Wow there is only 8.8 fps difference from pc133 SDRAM to PC3000 DDR ram in games? :(

[WyteWatt]

I saw in quake 3 arena at 1600x1200 i only get 8.8 fps less wih all details on high and everything on than having PC3000 DDR ram I guess upgrading to DDR ram is not worth it as much as i thought it would of been. Thats not even noticeable. I saw at 1600x1200 with all details on high and everything on i get 122.9 fps and someone with 1600x1200 with all details on high and everything on gets 131 fps about. Forgot the extact number. BTW i am on a Athlon XP 1800+ and he is on a Athlon XP 2000+

I have a Leadtek GF4 ti 4400 overclocked 300/650 so GF4 ti 4600 speeds and he has a Leadtek GF4 ti 4600.

Is this all i would really see in games is only a few more fps upgrading to ddr ram ? I know i would see a higher 3dmark2001SE score with ddr ram but games do not seem to make as big of a difference.

 

[Ryan]

If you have the same CPU as before, your video card should be the only determining factor between the two.

Next Question, please.

 

[ku]

compare his q3 loadtime to your q3 loadtime. There. That should be enough.

 

[Rectalfier]

Try benchmarking at 640*480, this will give you a more realistic cpu/mem subsytem test.

 

[gregor7777]

Originally posted by: imtim83
I saw in quake 3 arena at 1600x1200 i only get 8.8 fps less wih all details on high and everything on than having PC3000 DDR ram I guess upgrading to DDR ram is not worth it as much as i thought it would of been. Thats not even noticeable. I saw at 1600x1200 with all details on high and everything on i get 122.9 fps and someone with 1600x1200 with all details on high and everything on gets 131 fps about. Forgot the extact number. BTW i am on a Athlon XP 1800+ and he is on a Athlon XP 2000+

I have a Leadtek GF4 ti 4400 overclocked 300/650 so GF4 ti 4600 speeds and he has a Leadtek GF4 ti 4600.

Is this all i would really see in games is only a few more fps upgrading to ddr ram ? I know i would see a higher 3dmark2001SE score with ddr ram but games do not seem to make as big of a difference.

Which tells you something. Obviously, PC3000 DDR is much faster than you old pc133.

It tells you the game is limited by your CPU/Video card, and in your case the video card.

 

[WyteWatt]

Rectalfier so at 640x480 and 1024x768 and other lower resolutions in games the fps will be a lot higher with ddr ram compared to pc133 sdram?

 

[WyteWatt]

gregor7777 huh pc3000 ddr ram is not a lot faster than my pc133 sdram ram if it only gives my 8.8 to 10 fps more in games at 1600x1200. Thats hardly nothing.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: imtim83
gregor7777 huh pc3000 ddr ram is not a lot faster than my pc133 sdram ram if it only gives my 8.8 to 10 fps more in games at 1600x1200. Thats hardly nothing.

That's a pretty significant improvement at that resolution.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: imtim83
gregor7777 huh pc3000 ddr ram is not a lot faster than my pc133 sdram ram if it only gives my 8.8 to 10 fps more in games at 1600x1200. Thats hardly nothing.

1600*1200 is very very fillrate limited. run it at 640*480 top remove the video card has the bottle neck.

 

[WyteWatt]

Adul yeah but who plays games at 640x480? Do you?

 

[CrazySaint]

imtim83, the point is that at those resolutions, the video card is the limiting factor, and to a lesser extent, the CPU, not the RAM. Also, as ku pointed out, the load time with the faster RAM is probably quite a bit less. And you don't upgrade your RAM so a specific game will be faster, much less a game that you can already get 120+FPS at 1600x1200. Unless you have VERY good eyes, NO ammount of FPS increase will be noticable, even if the faster RAM increased the FPS to 200FPS it may give you "bragging rights", but it still won't be noticable.

 

[boyRacer]

What he's not happy about is what the difference it gave him at those conditions... i'm sure DDR offers a lot more advantage in other applications but I guess he expected it to be more at this level.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Adul yeah but who plays games at 640x480? Do you?

Yeah, but who only uses his PC for running Q3@1600x1200?

See my point? Sure, it may not be a landbreaking change in one game at high res... But it'll be a significant difference in many other applications.

 

[statix]

Wait a sec, what FSB are you running? Is it 133?

You do have RAM that capable upto PC3000 DDR but if you don't run your FSB at 180MHz+ then you're still actually using PC2100.

As others said, try to bench you system at 640x480 ... you can see the difference.

