Hi There,

I dunno if the RAM over 1 GB has any real use, aka. is it worth it to buy it at all. Any time Alt-Tab-ing out of the game, I still have some 2-300 MB of free RAM (750 MB on idle with some HW gadgets running already).

Need your 2 cents.

Razor18 out

For Lock On, it's probably not worth it. Some newer apps reportedly can make better use of 2GB, but Lock On won't do much of anything different.

I'm no tech genius but having more than 1 GB of RAM would definitely help with Lock On. Whenever I exit Lock On after running it for a couple of hours, my Windows desktop takes a good minute to redraw itself. I have 1 gig of ram and also use Cacheman XP to manage my memory usage.

I have 2GB, and loading does seem faster.

Right, it all depends on the app. Multitasking will naturally consume more, but for single apps only the newest games tend to break the 1GB barrier.


The Jedi Master

I didn't notice a big diffrence in gameplay when i extented from 1gig to 2gig(4x512)
Maybe the game loads faster but that could be just a difference of 1 second.
Althought i've noticed a big diffrence in Battlefield2, loading times and gameplay fps.

I upgraded from 1gb to 1.5 GB and found a definite difference. The game loads faster and better performance when you turn the goodies up.

Funny, I didn't experience an increase in BF2, but like I said Lomac does "seem" to load faster than with 1 GB. Crazy Computers

Along the same lines if I may, has anyone ever noticed a difference between value ram (for instance Corsair VS) and the $200-300 stuff or is that mainly for overclocking purposes?

Mainly for overclocking purposes; RAM with low latencies usually can clock higher.

There can be a measurable difference between low- and high-latency memory, but it will only be a percentage point or two, you would never be able to notice it without benchmarks, an it's usually not worth the money.

from 1 to 2GB, I get better (more fluid) framerate.. probably the game loads more textures in RAM.. I don't know... I only can say it runs smoother

What sort of difference might one see going from 1Gb PC2700 to 1Gb PC3200? Noticeable, or not worth the spend?

Not worth it.

great info!

thanks guys and Joe...

I went from 1g to 2g on my current system, in my obsessive quest to make LOMAC "playable" for me. I did extensive testing at that time (circa Spring of 2004) on my system with Lock On, and 3D Mark 03 & 05. I found that Lock on, while not much faster with 2g (it is 2-3FPS faster, though), the frame rates do stay in a tighter, higher range at the settings I like (16X12, maxxed, with high water); ie, Lock On definately plays smoother with 2g, if not significantly faster, per se. But then again, it depends on the rest of your system too. A slow proc, with 2g probably won't be too much faster than 1g, while a screaming proc, with 2g probalby will be noticebly faster.

Testing shows that only a couple games run slightly faster with 2GB. On the other hand, if one has an Athlon 64, going to 2GB often (not always) means going to 2T timings (from 1T) -- the result is slower performance on games that do not need 2GB.

Anyhow, I'm sticking with 1GB for now. But, hey, if one has 2GB, why not.

With an Athlon64, you only need to go 2T if you use 4 memory modules (4 x 256MB or 4 x 512MB). The only exception is the DFI Crossfire motherboard. It can handle 4 modules at 1T.

For 2 GB with 2 modules, 1T is the way to go.

Nowi

Guys,

Just as a FYI/ I have a athlon64 3500+ overclocked to 2.67ghz with 3gb of ram in (2) 1gb sticks and 2 512 stick's. They are running at 1T on a Soltek K8TPRO-939. Maybe the 2T depends on the motherboard. Either way it helped going to 1.5 gig but didnt see anything going to 3 gig. Actually I had 1.5gig on my way up to 3 and if you crank it up in the options settings 1.5 seemed to work well.

IMO

Real answer: if your mobo/processor combo supports 400FSB then yes, do it!

If your mobo or processor is limited to 333FSB then nope, nothing to be gained there.

If there's mismatched abilities - say, RAM FSB can be cranked to 400, but processor only supports 333, then you'd get higher FPS in games only to be interrupted by stutter.

In gaming you keep the two aligned, in business machines you go for every advantage in every component.

The subject of Athlon 64 processors doing processor side FSB equivalent to processor frequency while not producing this stutter with RAM at even 400 FSB is something beyond my comprehension at this time, but it does work...

Having 2 Gig over 1 Gig makes a HUGE Difference. This has been proven over and over again.