This post is for everyone in here that keeps recommending 1GB of RAM for new computers - Benchmarks

[Ilmater]

Alright, I'm sick and tired of typing over and over about how 1GB of RAM is useless for the majority of users. Speaking of the majority, I want to caveat this whole thread by saying that graphics (Photoshop, Premiere, 3DSMax, CAD, etc.) and video editing do, in fact, use large amounts of RAM. And, for the record, one single game in the entire market can benefit from more than 512MB of memory, and that's BF1942. However, that is not the first in a slew of games that is suddenly going to need tons of RAM. I challenge any nay-sayers to prove me wrong.

Now, to prove everyone wrong, I took a few benches on my computer. I just used the simple standard 3DMark 2001se Build 330. If you need to see my config, check my sig. It's my system rig (not mmy OTHER rig, that's my bigscreen ). The only thing that doesn't say is that I used the 41.09 version of the detonator drivers. The first set was with a single stick of 512MB of PC133 SDRAM set to "Fast" timings in the ECS K7S5A BIOS. I don't know exactly what these are, but I can tell you that it wouldn't boot at CAS 2, so it's slower than that at least. The second set of benches are with 1 stick of 256MB of Geil PC3500 Ultra Platinum DDR SDRAM running at 133MHz (266DDR). The final set of benches are with another identical stick of the Geil added. Here are the benches:

512MB PC133 Fast Timings
-------------------------------
640 x 480 @ 32bit
6030

1280 x 1024 @ 32bit
4565

1280 x 1024 @ 32bit w/ 2xAA
2904


256MB PC2100 Ultra Timings
-------------------------------
640 x 480 @ 32bit
6494

1280 x 1024 @ 32bit
4773

1280 x 1024 @ 32bit w/ 2xAA
2944


512MB PC2100 Ultra Timings
-------------------------------
640 x 480 @ 32bit
6549

1280 x 1024 @ 32bit
4787

1280 x 1024 @ 32bit w/ 2xAA
2952

If I were an actual hardware reviewer, I'd go over the actual details of my settings. However, for this comparison, I think it suffices to say that everything else was set identically. What do we notice? There's a 464-point difference between 512MB of PC133 and 256MB of PC2100. While that's somewhat significant (it was about what I expected), the thing I really want to harp on here was the sub-50-point increase when going from 256MB to 512MB of RAM. Do I really need to point out how small the performance between 512MB and 1GB would be? I hope not. These numbers should not come as a surprise to anyone in here.

In the future, PLEASE STOP SUGGESTING 1GB OF RAM! It simply isn't neccesary. Plus, by this time next year, DDR II will be on the market, and DDR I will be outdated. MAYBE by then 1GB will be slightly useful, but I seriously doubt it. So, unless someone comes in here and tears apart what I've said, please continue to recommend 1GB of RAM to people. AND, it also seems pretty pointless to suggest that someone with PC133 RAM should move to DDR. Maybe DDR II will come with a big boost in performance, but PC133 users can wait until then.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good post! BF1942 is apparently the one game that really benfits from RAID 0 as well, but that could just be for the people who haven't upgraded to 1 GB yet.

 

[apoppin]

I have a "feeling" that a few benchs with 3DMark2001 won't prove anything about RAM requirements.

You "know" you don't have enough RAM when your HD starts working the swap file.

I have always felt 1GB RAM was overkill, anyway, for most XP users. The ones who have 1GB or more of RAM: 1) NEED it (for their extra demanding applications); or 2) like to brag about "perceived" performance increases (in games, whatever).

 

[oldfart]

I don't disagree with you that 1 gig is overkill for the vast majority of user...but...

A set of 3DMark (who cares) benches where you don't even have a setup that actually has 1 Gig of ram for benching is a pretty weak post. Bench some real apps comparing 512 Vs 1 Gig if you want to make a valid point.

BTW, when I'm rendering MPEG2 video for DVD authoring, almost all of my 512 Meg of ram is used up. Can you say that more ram wouldn't help?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: oldfart
A set of 3DMark (who cares) benches where you don't even have a setup that actually has 1 Gig of ram for benching is a pretty weak post. Bench some real apps comparing 512 Vs 1 Gig if you want to make a valid point.

First, I did change my original post to add video editing as another app that benefits form having extra RAM, I shouldn't have forgotten that.

