Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Add Reply RSS Feed
34 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 2 GB the way of the future?

views
     
Hornet
post Oct 19 2005, 03:24 PM

What?
*******
Senior Member
4,251 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malacca, Malaysia, Earth
QUOTE(sniper on the roof @ Oct 19 2005, 12:39 PM)
Some time ago...when doom3 was first released, I was on 512mb ram and despite the system (cpu & graphic card) being totally adequate for the resolution....fps all stable and all... there's those irritating once a while jerks (PAGEFILE)... so that's what 2GB's all about.

Pagefiles....bad  smile.gif
*
yeah, that was why i upgrade to 1gig as well, but the game was FarCry, when setting is High, it stutters.

But then i feel, at least for my system which was bought 2 years back and even then it wasn't the greatest, perhaps 1 gig is as far as it goes, even in FEAR, i have to begin turn off soft shadow with my 6800NU...and any future games that use moer than 1 gig, most probably i'll be turning off this and that and the memory usage shouldn't be more than a gig.

In fact if they were to use my system to test that 2 gig ram, there won't be any difference as the FPS would have been below 30 no matter how much ram they gives it biggrin.gif
jarofclay
post Oct 19 2005, 05:25 PM

Klipsch Addict
Group Icon
VIP
2,068 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Ipoh / Penang / PJ
I understand, but it would be glorious to play FEAR or BF2 at 1280.1024 @ 8xAA with all settings high... ahem, you have to excuse me, I am dreaming of BF2 now... can't wait to go home to play it then...

Seriously, those games such as FEAR and BF2 are meant to be played with high details.

QUOTE(zx7177 @ Oct 19 2005, 02:58 PM)
ah , i rarely play fps'es at high detail

my setup is a p4 2.4b 512mb ddr333 and x700 128mb

hope can at least play low lorh then sweat.gif
*
Razzd
post Oct 19 2005, 10:37 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
168 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: PJ/Subang Jaya/USJ
QUOTE(Mr_47 @ Oct 18 2005, 10:07 PM)
1.5 user here,,, OVERKILL ler!

BTW: 1.5 pun dunno how to use to max!
*
You've tried BF2 on 1.5GB ver 2GB? Quite a noticable difference.
Razzd
post Oct 19 2005, 10:41 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
168 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: PJ/Subang Jaya/USJ
QUOTE(jarofclay @ Oct 19 2005, 05:25 PM)
I understand, but it would be glorious to play FEAR or BF2 at 1280.1024 @ 8xAA with all settings high... ahem, you have to excuse me, I am dreaming of BF2 now... can't wait to go home to play it then...

Seriously, those games such as FEAR and BF2 are meant to be played with high details.
*
I'm running BF2 on two systems with two graphics cards:

(1) Radeon 9500Pro (overclocked to 9700 speeds)
(2) GeForce 6600GT

Resolution: 1280x1024. Both systems on "Medium" settings in BF2.
BF2 runs "acceptable" on (1) and quite smooth on (2).

Can't turn on eye-candy (AA/AF) else my system slows to a crawl...

Darn sad.gif Do I smell an complete upgrade here? (except for the superb Viewsonic 19" LCD VP-191b <- Obsolete now
Buy the new Viewsonic 19" VP-930b LCD which sports Pivot/Tilt function and 1000:1 Contrast ratio, most importantly, uses a true 8-bit panel instead of the less accurate 6-bit "faster" panels)

This post has been edited by Razzd: Oct 19 2005, 10:42 PM
ychwang
post Oct 19 2005, 11:25 PM

Little *
*******
Senior Member
4,607 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malaysia
QUOTE(jarofclay @ Oct 17 2005, 04:19 PM)
Put it this way:

4 x 512MB for P4 doesn't have much impact as A64. Most A64 would run at 2T timings if all 4 banks are populated. This is because P4 runs at 1T only.

That's why it might be advisable that A64 runs with 2 x 1GB. Even the timings of 1Gb sticks are not so tight compared to 512 modules, at least it runs at 1T.

