• 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.

Is 256MB of RAM good enough for a game machine

M

MustISO

Lifer
I'm building a new game machine and I want to get either get a 512MB dimm or a 256MB dimm. DDR memory. Will the extra 256 ever get used if I get the 512?
 
If you have the money, go for 512MB. I can't afford it so I only get 256MB on my machines. Most games now wont need that much, but the newer games are taking more and more memory (Everquest). You will really see the difference in Photoshop or Maya (512MB is actually minimum requirements for Maya).
 
I am currently playing Warcraft 3 beta and its using up a lot of my RAM. i have 256 ram and since running windows XP alone and some basic programs in the background eats up 128mb already--thats half. i only have around 128 left. SInce warcraft 3 loads the map into ur memory, 128 should be enough if u play 3v3 or maybe 4v4, but if u plan on playing 6v6, try getting a lot more ram. To answer ur question, yes, 256 should be enough for most games out there, but you will have to look for an upgrade in the near future.
 
256 is a nice round number. It's fine for most average type uses. When I went to 512 I wasn't overly impressed with the performance gain I got...it didn't really knock my socks off. Maybe wait for the prices to come down to the no-brainer point again and in the mean time, live with the 256...
 
I am currently playing Warcraft 3 beta and its using up a lot of my RAM. i have 256 ram and since running windows XP alone and some basic programs in the background eats up 128mb already--thats half. i only have around 128 left. SInce warcraft 3 loads the map into ur memory, 128 should be enough if u play 3v3 or maybe 4v4, but if u plan on playing 6v6, try getting a lot more ram. To answer ur question, yes, 256 should be enough for most games out there RIGHT NOW, but you will have to look for an upgrade in the near future.
 
What OS are you using?

In general 256Mb will be fine.

The best way to determine how much ram you are using is to start your system up (re-boot) and see how much ram is being used by everything you load up at start up. (in win2k, this info is accessed in task manager). Start One of yhour games and play it for a bit, Alt-tab out of it and check task manager and it will tell you how much ram you are using, this is the best guide.

 
256 MB RAM is the bare minimum needed these days and you should definitely get 512 MB if you can as you'll notice a large difference, especially if you're running Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Games like RTCW, MOHAA and JKII show significant improvements in load/reload times with more RAM and there is little/no paging during the game.
 
Since this is purely a game system, I'll probably do Windows 2000 Pro. Money is not the issue but if games don't need 512MB I won't get 512MB.

BFG. you make a good argument. 512MB it is. Now, DDR2100, 2400, 2700.... 😉
 
Let me put it this way, when I"m playing RTCW online, I'm using ~400MB of my memory. At idle, I'm using ~80MB. Now you decide if you need more than 256MB. 😉

As for DDR, get PC2700. 😉
 


<< As for DDR, get PC2700. >>



Maybe if he plans on doing some major overclocking. My 2100 is running fine with a 148 mhz fsb. I'm thinking that unless you can get 2700 for the same price as 2100, there isn't much point.
 
256 works fine enough, really. I recently upgraded to 512mb cause I'm "rich and bored". 😉 Windows also seems a whole lot snappier when I exit games and stuff, and I may be going crazy, but levels and stuff in games seem to load a little quicker. If you're on a budget do 256 and you'll be fine. If ya want that extra little edge, do 512.
 


<< Maybe if he plans on doing some major overclocking. My 2100 is ru >>


If he's getting a KT333 based mobo, it's best to get PC2700 or better.
 
one more thing 512 really allows the decent video cards to shine as they put more detail into the scenes
even with dvd's you see a difference but yeah i guess im bored and rich to me the difference in 256 to 512 is worlds apart at least in the amount of details in my games

but if i was more than happy with 256 mb then the money would stay in my burning a hole to spend it pocket😉

the choice is yours and it really depends on your system and how you game as to whether its really"worth it" as are most upgrades IMHO

peace
 
>they won't
>don't allow the rich bored-ass people think you otherwise.

Care to back that up with some kind of factual evidence?

You're saying outright here, that no modern-day games would use more than 256mb.

Pardon my french, but thats an absolute crock of sh!t my friend...
They may not REQUIRE more than 256mb, but to say Q3A or similar games such as RTCW (same engine, bit more power hungry tho) wouldn't take advantage of the extra memory is just plain absurd.

