4GB RAM and games

[Chris_83]

Can't find many benchmarks with this so whats your opinions of using upwards of 2gb for gaming (I'm on XP so could only achieve 3.25 - 3.5GB). Types of games include FPS/RTS. Would the increase in performance ( if any ) be worth the £60?

 

[ttreaders]

I'd say you won't notice any difference using xp.

 

[YoungBlood]

If your on XP 32 bit it's a pointless upgrade anyway, but even if you was'nt I still think 4gig is overkill for games. Keep the £60 in your pocket.

 

[Chris_83]

Ok cheers for the feedback.

 

[Aod]

I'd say you won't notice any difference using xp.

not true at all.

the jump from 2GB to 3.25GB will still be significant in new games like Bioshock or big games of BF2

 

[ttreaders]

With Vista yeah, not XP

 

[NickK]

there's a switch for XP that allows it to use upto 3GB.

 

[HangTime]

I doubt games like Bioshock or BF2 are using over 2gig RAM on XP.

 

[helmutcheese]

In XP 2GB is enough for the high end games that have used it since COD2, FEAR etc.

And there is not a real switch to use more than 3GB of Memory in XP or any 32bit OS, it simply allocates the extra 1GB you dont see to be used as a Page File (ok faster than the HDD).

You will see somewhere between 3GB and 3.5GB in XP dpending on how much Memory your GPU has, I seen 3.25GB in XP with 768MB of Video Memory.

If you want to use all 4GB you need run XP64 or Vista64.

 

[silversurfer]

BF2 uses about 2.5gig in xp when I play the PR mod for it. Anything on top of that might be usefull for caching and you'd not need to use the page file at all, usefull

 

[helmutcheese]

Windows will use more RAM if you give it more, but for high end gaming 2GB is the sweet spot for XP 32, MS have stated this, same story for Vista but 4GB (obv need 64bit).

I felt my Vista64 was crap with 2GB not even gaming, just unraring files etc.

 

[Aod]

i think thats just because vista IS crap.

 

[helmutcheese]

Not really its now on PAR with XP for games, I tested it offically and did not like it, but now support is better for drivers etc, and each new OS will be more hungry, same as XP needed more resources than Win 95/98 etc (wont even inc ME pos).

Its also cheap to buy 2GB-4GB today, far less then 512MB-1GB was back when XP was newish.

 

[HAz]

i think thats just because vista IS crap.

Well its better than xp

 

[helmutcheese]

Well, its getting there, and the SP1 aint major BTW.

 

[Aod]

Well its better than xp

i disagree.

so far, i still prefer XP to vista. when my new rig (4gigabytes) arrives (should be tomorrow) i'm putting XP x64 on it.

 

[neocon]

getting rid of my 2x512

which 2x1gb should I get?

OCZ 2GB (2 x 1GB) PC2-6400C4 Dual Channel Platinum Revision 2 XTC Series DDR2 (OCZ2P800R22GK)

Click image to enlarge
This Week Only Offer
was £46.99 ex vat
£38.99
£45.81 inc VAT

or

GeIL 2GB (2x1GB) PC6400C4 800MHz Black Dragon DDR2 Dual Channel Kit (GB22GB6400C4DC)

Click image to enlarge
This Week Only Offer
was £49.99 ex vat
£41.99
£49.34 inc VAT

or

GeIL 2GB (2x1GB) PC6400C4 800MHz Ultra Low Latency DDR2 Dual Channel Kit (GX22GB6400UDC)

Click image to enlarge
£44.99
£52.86 inc VAT


thanks

 

[markyb]

not true at all.

the jump from 2GB to 3.25GB will still be significant in new games like Bioshock or big games of BF2

I dissagree.

On a decent rig Bioshock maxxed out will not even use 1.5Gb of Ram throughout the whole game. Same goes for Battlefield 2 and 2142. Therefore an extra 2Gb of Ram to make 4Gb will be of No benefit what so ever.

Vista does use more ram but still I havent ever gone over 1.7Gb of Ram when running any games. Running Vista SB x32 and XP 32bit.

 

[modo77]

i disagree.

so far, i still prefer XP to vista. when my new rig (4gigabytes) arrives (should be tomorrow) i'm putting XP x64 on it.

That really would be a waste, vista is far better than xp these days for general use. And gaming is the same as xp

 

[Kobrakai]

That really would be a waste, vista is far better than xp these days for general use. And gaming is the same as xp

I agree 100%. Quoted for Emphasis.