<< Wow...very close results. IMO 256mb is enough for most games, unless you like running super high resolutions and like having the game load 2-3 seconds faster heh >>
with ultra stable o/s's now people are leaving tons of appz open and still running games.. well thats what i do. 256 wouldn't cut it becuz of that
with ultra stable o/s's now people are leaving tons of appz open and still running games.. well thats what i do. 256 wouldn't cut it becuz of thatI'm not bothering to read the whole thread (Skoorb effect at it's finest ), but I'd say that 256MB is enough for lighter games in Windows 2000. For best performance in Windows XP, though, go with 512MB if you can afford it.
), but I'd say that 256MB is enough for lighter games in Windows 2000. For best performance in Windows XP, though, go with 512MB if you can afford it.256 works fine for me. I'm using XP and I play stuff like MoH and FS2002.. works just fine. I used to have 512mb, till a stick just died. I've noticed little to no difference in the responsiveness or frame rates of my games. 3DMark gives me like 80 less points though.. oh no!
With the prices as they are, 256mb is enough. When the prices go down, 256mb won't be.
With the prices as they are, 256mb is enough. When the prices go down, 256mb won't be.
i have a 1.2 tbird system which is my main pc and gaming machine... because of some crappy problem on my motherboard I can only use 1 slot for ram so I only have 256 DDR right now, but that is plenty for me, I have an uptime of almost 7 weeks and I multitask like a biatch, no probs at all
but i wish i could put my other 256 stick in there :|
but i wish i could put my other 256 stick in there :|
Look... this isn't that hard. You can never have "enough" RAM. MORE - IS - BETTER! If you've got the cash, then go hog-wild. (Send me a few gigs and a GeForce 4 4600 while you're at it.)
That said, 256 seems to meet most people's needs at the present time. When RAM was dirt cheap a few months ago, it was easy to toss a couple more sticks in (damn me for being too lazy ). It's expensive now, it'll be cheap again sometime. That's how the system works. Buying 512 (or more) certainly isn't a bad thing, but 256 ain't too bad at the moment.
Also, with the pace that memory technology has been changing at lately, I'd be hesitant to sink too much money into any current standard. DDR, what, 400 is starting to crop up? And DDR2 is just around the corner. Just something to keep in mind.
That said, 256 seems to meet most people's needs at the present time. When RAM was dirt cheap a few months ago, it was easy to toss a couple more sticks in (damn me for being too lazy
). It's expensive now, it'll be cheap again sometime. That's how the system works. Buying 512 (or more) certainly isn't a bad thing, but 256 ain't too bad at the moment.Also, with the pace that memory technology has been changing at lately, I'd be hesitant to sink too much money into any current standard. DDR, what, 400 is starting to crop up? And DDR2 is just around the corner. Just something to keep in mind.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
<<
What will the system requirements be?
It is important to us to make our games playable on as broad a range of machines as possible, and we do not see WarCraft III as an exception. We are planning on having a requirement of a PIII 400 system with a 3D accelerator card and 64megs of RAM. Currently, we are working on game performance and should be able to give more concrete information soon. >>
LOL! If you think for a SECOND that war3 is going to run adequately on a p3 400 with 64 megs ram it ain't! Who knows when those were posted? Even though it is still in beta by the time it comes out if a p3 400 with 64 megs even runs the game at all it will be at 640X480 with the crappiest graphics settings ever and don't even try to play a 1v1 let alone a 2v2 or a 4v4 game.
Frogdog and I each have celeron 1120's now. I have 448 ram and he has 256. He has a top of line gf2 and I have a gf3. In 3v3 or 4v4 games it slows to a crawl in combat. Tweaks aside there is no way in god's earth a p3 400 with 64 ram and a "3d accelerator card" (lets say a gf2 mx or something) will run it playably at all.
<< But he doesnt need a p4 1.6(?Northwood?) for that either. Its like he is driving to work every day, and he buys a bugadi, and we are debating about wether he should use premium fuel. (incorrectly assuming that teh car would run ok on regular unleaded). If you are already shelling out for a p4 then you should at least get 512 i think. >>
Couldn't of said it better myself and that basically is the point I'm trying to make.
<<
<<
What will the system requirements be?
