fyi regarding Battlefield: 1942 and memory usage

[Blues X]

I've noticed a lot of people wondering about memory required for new games, specifically BF1942.

I was checking the memory usage of BF1942 today with the WinXP Task Manager. After opening the game and joining an online server, and then letting the map load completely, I shut the game down and checked the peak memory usage.

It hit about 444mb.

So, I'm thinking that an upgrade to 768mb RAM would be better for me than going up to just 512mb, if any other games are going to be hogs like this one. Too bad RDRAM costs so much.

 

[kgraeme]

Yeah, it really doesn't help that 1942, while an amazingly fun game, appears to be very poorly put together. I've been running with 768 since 1998 and I can't see using less. It's a damn shame that most boards out there only support 2GB and that 1GB sticks are terribly expensive.

 

[Blues X]

I noticed how much memory it used because I just got a new 2.4Ghz P4 with 256mb 1066 RDRAM. My old machine was a 1ghz P3 with 768mb pc133.

BF1942 loaded a LOT faster on the old machine that had more ram. But, it runs faster on the new computer once it's loaded.

I was trying to kid myself into thinking that 512mb RAM would get me by. But between new games that are friggin' HUGE, and my Photoshop work that I do ocassionally, I will really use the 768mb.

 

[kgraeme]

Oh, definitely with Photoshop you'll want the more memory. I know that on the old Mac OS, that Photoshop had better memory handling than under Windows. I used to edit 100+MB files with an old Mac with only 30MB of RAM. I couldn't even open the files on a comparable PC. I don't know if that's changed with OS X though.

Not that you really care about old Macs and their memory. More ram. Yep. That's all that really matters.

 

[BD231]

444mb's is not 512, 512 is more than enough, you have to consider the fact that XP itself takes up 130 to 140mbs of memory alone. The reason why your game is loading so slow is because BF1942 is using the page file feature of XP for the extra memory needed, which slows BF1942 down considerably.

 

[wetcat007]

I need to get more memory badly, i only got 384MB and somethings really chug along, Doom3 alpha, cough cough, lol anyways BF1942 is a ram hog, so is XP itself, bah i wish memory prices went down for once instead of up..

 

[PCMarine]

Doom 3 alpha chugs along on EVERYONE's comp

As far as BF1942, everytime im done with a big game and I get back to the desktop everything is wayyy slow. It almost seems like there is a memory leak or something.

 

[SuperSix]

Yep.. I've seen a few magazine reviews of the game and they comment on how badly it's coded. I think I'll wait for a few more patches before I buy.

444mb??

 

[TheWart]

It is a hog but dang it sure is fun to play if your hardware can run it decently!

 

[Ben88]

I only have 256 megs of ram and it runs silky smooth on my machine. I'm running win98se btw. Everything on max quality.

2100+
256 DDR 333
Albatron kx400+ pro
leadtek 4200 300/620

 

[Tab]

Heh, Battlefield 1942 is worth it even only with the 1.2 Patch. Who ever had this game must have put their soul into it, veichles and fps actually playable online without lag.

 

[Compddd]

I have a 2.4 p4 with 512 pc1066 rambus. bf1942 runs great at max detail. Isn't slow.

Also you cant upgrade to 768 mb of rambus, gotta do it in pairs, so you'd have to buy a gig's worth of 1066

 

[Blues X]

Originally posted by: Compddd
I have a 2.4 p4 with 512 pc1066 rambus. bf1942 runs great at max detail. Isn't slow.

Also you cant upgrade to 768 mb of rambus, gotta do it in pairs, so you'd have to buy a gig's worth of 1066

I've got two 128 sticks now... if I add two 256 sticks, that'll be 768 megs. Then, later, maybe I'll swap out the two 128 sticks for larger sizes.


This is one of the few games I've played that a) has some fairly large technical problems (although many were fixed in the latest patch), but b) is so fun that the playing outweighs the technical issues. Most games with this many issues just suck.

IMHO, the game far outweighs the tech issues you face with it. But I've only run it on a 1ghz with 768mb RAM and a 2.4Ghz with 256mb RAM (GF4ti4200 with 128mb RAM in both) . It loaded faster on the system with more memory, but once loaded it runs very smooth on both systems.

I don't know how it would run on the stated 'minimum' requirements ( 500mhz with 128mb RAM with 32mb GF256 or similar card).
My guess is..... ve...ry......ve.....ry.......sl....oooooo.......w.....ly.....

 

[bgeh]

once, i thought 512 megs of ram were enough
but bf 1942 on it is laggy
time for another ram upgrade

I don't know how it would run on the stated 'minimum' requirements ( 500mhz with 128mb RAM with 32mb GF256 or similar card).

simple, have you seen powerpoint presentations