Corporate Thug
Lifer
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/0.../memory_-_is_more_always_better/6.html
even BF2 likes low latency of 1gb over looser timings with 2gbs
even BF2 likes low latency of 1gb over looser timings with 2gbs
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
1gb v. 2gb comparison
- Thread starter Corporate Thug
- Start date
Heckler 5th
Senior member
where does it say 1GB low-lat > 2GB loose? [edit: okay, average framerate, i see. but with their pretty weak testing methodology, 2FPS has to be within their margin of error]
the graphics quality settings aren't even the same for all four RAM configs so i don't see any valid statements you can make from this "test" except they got 2 more FPS with 1GB than 2GB but they had to lower several graphics settings to do it. :thumbsdown:
have you played BF2 with both 1GB and 2GB? cuz, believe me, if you did, you'd take 2GB over 1GB RAM any day.
they mentioned in all but one test that they had to tone down the graphics settings for the 2x512mb kit so how can you even bother saying it's better than a 2x1024mb kit? read the FULL article, not the numbers
plus, once again, have you played BF2 with both 1GB and 2GB? i've played on 2 systems (both of my friends): 1 of them had an intel 820D, 6600 128mb, and 2 or 3gigs of ram (i played when he had both setups) and the other setup was an intel 6 series cpu, 1 gig ram, 6600 256mb. so the 2nd setup had a very sligthly better card, half the ram, and performed worse than the other setup. too much lag with the 1gigs
That article is confusing, they used a limited number of setups and changed the amount of details to make everything "even in the end". meh
I would have liked to see more consistancy DDR520 at 1T and 2T, DDR520 with 2 sticks and DDR520 with 4x sticks etc....
All I know is that personally I'm running 4x 512MB at 2T CAS 1.5/2/2/5 @ DDR480 and BF2 loads very fast and I am almost always the first 1 or 2 people into the server. With 1GB, even overclocked to DDR520 speeds @ 2/2/2/5 there was massive studdering and lag during the initial 15 seconds of the game and random lag once or twice during a round. When it comes down to grabbing that tank/airplane/helo before anyone else has a chance, go with 2GB.
I would have liked to see more consistancy DDR520 at 1T and 2T, DDR520 with 2 sticks and DDR520 with 4x sticks etc....
All I know is that personally I'm running 4x 512MB at 2T CAS 1.5/2/2/5 @ DDR480 and BF2 loads very fast and I am almost always the first 1 or 2 people into the server. With 1GB, even overclocked to DDR520 speeds @ 2/2/2/5 there was massive studdering and lag during the initial 15 seconds of the game and random lag once or twice during a round. When it comes down to grabbing that tank/airplane/helo before anyone else has a chance, go with 2GB.
Of course capacity cannot affect framerate. Insufficient capacity simply results in paging which may result in stutter which may affect playability but will not necessarily be reflected in measured framerates. Having 'nuff VRAM and system RAM only eliminates performance degradation. Higher bandwidth can marginally improve performance and framerate. But really, it is only after those capacity bottlenecks are eliminated that performance can be improved by the GPU and CPU. Loading performance can likewise only then be improved by HDD and CPU.
I don't know why the myth and mystery about RAM remains from ye olden days when it was practically impossible to simply have 'nuff. Every system is diff'rent so touting "2GB is the one true way" is akin to proselytizing rather than helping. The OS reveals specifically how much the system uses in Task Manager. In general, unless there is muy background crap running, then 1GB is sufficient so long as BF2 Textures are limited to Medium. Even then, unneeded processes could simply be ended to trim system memory useage down to 150MB ish. RAM is cheap, but unless the GPU (and less so CPU and HDD) are already the best they can be, it is foolish to allocate any moolah to unneccessary RAM capacity with the false expectation of performance gains.
And yes, I have tried BF2 with the same system with 1GB vs 2GB high-performance RAM and there was no difference except aforementioned ability to enable the High option for Textures, which certainly was not worth it compared to putting even a fraction of the cost into a graphics card upgrade which could increase performance and other quality settings not dependent upon system RAM. Indeed, more VRAM may negate some dependence upon system RAM.
With 1GB, I am consistently amongst the first if not the first to load on numerous 64 player servers. There is never any stutter or so-called "lag" beyond true network lag or server overload -except an occasional hiccup during the first five seconds or so when most other players are still not even in the game so that is probably not even an issue on my end and in any case practically insignificant.
I don't know why the myth and mystery about RAM remains from ye olden days when it was practically impossible to simply have 'nuff. Every system is diff'rent so touting "2GB is the one true way" is akin to proselytizing rather than helping. The OS reveals specifically how much the system uses in Task Manager. In general, unless there is muy background crap running, then 1GB is sufficient so long as BF2 Textures are limited to Medium. Even then, unneeded processes could simply be ended to trim system memory useage down to 150MB ish. RAM is cheap, but unless the GPU (and less so CPU and HDD) are already the best they can be, it is foolish to allocate any moolah to unneccessary RAM capacity with the false expectation of performance gains.
