Soldato
With only a few pounds in price between 4gb & 8gb kits, it's pointless buying 4gb kits now.
4gb vs 8gb
- Thread starter nitram100
- Start date
Associate
Hmm i'll give you i have IE and Chrome open but surely they cant be eating up all my RAM
moved to 12gb and now it's smooth my RAM usage during BF3 has actually gone up now to around 4.5gb.
Hey i agree, just got another 8GB added it to my current to make 12gb and I have zero stuttering issues now, i can go to desktop faster and it doesn't seem to crash, but more testing is required. Glad I upgraded.
Previously my ram usage when playing bf3 was at 3.8gb now its at about 4.2-4.5gb
Associate
I moved from 4 to 8 gig and Ive seen an improvement as well. Used to get a bit of stuttering in shogun total war 2 but thats gone now and general webbrowsing and photoshop is super quick.
SSD/8gig on win7-64 is a winning combo
SSD/8gig on win7-64 is a winning combo
Associate
I just ordered 12gb (3x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz C9), moving from 6gb I hope I'll notice some difference in bf3 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 250
I just ordered 12gb (3x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz C9), moving from 6gb I hope I'll notice some difference in bf3
overkill
Associate
Soldato
Everyone has their own views.
But, as memory is so cheap I've upgraded to 12gb on my nephew's gaming rig, & 16gb on each of my own rigs (both 2500K- o/c 4.6, 6950).
Photoshop issues working with large images are gone, & it's very quick now, & at last NO stuttering
, every thing is very smooth when gaming now.
Associate
I hope my stuttering issues will be gone too, but I guess it's probably my SLI setup and just 1.5GB vram, oh well at least I'll have....... 12....gb.....of....ram 
THis is a very interesting topic.
I have seen quite a lot of micro stuttering in bf3 - it was driving me nuts and making me not want to play it - you dont spend £0000's and expect games to not run great (not showing off just being honest - i was waiting for more updates before I played)
however discussing it with my cousin he was getting freezes and stuff while playing - he has 2600k @ 4.8 and 480 sli so he is in a similar boat to me.
He reinstalled his comp and that helped but we summised it might be our ram speed that was causing it (tried messing aroudn with everythign else) 4gb vengeance @ 1600mhz
We oc'd the ram using the settings for the faster Vengeance you can buy - i.e. we loosened the timings and up the volts a bit and the difference was instantly noticeable.
9-10-9-27 1866 @ 1.6volts
The game run smoother and more importantly more consistently.
What I have found most interesting reading this is that people are reporting higher than 4gb usage when they have more than 4gb installed.
For those of you who dont try ocing / making it faster with looser timings and see if you think it improves the consistency / flow as I have found so far with my testing
I have seen quite a lot of micro stuttering in bf3 - it was driving me nuts and making me not want to play it - you dont spend £0000's and expect games to not run great (not showing off just being honest - i was waiting for more updates before I played)
however discussing it with my cousin he was getting freezes and stuff while playing - he has 2600k @ 4.8 and 480 sli so he is in a similar boat to me.
He reinstalled his comp and that helped but we summised it might be our ram speed that was causing it (tried messing aroudn with everythign else) 4gb vengeance @ 1600mhz
We oc'd the ram using the settings for the faster Vengeance you can buy - i.e. we loosened the timings and up the volts a bit and the difference was instantly noticeable.
9-10-9-27 1866 @ 1.6volts
The game run smoother and more importantly more consistently.
What I have found most interesting reading this is that people are reporting higher than 4gb usage when they have more than 4gb installed.
For those of you who dont try ocing / making it faster with looser timings and see if you think it improves the consistency / flow as I have found so far with my testing
Last edited:
probably people who have photoshop , numerous webpages, itunes etc running in the background
my memory usage after a round of caspian border on a 64player server
theres no shared video ram with system ram until your gpu runs out of memory either... and once your gpu starts usingf system ram your going to get massive lag spikes even if you have 1 terabyte of ram because system ram just isnt fast enough for gpus
Completely untrue that shared ram causes 'massive lag spikes', when for just about everyone else it is 'fixing lag spikes'.
Either way, you only have 300 Mb free ram there. If you had 1 Gb video cards, BF3 would be running like crap. If you upgraded to 8 Gb ram, BF3 would stop running like crap, because guess what? You would have enough ram for the game to use shared video ram. Also you are capped to a hard limit of 4 Gb and your PC is completely completely using all of that minus 300 mb. How do you expect to see any more ram usage when you dont have any more physical ram? Your Screenshots shows that your PC needs more ram, I dont get why you wouldnt upgrade to 8 Gb for the £30 or so that it currently costs.
Shared video ram reduces lag spikes, it doesnt cause more!
