Is 4gig better than 2gig RAM for games like crysis
- Thread starter Numbnuts
- Start date
Indeed, and remember if you want 4GB and to have access to it all, you'll need an x64 OS. Either XP or Vista. But you want Vista really.
Anyone got any definate proof of this?
Only its not a straight forward upgrade for me as i have ocz watercooled memory. Which would require either the hassle of adding 2 more sticks of that into my watercooling loop or removing the set i have and going for 2x 2gb sticks of something else (probably the route i would go)
Only its not a straight forward upgrade for me as i have ocz watercooled memory. Which would require either the hassle of adding 2 more sticks of that into my watercooling loop or removing the set i have and going for 2x 2gb sticks of something else (probably the route i would go)
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,631
- Location
- Aberlour, NE Scotland
As already stated, if you only have a 32bit OS then forget it as it will not be seen. TBH i would have thought videocard memory would be more beneficial.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Go and read in the proper MS sites, the DEV's will tell you that 4GB is the sweet spot for Vista (obv needs be 64bit).
I struggled with F.E.A.R at launch on a high end Rig at that time, I had game at 1280x960 with all MAX settings but it lagged to a halt in game, I noticed all my 1GB of Ram and 1.5GB Page file were ate up.
I ordered 2GB Ram for next day and problems sorted.
Now that was in XP (32bit) and 1GB was enough to run XP well aside from hardcore games that arrived like C0D2, F.E.A.R and a few others that were found to need 2GB to run MAX settings by many review sites.
I have tested Vista since early Alphas and officially as Betas, it was always hungry for Ram and although Memory leaks are plugged esp in Sidebar, it still runs far better with 4GB than 2GB and if you play todays high end games at high RES with MAX settings I would go as far to say its needed.
I struggled with F.E.A.R at launch on a high end Rig at that time, I had game at 1280x960 with all MAX settings but it lagged to a halt in game, I noticed all my 1GB of Ram and 1.5GB Page file were ate up.
I ordered 2GB Ram for next day and problems sorted.
Now that was in XP (32bit) and 1GB was enough to run XP well aside from hardcore games that arrived like C0D2, F.E.A.R and a few others that were found to need 2GB to run MAX settings by many review sites.
I have tested Vista since early Alphas and officially as Betas, it was always hungry for Ram and although Memory leaks are plugged esp in Sidebar, it still runs far better with 4GB than 2GB and if you play todays high end games at high RES with MAX settings I would go as far to say its needed.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
He will see between 3GB and 3.5GB, depending on how much Video Memory he has.
As I have 768MB of it, I seen 3.25GB in XP 32bit.
As I have 768MB of it, I seen 3.25GB in XP 32bit.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Give Windows more and it will use more but be better running.
You want to run high end games like Crysis etc, in Vista64, my advise same as I posted above is get 4GB its cheap and the Vista Dev's on MS sites even say 4GB is sweet spot.
I would still be on 4GB if I found a good kit for OC'ing but got my eyes on that OCZ Reaper kit.
Just because my PC now sits at 47-50% doing nothing does not mean 2GB is ideal.
You want to run high end games like Crysis etc, in Vista64, my advise same as I posted above is get 4GB its cheap and the Vista Dev's on MS sites even say 4GB is sweet spot.
I would still be on 4GB if I found a good kit for OC'ing but got my eyes on that OCZ Reaper kit.
Just because my PC now sits at 47-50% doing nothing does not mean 2GB is ideal.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Hey helmutcheese,
Any chance you could post a link regarding this matter please; I would be interested in what they actually have to say.
Now i have to disagree with that to a certain extent
. Windows Vista runs perfectly fine with 1GB of memory installed, just like if you were running Windows XP. Even in Windows XP, you would need 2GB of memory to be running games like Call Of Duty 2, Fear etc at max settings and achieve a playable frame rate.
Any chance you could post a link regarding this matter please; I would be interested in what they actually have to say.
Now i have to disagree with that to a certain extent
. Windows Vista runs perfectly fine with 1GB of memory installed, just like if you were running Windows XP. Even in Windows XP, you would need 2GB of memory to be running games like Call Of Duty 2, Fear etc at max settings and achieve a playable frame rate.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
What did I already say ?.
" I struggled with F.E.A.R at launch on a high end Rig at that time, I had game at 1280x960 with all MAX settings but it lagged to a halt in game, I noticed all my 1GB of Ram and 1.5GB Page file were ate up.
I ordered 2GB Ram for next day and problems sorted.
Now that was in XP (32bit) and 1GB was enough to run XP well aside from hardcore games that arrived like C0D2, F.E.A.R and a few others that were found to need 2GB to run MAX settings by many review sites. "
Vista64 Ult on 1GB is a Joke IMO, who in this day and age of cheap Memory would, b running a brand new OS with 1GB of Memory, again IMO.
Untill I find Balmers interview will IBM and Dell do you ?.
" David Short, an IBM consultant who works in the Global Services Division and has been beta testing Vista for two years, says users should consider 4GB of RAM if they really want optimum Vista performance. With Vista's minimum requirement of 512MB of RAM, Vista will deliver performance that's 'sub-XP,' he says. (Dell and others recommend 2GB.) One reason: SuperFetch, which fetches applications and data, and feeds them into RAM to make them accessible more quickly. More RAM means more caching. "
"I know from using it with both 2GB and 4GB from a gamers point of view which is better and I have all the eye candy on and lots of Gadgets etc, its just common sence.
The MS spec of 96MB Min and 128MB Rec for Mmeory for XP was also a joke as it ran like crap and thats only the OS, they aint talking aobut after you install AV and all your apps.
" I struggled with F.E.A.R at launch on a high end Rig at that time, I had game at 1280x960 with all MAX settings but it lagged to a halt in game, I noticed all my 1GB of Ram and 1.5GB Page file were ate up.
I ordered 2GB Ram for next day and problems sorted.
Now that was in XP (32bit) and 1GB was enough to run XP well aside from hardcore games that arrived like C0D2, F.E.A.R and a few others that were found to need 2GB to run MAX settings by many review sites. "
Vista64 Ult on 1GB is a Joke IMO, who in this day and age of cheap Memory would, b running a brand new OS with 1GB of Memory, again IMO.
Untill I find Balmers interview will IBM and Dell do you ?.
" David Short, an IBM consultant who works in the Global Services Division and has been beta testing Vista for two years, says users should consider 4GB of RAM if they really want optimum Vista performance. With Vista's minimum requirement of 512MB of RAM, Vista will deliver performance that's 'sub-XP,' he says. (Dell and others recommend 2GB.) One reason: SuperFetch, which fetches applications and data, and feeds them into RAM to make them accessible more quickly. More RAM means more caching. "
"I know from using it with both 2GB and 4GB from a gamers point of view which is better and I have all the eye candy on and lots of Gadgets etc, its just common sence.
The MS spec of 96MB Min and 128MB Rec for Mmeory for XP was also a joke as it ran like crap and thats only the OS, they aint talking aobut after you install AV and all your apps.
Last edited: