2gb to 4gb?

dual2max · 19 Jun 2006 at 15:15

Just to make Cyber-Mav look again at ram usage, a k8we owner has 8 x 2gig (16gig) in his machine. Now thats excessive for home use. But the way i see it is these mobos take 4gig, therefore fit it.
Bikes go 200mph, max speed limit 70mph. Same thing. But less points.

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2006 at 20:29

ram is good. always wanted a system with lots of ram. and now i got one. thing is now i want more cpu cores. i want 4 cores or more.

FreeStream · 19 Jun 2006 at 20:29

dual2max said:
Just to make Cyber-Mav look again at ram usage, a k8we owner has 8 x 2gig (16gig) in his machine. Now thats excessive for home use. But the way i see it is these mobos take 4gig, therefore fit it.
Bikes go 200mph, max speed limit 70mph. Same thing. But less points.

Erm, thats just stupid. Do you do any kind of work that will EVER fill that? I never fill 2Gb - and thats with BF2 and MS FS 2004 open on two screens.

2Gb is MORE than enough for now, when more than 2Gb is needed, current CPUs will not have enough performance to render/process that amount of data.

Same thing with gfxs cards, a 6200 is not going to use 512Mb is it?

CR.

ob1 · 19 Jun 2006 at 20:33

There might be some game along in the next couple of years that could use it, whats quake wars take

nikebee · 20 Jun 2006 at 00:03

Cyber-Mav said:
ahh but all im running is nero to burn a dvd. you should see the consumption rise up when windows media player 10 is up and i got some word documents loaded and firefox open. ram consumption starts rising fast and when 3dstudio is launched along with adobe photoshop then you learn the real value of having lots of ram.

im using x64 by the way.

and i'm sure that every day your continually designed 3d graphics whilst writing a novel, browsing the internet and watching videos... all whilst burning a dvd...

yes... of course.... :confused:

if you've got money to waste mate, throw some my way... i need a new monitor... or 4...

edit:
also just want to point out what everyone else has said, looking at your sig you could have spent your money on much better things computer wise :-/

Mr Men · 20 Jun 2006 at 00:29

Wish I had 4 gig

BloodWolf · 20 Jun 2006 at 04:24

fini said:
rofl at this thread

should I upgrade my ram?

1. Nope

2. Useless

excellent - ordered!

err what??

fini

LOL .. I was thinking same!

FreeStream · 20 Jun 2006 at 08:10

ob1 said:
There might be some game along in the next couple of years that could use it, whats quake wars take

Well, in that case the rest of your PC won't be able to process 4gb of data. I mean, its only recently that games have started using 1Gb of ram ( I have a screenshot of BF2 using 1,029Mb.

Computer can't render/process quick enough = lower settings = uses less ram = completely pointless having 4Gb+, next gen is DDR2 = wasted money.

Am I the only one who can see this??

lucifersam · 20 Jun 2006 at 08:33

agreed even if you computer could address all the memory the games today are not written in 64bit code so they certainly wont be able to address that much

lucifersam · 20 Jun 2006 at 08:36

Cyber-Mav said:
top stuff having 4 gigs of ram. now i can use a ram buffer of 670mb in nero.

I can do that too and still have plenty to spare

dual2max · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:02

Two of these is best.

OCZ 1GB (2 x 512MB) PC3200 Dual Channel Gold GX XTC Series EL-DDR CAS2 (OCZ4001024ELGEGXT-K) (MY-061-OC).

All matched at 2-2-2-5 @1T will blow your 4+gig away in performance.
What timings are you running with 4gig? I get 3-4-4-8 @2t

ob1 · 20 Jun 2006 at 14:59

I thought 4 ram sticks made 1T quite unlikely on A64

BF2 can use 1.5gb Ive found, not sure if any game tops that ?

FreeStream · 20 Jun 2006 at 15:36

ob1 said:
I thought 4 ram sticks made 1T quite unlikely on A64

BF2 can use 1.5gb Ive found, not sure if any game tops that ?

Yes, but someone has got 4x512Mb @ 200Mhz 1T on a Expert/Venus with a really slack settings which i've forgotten

I don't think anything does and 1.5Gb!? :eek:

I didn't even get passed 1.1Gb on a 128 single player on a 64 player map with Ultra High settings :confused:

Lanz · 20 Jun 2006 at 15:42

BF2 since 1.3 now uses about 1.6GB peak on high settings.

ob1 · 20 Jun 2006 at 15:45

Without trying too hard I got it to 1.4gb last night.
I only have a 6600gt so thats just high textures and a various mix of the other settings, a full 64 player server should max out the figure and make sure you travel to every corner of the map to fully load it all.
Having a dozen or so enemies in one screen seems to provide the most stress on the cpu too

FreeStream · 20 Jun 2006 at 16:11

Lanz said:
BF2 since 1.3 now uses about 1.6GB peak on high settings.

Bloody hell!

Minstadave · 20 Jun 2006 at 19:39

Lanz said:
BF2 since 1.3 now uses about 1.6GB peak on high settings.

I'm only seeing 1.25Gbs at 1280x1024 6xAA 16xAF everything maxed.

ob1 · 20 Jun 2006 at 19:59

What size map and number of players though

Minstadave · 20 Jun 2006 at 20:28

ob1 said:
What size map and number of players though

Always play 64 player, and most maps

ob1 · 20 Jun 2006 at 20:46

This is just a quick go on karkland, full 64 players. Everything on medium, no AA . 1.1k by 864 res and high textures. Full clean boot but no processes or services ended before entering game, clean install of winxp pro x32 about a week ago.

I think it would go higher, I only visted about 4 bases, in a jet cruising over an entire map I could believe 1.6gb.