I dont use photoshop or any other ram hungry programs while gaming, all I have open is the web browser and a few windows at the most. Yet my PC can find a way to utilize all of its ram for caching system or graphics data. I always see people with only 4 Gb ram constantly complaining about lag spikes and blaming it on not having enough Vram, but no one with 8 Gb+ ram has these issues, so its very obvious to me that shared ram is nowhere near as slow as people wrongly think it is.
Last edited:
For your first point, I agree that higher ram speed and / or lower timings can improve performance. In fact, in several reviews I've read, and tests I've done myself - Maximum FPS isnt affected at all by faster ram, however, min / average FPS do increase by around 3-5 FPS in a lot of games.
And for your second point this is also very true - if someone only has 4 Gb ram installed, how are they ever going to see their ram usage exceed that limit when they dont have more ram available?
Also shared ram being used to cache video ram does not slow down performance in games in anyway, it vastly speeds it up compared to your PC having to read that data off the HDD if you only have 1 Gb Vram and 4 Gb system ram. And right now for most people, buying more ram is a far easier and cost effective solution than buying new video cards is.
Well I'm running 12 Gb on X58 at 1900 Mhz and 7-8-7-24 timings
I tried 24 Gb of 1600 Mhz stuff, and it was worse in game benchmarks so I went back to my lovely 2 Gb modules.
Last edited:
For your first point, I agree that higher ram speed and / or lower timings can improve performance. In fact, in several reviews I've read, and tests I've done myself - Maximum FPS isnt affected at all by faster ram, however, min / average FPS do increase by around 3-5 FPS in a lot of games.
And for your second point this is also very true - if someone only has 4 Gb ram installed, how are they ever going to see their ram usage exceed that limit when they dont have more ram available?
Also shared ram being used to cache video ram does not slow down performance in games in anyway, it vastly speeds it up compared to your PC having to read that data off the HDD if you only have 1 Gb Vram and 4 Gb system ram. And right now for most people, buying more ram is a far easier and cost effective solution than buying new video cards is.
Well I'm running 12 Gb on X58 at 1900 Mhz and 7-8-7-24 timings
I tried 24 Gb of 1600 Mhz stuff, and it was worse in game benchmarks so I went back to my lovely 2 Gb modules.
I didnt say higher fps - I said smoother and more consistent - i dont think the fps would change much
There was far less micro stuttering that I was getting before.
I read a lot of reviews before buying my sandy and they all said that lower cas is better on the platform or there is no benefit in games with faster ram
However the games that were tested were older and nowhere near as demanding as on ram, as BF3.
I am still testing but to me the game peforms better (smoother and more cosistent gameplay) with faster ram and looser timings when only running 4gb.
Turning the ram speed up from 1600 to 1866 removed the vast majority of what I think people are calling "lag spikes" - I assume thats what I was getting, I call it micro stuttering or micro lag
The things that drive you nuts and make you want to uninstall the game
Currently priming my 1600mhz Vengeance at 2100 mhz - hoping that will 99.9% erase them
Last edited:
This is what I discovered with my own tests, and I got the same results with two lots of 6 x 4 Gb Corsair and G Skill ram:
But theres nothing I can do to replicate the lower results I got with two lots of 24 Gb 4 Gb sticks on my 2 Gb sticks - even if I set them to 1600 Mhz 10-10-10-30 2T, they still perform consistently higher than the 4 Gb sticks did, which I have no idea why this happens.
With 4 Gb modules I was capped at around 1800 points and an average framerate of 30 in this benchmark, but on my 2 Gb modules I get over 2000 points and a consistently higher average FPS. Neither of my 4 Gb sets would overclock at all, the G Skills actually became faulty within 3 weeks and I got a refund (strange), and the corsair vengeances are being sold. No more 4 Gb sticks for me, but I have 6 x 2 Gb that runs at much tighter timings and higher frequencies.
The bottom result was someone elses with the same CPU and clock speed, but 2 Gb GTX 560 tis. I outperform that by simply changing my ram.
But theres nothing I can do to replicate the lower results I got with two lots of 24 Gb 4 Gb sticks on my 2 Gb sticks - even if I set them to 1600 Mhz 10-10-10-30 2T, they still perform consistently higher than the 4 Gb sticks did, which I have no idea why this happens.
With 4 Gb modules I was capped at around 1800 points and an average framerate of 30 in this benchmark, but on my 2 Gb modules I get over 2000 points and a consistently higher average FPS. Neither of my 4 Gb sets would overclock at all, the G Skills actually became faulty within 3 weeks and I got a refund (strange), and the corsair vengeances are being sold. No more 4 Gb sticks for me, but I have 6 x 2 Gb that runs at much tighter timings and higher frequencies.
The bottom result was someone elses with the same CPU and clock speed, but 2 Gb GTX 560 tis. I outperform that by simply changing my ram.