Thats like back in the Win95a days - windows itself could only ever make use of the first 16mb of RAM, so a lot of people were saying that more than 16mb was a waste of money. People failed to look at the bigger picture - the programs running on top of windows could certainly make use of the extra memory.

Look how quickly technology is advancing at the moment, like it has been for years, and tell me again that 512mb is only for those with too much money.

Personally, when I took my machine from 256mb to 512mb under XP, I noticed a difference in general use instantly.
The difference was small when I moved to 768mb - but we're talking about the OS for chrissakes - of course your applications are going to benefit.

Even if you only look at the fact that windows might permanently strangle... say... 56mb of that 256 - so even if the game could only use 256, you're still giving it an extra 56 by moving to 512. Thats probably the most simple argument in favour of extra memory that I can come up with...

Geez 😀
 
Don't be fooled by any of this nonsense, 256 is just fine today. 512 is for people who for some reason feel it neccesary to think it's really cool to keep every program open at one time or something. If your like that, then get 512, if you don't wanna waste money, 256 is fine
 
i was thinking about how much memory i should get for my future system too (in 3 months??? maybe???)
i changed my mind about getting a pent4 and instead plan for a kt333 mobo.

since DDR is not like RDRAM which usually takes out 2 out of 4 slots on a mobo (which makes expansion seem odd if you get 2 sticks of 128mb, then later either you "overkill" by adding 2X 256mb or you take up all 4 slots for 128mb sticks which give you no further expansion slots)

that's one reason that i decided to go AMD... expanding memory is easier

i would go for the 256 (i play counter strike) then later if necessary add another or 2 sticks of 256...

that's what i think...


 
Perhaps we should take a look at the original question again?

>>>Will the extra 256 ever get used if I get the 512?

Not, "Do I need 512mb"
Not, "Do games go heaps faster with 512mb"

Zemus;

Nonsense?
You think you need a dozen programs open to utilize 512mb of ram? I think not.
Im not saying 512 isnt a lot, im saying if you can afford it, and you're not cost-cutting to the point of sacrificing something else to get the extra memory, then why the hell would you not go for 512? I bet Gatesy had a similar frame of mind when he said that no program would ever need more than 640k of memory.

Cosmic;

And again, I agree there will not be a HUGE difference performance-wise in gaming, but even you have to admit there will be a difference.
As far as Anand only using 256mb under Windows XP for testing, I cant answer that, I'm not Anand.
Considering that in benchmarks you try to keep things as even as possible, and some mainboards have trouble when all banks are populated, you remove variables by using a single module. Of course that's only a guess, why not put it to him and see what he says...
 
I just built a rig for a friend last weekend.

Since he was on a budget, I only stuck 256mb of ram in there with a 1.2ghz duron, and geforce4 mx 440.

Playing Wolfenstein with textures set to extra (the highest), bog was easily noticable. When I got home, I ran rtcw to compare and realized even with my geforce2 ti (which is no doubt a slower card), I could run the same levels without any of the bog I encountered on his machine.

He picked up another stick for a full 512mb today and he says the bog is gone.

Lesson: 256mb is fine at moderate levels of detail, but at very high detail or Res, it won't cut it. For the relatively small amount of money, it's a good upgrade.
 
I have 256 megs of DDR RAM on my Athlon 1.33Ghz. I play Jedi Knight 2 with full settings at 1600x1200 and it works great. No slowdowns or anything. I use a Radeon 8500 64MB Videocard. 256 MB is enough.
 
IMHO, going from 256MB to 512MB is a DRAMATIC improvement if you use W2K or XP, if you play any current game. 98SE won't prolly use that extra memory much, couldnt hurt though. If you're using ME, well, all the RAM in the world isn't gonna help.
 
Funny how everyone thinks 512Mb of ram makes a huge difference to gaming performance..

Why is it funny? It's the truth.

Interesting how Anand's reviews only use 256Mb of ram on WinXP.. surelly he would use more ram if there was a difference.

Last time I checked Anand wasn't benchmarking level load and reload times, nor was he observing how much paging happens during gameplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top