But if you already have 2 x 512MB sticks, it might be more feasible to get another 2 sticks so that you dun need to sell off your existing RAM. I'd rather run on slower timings or even at 2T as it is definitely much faster than in the case of insufficient memory (and hence, page file swapping).

Some sharing that I've encountered on my rig:

BF2 uses about 1.4GB of RAM
FEAR uses about 1.2-1.3GB
Doom3 uses 1.1-1.2GB
Half Life 2 uses 800MB-1.1GB
Ridd*** uses roughly 700-1.1GB

So all of these games will definitely cause page file swapping (that's why my games are stuttering all the time but the frame rates are still averagely high). I'd rather run at slower timings and have elimation of stuttering.
*
can i know what setting are you run on BF2?
bcoz i run on 1280x1024 + 6X FSAA + Max Detail everything, and yet it only use 737MB memory.
With BF2 running in the background while typing this, still got 800mb ram left.

jarofclay
post Oct 20 2005, 12:06 AM

Klipsch Addict
Group Icon
VIP
2,068 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Ipoh / Penang / PJ
Typical is BF2 full settings and 4xAA, 16xAF, SuperSampling, Gamma Sampling, Trilinear. Resolution should be 1280 x 1024.

Do you enable all settings? If you do, then I must really salute coz BF2 does indeed take more than 1GB of RAM. Pls see attached, even 1.5GB would barely enough. Pls check your Peak under Commit Charge.

And yes, I do run ONE game only with nothing at the background.

This post has been edited by jarofclay: Oct 20 2005, 12:07 AM


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Hornet
post Oct 20 2005, 12:16 AM

What?
*******
Senior Member
4,251 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malacca, Malaysia, Earth
QUOTE(jarofclay @ Oct 20 2005, 12:06 AM)
Typical is BF2 full settings and 4xAA, 16xAF, SuperSampling, Gamma Sampling, Trilinear. Resolution should be 1280 x 1024.
*
I don't think that's a typical setting. supersampling takes a hell lots of gpu pwer although lates cards are design to run it. it'll take a top notch sytem for that
ychwang
post Oct 20 2005, 01:14 AM

Little *
*******
Senior Member
4,607 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malaysia
oh... i tot you'r saying the game alone took 1.3gig,
bcoz usually i check the game file size by doing so.
check at the Process Tab instead of Comit Charge.

Pls see the pic attach, game alone is use 780mb+- with 6x fsaa 1280x1024, including reserve 512mb for windows app. That's why i said 1.5GB, game=1gb+Window512mb is already sufficent.

p/s: Window XP are limited Single Application to consume more than 1024mb memory.


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
greyPJ
post Oct 20 2005, 07:45 AM

artificially stupid
*******
Senior Member
3,169 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(ychwang @ Oct 20 2005, 01:14 AM)
p/s: Window XP are limited Single Application to consume more than 1024mb memory.
*
should be 2GB, not 1.
ychwang
post Oct 20 2005, 10:58 AM

Little *
*******
Senior Member
4,607 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malaysia
QUOTE(greyPJ @ Oct 20 2005, 07:45 AM)
should be 2GB, not 1.
*
i mean single application/game/process. Not total program open.
greyPJ
post Oct 20 2005, 11:21 AM

artificially stupid
*******
Senior Member
3,169 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(ychwang @ Oct 20 2005, 10:58 AM)
i mean single application/game/process. Not total program open.
*
see this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654
http://www.2cpu.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=68952

This post has been edited by greyPJ: Oct 20 2005, 11:24 AM
pizzaboy
post Oct 20 2005, 11:24 AM

Look at all my stars!!
Group Icon
VIP
9,495 posts

Joined: Dec 2004
I heard they say that those who use two cpu's systems, will never return to single cpu systems.
Are the benefits equal to that of dual-core procs?
ychwang
post Oct 20 2005, 11:35 AM

Little *
*******
Senior Member
4,607 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malaysia
i wish to see the screenshot of single process took >1gb.
The photoshop that they mention maybe seperate to two process.

