No Measurable Improvement Upgrading to 2GB of RAM

[HighCalibreHooch]

I upgraded from 2 x 512 MB of Samsung RAM to 2 x 1024 of the same type. (Took out the 512 sticks). I went into the BIOS and made sure the timings were the same (Cas 2.5 3-3-8) and also verified this with cpuid.

My problem my 3dMark05 score stayed almost the exact same, actually about 25 points less.

My second problem is that cpuid lists both timing for 166MHz and 200MHz on the memory tab. What does this mean?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Your 3DMark score will not change. Without your full rig specs (and your Rigs link doesn't work, read Link), I'd say 3DM05 is GPU limited for just about everyone.

As CPUID, I'd have to see a screenshot to be sure but I think what you're seeing is the SPD timing tables for 166 & 200MHz. Use CPUZ to verify you're running @ 200MHz.

 

[HighCalibreHooch]

Thank you for the reply. I had no idea about system rig link situation.

My specs are

AMD 3000+ s939 Winchester (Not O/C)
2 x 1024 MB DDR Samsung sticks (2.5 3-3-8 if I reading it correctly)
Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9 M/B (nForce 4x chipset)
MSI 6600GT PCI-E 128MB
Seagate SATA HDDs (No RAID)
Audigy 2
etc etc.

I will check on my cpz / cpuid screens

 

[fbrdphreak]

Yes, you will see ZERO difference in 3DM05. It is very GPU limited on your system.

You probably won't notice much general system performance improvement either, except in mem intensive apps like Photoshop. The biggest difference you will see is smoother game play in new games like FEAR, Q4, and BF2.

 

[forumposter32]

There was something I saw somewhere where they measured the amount of RAM used in BF2 and how frame rates actually improved with 2GB of RAM. I was very sceptical before I saw this. So, yeah, when your system is being pushed by certain software, you WILL see a difference. If you don't play games like this then, well, guess you wasted your money.

 

[Hyperlite]

2Gig supposedly shows quite a large improvement in BF2, there were several threads around here about it a while ago...

and i'm sure it will make a noticable difference for any taxing games.

 

[Pens1566]

Like the above 2 said, try BF2. Big improvement. And by that, I mean def. noticeable. Not just 2 more fps.

 

[HighCalibreHooch]

BF2 no longer thrashes during loading & transitions, and the fps seems more stable.

 

[NokiaDude]

Originally posted by: HighCalibreHooch
BF2 no longer thrashes during loading & transitions, and the fps seems more stable.

Theres your measurable improvement.

 

[americanleader]

My experience is that if you do any multitasking, you'll definitely see a difference. If all you do is game with your PC, then certain games will show improvement, but you won't see anything glorious across the board.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Or if you play multiple games at once. With 2 GB I can run 3 instances of EQ2 at once at high quality.

 

[NokiaDude]

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik
Or if you play multiple games at once. With 2 GB I can run 3 instances of EQ2 at once at high quality.

2? maybe, 3 is pushing it. EQ2 is a memory whore.

 

[Gatt]

The only time you should see a difference in game in performance is when you're running out of/low on System Memory. All you are doing is increasing the amount available, not increasing the speed of, so improvement only occurs in cases where there wasn't sufficient available in the first place.

The only other benefit of more System Memory at the same speed is in caching, if you were running low and cache was decreased to accomidate other resources, then increasing memory will show improvement.

To see overall improvement, you either need tighter timings(AMD) or more bandwidth(Intel). But bandwidth will provide diminishing returns because the FSB isn't increasing at the same rate that Memory Capabilities are.

At this point though, it doesn't really matter much, because everything is either CPU or GPU bound and those are the components that need speed increases.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the CPU is going to speed up much anytime soon. AMD's roadmap isn't showing them making anything more than the now annual 200mhz(or so) bump in the 1H of 2006 IIRC. I can't figure out Intel's new naming scheme to save my life, so I don't have a clue what they're trying to do.