Last edited:
Associate
so looking at these posts, I'm kinda ****ed buying 12GB 3x4GB... better stick to my 6GB 3x2GB? 
Don't make much sense to me... anyway I'll test my 12GB kit , it tonight should have arrived.
Don't make much sense to me... anyway I'll test my 12GB kit , it tonight should have arrived.
For me 6x2 Gb sticks are better for OCing and performance than either 3x4 or 6x4 Gb.
I think the 4 Gb sticks must have a higher latency or something, even when the timings and speeds are all the same they perform worse than my 2 Gb sticks.
The problem is, you cant get performance 2 Gb sticks anymore, everything is changing over to 4 Gb sticks as the standard with 2 Gb sticks being phased out or costing too much. Also those results could have been limited to only that one game, it might not be the case in others.
The cheapo 1600 Mhz 4 Gb are good for the money, but I paid a lot more for what I thought was higher specified 4 Gb sticks, and it wasnt any better, just a load of poop compared to my 2 Gb geil ultra sticks.
Performance modules are rated either cas 6 1600 Mhz for 2 Gb sticks, or cas 7 1600 Mhz for 4 Gb sticks, these are what you ideally want, but the excess cost on them isnt worth it for only a slight improvement to min / avg FPS, or slightly less lag spikes.
Ive also tried 3 vs 6 modules across each set of ram I've had, and it didnt afect overclocking in the slightest bit. I put in 3x2 Gb modules, I still cant get them stable at 2000 Mhz on X58 even at cas 9 (2133 Mhz rated modules), but I stick all 6 in and they are running happily at 1900 Mhz 7-8-6-22-72-1T?
The modules cant be faulty, with 1900 Mhz Cas 7 they should go a lot higher on cas 9 (elipda chips that people used to get up to 2400 Mhz on dual channel boards), the issue is the X58 memory controller, but swapping between 3 or 6 modules did nothing to improve it.
All the 4 Gb sticks I tried did 1600 Mhz cas 9, or 1800 Mhz cas 10 with 3 or 6 modules installed which is pure poop for me. Even if it barely makes any difference, I still want to overclock my ram and run it at decent timings if I can, and the best way of doing that is with my 2 Gb geil ultra modules which would give me (slightly) better performance in lots of games, particularly with minimum frame rates and reduced lag spikes due to it having a lot less latency and much more bandwidth.
This is probably why I dont get any lag when shared memory is being used because my 2 Gb sticks run at cas 6 1700 mhz, or cas 7 1900 mhz. In the metro bench my Vram useage is capped at 1000+ Mb, but I only notice lag when the FPS counter goes under 25.But I didnt get any 'lagspikes' on my 4 Gb modules either, just lower min / avg framerates. Lag spikes would definitely happen if I only used 4 Gb ram, I could have tested this, but cant do now because all my ram modules are blocked with my massive CPU cooler.
A lot of enthusiasts on Xtreme Systems have Rampage III Extremes running with 6 Gb of corsair dominators at 2000 Mhz @ Cas 6 timings! But 6 Gb isnt enough either to me, it has to be 8 Gb minimum to have enough ram for both gaming + caching, and as low latency and high a bandwidth as possible (which may have am impact when shared ram is being used to cache excess Vram data).
Alternatively, just get graphics cards with more Vram, but that is a much more expensive upgrade, and it doesnt make any difference in the metro benchmark while lower latency ram does.
No, I dont think that 6 Gb is adequate:
- 4 Gb for your game (people are showing BF3 using up to 4.5 Gb ram in this thread)
- 1 Gb for windows and backgound apps
- 3 Gb for shared ram / system ram caching (graphics drivers automatically allocate a maximum of 3 Gb system ram for shared graphics ram)
= 8 Gb ram, which costs around £30-40 atm. Add 2-3 Gb Vram on top if you can with your next graphics card purchase to completely eliminate all ram / vram limitations / bottlenecks, but I wouldnt worry about Vram until the next generation of cards as right now a 1280 Mb GTX 570 is still outperforming 2 Gb GTX 560 tis / 6950s in just about everything, showing that Vram is currently not a bottleneck.
I know that its better to stick to 4x2 Gb or 6x2 Gb of higher specified ram, but I wouldnt worry about this unless you already have some high spec 2 Gb modules like I have. On Z68 / X79, you can get superfast 4 Gb modules now that run over 2000 Mhz which would overcome any bandwidth or latency bottlenecks, but X58 is a major pita to get working with anything higher than 1600 Mhz ram.
The best thing for X58 is Cas 6 1600 Mhz ram. For Z68 / 1155 / 1156, 2000+ Mhz ram is what you ideally want, but the difference is not worth the cost over the current prices on 1600 Mhz cas 9 sticks, its only a few FPS improvement at the most.
I think the 4 Gb sticks must have a higher latency or something, even when the timings and speeds are all the same they perform worse than my 2 Gb sticks.
