added memory, don't see any improvements.

[QueBert]

I went from 512 to 1 gig, running it Dual Channel. A couple games, especially Swat 4 were taking forever to load levels. I timed a level load before adding the 2nd stick, and after. I got almost exactly the same time. Is there a bios, or windows setting (looked but didn't see anything) I need to enable to make dual channel kick in? I was expecting my system to move a lot quicker, and so far I don't notice a damn thing.

 

[FlyingPenguin]

Loading levels will NOT be improved by adding more memory. A faster drive is the only thing that will improve load times (or going RAID 0 which I don't recommend if your system is mission critical).

You want to check the Device Manager properties for the Primary Channel of your IDE Controller. Make sure you're running at the highest DMA mode your controller and HDD is capable of (usually UDMA 5 or 6 on a modern system). Sometimes Windows will throttle you back to a lower DMA mode if you get a lot of errors on the IDE bus (which can be caused by something as mundane as a dirty lens on your CD-Rom).

SWAT 4 is a bad example to go by - it has very long load times even on high-end rigs like mine. We had a LAN party the other day and no one had any faster load times in SWAT 4 than I did (damn fun game to play COOP multiplayer BTW).

What more memory will do is improve framerates IF the game makes use of it. Most modern games (UT2K4 engine games, Doom3, HL2 engine games, BF1942) will definately improve in performance. BF1942 in particular is real memory whore - difference between night and day running 512 vs 1024Mb.

Chances are (assuming you have a decent video card) that your frame rates are better than they were with less memory, which will result in smoother game play. You may also be able to increase your resolution in some games higher than you were using before.

To find out if you're REALLY using the memory run some of your most intensive games and apps for a few hours and then open Task Manager, and go to the Performance tab.

If the PEAK Commit Charge value is over 512000 then you're making use of the extra memory.

You NEVER want the PEAK Commit Charge value to exceed the TOTAL Physical Memory value otherwise your system will be relying on the swap file and will take a major performance hit.

For serious gaming, I consider 1Gb to be the minimum right now. Not much reason to install more than that unless you use a very memory intensive app like Photoshop of VMWare.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

i hopt you mean 1 gb? not 1 mb. thats what my dad would have considered uber high end on his first compuiter.

 

[FlyingPenguin]

Yes, 1Gb. Typo on my part.

And I'm old enough to remember when 8K was a lot of memory (my first computer was a Commodere PET circa 1979 with 8K - couldn't wait to upgrade it to a whopping 32K). See if your father can top that

 

[duckdown]

How can I fix the video "tearing" in SWAT 4? I can't find the VSYNC option anywhere

 

[FlyingPenguin]

No tearing here. You probably have VSync set to "Application preference" in your advanced display DirectX settings.

I force VSync to always be on in my driver's advanced display settings for both OpenGL and DirectX.

 

[QueBert]

I thought more memory would speed up the loading in swat 4, the level loading kills me. It wouldn't be that bad, but when I die 30 seconds into the mission by a pissed off psycho with a gun, and gotta wait 40 seconds for the same level to re-load. UGH haha.

good ass game. And I'm sure I'll find a bunch of games and apps that will show me what 1 gig can do. Been on PC's my whole life, but never been above 512 megs.

 

[Calin]

Loading levels is faster with more RAM only when the original (previous) RAM was too small to fit everything inside. I noticed faster loading times on some games going from 128 to 512 RAM, but for other games it was just the same.
More RAM won't improve your FPS. It will just reduce (or eliminate) the instances when the computer stutters. This is a very good thing, especially if you play multiplayer games. As for maximum FPS or average FPS, don't expect to see much of a change. If you would record the minimum FPS, more RAM will certainly improve it

 

[mehmetmunur]

I know it sounds stupid, but defragmenting your hard drive helps a lot. I have an Athlon XP 3200, 1 GB of ddr333 kingston and a 6600gt and a WD80GB, and I can definetely notice a difference when the hard drive is defragmented. But, then again, my harddrive is usually 70-80% full.

 

[QueBert]

that's not stupid. HD speed has a lot to do with system performance. I probably should defrag, I forget to do it as often as I should.

 

[FlyingPenguin]

It's good to defrag occasionally. A badly fragmented HDD will slow down load times. HOWEVER don't be compulsive about it. Some of my clients defrag daily and that's plain stupid - just wear and tear on the drive.

Once a month is MORE THAN ADEQUATE - even longer is okay.