GTS 450 or Radeon 5770 ?

[toyota]

most of his comments such as 8 gb alleviating any artifacts in GTA 4 have NOTHING to do with a ram disk. he makes it perfectly clear that he recommends 8 gb of system and says only use 12 or 16 gb IF you are going make a ram disk.


Based on our measurements and impressions (and taking falling prices into account), we thoroughly recommend a minimum RAM size of 8 GB. Using 12 or 16 GB only makes sense if you're planning on using 4 GB of more of this higher amount as a RAM disk, helping accelerate the reading and writing of temporary files. This applies equally to file compression, video encoding, and heavy image editing.

Other than this, you might want more RAM so the graphics card can allocate more system memory for its own use. We saw this pay dividends in GTA IV, for example. You won't see an overwhelming performance increase unless you're using very memory-hungry programs, but you will get a system with enough RAM for the foreseeable future.

In a 64-bit system with a powerful graphics card, 8 GB of RAM really is a must if you're going to play demanding games. This is the case regardless of whether you're using 32-bit or 64-bit applications. However, even more than 8 GB of RAM can be subjectively noticed while playing.

 

[apoppin]

most of his comments such as 8 gb alleviating any artifacts in GTA 4 have NOTHING to do with a ram disk. he makes it perfectly clear that he recommends 8 gb of system and says only use 12 or 16 gb IF you are going make a ram disk..

Excuse me but the entire article is about creating a RAM disk swap file

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,2778-5.html

These charts show how much the games make use of the outsourced swap file or the temporary directory. As you can see, the difference between 12 GB and 16 GB of RAM is rather marginal. Half-Life 2 Cinematic Mod is the only game in which 16 GB pulls slightly ahead. The differences observed with large amounts of RAM are pretty much within the margins of error. As you can see, demanding games in a 32-bit environment actually benefit quite a bit from our extended RAM disk swap file.
....

Once again, a RAM disk-based temporary directory pays off. Overall, looking over our results from the games and applications, we'd say the outcome from using a RAM disk is beneficial.

Who is going to bother with making a RAM disk just to take advantage of more than 4GB of system RAM for gaming?

 

[apoppin]

Before Toyota comes back in with any more arguments, it's pretty clear he only read HALF of the article


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,2778-8.html

We know from previous benchmarks and articles that 32-bit games running in 64-bit environments don't benefit much (sometimes at all) from system memory sizes above 4 GB, at least not in terms of frames per second. Another rule is that an increase in performance can only be seen when a) less data is transferred between the RAM and the swap file or the data is transferred faster and b) when the writing and reading of temporary files is extremely fast. This brings us back to our earlier 32-bit discussion. Using a RAM disk can shorten load times significantly, but it doesn't really impact the actual frames per second.

Other than the 64-bit client of Half-Life 2 with the Bombast mod installed, hardly any game sees an increase in frames per second using more RAM. The increased amount of system memory allocable by the graphics card noticeably decreases the number of visual artifacts in GTA IV. Load times could be shortened if the temporary directories were relocated to a RAM disk. Here, however, you have to weigh what is more meaningful: running the entire system equally fast from an SSD or creating a RAM disk that requires at least 12 GB of RAM in order to be useful.

Are we clear now? 32-bit games do NOT benefit performance-wise from more than 4GB of RAM in a 64-bit OS. And i'd rather run a SSD than create a RAM disk with 12+GB of RAM.
:whiste:

 

[toyota]

lol, I like how you keep slightly changing your wording when I have been consistent from the beginning. and its like you are freaking blind to what you are even quoting. you bold comments and then make your own spin saying something different. to you the word hardly means none and little means not at all.

I said it would only help a bit in GTA 4 and some modded games and that's exactly what the article says.

again the conclusion is to go with 8gb of ram if building a fast pc for gaming and that has NOTHING to do with the ram disc.

 

[apoppin]

lol, I like how you keep slightly changing your wording when I have been consistent from the beginning. and its like you are freaking blind to what you are even quoting. you bold comments and then make your own spin saying something different. to you the word hardly means none and little means not at all.

I said it would only help a bit in GTA 4 and some modded games and that's exactly what the article says.

again the conclusion is to go with 8gb of ram if building a fast pc for gaming and that has NOTHING to do with the ram disc.

i don't see any change in what i have said --- otoh, this is all you:

I would go ahead and get 8gb(2 x 4gb) for a new build. ram is cheap right now and its likely that 4gb will be sketchy within a year or so. GTA 4 and some modded games can already run a little better with having more than 4gb. even for Crysis 2 DX11 they recommend 8gb of system ram. plus your pc will cache all that ram and help makes daily things run better too.

