-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
How does RAM help gaming?
- Thread starter masitti
- Start date
I dont think u will see a difference between 512Mb and 1Ghz of RAM in gaming or 3Dmark. But i found that when i upgraded from SDRAM (512Mb) to DDR (256Mb) my games did not run as smooth so i got another 256Mb DDR and after that i have had np all. This is just my opinion.
I have a m8 with 1Ghz of DDR (PC2700) and he does no better in benchmarks then i do and we have almost the same system specs...
For me the Biggest improvment i had was when i went from SDRAM too DDR, that alone boosted my 3DMark2001 score almost 4000 points...
I have a m8 with 1Ghz of DDR (PC2700) and he does no better in benchmarks then i do and we have almost the same system specs...
For me the Biggest improvment i had was when i went from SDRAM too DDR, that alone boosted my 3DMark2001 score almost 4000 points...
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Location
- Boulder CO
i am pretty sure that ram does not effect gaming if you have 256mb or more. i think more ram is just for windows performance/graphics/any art app
i gather this info from seein how pretty much everone on top of the 3dmark chart uses 256mb
i gather this info from seein how pretty much everone on top of the 3dmark chart uses 256mb
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2002
- Location
- Liverpool, UK
here is my personal RAM experience with games...
128 - crap, take a hell year to load, and they dont load enough of themselves into the memory so they are constantly swapping in and out of HDD which slows it down ALOT!
256 - huge improvements in performance and good in load time, I would say a good proportion of games will load what they need into this amount of space (although some may still swap with HDD)
512 - minimal improvement in performance (if any) - massive load time improvement.
1GB - ill tell you upon next upgrade
rediction: no improvement in performance minimal improvement in load times
benchmarks however did not get effected by even the 128-256...so they must rely little on amount of memory - although I should imagine that something like 64-128 would increase the benchmark significantly as I doubt the 64 would give the benchmark the headroom
128 - crap, take a hell year to load, and they dont load enough of themselves into the memory so they are constantly swapping in and out of HDD which slows it down ALOT!
256 - huge improvements in performance and good in load time, I would say a good proportion of games will load what they need into this amount of space (although some may still swap with HDD)
512 - minimal improvement in performance (if any) - massive load time improvement.
1GB - ill tell you upon next upgrade
rediction: no improvement in performance minimal improvement in load timesbenchmarks however did not get effected by even the 128-256...so they must rely little on amount of memory - although I should imagine that something like 64-128 would increase the benchmark significantly as I doubt the 64 would give the benchmark the headroom
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Location
- Southeast US
A big big factor is... how big big the game you're talking about is.
If you're buying 1 gig of ram to improve freecell's performance, stand by for dissapointment.
However, a lot of modern games have huge memory footprints. For example, Black and White didn't seem like it would take a lot of system resources, but it could peak at over 700mb.
The more of your program that gets loaded into memory, the less time you'll spend waiting for page swaps and hard drive activity.
Normally, 512 mb of ram (in this day and age) is plenty for gaming, and if you're talking about beyond 512 mb, the TYPE and speed of memory is a lot more important than the bulk amount.
Being able to run cas2 with good timings at a high frequency is a lot more beneficial than having a gig of ram. Just my opinion, but pretty valid I think.
If you're buying 1 gig of ram to improve freecell's performance, stand by for dissapointment.
However, a lot of modern games have huge memory footprints. For example, Black and White didn't seem like it would take a lot of system resources, but it could peak at over 700mb.
The more of your program that gets loaded into memory, the less time you'll spend waiting for page swaps and hard drive activity.
Normally, 512 mb of ram (in this day and age) is plenty for gaming, and if you're talking about beyond 512 mb, the TYPE and speed of memory is a lot more important than the bulk amount.
Being able to run cas2 with good timings at a high frequency is a lot more beneficial than having a gig of ram. Just my opinion, but pretty valid I think.
- Thread Starter
- #6
Ok, thanks for the replies. The game that I notice is a memory hog is BF1942... I feel like it is choking with only 384 MB of RAM. Oh yea, btw, I am a Alt-Tab happy person.. so I'll switch windows and stuff which prolly doesn't help.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2002
- Location
- Liverpool, UK
well with 256 - BF1942 was a system killer, after shutting the game down the system would be slow and sluggish for ages - 512 solved that and gave me massive load time improvements, but it still often fills 512MB - 1GB would do that game nicely
- Thread Starter
- #8
ninthebin said:well with 256 - BF1942 was a system killer, after shutting the game down the system would be slow and sluggish for ages - 512 solved that and gave me massive load time improvements, but it still often fills 512MB - 1GB would do that game nicely
Excellent, because it is my most played game.
