Please don't think I am stupid for asking this question, but I wonder if using 512 RAM vs 256 RAM really makes that much difference in gaming. I figure it would in graphic environments such as CAD; however, would it really make much of a difference in 3d gaming? I remember reading somewhere at one time that anything over 256mb was a waste of money in 3d gaming. Comments>???
-
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.
Would using 512mb RAM vs 256mb RAM really make that big a difference in 3d gaming?
- Thread starter MrJ
- Start date
3d gaming? more RAM? only for loading maps faster and such, while you are playing you would definitely not notice a hint of difference AT ALL
MAYBE .5 fps difference no joke, if you don't plan on doing big graphical heavy stuff then u do not need that much RAM.
I would still only have 128 in my comp but i got a good deal on my other stick of 128
so when I get my new comp my 128 will come out so both my systems will have 128 again(Win98SE)
I notice no diff at all from 128 to 256.. nada
You might in win2k for sure though
but not in 9x
MAYBE .5 fps difference no joke, if you don't plan on doing big graphical heavy stuff then u do not need that much RAM.
I would still only have 128 in my comp but i got a good deal on my other stick of 128
so when I get my new comp my 128 will come out so both my systems will have 128 again(Win98SE)
I notice no diff at all from 128 to 256.. nada
You might in win2k for sure though
but not in 9x
MichaelD
Lifer
Your 3D gaming performance depends on your system RAM, yes, but it depends a lot more on your video card. You could have 1 gig of the best ram money can buy, but if you have a 4meg POS video card, your performance will stink.
I'll use my old system as an example. I had (still have...rusting in closet) a Dell. This was way before I got into "computers" as a "geek". It had 128mb of PC100 memory. I was using (gasp) the onboard video, which has 4 meg of ram. I bought a Voodoo 3000 PCI card. The difference was like night and day.
Then, I bought another 128mb of ram, for a total of 256mb system ram. Honestly, it was noticeably smoother.
With my new system I have a 32mb DDR vidcard, which is by far my favorite component in the system. It just rocks.
So, my advice, if you are looking to upgrade is that as long as you currently have at least 128mb of system ram, is to get a better videocard first. With today's games, I feel that 128 mb is the absolute minimum you should have.
So, for GAMING, Would 512mb make a noticeable differnce from 256mb? Hmm, I dunno. Maybe. Would you see a difference? I don't think so. But, there's no such thing as too much ram, and the price has dropped considerably. It all depends on your current system.
I'll use my old system as an example. I had (still have...rusting in closet) a Dell. This was way before I got into "computers" as a "geek". It had 128mb of PC100 memory. I was using (gasp) the onboard video, which has 4 meg of ram. I bought a Voodoo 3000 PCI card. The difference was like night and day.
Then, I bought another 128mb of ram, for a total of 256mb system ram. Honestly, it was noticeably smoother.
With my new system I have a 32mb DDR vidcard, which is by far my favorite component in the system. It just rocks.
So, my advice, if you are looking to upgrade is that as long as you currently have at least 128mb of system ram, is to get a better videocard first. With today's games, I feel that 128 mb is the absolute minimum you should have.
So, for GAMING, Would 512mb make a noticeable differnce from 256mb? Hmm, I dunno. Maybe. Would you see a difference? I don't think so. But, there's no such thing as too much ram, and the price has dropped considerably. It all depends on your current system.
I've been running on 128 Ram for about 3 years now (i bought it when Unreal first came out, cause god knows it needed that much ram to run!). I just recently upgraded to 256 using that crutial deal that i couldn't pass up.
The differences? Windows seems smoother and more responsive. But thats about the only difference.
I've noticed a small boost in games too, but nothing spectacular. Levels in Q3A load up a tad faster, however i don't notice a difference in framerate. And in some texture heavy games i notice that my HD doesn't thrash around trying to load all the textures the first time around. I highly doubt that you could see much of an improvement going from 256 to 512. Unless of course your planning to put the entire game into memory...
The differences? Windows seems smoother and more responsive. But thats about the only difference.
I've noticed a small boost in games too, but nothing spectacular. Levels in Q3A load up a tad faster, however i don't notice a difference in framerate. And in some texture heavy games i notice that my HD doesn't thrash around trying to load all the textures the first time around. I highly doubt that you could see much of an improvement going from 256 to 512. Unless of course your planning to put the entire game into memory...
I have 96 megs. If you have a 64Meg vid card, it would be OK, but I have a Prophet 2 MX (32 Meg), and it loads textures from AGP memory. Because it uses memory for AGP, I can't use the full 96 for the game. I recommend 128 at the least, 196 if you are on a budget, 256 if you can. If you EVER plan on running Whistler, 128 is THE MINIMUM! I ran Whistler with 96 and all the games i tried crashed with the error not enough swap file. I could fix that, but if you are swapping to a HDD, it will be slow anyway.
Basically, if you are playing a game, and all of a sudden it gets a tad choppy after you do something like walk around a corner, and it starts thrashing on the hdd, get more memory.