It is important to us to make our games playable on as broad a range of machines as possible, and we do not see WarCraft III as an exception. We are planning on having a requirement of a PIII 400 system with a 3D accelerator card and 64megs of RAM. Currently, we are working on game performance and should be able to give more concrete information soon. >>
LOL! If you think for a SECOND that war3 is going to run adequately on a p3 400 with 64 megs ram it ain't! Who knows when those were posted? Even though it is still in beta by the time it comes out if a p3 400 with 64 megs even runs the game at all it will be at 640X480 with the crappiest graphics settings ever and don't even try to play a 1v1 let alone a 2v2 or a 4v4 game.
Frogdog and I each have celeron 1120's now. I have 448 ram and he has 256. He has a top of line gf2 and I have a gf3. In 3v3 or 4v4 games it slows to a crawl in combat. Tweaks aside there is no way in god's earth a p3 400 with 64 ram and a "3d accelerator card" (lets say a gf2 mx or something) will run it playably at all.
<< But he doesnt need a p4 1.6(?Northwood?) for that either. Its like he is driving to work every day, and he buys a bugadi, and we are debating about wether he should use premium fuel. (incorrectly assuming that teh car would run ok on regular unleaded). If you are already shelling out for a p4 then you should at least get 512 i think. >>
Couldn't of said it better myself and that basically is the point I'm trying to make. >>
You act as if the ram is such a small % of the cost that you may as well throw some more in. Sorry, but if I can save $80 US (OK maybe a bit les) on something I might not even need I'm going to do it.
<<
<< Sorry, but if I can save $80 US on something I might not even need I'm going to do it. >>
You have nothing to appologize for. Anyway it's not $80 US, it's more like $50 US
>>Yeah, If I want to buy from the first store that comes up pricewatch, which won't have the rest of the stuff I want to buy for the right price. And also that's probably generic ram which I don't want.
So maybe not quite $80 but not $50 either. And in CDN dollars (I'm in Canada) it's $125 which is about $80 US.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
<<
<<
<< Sorry, but if I can save $80 US on something I might not even need I'm going to do it. >>
You have nothing to appologize for. Anyway it's not $80 US, it's more like $50 US
>>Yeah, If I want to buy from the first store that comes up pricewatch, which won't have the rest of the stuff I want to buy for the right price. And also that's probably generic ram which I don't want. >>
The plot thickens...
512mb, but I'm known to have much ram. As for how much you use, it varies, but 256mb isn't enough. Right now I run 1 IE windows and all the stuff I have running in the background all the time (Seti, ICQ, tools for my wireless kayboard, etc.) and it uses 380Mb ram. It's been up to 580mb without even running very demanding progs (PhotoShop) so I'd say go for 512. I'm running Win2000 btw.
I got 1Gb when it was cheap, less than 512mb cost today! Sure, overkill, but it's nice to know that you've got ram enough.
I got 1Gb when it was cheap, less than 512mb cost today! Sure, overkill, but it's nice to know that you've got ram enough.
DDR...SDR? - what the hell, there's no difference...DDR doesn't provide more RAM or something...they're equally insufficient if you ask me...if someone believe 256MB SDR is insufficient, they better say the same for 256MB DDR - or their reasoning has gone awry....but anyway.
i personally would NOT go 256...i've noticed a good improvement/difference from 256 to 384 (or 320 even), and i'd rather have a SINGLE dimm - i.e. one 512MB dimm, as opposed to multiple dimms constituting 512MB...so if you're building a new computer, start off w/ a single 512MB dimm..you'll probably never need to upgrade (at least for a good while).
a single dimm affords greater signal integrity and thus greater stability than two dimms...
and if u're multitasking, u'll notice a difference having 512mb vs. 256mb, even if you're just doing general tasks like emailing, web browsing, winamp, word, etc...(though u probably won't notice a difference from 384MB to 512mb..but like i said, i'd rather have one dimm than two.)
i personally would NOT go 256...i've noticed a good improvement/difference from 256 to 384 (or 320 even), and i'd rather have a SINGLE dimm - i.e. one 512MB dimm, as opposed to multiple dimms constituting 512MB...so if you're building a new computer, start off w/ a single 512MB dimm..you'll probably never need to upgrade (at least for a good while).
a single dimm affords greater signal integrity and thus greater stability than two dimms...
and if u're multitasking, u'll notice a difference having 512mb vs. 256mb, even if you're just doing general tasks like emailing, web browsing, winamp, word, etc...(though u probably won't notice a difference from 384MB to 512mb..but like i said, i'd rather have one dimm than two.)
