Puck Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 The difference in minimum frame rates makes a huge difference in how smoothly games play. IHMO that's worth the $30 for an extra 2 GB. Yep, but an extra 2gb would not affect minimum framerates unless you are upgrading from 1 gig or 512mb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comp Dude2 Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Yep, but an extra 2gb would not affect minimum framerates unless you are upgrading from 1 gig or 512mb. Did you read that corsair comparison? clearly not, it makes a MASSIVE difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 How? 4 streams of HDV compressed 1080i, and 20 uncompressed audio streams with processing on them. It's not really all that hard at all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Did you read that corsair comparison? clearly not, it makes a MASSIVE difference. Your definition of "MASSIVE" is clearly not the same as mine. The difference in frames was very minimal. The only "MASSIVE" difference came in task switching and load times, which we all knew would be the case. How? 4 streams of HDV compressed 1080i, and 20 uncompressed audio streams with processing on them. It's not really all that hard at all... Yeah, because THAT'S normal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Your definition of "MASSIVE" is clearly not the same as mine. The difference in frames was very minimal. The only "MASSIVE" difference came in task switching and load times, which we all knew would be the case. Yeah, because THAT'S normal That's why 4gb is still fine, and will be for a while, for gaming Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comp Dude2 Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Your definition of "MASSIVE" is clearly not the same as mine. The difference in frames was very minimal. The only "MASSIVE" difference came in task switching and load times, which we all knew would be the case. The difference between 5 and 23fps isnt MASSIVE? it is in my book And also the original statement was there was it "would not affect" minimum frames, and it clear does, in a big way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 The difference between 5 and 23fps isnt MASSIVE? it is in my book And also the original statement was there was it "would not affect" minimum frames, and it clear does, in a big way. Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Going from 2 gigs to 4 gigs would only help in games if you have a single 256mb or 512mb graphics card and run insane resolutions and detail settings. 2 gigs of ram just is not a bottleneck in todays games and with todays graphics cards. Maybe in the future, but current games just dont take up enough memory to warrant 4 gigs. If you have at least a gig of video memory, you will never run out of ram gaming with 2gigs of system ram. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comp Dude2 Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Thats just not true. I regularly fill my 2Gb when playing TF2 for example and i am pretty sure there will be other games. Also i find the alt-tabbing experiment they did to be pretty accurate. My computer takes ages to alt-tab out, but my friend with 4Gb can flick back and forth quickly enough to hold a convo on MSN.....whereas the time taken to minimize and maximum would be far too prohibitive for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardfalcon Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 My mainboard (see my profile) supports up to 32GB of RAM, however I consider 4GB more than enough (even for things like rendering stuff with Lightwave, transcoding videos or cracking password hashes). What matters much more these days is the CPU speed, and, even more important, your VGA card. What are you gonna do with 8GB of RAM in Crysis if you have only, for example, a crappy 9600GT? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Going from 2 gigs to 4 gigs would only help in games if you have a single 256mb or 512mb graphics card and run insane resolutions and detail settings. 2 gigs of ram just is not a bottleneck in todays games and with todays graphics cards. Maybe in the future, but current games just dont take up enough memory to warrant 4 gigs. If you have at least a gig of video memory, you will never run out of ram gaming with 2gigs of system ram. The video card has absolutely nothing to do with how the games will react to more RAM. More video memory tends to increase the memory required because the user is likely to crank detail and effects settings up. Video memory itself doesn't have anything to do with the amount of system RAM unless you're on a 32 bit OS. Many games see much improved performance in terms of minimum/average framerates (Supreme Commander is a great example) when running 4 GB versus 2 GB. Did you even read the article posted above? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ir_cow Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 all this thread does is make me want to go out and grab a 32gb board lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now