Is 256MB of RAM good enough for a game machine

[Wolfsraider]

well put it this way

when i bought my p-3 500 3 odd years ago i upgraded to 256 since it helped my gaming then i upgraded to a newer and better video card and all the (hardcore)gamers were saying anything over 256 is a waste but responded i got 512 mb as it helps render the scenes better in higher resolutions,then came the 21 inch monitor and the available higher resolutions and the upgrade to 512 mb ram

the difference to me wasn't about the speed as most gamers who run 512 mb of ram will tell you it's the clarity or the depth of the detail drawn especially in the higher resolutions and the p-3 500 was chocking on games but she breathed new life after that it was a year before i upgraded to an 866 and now a p-4 1.5 <only has 256 mb ram why you ask it will soon belong to my wife and my new rig will have at least 512 if not 1 gig but then again i do know what i'm missing wife don't want to spend any more money on hers yet but she will after she sees mine lol

so do or don't upgrade the choice is yours as this opinion is mine

good luck and have a nice day

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

ok we have gotten a little off track.....


the title reads "is 256Mb of ram good enough for a game machine?"

i believe it is so.


Can anyone show me benchmarks where 512MB of ram increases gaming performance (frame rates, load times, paging etc)?

 

[Wolfsraider]

<< get either get a 512MB dimm or a 256MB dimm. DDR memory. Will the extra 256 ever get used if I get the 512? >>



it reads this after that which imho holds precedence

 

[zemus]

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.

-----------------------

The price differance would be better applied to scrapping up more money for a higher value compent like a expense video card or CPU, by the time he feels he needs the extra 256 it will be cheaper anyway.

The guy is obviuosly not comfortable with the price differance between going up to 512 or he would not be asking this question, so telling him an all out lie saying " YOU REALLY need 512 " is only doing him a dis-service, when 256 is still very acceptable.

As for the argument that it won't be too long before we need 512, this is true, but I always take the position of buy it when you need it because A) it will be cheaper then and B) Chances are you can buy faster ram then too.


------------------------

As for the agrument of the load tims being faster. This is of course true, but really is it that big of a deal. Hell most games you have to wait for the slowest computer anyway. And as for the things like the variuos FPS games, is getting into the game 3 seconds faster the method behind your madness of winning, how lame.

 

[anthrax]

Ram price are still sky high...256 is more than nuff for todays games......
I would agree with zemus...

 

[hans007]

i dont get how people can say 256 is the "bare minimum". what the heck do you guys run. bare minimum on just a plain office box is still 128, winxp is not that bad with 128mb of ram. anwyasy, i've been running win2k since it went gold 2 and a half years ago with 256mb and still dont see anything that could possibly need more (winxp is what i'm running now) . i've run my systems with 512 and 768 mb of ram, with absolutely no percievable performance gain. sure if you run 80 different stupid applets in your systray and kazaa , yeah obviously you can use more than 256mb.

Probably the only reason you'd need more than 256 is if you had to absolutely run the highest amount of textures and resolution. as you are worrying about spending the additional $60 i'd figure you dont have a system fast enough for that anyways. I only run 256mb , my system is pretty fast, but then agian i dont game very much. so whatever. if you got the money might as well i guess.

 

[apoppin]

Try borrowing a 256MB stick of RAM before you lay out your hard-earned cash. (You didn't mention what O/S you are running.

I was perfectly satisfied with 256MB in my Win98SE gaming machine but got an additional free 128MB. No real difference in gaming but can have more programs working simultaneously (I no longer religiously shut down every other application before opening RtCW - as an example - BTW, is anyone else disappointed in that "ending" in the single-player campaign?).

And I do have experience with WinXP as it is dual-booted on my desktop with 98SE . . . it is a bit more memory hungry but 384MB is totally satisfactory . . .

My Notebook (PIII866M/16MB Radeon Mobility) is Win2KPro and runs fine with 320MB RAM (again, the extra 64MB of memory is noticeable mostly in more open applications, not gaming).

I'd say 256MB is perfectly fine for most of todays games.

 

[BFG10K]

Can anyone show me benchmarks where 512MB of ram increases gaming performance (frame rates, load times, paging etc)?

