bugs are called memory "leaks".

A memory leak does not necessarily mean that memory has been lost. A memory leak is simply memory that has been allocated but is not needed, which may or may not be reclaimed later.

Its also why its not recommended to close a program from task manager without allowing the program to run through its normal closing processes.

No, it's recommended you close them normally so you don't interrupt anything important so as not to corrupt data and/or lose unsaved documents.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: chizow
You must be running Windows XP Perfect Edition or different software. The majority of us still get such fun things as BSODs, error reports, memory leaks, crashes, etc.

Unfortunately, Windows isn't perfectly efficient at reclaiming memory from buggy programs, which is why such bugs are called memory "leaks".
Its also why its not recommended to close a program from task manager without allowing the program to run through its normal closing processes.

Chiz

Incidentally, that is a good reason to have a swap file, even if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM. If you get a memory leak, it lengthens the time required before a reboot is necessary. That is important on servers, and I consider it important on my workstations as well, but many around here don't care. Just look at how many people are still running Windows 98, and are unwilling to admit that NT based OSes are superior.

 

[Whitedog]

Just look at how many people are still running Windows 98, and are unwilling to admit that NT based OSes are superior.

Anyone still running 9x is just plain... uhmm... well,... they shouldn't be allowed to live.

Oh, I'm just kidding guys!

I'm with you though jliechty, I can't BELIEVE people still run that ancient POS of an OS! Don't you tire of the excuses "BUT I STILL HAVE GAMES THAT WON'T RUN ON XP!"

Throw the damn games away then!

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Whitedog

Just look at how many people are still running Windows 98, and are unwilling to admit that NT based OSes are superior.

Anyone still running 9x is just plain... uhmm... well,... they shouldn't be allowed to live.

Oh, I'm just kidding guys!

I'm with you though jliechty, I can't BELIEVE people still run that ancient POS of an OS! Don't you tire of the excuses "BUT I STILL HAVE GAMES THAT WON'T RUN ON XP!"

Throw the damn games away then!

Hehe, I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me or not, but I hope so.

Anyway, I have 512MB of PC/2700 now, and would love to add another 512MB module, if I could afford it. It sucks to minimize Mozilla, then go work in Photoshop and Dreamweaver, only to come back to Mozilla and find that it takes 30 seconds to redraw itself due to the swapping. :frown:

Guess that means I need not only 1024MB (or more) of RAM, but also some nice SCSI disks.

 

[chizow]

I am running Win XP, and ran Win2K before that. Windows and the software that runs on it is far from perfect, if it were there would be no need for SP's every 6 months and 30 windows updates, not to mention the myriad patches required for each piece of software or hardware on the market.

I guess I don't trust any Windows OS to manage memory allocation perfectly, and I find simply rebooting to be faster than opening up task manager and closing processes tying up memory. There was a time when I bothered to tweak my OS and shut-down TSRs or even dual-boot to a gaming OS installation, but XP was supposed to do away with the need for such measures.

Only if your system is badly set up. And it's certainly not a majority, I can tell you that.

If you believe that statement, you're ignorant. There are error reports and crashes that are 100% replicable on different systems and platforms. Software bugs and hardware conflicts are unavoidable. I'm willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of users of Win2K and WinXP (both NT OSes) have in fact experienced some sort of error or crash, which was subsequently fixed with a patch.

Chiz

 

[acid16]

1GB of dual channel ddr (2x512MB) = perfect......... talk about OWNAGE

 

[BFG10K]

I am running Win XP, and ran Win2K before that. Windows and the software that runs on it is far from perfect, if it were there would be no need for SP's every 6 months and 30 windows updates, not to mention the myriad patches required for each piece of software or hardware on the market.

I never said Windows or the software running on it is perfect, all I said was that memory manager of any modern OS has been tweaked to the point that it works extremely well. These are tried and true tested methods, not new implementations.

I guess I don't trust any Windows OS to manage memory allocation perfectly,

If you're talking about NT based OSes then your mistrust is unneccesary. You might have a point with Win 9x/ME OSes though a lot of people misunderstand just how they work so sometimes panic with no reason to do so.

There are error reports and crashes that are 100% replicable on different systems and platforms.

You're changing the subject here, talking about general crashes and proceeding well beyond the scope of the discussion. I told you that NT based OSes always have direct control of the programs' memory and you claimed that software bugs prevent this. I suspect you said this because you don't understand the fact that by design a modern memory manager does not allow programs to touch any RAM they are not allowed to touch. It also knows the exact status of all of the system's memory at any given time, barring any memory leak bugs in the actual memory manager itself.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: 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.

Amusingly, the original SimCity ran great with only 512 K of RAM. Either the SimCity 4 programmers were REALLY sloppy, or Will Wright was a coding genious