Any point in 4gigs and XP32?

Devlish · 7 Aug 2007 at 13:29

If I have a game that is incredibly memory intensive and I have windows XP 32bit, will I see a difference with 4gb over 2gb? I know XP will only see the 3gb but is it literally, 3gb are better than 2 or are there other considerations?

I would use the search feature but errr... nevermind.

thefishdude · 7 Aug 2007 at 14:51

hmm tough call like you said xp32bit only recognises 3gig maybe 3.5 cant remember now. personallu i would go for 2gigs of fast ram. if a particular game was memory intensive i would alos look out gfx cards with high mount sof on board ram that can hold more textures. especially if you playing higher res. ie over 1280x1024

what res do you play at and what gfx do you have ?

juno_first · 7 Aug 2007 at 16:55

I put a 2gig texture pack into Stalker & it was swapfiling all the time (even with 768mb on the graphics card) with 2gig of RAM so I got another 2gig (totalling 3.5gig) & Stalker runs great now.

I heard Crysis needs 4gig too.

Devlish · 7 Aug 2007 at 18:39

thx for replies.

I have an x1950xt at the mo, 256 ram so I think I need the bit extra! Will get the 4 gigs and get vista 64 once drivers and everything catch up with XP.

cheers.

Vimes · 7 Aug 2007 at 22:49

juno_first said:
I put a 2gig texture pack into Stalker ...........

Out of curiosity where did you get the texture pack from and how much difference does it make to the game...?

I am using the FLOAT32 mod...

http://www.thefloatingpoint.org/main/news.php

...and that looks pretty impressive, albeit not 2GB...!!!!!

BTW - I have found that when the game is running it uses less than 1GB for me.