How could I forget. The infamous "synthetic benchmarks aren't representative of 'real world' performance" argument. This is ridiculous. If I put out 100 different Q3 benches up, would that have been better? No? How about 100 UT2003 benches? Better? Of course not. The fact is, my usage isn't representative of ANYONE ELSE'S USAGE IN THE WORLD. Not exactly, anyway. But before I hear another one of these ridiculous arguments, I want you to go out and find me a review that has both 3DMark and a bunch of "real world" benches, and show me one where the performance of a system on 3DMark was not representative of that setup's performance in 90% of all games. Now everyone knows that some games are very CPU limited. I believe that UT2003's Botmatch is very CPU limited (I could be wrong, but I think that was the one). However, UT2003's Antalus is more a combination of the two. Some are even helped by a lot of memory bandwidth. Some perform slightly better in P4s that AXPs and vice versa. That's the nature of the beast. But when you look, for instance, at the numberous benches of the GFFX, you'll see that it beats the 9700 Pro by about 5 - 10% in 3DMark and most games as well.

Listen, you're talking to a guy who has had absolutely nothing to do at work for the last 5 months (reorgs are ridiculous), and has spent all of his time reading news, tech news, tech reviews, and posting in forums. I've read more reviews in the last 5 months than you probably ever will. Why don't you do both of us a favor and not waste our time looking. Seriously.

As for the fact that I didn't actually use 1GB of RAM, if it isn't obvious from the difference in performance between 256MB and 512MB how meaningless the gain would have been from adding RAM, then we must be looking at different numbers.

Next...

 

[apoppin]

I still don't think you get it, Ilmater.

You "premise" is right (1GB RAM is not necessary for "most" users) BUT your 3DMark benchs are useless in "proving" this - ESPECIALLY since you do NOT have 1GB RAM to compare to 512 . . .

 

[LED]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I still don't think you get it, Ilmater.

You "premise" is right (1GB RAM is not necessary for "most" users) BUT your 3DMark benchs are useless in "proving" this - ESPECIALLY since you do NOT have 1GB RAM to compare to 512 . . .

Here here...

 

[paralazarguer]

Alright. I have to say straight up that this post is silly. None of those configs have 1gb or ram. What does that prove?
Anyway, what you're doing is benchmarking an xbox, not a PC.
3dmark scores are USELESS for determining the benefits of more ram or lack there of.
People do more with PCs than run a single 3d app at once.
Most importantly, they MULTITASK.
They scan in huge photos with a decent scanner which when opened in photoshop take in excess of 900megs of ram and can go over 4gigs when working with it.
They use their all in wonders to record tv while surfing the internet and downloading with kazaa (which CAN be a huge hog of memory) and running any number of other apps.
Don't think that large quantities of ram are important? Try resampling in soundforge sometime and try to do anything else....
Anyway, I don't think that you really understand the difference between a PC and a gaming system.
Think about this too:
when you could buy a 1ghz athlon, 128MB of ram was considered enough. Most people would say that anything over this was excessive and reached a point of diminishing returns and with windows 98 this may have been true. BUT those same slot-a athlons are still capable of running windows XP today. Unfortunately, they'd do it incredibly slowly because windows XP is very slow with only 128MB of ram. So, if they equiped their systems with 256MB, they'd be fine today with no upgrades...

There's nothing WRONG with putting a lot of ram in your system. It helps to futureproof it and some people will even see gains from it.

 

[oldfart]

What I'm saying is that your post title implies you have benchmarks for 1 gig of ram. You don't. You provide a grand total of one benchmark and that is all that is needed? How about benching some real memory intensive apps such as crunching 13 Gig of AVI to an MPEG2? I get sick of only seeing video game benches. People use their computer for other things.

As I said. I agree with you that 1 Gig is overkill for the majority of users. I think you could have done a better job of providing some evidence to back up your point. That's all.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Simcity4 also really needs 1gb of ram ... my system has 512mb and whenever I get a big map 1/3 filled up ... my Available Phfsical Memmory is less than 16MB

 

[SuperSix]

I cna't see how any of this is valid w/o a 1GB comparison.

I also agree that 3DMark is a bad menchmark to use to test memory amounts.

That being said, I ALSO agree 1GB of RAM is overkill.

 

[Alptraum]

I'll also agree that 1gig or more RAM is useless for many people. Though not all. But wether that was the case or not I don't see why benchmarks involving 256 vs. 512 megs of RAM mean anything. Its like having a post saying a P4 3.06 is more speed then many people would need and then benching a P4 2.53 vs a P4 2.8. So I agree with you but have no idea why you made this post

 

[Budman]

I too am wondering where are your 1gig benchmarks?

 

[Hulk]

I'll CAN tell you that Ulead's MediaStudio Pro is not affected by amount of memory when rendering DV or MPEG-2, AS LONG as the OS isn't paging like crazy.

I run a website of video tests here:

Video benches

I don't even list the amount of RAM since I discovered when analyzing all of the scores that IT DIDN'T MATTER!!!

All tested systems have over 256MB. Processor speed and memory subsystem are MUCH more important for video rendering.

Yes, if you do A LOT of multitasking, you can starve Windows for memory and slow down the whole computer, but you can do that with any amount of memory. Just open a few 500MB photos!

