• 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.

Gaming with 2gb vs 4gb, 4gb FTW!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
most professional testing ive seen shows 2gb is better then 1gb or 4gb.

most testers claim 4gb is a complete waste, but that would depend on what kind of user you are i guess.
if youre a computer slob then you might just need 4gb 😉

well I claim that 2gb is the perfect amount of ram for people too poor to have anymore unless they're some sort of emo non-conformist who is actually suffering from a ridiculous case of closet e-penis envy
 
Personally, I don't really mind playing games with low FPS as long as it's steady. What really bothers me are the occasional hangups which are (apparently) caused by RAM shortages.

I was pretty amazed to see such a huge difference in the test results going from 2gb to 4gb of RAM. I guess I was kind of an idiot for putting up with just ONE gig until now. I wonder what the results would have looked like if they'd tested that? Pretty pathetic I'd imagine.

Oh well; I just ordered another 2 gigs yesterday, so hopefully 3 Gb of RAM will be a nice compromise to keep my aging system going for another year or so.
 
I am running Vista and from what i have read it will only see 3 gB of ram? I have 2 gb now and have never ran out of ram space but i only play a few games COD4 is what i play most and i can have 10 things going in background and run COD4 flawless.
 
Originally posted by: Mustanggt
I am running Vista and from what i have read it will only see 3 gB of ram? I have 2 gb now and have never ran out of ram space but i only play a few games COD4 is what i play most and i can have 10 things going in background and run COD4 flawless.

Sure but can you do a virus scan, check for adware, run windows update, leave 10 things going in the background and play COD4 flawless ?
 
Originally posted by: Mustanggt
I am running Vista and from what i have read it will only see 3 gB of ram?
32bit Vista, not 64bit Vista and, 3gb is also not correct. It's explained in the article.
 
Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
P965 motherboard?

Why was he using a 333Mhz chips with a board that only officially supports a 266mhz bus?

No clue on that one, I'll ask him. It may simply be that he already had Vista installed and registered on that MOBO.
 
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
nice add,
4gb for sloppy computer users.

this isnt a comparison, its common sense :roll:

More like nonsense.

For those running Vista, there is absolutely no way anyone in their right mind would want to run 2 GB over 4 GB.
And don't take this as as incentive to turn this into a Vista vs. XP thread; take that to the OS forum.
It's just a simple fact that due to how Vista handles memory, you want more, certainly not less.

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
P965 motherboard?

Why was he using a 333Mhz chips with a board that only officially supports a 266mhz bus?

What?
P5B-D/Commando handle 333 MHz FSB CPUs just fine.

In fact, those mobos were the first mobos to consistently reach 500+ MHz FSBs with the original C2Ds; i would know, i own one.


 
Originally posted by: AmberClad
In practice, the only game I personally play that seems to require more than 2GB is Oblivion (I used to get >93% memory usage with only 2GB) - the vast majority of the others will work fine with only 2GB.
Looks like I'm going to have to amend that. Just got CoH - Gold Edition last week. It's gotten up to 1.7GB memory usage at times. I don't recall any of the DoW games requiring anything close to that. Assuming it's not just a massive memory leak, I'm suspecting it might have to do with the persistent damage modeling. The memory usage just seems to gradually grow and grow over the course of a mission or match, so I'm guessing it's storing the info related to the bomb craters, leveled buildings, and wrecked vehicles that accumulate.
 
Originally posted by: AmberClad
Originally posted by: AmberClad
In practice, the only game I personally play that seems to require more than 2GB is Oblivion (I used to get >93% memory usage with only 2GB) - the vast majority of the others will work fine with only 2GB.
Looks like I'm going to have to amend that. Just got CoH - Gold Edition last week. It's gotten up to 1.7GB memory usage at times. I don't recall any of the DoW games requiring anything close to that. Assuming it's not just a massive memory leak, I'm suspecting it might have to do with the persistent damage modeling. The memory usage just seems to gradually grow and grow over the course of a mission or match, so I'm guessing it's storing the info related to the bomb craters, leveled buildings, and wrecked vehicles that accumulate.

What I saw with Vista and Crysis is very close to what you are seeing with CoH. If you have 2gb, Vista will run the game OK and dole out the memory accordingly. But, if you have more memory, the game will take much more memory for itself.

 
Completely agree. I just about pooped my pants when i saw DOD:S taking up 1GB of ram.

Since when did a game from 2004ish use up so much ram? I only had 512mb back then.
 
Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
SupCom can be modded to be LargeAddressAware, so theoretically, it can use all 4GB of your RAM.
Not under 32-bit Vista. Under 64-bit Vista, 32-bit applications using LargeAddressAware can have access to 4GB user-mode virtual address space per 32-bit process instead of the normal 2GB.
 
Back
Top