(1) Your framerates will only increase if the game is excessively paging while you're playing it. And as is painfully obvious, you can't really benchmark this.
(2) Load/reload times can be benchmarked but I don't know of any links that show this.
(3) Paging is the same deal as point (1).

So basically your best options are to believe people like me who have direct experience with such issues and/or to search the various forums and read posts made by people who have recently upgraded their RAM. I upgraded from 320 MB RAM to 512 MB and I saw a large difference in the newer games like RTCW.

i dont get how people can say 256 is the "bare minimum".

Yesterday's games like UT and NOLF exhibited performance problems with systems running only running 128 MB. Today if you tried running games like RTCW, JK2 and MOHAA - games that sometimes struggle even on 256 MB systems - on a 128 MB system you'd literally bring it to its' kness. No gamer today in their right mind would only get 128 MB for their rig.

256 MB is the bare minimum and you'll notice a significant difference by going to 512 MB or higher.

 

[apoppin]

<< 256 MB is the bare minimum and you'll notice a significant difference by going to 512 MB or higher. >>


Another rich bored-ass person . . .

First of all, you MUST let us know: 1) What O/S you are planning to run? Win98SE is fine with 256MB RAM.
2) What resolution are you going to run at? 1024x768? Higher?
3) What video card? A GeForce4 or a VooDoo3?

And don't be fooled, RtCW runs great on 256MB RAM (on a Win98SE machine with all other programs shut down) . . . the
minimum requirements is a PII400 and 128MB RAM and a Voodoo3 (just don't expect hi details or res and that occasional wait . . . heck, my notebook can run it fine at 800x600 without HD thrashing).

 

[Zukatah]

This is the way I see it: Buy what you can afford. Of course 512 megs will make a difference, as a 100mhz faster processor but if you can't afford it, don't get it. I always go with my budget when buying computer parts, it makes the decisions a bit more painful when you have to decide what to get between a faster cpu/more ram/faster vid card... but it's the only way that I can still have money to pay my University...




sniperruff: The P4 can be paired with other things than RDRAM... The 845 and SiS 645 support DDR for the P4 so if you want a new CPU with the possibility to upgrade the RAM take a look at the P4 if you are willing to overclock...

 

[wefixitalways]

256 is enough but if you can afford 512 go with it. Your video card memory is the most important for playing games. I am running only 196 mb and whish I had more. My games play great with my Voodo 3 video card.

 

[Huma]

I think one of the issues here is what people find to be acceptable.

Once you're familiar with using a ram loaded system, paging and disk swapping can become a brutal chore to deal with again.

The easiest way to notice if by using a machine regularly with 512mb+ of ram, and then dropping it to 256mb and using it again. I don't know anyone who hasn't been able to tell the difference.

Dropping in extra ram usually doesn't feel as dramatic as removing ram.

 

[Piano Man]

Remember, MustISO, this is a computer geek site. 256MB is the minimum if you are a hardcore computer geek. Yes, there are some things that will run faster with 512, but calling 256 the minimum is pretty hilarious. That said, I would get 512(I'm a geek, too).

 

[TristanTravyPatty69]

We came so far

 

[UsandThem]

We came so far

We now know after 18 years.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We came so far

I’m intrigued, what compelled you to create an account, then post a comment on an 18 year old thread?

 

[GrumpyMan]

Some of the posts are pretty cool to look back on. Imagine if I would go back in time and posted that I'm currently using 32 gb...lol

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Some of the posts are pretty cool to look back on. Imagine if I would go back in time and posted that I'm currently using 32 gb...lol

Yeah same here, I have 32GB of ram, 16 core processor and a cheap ssd that is probably equal to multiple of the fastest drives available at the time in raid 0.
I finally feel games load fast.

 

[mindless1]

Now use modern hardware to run apps and games from 2002 or earlier. I swear I can load Excel '97 about as fast as my mouse left button takes to travel from clicked down, to sprung back up ready to click again.

Heh, the portable version of '97 Excel weighs in at 11MB.

 

[McLovin]

Sweet Mother of Necros!

Yeah same here, I have 32GB of ram, 16 core processor and a cheap ssd that is probably equal to multiple of the fastest drives available at the time in raid 0.
I finally feel games load fast.

I can easily see myself as the OP of this thread DESPERATELY trying to get every ounce of performance for BF1942.