 

[mechBgon]

I think his logic is that since the jump from 256Mb to 512Mb didn't make a significant difference in his benchmark results, another 512Mb wouldn't either. Of course, he's using Win2000, which probably has a significantly lower memory footprint than WinXP, or he might have seen more difference.

Frankly, I hadn't noticed that there was a problem to begin with. Where are all these 1Gb recommendations, am I just missing the threads in question or something?

 

[Alptraum]

Where are all these 1Gb recommendations, am I just missing the threads in question or something?

I don't think so. Of the system recommendation type threads I can remember in the last few weeks at least most of them if not all recommended against going over 512megs RAM. With a few exceptions based on use. But in general I seem to see people recommend against it.

 

[Adul]

what are u smoking boi


BTW DDR II will be delay until 2005 sooo

for me i use my ram a lot 768 right now I plan for 1 GB of PC3200 DDR

 

[Sahakiel]

First off, bench 1 GB before you draw conclusions. Extrapolating data doesn't always make it accurate. Ask anybody familiar with Taylor series.

OS does matter. If I remember correctly, Win2k Pro used up about 100+ MB of RAM just idling. WinXP Pro uses almost 200MB.

Some games do use a lot of memory. The most intensive game I play is Warcraft3, which isn't exactly a resource hog, but I can say that it'll chew up at least 150MB running a small map and almost 300MB on a large map. Typical average maps are about 225 MB. Couple that with the 200MB footprint from the OS, and 512MB is starting to look small. Add in background tasks (which I love to do) and it becomes a walk on a tightrope.

And, yes, I have run with 1GB of RAM before. I just upgraded to twice the speed at half the capacity. I can vouch for the speed of Warcraft3 when it's got RAM to run with. Map loads about the same speed, but running the game, especially if it's a hecka large map, is much smoother. Now, with 512, sometimes it gets so busy my computer has trouble keeping in sync with others in the game (DSL through router). Currently saving up to replace my current stick with some TwinX so I'll have 1GB again.

I may be wrong (or definitely, whatever) but I was under the impression that 3dMark was heavily graphics intensive.
The way things are looking right now, the best upgrade path I would recommend in the next year or so is Pentium4 with dual-ddr. Hammer's looking sickly and DDRII seems to be keeping on the sidelines until dual-ddr runs its course.

 

[HendrixFan]

I have 1GB of RAM, having recently upgraded from 512MB. Ive noticed large improvements in Age of Mythology or running Cool Edit.

Try running 10 instances of 3DMark and see what your results are.

 

[paralazarguer]

Yes, there are a lot more games than just one (as he stated) which benefit from more than 512MB of memory, everquest being one of the most noticeable...
It's all about multitasking though. Gaming benchmarks are a poor indication of this...

 

[bgeh]

And, for the record, one single game in the entire market can benefit from more than 512MB of memory, and that's BF1942

that's the reason i want 1GB of ram and i would recommend it to gamers
i don't usually get addicted to games, but i'm hooked on BF1942 currently

 

[Wolfsraider]

i will be adding another 512 mb also.

a lot of what i do doesn't require it but when i do need it it will be there.
i game a lot but also do alot of file transfers,burning,surfing and most times my system handles it well even though i run the processor @100% cpu utilization.most times my win xp runs at 186mb ram but i download and game etc all at the same time and it really slows my system down.dvd to cd etc.
i don't think most need 1 gig but i DO believe winxp is best run at 768 for gamer/downloaders but thats just me.

peace

 

[zephyrprime]

Ilmater:
I don't disagree with anything in your first post but I think this whole discussion is a little besides the point. It seems to me that you're only attacking a straw man. Who ever said you need 1GB for games? I know a few people seem to think so but there are just a small number of those uninformed people it seems to me. Also, it's no surprise that games don't need a lot of RAM considering how little RAM video game consoles have.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Simcity4 also really needs 1gb of ram ... my system has 512mb and whenever I get a big map 1/3 filled up ... my Available Phfsical Memmory is less than 16MB

totally!

and sad.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Ilmater:
I don't disagree with anything in your first post but I think this whole discussion is a little besides the point. It seems to me that you're only attacking a straw man. Who ever said you need 1GB for games? I know a few people seem to think so but there are just a small number of those uninformed people it seems to me. Also, it's no surprise that games don't need a lot of RAM considering how little RAM video game consoles have.

I have to agree...I haven't seen any recommendations for 1gb of ram for gamers....

I am going to 1gb but I do cadd rendering, audio and video editing, audio and video encoding, audio and video capturing, dvd authoring....an ofcourse do as many of them at one time as possible.....

When I see ppl recommend it it has been for video editing, encoding or PVR type boxes....