Are we clear now? 4 GB doesn't really help for 32-bit games performance in a 64-bit environment. Nor does your PC automatically "cache all that ram".

i also recommend more than 4GB of system RAM - for everything but gaming.
:whiste:

 

[toyota]

that article said basically what I did. and now you are going to tell me that my system will not cache all my additional ram? well here is a screenshot of it doing so. I know there will be some off the wall excuse you come up with for this too...


png upload

 

[apoppin]

i quoted the article of which you appear to have only read the first half. There is no performance advantage to having more than 4GB of system RAM for (32-bit) PC gaming. And you still appear to think so.

32-bit games running in 64-bit environments don't benefit much (sometimes at all) from system memory sizes above 4 GB, at least not in terms of frames per second. Another rule is that an increase in performance can only be seen when a) less data is transferred between the RAM and the swap file or the data is transferred faster and b) when the writing and reading of temporary files is extremely fast. This brings us back to our earlier 32-bit discussion. Using a RAM disk can shorten load times significantly, but it doesn't really impact the actual frames per second.

Even when we agree that more than 4GB of RAM is a good idea, we still find ways to disagree.

 

[blckgrffn]

I think what's clear here is that this thread was thoroughly hijacked so that one member could nitpick another members argument. Good job, guys.

*slow clap*

Thread Summary:

Toyota, I get what you are saying. Subjectively, the word is key, more than 4GB can improve PC performance, even during gaming. OK.

Apoppin, you disagree, fine. Not only do you disagree, you vehemently defend that more than 4GB of ram is a waste outside of ram disks and "other PC tasks" and think Toyota is fool for advocating this. Woohoo.

GTS450 vs 5770? Undecided and evidently we chased him away. Awesome.

 

[blckgrffn]

that article said basically what I did. and now you are going to tell me that my system will not cache all my additional ram? well here is a screenshot of it doing so. I know there will be some off the wall excuse you come up with for this too...


png upload

Pretty sure if you have an SSD as a boot drive SuperFetch is disabled and you actually won't see that. I could be wrong, though. Probably am, but what the hell, this is the internet, amiright?

 

[Red Hawk]

The 5770 is better than the 450 but a little more expensive. As others have said you should be able to get something better than either for that price though, something like a Radeon HD 6850 or Geforce GTX 460.

 

[blckgrffn]

The 5770 is better than the 450 but a little bit better than both. As others have said you should be able to get something better than either for that price though, something like a Radeon HD 6850 or Geforce GTX 460.

Not sure that NewEgg delivers to the Middle East

 

[bryanW1995]

for GTA 4 it helped and that has been proven on 2 different sites. the other games were modded but I cannot remember what they were. and I never acted like it was more than a couple. I was just saying for those few games and maybe some upcoming titles it maybe beneficial. no reason not to spend just a wee bit more if building a new pc.

also arent some games such as WoW getting large address aware updates? if so does that not mean that having more than 4gb could potentially help?

and also again it does make a small difference with everyday usage too.

I love it when you argue with tech-site editors. Maybe we can get kyle + anand in here so you tell them all how wrong they are...

@OP: if you really must spend $150 I'd go for a 6870, but as mentioned a gtx 460 1gb is probably sufficient for your needs. Depending the price difference you might still get the 6870, but if you can get it for ~ $25-30 cheaper then gtx 460 1gb is probably you best bet. Remember, however that gtx 460 768 mb, gtx 460 green edition, and gtx 460 se are NOT the same as gtx 460 1gb!

edit: sorry, missed that you are in middle east. I don't know what prices are like there, but generally speaking here's what you should know:

6870>6850~gtx460 1gb>gtx 460 768>gtx 460 se >/= 5770>gts450

At your resolution you can probably get away with even a gts 450, but if you can grab something a bit further up the list then you'll be glad you did. I'm at 1680x1050 and run a gtx 460 768 overclocked like crazy, and it's usually ok for DAO, DA2, civ5, + all my very very old crap (going through ssi gold box series right now), but if you play more demanding games or want ultra high resolutions you might want to spend a bit over your budget to get something more powerful.

 

[apoppin]

I think what's clear here is that this thread was thoroughly hijacked so that one member could nitpick another members argument. Good job, guys.

*slow clap*

Thread Summary:

Toyota, I get what you are saying. Subjectively, the word is key, more than 4GB can improve PC performance, even during gaming. OK.

Apoppin, you disagree, fine. Not only do you disagree, you vehemently defend that more than 4GB of ram is a waste outside of ram disks and "other PC tasks" and think Toyota is fool for advocating this. Woohoo.

GTS450 vs 5770? Undecided and evidently we chased him away. Awesome.

Thread summary:

We thoroughly answered the OP's question - *neither* of his choices are great for $150 and he should look at a GTX 460 or HD 6870 instead; and then we went on to nitpick the value of more than 4GB of System RAM. He also lives in the Middle East and wants to buy in a retail store there and not many members here know the prices in his country.

The conclusion: We all agree that more than 4GB is useful for Win 7/Vista 64-bit. Just not for PC gaming performance with 99.99% of all games being 32-bit. In that case, the only difference you will see is in the load times.