If single process can consume >1gb, why MemTest refuse me to test more than 1gb? i have to run two instances of MemTest and set each with 800mb.
greyPJ
post Oct 20 2005, 11:38 AM

artificially stupid
*******
Senior Member
3,169 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
see that MS's site table:

Virtual address space per 32-bit process:2 GB, 3 GB if the system is booted with the /3GB switch
zx7177
post Oct 20 2005, 11:43 AM

@mp.ZX
*******
Senior Member
2,851 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: KuAlA LuMpUr
QUOTE(ychwang @ Oct 19 2005, 03:18 PM)
oh. then should be ok with medium detail without fsaa, but 512 seems not very enuf for this game.
*
but for some friggin reason , my bf2 settings are at teh extreme low

yet it lags once in a while , like 30% of the time shocking.gif doh.gif
Hornet
post Oct 20 2005, 12:48 PM

What?
*******
Senior Member
4,251 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Malacca, Malaysia, Earth
QUOTE(pizzaboy @ Oct 20 2005, 11:24 AM)
I heard they say that those who use two cpu's systems, will never return to single cpu systems.
Are the benefits equal to that of dual-core procs?
*
So far from wat i've heard, only those who does heavy multitasking like, say media editing and encoding at the same time will not return to single CPU.
I'm not sure, but i think AMD FX CPU are still the better choice in gaming as compare the dual core CPU right...

but the extra ram is a different thing, it can benefits a single application since it possible for certain apps to use more than 1 gig.

This post has been edited by Hornet: Oct 20 2005, 12:48 PM
jarofclay
post Oct 23 2005, 01:53 AM

Klipsch Addict
Group Icon
VIP
2,068 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Ipoh / Penang / PJ
I think you might have forgotten one thing... when you switch from game to your task manager, you have actually put the game in background and considered to have minimized it. That's the reason you see only 700++ MB for the game.

The game does take around 1.3GB coz with nothing at the background, my WinXP and the rest of the programs takes only 211MB commit charge. After a game of BF2, the peak is almost 1.5GB.

smile.gif If you dun trust me, try to go to other forums and see what the others say.

QUOTE(ychwang @ Oct 20 2005, 11:35 AM)
i wish to see the screenshot of single process took >1gb.
The photoshop that they mention maybe seperate to two process.

If single process can consume >1gb, why MemTest refuse me to test more than 1gb? i have to run two instances of MemTest and set each with 800mb.
*
jarofclay
post Oct 23 2005, 01:56 AM

Klipsch Addict
Group Icon
VIP
2,068 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Ipoh / Penang / PJ
What I meant is that that I typically play at that settings. Supersampling does indeed take quite a lot of power (around 40 to 50%).

Contrary to the benchmarks that websites tells me, whenever I play any older games such as Colin McRae 2005, it nearly halves my frame rates when I enable Supersampling. "Downgrading" it to multisampling and I get back the lost frame rates from supersampling. My eyes can't see a difference in a fast paced game like CMR2005.

QUOTE(Hornet @ Oct 20 2005, 12:16 AM)
I don't think that's a typical setting. supersampling takes a hell lots of gpu pwer although lates cards are design to run it. it'll take a top notch sytem for that
*
wild_card_my
post Oct 23 2005, 02:30 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,562 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Kuala Lumpur
people, ive just installed 4 sticks of ram to get 2 Gb and found out that i couldnt run the rams at anythihgn higher than 100mhz as opposed to 200mhz... is this normal?
SUSSeLrAhC
post Oct 23 2005, 02:51 AM

★★★7Star★General★★★
*******
Senior Member
5,227 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Anchorage, Alaska
i think it might be because of ur mobo... check d manual...

p4 or amd?
« Next Oldest · Hardware · Next Newest »
 

34 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » Top
Add ReplyOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
 0.0177sec    0.32    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 21st December 2025 - 10:03 PM
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Removal Request
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.