Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 2 GB the way of the future?

views
     
greyPJ
post Oct 16 2005, 10:51 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
Do you really need 2GB?

[ Conclusion ]
This certainly is a debatable topic that can be looked at in several ways, though the question at hand is "Does 2GB of memory improve gaming performance". While a simple yes or no answer cannot be used to answer this question I do agree with Corsair, 2GB of memory is becoming beneficial. As Corsair put it, 1GB of memory is ideal for the majority of games out there. Nevertheless, there are now a few games that play better with 2GB of system memory. Although Battlefield 2 fails to demonstrate this with a 256MB graphics card, I still believe the game runs much better with 2GB of memory. Clearly games such as UT2004, Far Cry and even Doom 3 will play just as well with 1GB of memory, even the new FEAR Multiplayer Demo is just as happy to use 1GB of memory.

When building the latest and greatest gaming system it just makes sense to go with 2GB's of system memory. However, a mid-range to low-end gaming systems certainly do not require the additional gigabyte. Furthermore there is absolutely no point arguing that 2GB of RAM is beneficial for systems with a 128MB graphics card. For the simple fact that is cheaper and far more valuable to purchase a more powerful graphics card than it is to add another gigabyte of memory. Therefore, when it comes down to what gives you the best bang for your buck; 2GB of system memory is just not a viable option.

Alternatively, what Corsair is doing for end-users by pushing 1GB capacity modules (2GB kits) is future-proofing their systems. Evidently, by this time next year 1GB of memory is most likely going to be a minimum specification for gaming systems. The most important part of building a gaming system is to maintain balance. There is no point in out weighing one component with another. For example a powerful CPU will not compensate for a slow graphics card. When building a race car it is important that the package is well balanced. There are no successful race cars that have overly powerful engines without the correct level of handling to match the power. Well balanced machines win races and it is the same with computers. Spending all your money on a single hardware component is not the least bit helpful.

Therefore high-end games will benefit from 2GB of memory if they have an accompanying top of the range processor and graphics card. For mid-range gaming systems or anything less, 1GB of memory is going to be ample. Although memory is significantly cheaper than it use to be, a decent 1GB DDR2 dual-channel memory kit will cost around $100 US. Spending another $100 US to receive 2GB of memory is just not worth it for gamers on a budget. Given $100 US can be the difference between a GeForce 6600 GT and a GeForce 6800 GT, I know what will be of more use when it comes to gaming. Bottom-line is when it comes down to what will give a gamer the best bang for their buck, 2GB's of system memory looses out.

Reviewed By Steven Walton

This post has been edited by greyPJ: Oct 16 2005, 10:53 PM
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.

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
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
greyPJ
post Oct 26 2005, 11:30 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
turn off your pagefile now and play your fav games, if xp doesnt complain about out of memory, you dont need extra RAM.

i have 512MB and i turn off pagefile, i dont play games, just normal surfing and normal stuff, i dont get any out of memory msg. if i open more than 80 tabs in Firefox, not enough memory.
greyPJ
post Oct 26 2005, 12:29 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(jarofclay @ Oct 26 2005, 12:25 PM)
If I do what you did, my system either will give me that error or hangs. You are not a heavy user, so it didn't matter; but if you encountered programs that must have page file in order to work, then your system might hang. I guess you haven't so far...
*
can you tell me what program requires pagefile or else hang? i havent seen any, like to try out.

yes, i dont run many program in the background.
greyPJ
post Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
@ jarofclay:

and how big is your pagefile.
greyPJ
post Oct 26 2005, 02:22 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(ychwang @ Oct 26 2005, 01:28 PM)
lasttime when using photoshop CS, when disable pagefile and run the program even on 2gb it will prompt me to continue or not.
but photoshop CS2 no more have this problem, adobe had realize pagefile is not importaint as long as u got sufficeint memory.
*
xp handles pagefile poorly, even when there are plenty of free RAM, xp send open prog to pagefile, so stupid, try open afew prog and walk away from your computer. Return after a few minutes and then click each taskbar icon in turn. Watch Windows thrash.
greyPJ
post Oct 28 2005, 11:12 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Eoma @ Oct 28 2005, 11:07 AM)
Ok, 

FEAR SP demo
The 1/2 sec stops are still there. BUT, overall it feels soooooo much smoother. The "stutters" occur in some corners (not all, and not in a stutter, ok, stutter, again fashion.), and though while they do distract a bit, the overall gameplay experience is still solid.
Verdict: Noticeable improvement over 1 GB.

Vista CTP
It still lags, but lags less compared to 1GB. Responsiveness seems/feels to have gone up as well. One explorer window, 2 IE windows, task manager running, shows 630MB+ of memory usage (this is with Aero Glass).
Verdict: Too early to tell, responsiveness seems up, but in the end the 2Gigs should definately help.
*
did you disable the pagefile? if you dont you can really see any improvement.
xp sends everything to pagefile even if you have 4GB RAM.
greyPJ
post Oct 28 2005, 11:31 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Eoma @ Oct 28 2005, 11:19 AM)
My pagefile is set to 100Mb (Min/Max).
*
no difference, stupid xp will use it no matter what size, disable it and try again.
you will see great improvement without it.
greyPJ
post May 27 2006, 08:48 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
i'd rather spend the money on bigger lcd.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0180sec    0.42    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 21st December 2025 - 06:45 PM