And yes, I have tried BF2 with the same system with 1GB vs 2GB high-performance RAM and there was no difference except aforementioned ability to enable the High option for Textures, which certainly was not worth it compared to putting even a fraction of the cost into a graphics card upgrade which could increase performance and other quality settings not dependent upon system RAM. Indeed, more VRAM may negate some dependence upon system RAM.
With 1GB, I am consistently amongst the first if not the first to load on numerous 64 player servers. There is never any stutter or so-called "lag" beyond true network lag or server overload -except an occasional hiccup during the first five seconds or so when most other players are still not even in the game so that is probably not even an issue on my end and in any case practically insignificant.
Corporate Thug
Lifer
I'm in class 😉
didnt particularly think about the gitching or what not, just made my conclusion based on FPS
I meant given 'nuff, extra has no effect and indeed even when borderline as many are with 1GB, insignificant paging shan't be reflected in benchmarks.
You mean total useage, right (not just BF2)? So your system is prolly fairly bloaty at around 300MB? I run:
1280x960
Terrain: High
Effects: High
Geometry: High
Texture: Medium
Lighting: Medium
Dynamic Shadows: Off (on account of being crappy)
Dynamic Light: Medium
Anti-Aliasing: 4x (with Adaptive option)
Texture Filtering: High (overridden to 16x)
View Distance Scale: 100%
Sure, it's nice to see legible print on the C-4 detonator, but as said it's poor bang for the rupee so I'll stick with crappy Medium Textures for now.
thescreensavers
Diamond Member
its not a big change that is why you should get 2gig
Makaveli
Diamond Member
BF2 runs better on 2GB of ram no matter what anyones says. I've done the upgrade recently. And load times and how smooth the maps are is undeniable. Anyone that tells u otherwise is Full of ******, or to cheap to upgrade there memory.
Even on the meduim settings at 1280x1024 I was hitting about 1.1GB ram useage on my 1GB kit. now that i've upgraded to 2GB and have textures on high, usage hits about 1.2-1.4 GB.
Even on the meduim settings at 1280x1024 I was hitting about 1.1GB ram useage on my 1GB kit. now that i've upgraded to 2GB and have textures on high, usage hits about 1.2-1.4 GB.
bob4432
Lifer
if you were hitting 1.1 with medium setting on 1280x1024, then your machine idles at more than 250MB of ram. turn some of that background stuff off 🙂
not saying that 2GB won't be a little better than 1GB @ 1280x1024 and higher, 1GB can still do it no problem.
also, to the person who said something about 1min load times with 1GB, wtf are you talking about? defrag your hdd.... with 1GB i am always the first person on the map.
also, since they just played the game and didn't use a benchmark i wouldn't draw any conclusions out of anything less than a 10fps change.
also:
wtf? how can 2GB make a difference for general desktop use when my rig doesn't even use 500MB for normal desktop usage? this article is pretty weak.....
There are major arguments against getting more than 2GB, namely that the limitations with 32-bit Windows and issues with running 4 sticks of RAM outweigh any benifit for 99% of users ... but in general it is still true that more RAM is always better.
Anybody who's played much BF2 is going to tell you that you're just plain retarded if you don't think 2GB is better than 1GB.
Anybody who's played much BF2 is going to tell you that you're just plain retarded if you don't think 2GB is better than 1GB.
Exactly, bob4432. Why does it seem difficult for some to grasp that RAM is just fast temporary storage space? Again, the capacity simply cannot improve performance like a GPU or CPU, but only eliminate performance degradation. Completely different. If 2GB is better than 1GB, then that particular system and settings were using more than 1GB. If not, then by such queer reasoning 4GB (if addressable but likewise not actually required) would somehow be better than 2GB and so on.
Yeah, and defragmenting (preferably with a good after-market program) is key 'cause as said the only way to improve such performance is via the storage system and CPU, with the former being the bottleneck (again, given 'nuff RAM to preclude paging).
Yeah, and defragmenting (preferably with a good after-market program) is key 'cause as said the only way to improve such performance is via the storage system and CPU, with the former being the bottleneck (again, given 'nuff RAM to preclude paging).
That post makes almost no sense whatsoever.
RAM can absolutely improve performance. If, for example, you don't have all the options turned up in BF2 and you're only using 940MB for the computer like bob is saying, you definitely get an improvement by adding RAM and turning up the options. It is in fact a much more tangible improvement than a couple extra FPS. Now, if you are actually using enough RAM that Windows is paging, then the improvement becomes outright immense.
If you're going to argue that "well, you don't have to turn up options, you can just use settings that use less RAM and therefore the extra RAM does no good," then, well, I suppose that makes perfect sense .... except that by the same logic I could argue that you might as well have 4MB of RAM and stick to playing Commander Keen games.
And defragmenting your hard drive is far from key. I don't know what else to say other than you're being totally stupid. You actually appear to be saying that defragmenting your hard drive more often will actually do more to improve performance of BF2 than going from 1GB to 2GB.
Please show us some information proving that defragmenting your hard drive with a "good aftermarket program" is better than the automatic defragmenting in XP. And show how this improves performance more than doubling your RAM from 1GB to 2GB.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
