A64 3000+ venice to A64 FX-55 San Diego

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Crusader, why did you use Quake 3 benchmarks (and some other game I've never heard of) to detail performance differences between 512MB, 1GB & 2GB RAM? That game is from 1999!

OP, I would say look for 2 gigs of RAM (the FS/FT forums, perhaps?) - your CPU at 2.5GHz is pretty damn fine. Yes, the processor is pretty cheap and hard to resist but you are better off saving your money or at least investing in more RAM.

Because I've never seen any benchmarks besides BF2 showing improvements with 1+GB of RAM? Even there, it was declared preposterous to need over 1GB of ram, and in a later patch I believe it was fixed.

Hey, I have benchmarks backing up my point. I dont see any of you detractors showing me proof as I'm wrong. I'm sure if you run a bloated system 1GB can not be enough.
Just because people jump on 2GB+ of RAM and its popular doesnt make it the truth as far as maximum FPS is concerned.

Sure, I like 2GB as well. But for a gaming machine (not bloated), 1GB will get maximum FPS and theres no real need to upgrade beyond that.

1GB + FX55 + G80 would be a better rig than 2GB + OC'd A64 (512KB L2) + old video card. The OP is fine with 1GB.
Thats not to forget more memory = more memory addresses for a CPU to manage, sorry.

You're right, Crusader. For any game from 2003, or before, 1GB is plenty. However, that doesn't cut it with new games, at least not at resolutions above 1280x1024, or 1280x1024 w/ AA & AF. And it's already been explained to you how FPS has nothing to do with the game having to pause to load data from the hard drive.

If you don't understand, just admit that you don't understand. But optimizing a system only goes so far. Neither you, nor anyone else on earth can optimize well enough to keep a game like Oblivion from using more than 750MB of RAM, without dropping down to extremely low resolutions. Just because you don't own any game that doesn't require 2GB yet, doesn't mean that alot of systems don't require it.

edit: Here's your proof: link. Note that this was written before Oblivion came out. F.E.A.R. also requires 2GB of RAM, as I can tell you from experience.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: acegazda
Hey, that was crude and uncalled for... I like it.

That's because sometimes I'm rude, but I'm always uncalled for.

 

[shelaby]

If i were to get another stick of two of 512mb ram, obviously id have to stop running in dual channel. But would this affect performance alot? Would it be noticable?

 

[Skitzer]

My last upgrade for at least 8 more months.
I already had a decent video card, X1800XT 512MB, so I jumped on this $139 FX55. I cranked it up to 3.0GHz with a minor voltage increase and it is rock solid. It replaced a Venice running at 2.5 and is noticably faster in everything I do. I sold the Venice for $65 so the upgrade only cost me about $74. Now my system should last me until next summer when I plan to go Core 2 Duo with a DX 10 video card.

If I were you though I would upgrade my video card first ...... that's where you'll see the bigest increase.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: shelaby
If i were to get another stick of two of 512mb ram, obviously id have to stop running in dual channel. But would this affect performance alot? Would it be noticable?

No, not at all. You'd still be running 2x512 MB in dual-channel, just like before. You'd just be running the single stick in single-channel, which isn't a big deal at all. You'd still have 1.5 GB of system RAM. Who cares if 1/3 of it isn't running in dual-channel mode?