Basically, if you are playing a game, and all of a sudden it gets a tad choppy after you do something like walk around a corner, and it starts thrashing on the hdd, get more memory.
ChrisIsBored
Diamond Member
I guess my 1024 MB's of RAM on my dual proc system might be overkill for gaming eh?
But then again I use that computer for multimedia not gaming...
But then again I use that computer for multimedia not gaming...
hifimaster
Senior member
With the prices of ram these day why not????????
I'm in the same camp as Hifi on this issue... the stuff is just too cheap to ignore right now. And let's not forget that WinXP is on the horizon. Has MS ever made an os that uses LESS memory than the previous version?? 😉
At these prices, I can't really think of a reason to NOT have 512meg... and then you'll be hummin when XP hits the shelves and/or warez sites near you.
At these prices, I can't really think of a reason to NOT have 512meg... and then you'll be hummin when XP hits the shelves and/or warez sites near you.
I've never run into memory problems until Diablo 2 came out. Their box says 64 MB required, but performance was abysmal with 128MB. I then popped in another 64MB (196MB total), and now it runs as smooth as silk. Under W2K, the memory usage of Diablo2 seems to fluctuate from 85MB minimum to around 150MB. With 128MB, you're definitely looking at swappage up the ass. With my next computer, I'm looking at 256MB minimum.
When I had my Celery300a running at 550, I had 256megs of Ram. I added an ATI 32meg DDR Radeon. When I ran Deus Ex with 32bit color, high details, etc, I got lots of stuttering. I got a good deal on a stick of 128meg Ram, and the game immediately smoothed out. Not a single stutter.
Kingofcomputer
Diamond Member
For PC, more ram is always better for anything.
For game console, small amount of ram is enough.
For game console, small amount of ram is enough.
BFG10K
Lifer
96megs should be plenty for gaming.
Get real. Try running UT or Dues Ex with 96 MB of RAM. You'll be waiting for days for the game to load up.
The more RAM you have the faster the game will load/reload and the less chance of stuttering occuring during gameplay due to VM swaps. However I doubt you'll see any difference between 256 MB vs 512 MB unless you play Dues Ex at 1600 x 1200 x 32 or something. 🙂
Get real. Try running UT or Dues Ex with 96 MB of RAM. You'll be waiting for days for the game to load up.
The more RAM you have the faster the game will load/reload and the less chance of stuttering occuring during gameplay due to VM swaps. However I doubt you'll see any difference between 256 MB vs 512 MB unless you play Dues Ex at 1600 x 1200 x 32 or something. 🙂
I didn't notice much of a difference when upgrading to 256MB from 128MB -- yes, even in UT (as well as Q3A, HL/CS, and The Sims). This is under Win98SE. Most benchmarks it seems would agree that the performance gain is minimal, at least in actual gameplay. Apparently some of the newer games make better use of additional RAM, but I have a dozen or so games sitting on my shelf that I haven't played yet so there's a backload of older ones I need to run through before I start buying new ones. 🙂
I would think, judging from the respective memory management abilities, that you are MUCH more likely to see a benefit under Win2000 than under Win9x/ME, if you see any at all. If you have that much RAM though, you could always make a RAM drive and load the program into it. 🙂 I remember hearing about people doing that for Q3A, but I've never tried it.
If cost isn't an issue, it can't hurt at least. If you use other programs like Photoshop or video/audio editing, you will see a benefit, and you are guaranteed no disk thrashing by Windows with that much RAM. The only caveat I see is that you need to keep in mind that ordinary PC133 memory is being phased out -- either by RAMBUTT...er, RAMBUS for Intel, or DDR for AMD. Since I'm happy with my system performance right now, I feel no need to add another 256MB especially since I'll probably upgrade to a DDR system when the time comes.
I would think, judging from the respective memory management abilities, that you are MUCH more likely to see a benefit under Win2000 than under Win9x/ME, if you see any at all. If you have that much RAM though, you could always make a RAM drive and load the program into it. 🙂 I remember hearing about people doing that for Q3A, but I've never tried it.
If cost isn't an issue, it can't hurt at least. If you use other programs like Photoshop or video/audio editing, you will see a benefit, and you are guaranteed no disk thrashing by Windows with that much RAM. The only caveat I see is that you need to keep in mind that ordinary PC133 memory is being phased out -- either by RAMBUTT...er, RAMBUS for Intel, or DDR for AMD. Since I'm happy with my system performance right now, I feel no need to add another 256MB especially since I'll probably upgrade to a DDR system when the time comes.
Great replies guys, thanks for all the info. I asked this question because on another thread a guy told me that I should spend extra $$ I have on more RAM instead of trying to overclock. I was just wondering if what he said was BS. I guess it was. However, like many of you said, as cheap as RAM is these days, if one does have the extra $$ laying around, having 512 sure can't hurt. I'm with AndrewR though, I think I will wait until DDR systems come out in force b4 I buy anymore RAM.
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: 25K
-
-
-
