• 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.

512 mb vs. 1 gig

The benefit is not really in additional frames per second, but the smoothness of the game--with more memory, the game doesn't have to access the hard drive (which is something like 40 times slower than RAM) as much, and so it will play more smoothly.
 
Depends on the game...

If it eats up a lot of memory like WoW then you're better off with 1GB.

Generally it makes gameplay smoother because it won't have to access your HD as much. But it won't give you any more FPS if that's what you're looking for.
 
1GB is a dream. I was playing farcry on my system and it would be verying damaging to the experience of the game when it would have to load more textures from the drive..
 
I believe anandtech did a test that showed Doom3 would use 1.5GB+ of ram if it was available. With a game that recent 256MB is unacceptable, 512MB you can get away with but unless you want uninterupted perforamnce you're going to need at least a gig.
 
5112 works fine. in WOW i do get stutters when i switch locals, but this is only for 3-5 seconds and the stutter is more like dropping to 10 fps vs my constant 30-35. is that worth the money of another 512 to me? nope~ to others it maybe...but you have to gauge it yourself and see what can be deemed acceptable
 
Go with a gig. I've had a gig in my main system for about the past two years and wouldn't consider going back to 512MB.
 
1GB of memory is a must for modern games. Your load times are cut in half, that "sticking" you experience will disappear, and you will get an overall more enjoyable experience.
 
It really depends, but if you play games with long loading points like Warcraft 3, Far Cry, and Battlefield: Vietnam, you should notice about half the time increase. An extra 512MB of RAM won't help with framerates though.
 
If you really don't believe 1024 MB is necessary, get 512 MB, & then get another 512 MB.

You will see the difference unless you are blind (or the game you are playing is not very performance intensive).
 
These days i think 1GB is minimum, whether you game or not. I had a 3200XP machine with 512mb for a little bit there, and moving up to 1GB even though it wsan't a gaming machine, was needed (for me). I started with the 286s, so it's surprising that i can't stand momentary freezing or lag because my programs are hitting the swap, but you get spoiled.
 
512mb while still okay, required alot of HD access which slows down the flow of things. With 1 gig everything is more fluid. Actuall in-game performance will change little, but even that little is instantly noticeable by its absence.
 
One aspect that I've noticed in comparision between 1024MB and 512MB is the fact that games close a lot faster (and obviously load faster as well). Before with 512MB it would take 15-20 seconds to close the game and restore my windows desktop (and even after that I'd have to wait awhile until the system wasn't as choppy as heck), but with 1GB it's instantaneous and I notice no under-performance of the system afterwards. 🙂
 
When I built my HTPC the stick of ram I got for it was bad. To get it working while RMAing the ram, I donated one of my PC's 512mb sticks, leaving it with only the remaining 512mb stick - the difference was HUGE. It may partially be because I have a p4b (slow fsb) and a mb that doesn't support dual channel ram, but the difference wasn't limited to games - windows itself was much more snappy. As far as games, Far Cry at settings which were smooth with a gb (10x7, full eye candy, v.high settings, 4aa8af) became a slide show with 512mb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top