Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: Noob
If you play games it will definitely speed up the loading time and increase your FPS a little.
Show me games where 2 gigs "defnitely speeds up loading" over 1 gig, and where 2 gigs "increases your FPS a little" over 1 gig.
For games, save for a VERY select few that can be counted on a hand (EQ2, or SW:Galaxies if you blast the graphics) there are very few games that show strides with 2 gigs of ram.
1 Gig is the current sweet spot for now and the forseeable future. For others to say that 2 gig benefits over 1 gig for gaming, show me benchmarks.
Photoshop maybe another story, that depends on how large of canvasses you work with...and video editing can also use up ram fast (although video ENCODING uses very little ram...)
But for those who play games, to say that 2 gig is worth 1 gig doesn't truthfully apply, unless a person's wallet is that fast. By the time 2 gigs becomes worthful, it'll be like a person stuck with 1 gig of pc2100 ram wanting to move to A64 but not wanting to buy new ram and still not wanting the preformance hit they will take.
1 Gig is good for now and I wouldn't reccomend anymore.
Originally posted by: magomago
Show me games where 2 gigs "defnitely speeds up loading" over 1 gig, and where 2 gigs "increases your FPS a little" over 1 gig.
Originally posted by: holycpu
Originally posted by: Starman
Regarding Battlefield 2: if someone can find the link, there's an interview with an EA designer who admits that in order to run the game on HIGH settings you're going to need 2GBs of RAM.
ya, who has link ? IF THIS CONFIRM TO BE TRUE, then there is a big reason we need 2GB of ram and BF2 is a beginning of 2gb Era.
Originally posted by: Waylay00
I think it would be wise to buy 2GB now. As someone said earlier, BF2 will play best with 2GB. Back when 512MB was the norm, BF1942 came and to many's surprise, it wasn't enough to get running smoothly. So many upgraded to 1GB and found a huge increase. I think that it will be the same with BF2.
Originally posted by: hatim
Ive seen so many people get 2GBs, but whats the point. I never noticed much of a difference in an upgrade to 1GB from 512. I presume this would be even lesser.
I'd have to say an OC bump is the better bang for the buck. 😉Originally posted by: Blain
:laugh: >> BENCHMARKS << :laugh:
Yes, I have run some benchmarks! :thumbsup:
Here's where I started...
XP Pro, IC7-G (875PE), 3.4C Northwood P4, 9800AIW,
All are PC3200 DIMMs, timings were handled @ SPD default, dual channel enabled 1-1.
512MB (256x2) @ Default 3400MHz
1GB (512x2) @ Default 3400MHz
1GB (512x2) @ 3% OC 3502MHz
1.5GB (512x2 & 256x2) @ Default 3400MHz
1.5GB (512x2 & 256x2) @ 3% OC 3502MHz
2GB (512x4) @ Default 3400MHz
2GB (512x4) @ 3% OC 3502MHz
😀 >> Click Here To See The Results << 😀
BTW, I used the PassMark PerformanceTest V5.0 to run the tests.
Originally posted by: rod
Originally posted by: Waylay00
I think it would be wise to buy 2GB now. As someone said earlier, BF2 will play best with 2GB. Back when 512MB was the norm, BF1942 came and to many's surprise, it wasn't enough to get running smoothly. So many upgraded to 1GB and found a huge increase. I think that it will be the same with BF2.
Can I just say that my Dads PC, a P4 1.6GHz, 256MB SD-RAM and a GeForce2, can play BF1942 at acceptable frame rates. Saying that it needs 2GB's is ridiculous.
RoD
Originally posted by: X
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
By the time 2 gigs of ram gives any tangible benefit in games, 6800GT and A64 2.6ghz will be like Intel 1.7 and Geforce MX440. For games you'd get much more benefit getting an Audigy 2 to offload the cpu further.
Try playing WOW or EQ2.