The problem is, you cant get performance 2 Gb sticks anymore, everything is changing over to 4 Gb sticks as the standard with 2 Gb sticks being phased out or costing too much. Also those results could have been limited to only that one game, it might not be the case in others.
The cheapo 1600 Mhz 4 Gb are good for the money, but I paid a lot more for what I thought was higher specified 4 Gb sticks, and it wasnt any better, just a load of poop compared to my 2 Gb geil ultra sticks.
Performance modules are rated either cas 6 1600 Mhz for 2 Gb sticks, or cas 7 1600 Mhz for 4 Gb sticks, these are what you ideally want, but the excess cost on them isnt worth it for only a slight improvement to min / avg FPS, or slightly less lag spikes.
Ive also tried 3 vs 6 modules across each set of ram I've had, and it didnt afect overclocking in the slightest bit. I put in 3x2 Gb modules, I still cant get them stable at 2000 Mhz on X58 even at cas 9 (2133 Mhz rated modules), but I stick all 6 in and they are running happily at 1900 Mhz 7-8-6-22-72-1T?
The modules cant be faulty, with 1900 Mhz Cas 7 they should go a lot higher on cas 9 (elipda chips that people used to get up to 2400 Mhz on dual channel boards), the issue is the X58 memory controller, but swapping between 3 or 6 modules did nothing to improve it.
All the 4 Gb sticks I tried did 1600 Mhz cas 9, or 1800 Mhz cas 10 with 3 or 6 modules installed which is pure poop for me. Even if it barely makes any difference, I still want to overclock my ram and run it at decent timings if I can, and the best way of doing that is with my 2 Gb geil ultra modules which would give me (slightly) better performance in lots of games, particularly with minimum frame rates and reduced lag spikes due to it having a lot less latency and much more bandwidth.
This is probably why I dont get any lag when shared memory is being used because my 2 Gb sticks run at cas 6 1700 mhz, or cas 7 1900 mhz. In the metro bench my Vram useage is capped at 1000+ Mb, but I only notice lag when the FPS counter goes under 25.But I didnt get any 'lagspikes' on my 4 Gb modules either, just lower min / avg framerates. Lag spikes would definitely happen if I only used 4 Gb ram, I could have tested this, but cant do now because all my ram modules are blocked with my massive CPU cooler.
A lot of enthusiasts on Xtreme Systems have Rampage III Extremes running with 6 Gb of corsair dominators at 2000 Mhz @ Cas 6 timings! But 6 Gb isnt enough either to me, it has to be 8 Gb minimum to have enough ram for both gaming + caching, and as low latency and high a bandwidth as possible (which may have am impact when shared ram is being used to cache excess Vram data).
Alternatively, just get graphics cards with more Vram, but that is a much more expensive upgrade, and it doesnt make any difference in the metro benchmark while lower latency ram does.
so looking at these posts, I'm kinda ****ed buying 12GB 3x4GB... better stick to my 6GB 3x2GB?
No, I dont think that 6 Gb is adequate:
- 4 Gb for your game (people are showing BF3 using up to 4.5 Gb ram in this thread)
- 1 Gb for windows and backgound apps
- 3 Gb for shared ram / system ram caching (graphics drivers automatically allocate a maximum of 3 Gb system ram for shared graphics ram)
= 8 Gb ram, which costs around £30-40 atm. Add 2-3 Gb Vram on top if you can with your next graphics card purchase to completely eliminate all ram / vram limitations / bottlenecks, but I wouldnt worry about Vram until the next generation of cards as right now a 1280 Mb GTX 570 is still outperforming 2 Gb GTX 560 tis / 6950s in just about everything, showing that Vram is currently not a bottleneck.
I know that its better to stick to 4x2 Gb or 6x2 Gb of higher specified ram, but I wouldnt worry about this unless you already have some high spec 2 Gb modules like I have. On Z68 / X79, you can get superfast 4 Gb modules now that run over 2000 Mhz which would overcome any bandwidth or latency bottlenecks, but X58 is a major pita to get working with anything higher than 1600 Mhz ram.
The best thing for X58 is Cas 6 1600 Mhz ram. For Z68 / 1155 / 1156, 2000+ Mhz ram is what you ideally want, but the difference is not worth the cost over the current prices on 1600 Mhz cas 9 sticks, its only a few FPS improvement at the most.
Last edited:
Soldato
With memory so cheap, I have installed 16gb (4x4gb) in each of the four pc's I have.
Well ive now installed 8Gb to go with my 4GB, so running 12Gb seems to be a lot better for gaming, BF3 was leaving me with at least 700mb when i had just 4gb but now its only using about 4.5gb. Its a lot better now with 12gb. I may in the future drop the 4gb and get another 8gb but i know i wont be needing that just yet.