Corsair researches performance increase of 4GB over 2GB of RAM

braveheart · 16 May 2008 at 22:49

I used 4x1GB = 4GB Corsair Dominator DDR2-800mhz C4 with Corsair Airflow - pretty good run on my gaming - no problem at all

DarkMatter · 6 Jul 2008 at 08:14

hmmmm i would get another 2gb straight away if i wasn't on 32bit vista

. i'm not sure if its worth it or not with 32bit if i get a graphcis card with 2x512mb of memory. Suppose its only £35 lol

keybaud · 6 Jul 2008 at 18:54

So, a RAM manufacturer conducts a series of tests that proves that you need more RAM! It may well be true, but I'd rather the test was done by someone independent like Anand or Tom's.

Cob · 6 Jul 2008 at 19:48

Well you can ask him yourself in here.

Yellowbeard · 7 Jul 2008 at 04:08

keybaud said:
So, a RAM manufacturer conducts a series of tests that proves that you need more RAM! It may well be true, but I'd rather the test was done by someone independent like Anand or Tom's.

I understand your point or your skepticism. However, it really would not make sense if Corsair employees wrote articles about mice, HDs, or other products we DON'T make.

Check the info out for yourself.

lukeharvest · 7 Jul 2008 at 04:45

Yeah, any new RAM purchases from me will be 4GB.

helmutcheese · 7 Jul 2008 at 14:01

Can't believe the cynics, let them run Vista64 Ult fully loaded with Gadgets etc on 2GB of Memory lol. :rolleyes:

Scougar · 8 Jul 2008 at 16:09

Vista runs fine for me with 2gb... although I hardly use it as I can't install the gfx drivers

Don't see what all this Vista 2gb is cack, stuff is all about.

Would obviously like as much ram as possible to stop HDD caching though which at the end of it, is as much as you need.

Matthew

bledd · 8 Jul 2008 at 16:11

/table-head-smash

helmutcheese · 8 Jul 2008 at 16:16

Scougar said:
Vista runs fine for me with 2gb... although I hardly use it as I can't install the gfx drivers Don't see what all this Vista 2gb is cack, stuff is all about.

Would obviously like as much ram as possible to stop HDD caching though which at the end of it, is as much as you need.

Matthew

That's BECAUSE not everyone runs the OS the same way as you do.

You would be better running Vista "Starven Marven edition" TBH"

Vista 64 Ultimate AGAIN with many Gadgets and APP's that start with Windows that make my life easier is "as slow as a week in the jail" on 2GB FOR ME.

2x Raptors X's in Raid0 is something you do not want to listen to getting Seeked to constantly.

DarkMatter · 9 Jul 2008 at 11:06

is it worth doing the upgrade even if i might lose 512 or 1gb to the graphics card ( 32bit OS) ?

Yellowbeard · 9 Jul 2008 at 16:03

Based on my actual gaming experience, yes, it's still worth it. You should get at least another full gig of memory for the system to use.

DarkMatter · 10 Jul 2008 at 08:55

thanks, i know back in the day (5+yrs ago), there used to be problems with using 4 sticks on a mobo, is there still that problem?

beavis · 10 Jul 2008 at 23:17

That graph insults my (and everyone else's) intelligence. When I do move to Vista64 and 4gig ram, it will certainly not be made by Corsair

james.miller · 10 Jul 2008 at 23:23

beavis said:
That graph insults my (and everyone else's) intelligence. When I do move to Vista64 and 4gig ram, it will certainly not be made by Corsair

lol your choice. whether you buy corsair or something else, the graph would still be right.

Strife212 · 10 Jul 2008 at 23:26

It actually isn't, it makes no sense. If the minimum framerate on crysis is higher with 4GB and the average framerate is the same, it means the maximum must have been lower with 4GB which clearly isnt right.

4GB of RAM is a huge help though. Nothing would make me go back to 2GB, it gets used instantly these days. Tabbing out of programs takes an age.

bfar · 10 Jul 2008 at 23:43

Strife212 said:
4GB of RAM is a huge help though.

This

Nelly · 10 Jul 2008 at 23:46

beavis said:
That graph insults my (and everyone else's) intelligence. When I do move to Vista64 and 4gig ram, it will certainly not be made by Corsair

LOL!! welcome to the muppet show, who cares if you buy corsair ram, ocz ram, crucial ram, g.skill ram etc just because you dont believe the results?

Okay then let me show you something.

Is More Memory Better?

Source

Yellowbeard · 10 Jul 2008 at 23:56

beavis said:
That graph insults my (and everyone else's) intelligence. When I do move to Vista64 and 4gig ram, it will certainly not be made by Corsair

I did not notice anywhere it says anyone will be forced to change to Vista 64 or forced to use any specific brand.

I'll get Gareth (Ogden) aka Blackbeard to check the graph. But, if there is an error on a graph, it does not change the bottom line. 4gb rules.

Tooks · 11 Jul 2008 at 00:06

Strife212 said:
It actually isn't, it makes no sense. If the minimum framerate on crysis is higher with 4GB and the average framerate is the same, it means the maximum must have been lower with 4GB which clearly isnt right.

I see what you're trying to say there, but I don't think it's as simple as that!

You can have a higher minimum, with the same average. Don't forget, it's games we're talking about here, not an excel spreadsheet. You're not adding a series of numbers up to arrive at an average or whatever, but rather we're talking about sampling how fast a game runs on average in fps, and measuring the minimums.

Also, games only hit minimums for milliseconds at a time, not necessarily enough to affect an average much at all.

I'm trying to think of an example to explain what I mean and the closest I can think of is driving a car for an hour at 60mph for most of the time. If you slowed down to 20mph twice or 10mph once, your average speed would be the same? Not a good example I'm sure you'll agree, but I'm sure somebody can come up with something better!

Anyway, it probably amounts to the same thing though, ie that you probably won't notice any difference in real world gaming (oxymoron?!) outside of fps monitors or benchmarking...