BTW, I notice that system sluggishness after the game... it absolutely kills me...- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Location
- phx az
bwaaahahahaha, im waiting for everquest2 and horizons: empires of istaria. they will be memory hogs too.
im just wondering whether i should get 3 sticks of ddr and put them in.
im just wondering whether i should get 3 sticks of ddr and put them in.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
- Location
- Toronto, ON, Canada
i think memory speed is more important that you would think, here in mexico 256mb pc133 sdram sounds like "omg man you are so elite!" heck, even my hardware professor thinks that the most expensive and commercialy available ram is ddr pc2100 LOL. But on the other hand, i have a classmate, hes so dork and hardheaded geek wannabe... he even thinks free hd diskspace is better than ram!!! he has a mobo with 8 ides and 6 60gb hds just for because he thinks thats more memory!!! damn hes so dumb. But thats not all, he doesnt even bother changing swapfile location or size ROFL!!!!
i think the current sweetspot in price and performance is 512mb pc2700
heck, even my hardware professor thinks that the most expensive and commercialy available ram is ddr pc2100 LOL. But on the other hand, i have a classmate, hes so dork and hardheaded geek wannabe... he even thinks free hd diskspace is better than ram!!! he has a mobo with 8 ides and 6 60gb hds just for because he thinks thats more memory!!! damn hes so dumb. But thats not all, he doesnt even bother changing swapfile location or size ROFL!!!!i think the current sweetspot in price and performance is 512mb pc2700
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Location
- oregon usa
im glad i took the time to read this. so thats y my hd kicks in on medal of honor and it like its lag out i was thinking it was video card
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2001
- Location
- Austin, TX
When I went from 512 to 1gig it was really only noticable with load times.
I use to be big in Everquest and it would cut down my loads between world zones A LOT.
In BF1942 the game loads faster, but after that, not much of an improvement in performance.
I am not so sure once Doom 3 comes out though, or games using the new Unreal 2 engine. Might be more of an issue then, but not too much now.
I use to be big in Everquest and it would cut down my loads between world zones A LOT.
In BF1942 the game loads faster, but after that, not much of an improvement in performance.
I am not so sure once Doom 3 comes out though, or games using the new Unreal 2 engine. Might be more of an issue then, but not too much now.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Location
- Chicago, IL
have noticed, that once you're finished playing bf1942, or unreal2, or command and conquer generals, that it ate up so much of your system resources, that when you go try to play another game afterwords such as quake 3, that quake3 just lags terribly. Why is that? I have 512MB memory rdram pc800, and geforce4 ti4600.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Location
- NorthEast England
InThrees said:
Ok- so how do you change the page file? My games run OK but on SimCity 3000 I find quite a few slow downs after a while.
BTW- I'm running 250mb RDram, Only got one HD though- that a problem?
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Location
- Southeast US
You don't necessarily want to change the page file - I mean, if you just don't have enough physical ram, the overflow has to go SOMEWHERE, right?
And from what I understand, SC3K just gets sluggish and bloated after a while - i think it's dependent on city size.
And from what I understand, SC3K just gets sluggish and bloated after a while - i think it's dependent on city size.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Location
- NorthEast England
I know it gets a bit sluggy because of the city size but even when its a small town- the HD is churning left and right and my mouse gets all slow and jumpy too (and its clean- maybe I should use O/C my mouse)
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Location
- Southeast US
Try defragging, of course, if SC3k is trying to load different tile sets, sounds, or whatever, it helps to have them sequential.
Also, if you have another drive or partition, put the page file there - especially if it's a fast drive. Defrag it FIRST, until it's pristine and spotless.
Are you running 98 or xp/2k?
If you're running win98 with more than 256mb of ram, do this:
1. disable paging / swap file usage ENTIRELY.
2. reboot.
3. defrag drive.
4. enable swap file, and set it to a static size of maybe 384-512mb.
5. reboot.
What this does is create a totally contiguous locked swap file that never resizes, and hence, never becomes fragmented.
I don't think this works in win2k, however. (or xp, which is the redheaded fruity step child of 2k.)
Also, if you have another drive or partition, put the page file there - especially if it's a fast drive. Defrag it FIRST, until it's pristine and spotless.
Are you running 98 or xp/2k?
If you're running win98 with more than 256mb of ram, do this:
1. disable paging / swap file usage ENTIRELY.
2. reboot.
3. defrag drive.
4. enable swap file, and set it to a static size of maybe 384-512mb.
5. reboot.
What this does is create a totally contiguous locked swap file that never resizes, and hence, never becomes fragmented.
I don't think this works in win2k, however. (or xp, which is the redheaded fruity step child of 2k.)
Similar threads