Depends on the usage pattern.
Maybe for YOU 256 is not enough, but for me it is.
My swap file hasnt been used in months. The only times I exceed my ram is when I'm doing some serious productivity (ie Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, 4 IE windows, Icq, Winamp, Kazaa and several explorer windows) or when a program has crashed and eats up memory (IO've had a single proggie take up 700mb ram, lol)
When I game, I just minimize Gamespy and Icq and winamp, everythign else closed.
Maybe for YOU 256 is not enough, but for me it is.
My swap file hasnt been used in months. The only times I exceed my ram is when I'm doing some serious productivity (ie Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, 4 IE windows, Icq, Winamp, Kazaa and several explorer windows) or when a program has crashed and eats up memory (IO've had a single proggie take up 700mb ram, lol)
When I game, I just minimize Gamespy and Icq and winamp, everythign else closed.
i'd been running at 512 for months.
just took out 256 MB of RAM yesterday, and i didn't notice any difference.
Im running winXP.
just took out 256 MB of RAM yesterday, and i didn't notice any difference.
Im running winXP.
GrumpyMan
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2001
- 5,780
- 266
- 136
When I play Serious Sam 2, at the highest settings my system with only the game running uses and tops out at 356 mgs ram. I use XP Pro, and since I use dual monitors I can see the usage in the windows task manager on my second screen. So it's 512 for me.
hwo do you turn off the memory reserve?
<< XP is only bad if you tell it to "reserve" the memory for faster logins. Suppose you have 256MB and WinXP is set for fast logins. Then suppose you and Mrs. Skoorb each have a different login. Now you are left with 128MB free. When little Skoorb comes around and makes a 3rd login, you only have 64MB free for games - pitifully slow. Of course if you turn off that feature, you have 194MB free which is plenty for 99.99% of the programs out there. >>
<< XP is only bad if you tell it to "reserve" the memory for faster logins. Suppose you have 256MB and WinXP is set for fast logins. Then suppose you and Mrs. Skoorb each have a different login. Now you are left with 128MB free. When little Skoorb comes around and makes a 3rd login, you only have 64MB free for games - pitifully slow. Of course if you turn off that feature, you have 194MB free which is plenty for 99.99% of the programs out there. >>
I upgraded to 512 PC133 when memory was dirt cheap , because WW2OL at the time required that much memory. since i quit playing that i bet 256 would meet all my curent needs.
Im running win2k.
Im about to switch to winxp and im worried that it will take more mem, and that mem requirements will go up. Im also about to build a new computer in the next couple of weeks. on one hand I want to just get 256MB because it so expensive right now ($80-90 unless you get crappy generic memory). on the other hand I dont want to have 2 sticks either.
I guess the final decision will be based on my evaluation of the market. if memory isnt going to come back down i will probably just get a 512MB pc2100 stick.
I do just about everything you can do on a PC on my PC except for video editing. And i may do that if i have to make a movie of my program.
Im running win2k.
Im about to switch to winxp and im worried that it will take more mem, and that mem requirements will go up. Im also about to build a new computer in the next couple of weeks. on one hand I want to just get 256MB because it so expensive right now ($80-90 unless you get crappy generic memory). on the other hand I dont want to have 2 sticks either.
I guess the final decision will be based on my evaluation of the market. if memory isnt going to come back down i will probably just get a 512MB pc2100 stick.
I do just about everything you can do on a PC on my PC except for video editing. And i may do that if i have to make a movie of my program.
256MB ram is enough to get by in everything up to and including Win2000. I only bought 512MB ram for my new computer because I got it for $20 after rebates at Best Buy's Black Friday sale. Now 512MB costs $80 or more.
I haven't noticed a difference since moving to 512mb but I'll keep it anyways. It could be because I'm running a dually system with SCSI IO though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter