Do I need 1GB or RAM for gaming?

[neilm]

I am currently using 1024MB DDR400 dual-channel worth of memory and has not reached peek yet, superb performance... stick with the gig for now.

 

[Sheriff]

Need No want Yes

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: shady06
i have 512 right now. i will go to a gig but it isnt a priority at the moment

 

[Slammy1]

Originally posted by: Slappy00
WEll the pc4000 part is b/c im getting a p4 2.4c and want a lot of headroom (granted at relaxed settings when approaching 500mhz)

If you do that, consider the 2.6C instead. The PC4000 is for a 1:1 o/c, running 250FSB=3.0GHz on the 2.4, On a 2.6 that's 3250MHz. Now, if you want RAM for a 2.4 I think PC3500 is a good point. It can take you to the point you're CPU restricted on a 5:4, and is much cheaper. At 434MHz memory on a 5:4, that puts you at 271FSB (3.25GHz CPU).

 

[Pacinamac23]

I find 512MB is lacking for certain things. Especially when I have all my IM programs running, my FTP server and other stuff going, it is nice to have a full 1024mb. I find games load faster and Ihave less thrashing of the HDD when I exit them.

 

[0roo0roo]

leaving task manager open on my second monitor while playing bf1942 it goes past 600, desert combat it goes past 700 easy. and these aren't new games heck, after a while i use more then 512 in xp quite easily

 

[Auric]

If I start a game of BF and minimize to look at TM it doesn't use anywhere near that much (see other thread). Why the discrepancy?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Auric
If I start a game of BF and minimize to look at TM it doesn't use anywhere near that much (see other thread). Why the discrepancy?

Minimizing doesn't give you a true reading, IME. I hooked up a second monitor and my usage was about 950MB during a game.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup, dual monitor is quite useful and yea, minimizing makes it go down.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Auric
If I start a game of BF and minimize to look at TM it doesn't use anywhere near that much (see other thread). Why the discrepancy?

Minimizing doesn't give you a true reading, IME. I hooked up a second monitor and my usage was about 950MB during a game.

U can fresh bootm and use the peak usage thing to tell what it maxed out at. I know after i load the map it'll add a few 30-100MB durin battles/ lotta ppl on screen at once

 

[Mitzi]

I've had 512Mb PC2100 ram for nearly 2 years now and I still don't feel the need to upgrade.

 

[Mday]

i have 1 GB of RAM. the most i've used is 600 MB.

 

[Auric]

Hmm. I have 512MB and typically less than 300 available before starting BF, plus a fixed pagefile of 400. If BF was using so much there would be ungodly swapping going on and presumably slowdowns -which there ain't.

 

[0roo0roo]

the games not so badly written that it swaps ungodly with only 512, it does access the harddrive though, and loads take longer.

 

[Lyfer]

Having 1gb gives you bragging rights. If your building a high-end rig then go for it.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the games not so badly written that it swaps ungodly with only 512, it does access the harddrive though, and loads take longer.

I have not watched for the HDD LED when playing, I will have to check that out to see how frequent it is. I think load times are much more dependent on HDD performance if you have at least 512MB. I am usually among the first to spawn, and my HDD is not particularly peppy ('Cuda IV with AAM). In fact, load times are no different than when I used this HDD with C1500 and 512MB PC133 (currently P2900 and 512MB PC3200). I am just not convinced that 1GB would make gameplay any better because I have no problem now.

On a related note, when I upgraded a P233 64MB PC awhile ago with a modern controller and HDD the general performance increased dramatically because the constant swapping was much faster.

 

[0roo0roo]

your testing isn't going to help much unless you have another stick or ram to compare with. me and my friends noticed loading speed increased and performance on big maps esp desert combat improved with 1024. its not just me.

i'm guessing the games smart enough to use only as much as it has up to a certain point. maybe it'll draw less background, who knows. it certainly uses more when you give it more thats for certain.

it also lets me get away with no closing all my appz to play games. thats omething you shouldn't have to do on a performance rig anyhow.

 

[Thied1]

The only thing I had noticeable problems with on my P3 with 512MB of RAM was opening huge TIFF files. I bought 1GB of RAM with my 2500+, but that was mostly due to: wanting perfectly matched DIMMs for dual-channel, thinking that I was going to need 1GB sometime during the life of the system, and not knowing whether RAM would get much cheaper in the near future.

 

[Johnbear007]

I went from 512mb pc2700 to 1gb pc 2700 and noticed a differnce in every game

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
your testing isn't going to help much unless you have another stick or ram to compare with. me and my friends noticed loading speed increased and performance on big maps esp desert combat improved with 1024. its not just me.

I have read on some BF forums where people had long load times but maybe their systems are misconfigured or HDD's highly fragmented. Mine seem to be around 20s. DC does seem to seem to strain systems more.

[i'm guessing the games smart enough to use only as much as it has up to a certain point. maybe it'll draw less background, who knows. it certainly uses more when you give it more thats for certain.

Heh heh. I know it doesn't draw any less.

[it also lets me get away with no closing all my appz to play games. thats omething you shouldn't have to do on a performance rig anyhow.

I never close anything and haven't had a problem either. It would be interesting to try 1024 but it is hard to justify versus spending the extra $120 on a faster viddy card or something.

 

[0roo0roo]

i only have 2700 so it only cost me 50dollars

and no systems were "misconfigured". the only question is are we nutz since we actually have experience with both 512 and 1gb systems, and you dont.

you can't be serious about the pitiful cost of a little extra ram when you buy raptors and stuff eh?

heres a thread on 1942 and 1gb http://forums.bfnation.net/viewtopic.php?t=9516&highlight=1gb

 

[BFG10K]

With games pushing in excess on 450 MBs these days it's definitely a wise investment to go with 1 GB. I noticed decreased loading times in SOF2, UT2003 and U2 after going from 512 MB to 1024 MB.

 

[thatsright]

Has anyone in here failed to notice that Slappy00 is going to get 1024MB of DDR500 RAM, he's paying a outrageous premium for horrid timings? I mean this ram is going to be soooooo slow, and really what better is it over PC3500, unless your overclocking. And if your overclocking, you?re going to probably have to run the DIMM's at its 'relaxed' timings, so it will be pretty slow.

Now with my rig, I bought 2 X 512MB of Kingston HyperX PC3500 and I bumped up the default voltage of 2.6Vdimm to 2.8Vdimm to get 2-2-2-5 timings from the rated 2-3-3-7. Pretty sweet.

I just wanted to let Slappy00 know that just because its the newest thing out there, doesn't mean its the best performing.

Good luck with whatever you get.

 

[thorin]

I've never had problems playing any game (1492, WarCraft III, War3 TFT, etc....) with WinXP Pro on a 2200+ w/ 768MB.

Thorin

 

[VTrider]

Hey Slappy00....You know what you want, you know what you probably need. Sure you could get by w/512mb and not sweat it but......

Slap that CC down and get that 1GB of premo memory for your system, wether it be PC4000 or PC2700 the important question is that you get what is best for your system now. Do it now, while RAM is cheap because hey...it's August 9th which means if you wait 48hrs, you might be paying 25% more for the same thing!

Go for it, you'll won't regret it....at the very least - you'll won't be questioning yourself the next time you think that game is taking to long to load....

-VTrider