• 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.

Now this is interesting...Why get more memory?

L

LiekOMG

Golden Member
Ahttp://firingsquad.gamers.com/guides/memoryperformance2/default.asp

Although i'm not a big fan of Firingsquad, i must admit this test was interesting. Who says that getting extra memory really helps system performance? Is an extra 3fps in q3a really worth $150? I was planning to get an extra 128 to have 256 total... but perhaps now, i won't.

Btw, just a small question, but how come q3a seems to run faster under win2k in his system? I thought win2k ran every game slower than 98?
 
Alot less drive access. That can speed things up. I did notice a difference from 128MB to 256MB. It may have only given slight increase in FPS in Q3A, but I'm sure that's not all u use your puter for!

It also depends on what OS ya running. I hear Win2000 uses 256MB to quite an advantage if I remember correctly.

😉
 
Games and windows98 in total will eat as much memory as you give it... Thats why I have 256MB. When I had 128 there was more paging to the HD. Now there's none at all when I am playing my games.
 
Take a look at the article. It shows maginal if no increase in performance in win2k going from 128 to 256
 
Anything over 128MB in Win9x is a waste of money, you could spend that $$$ somewhere else and get a better increase in performance.
 
With what a fresh OS install?
Try that test again after 5-6 months of installing games and apps, tons of critical updates.
Things will change quite a bit I'd wager.
 
That's all well and good, but I know that when I play UT, there is a huge difference in performance on my machine between 128 and 256MB of ram (600e@800-GeForce GTS). So much so, that with only 128MB of ram, UT seems unplayable.
 
A more appropriate test would be to time how long it takes to load Windows or to load UT.

That's where you'll notice the difference. And believe me, you would notice the difference.

Whether it's worth the money or not is a whole separate issue. That depends upon the individual.
 
From what i undestand win2k uses memory a lot more efficiently than win9x does ,128 is the absolute minimum for win2k but 256 and above is a better solution - basically the more ram you throw at win2k the better it is.
Like Ben mentioned adding extra ram will deffinitely decrease the time taken to load apps into memory , UT being a classic example.
 
I am a multitasking hog and noticed a big difference from 128 to 256 in my computer.




<< So who needs 256MB of RAM? If you're pleased with your systems' performance in Windows, you should probably stick with your current memory configuration. On the other hand, if you're a little frustrated with your Windows performance and like to multitask, the extra memory should help out a bit. >>

 
I can personally tell the difference between 128 &amp; 256 on my 98SE machine. Programs load faster, &amp; things in general feel much more &quot;snappy.&quot;

Now I just have to wait until I have money for another 128 MB Mosel stick...

Viper GTS
 
hmm, I'd say that people who generally do one thing at a time would probably be ok with 128 megs of ram. Since I have 256 megs, I personally like being able to burn a CD, play UT, have a couple of IE windows open, etc. all at once, but most people probably don't do that sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top