 

[Insane3D]

I was noticing that DDR is faster than PC133, but not always. Sometimes it is well most of the time but not all the time so it really depends. It is sort of like tires, they are round and black, but some are not really any rounder but they are all black. I once saw a bird fly sideways and i thought about my DDR. Or was it my SDRAM. Birds sometimes poop on things when you don't want them to. It's white, sort of like tires. Well not really. BTW DDR is neat but fluffernutter sandwiches are tasty. Not super tasty but really good btw. I was wondering what is neater between fluff or tires. I think fluff is better but what is it exactly. It looks sort of like bird poop.....

 

[Valinos]

Originally posted by: statix
Wait a sec, what FSB are you running? Is it 133?

You do have RAM that capable upto PC3000 DDR but if you don't run your FSB at 180MHz+ then you're still actually using PC2100.

As others said, try to bench you system at 640x480 ... you can see the difference.

Well, if he's got a KT333 chipset he should be able to run the RAM at 166 and then OC the FSB, and he'd take advantage of the PC3000 better. He still wouldn't be using all of its bandwidth though.

As others stated, 8.8 fps on Q3 at 1600x1200 is a pretty signifcant boost, but the Q3 engine is more CPU limited than anything, but at such a high resolution it is more graphics card focused. Try a newer game like America's Army to check your frames. It uses the Unreal Warfare engine, although I'm not sure if you can record timedemos with it (you should, you have full access to most other Unreal console commands). Plus, its free and a good game to boot.

 

[Gozu]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I was noticing that DDR is faster than PC133, but not always. Sometimes it is well most of the time but not all the time so it really depends. It is sort of like tires, they are round and black, but some are not really any rounder but they are all black. I once saw a bird fly sideways and i thought about my DDR. Or was it my SDRAM. Birds sometimes poop on things when you don't want them to. It's white, sort of like tires. Well not really. BTW DDR is neat but fluffernutter sandwiches are tasty. Not super tasty but really good btw. I was wondering what is neater between fluff or tires. I think fluff is better but what is it exactly. It looks sort of like bird poop.....

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Gozu

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I was noticing that DDR is faster than PC133, but not always. Sometimes it is well most of the time but not all the time so it really depends. It is sort of like tires, they are round and black, but some are not really any rounder but they are all black. I once saw a bird fly sideways and i thought about my DDR. Or was it my SDRAM. Birds sometimes poop on things when you don't want them to. It's white, sort of like tires. Well not really. BTW DDR is neat but fluffernutter sandwiches are tasty. Not super tasty but really good btw. I was wondering what is neater between fluff or tires. I think fluff is better but what is it exactly. It looks sort of like bird poop.....

My thoughts exactly!

Great minds....

 

[Rectalfier]

"Wow there is only 8.8 fps difference from pc133 SDRAM to PC3000 DDR ram in games? "

This is not a correct statement. It's not 8.8fps faster in games, it is 8.8fps faster in Quake 3 at 1600*1200.

If you only play Quake 3, and at 1600*1200, then it is a waste of your money to upgrade to DDR, a Radeon 9700 would give it a nice boost. However, if you play new games then DDR will help dramatically.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Adul yeah but who plays games at 640x480? Do you?

you really are missing the whole point here.


bench it at a lower res.

Why you ask?

SimpleIt removes the video card has THE BOTTLE NECK.

at 1600*1200 your video card is the main bottle neck. At a lower res you force it more to your CPU and your memory subsystem


Get it?

no, then i can not help.

 

[WyteWatt]

Adul yep i understand now. Thanks everyone. I bet at 1024x768 resolution in most games i am losing 20 to 50 fps maybe even more without having ddr ram.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Adul yep i understand now. Thanks everyone. I bet at 1024x768 resolution in most games i am losing 20 to 50 fps maybe even more without having ddr ram.

Intim, i wouldn't go as far as to say 50 fps, but 15-20 is in a reasonable grasp.

 

[WyteWatt]

bjc112 ok. I guess those 15 to 20 fps can make the difference of a game being playable or not

 

[majewski9]

I went from 128 megs PC133 to 256 megs DDR 2100 and wow! I have a completely different system! DIVX encoding is much faster and more stable. WinXP runs a lot better. I dont know how much goes to the extra 128 megs ram, but a much better system. I think i'll put off upgrading for quitge a long time or until Hammer.


Yeah FPS are much more dependant on your vid card!

 

[WyteWatt]

Ok well going from sdram to ddr ram will increase your 3dmark2001SE score a lot i believe. But i could care a less about 3dmark2001SE scores anymore.