Don
but it's good to see the differences between them, to find the 'sweet spot'
personally i love my 8gb
Corsair researches performance increase of 4GB over 2GB of RAM
- Thread starter helmutcheese
- Start date
but it's good to see the differences between them, to find the 'sweet spot'
personally i love my 8gb
but it's good to see the differences between them, to find the 'sweet spot'
personally i love my 8gb
Give it a few years and you'll be saying "i love my 32Gb"
I can't help wondering if Vista ties into that...
Soldato
it's all well having 4ggi but if like me are on 32bit OS then would see it all
thats why the chap asking for tests for xp/vista 32 and 64 from 512mb to 8gb is just barking up the wrong tree.
like it or not xp is dead, vista almost won't run on 512mb and I believe the recommended is 1gb so why test it with less than the recommended and the 32bit OS' won't see past 3GB(ish) so the 2GB/4GB comparison is the most "live" debate.
I'd like to see a separate test on 4gb to 8gb in vista 64 though, that could be interesting.
like it or not xp is dead, vista almost won't run on 512mb and I believe the recommended is 1gb so why test it with less than the recommended and the 32bit OS' won't see past 3GB(ish) so the 2GB/4GB comparison is the most "live" debate.
I'd like to see a separate test on 4gb to 8gb in vista 64 though, that could be interesting.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1,386
yep, if Crysis is 1x faster, you mean it's (almost) exactly the same speed? =\
The graph makes it look like you see improvements in all areas.
Thats the entire point, its showing you crysis has no increase
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
no point in going for 2gb anymore imo... RAM is cheap now and 4gb is much more future proof 
Soldato
The more I look at the graph, the more wary I become - The 4.6x CoH improvement is the best improvement - the average improvement was 1.2x so if some of it was 4.6 then some of it must have been massively slower, no? Or, more realistically, most of the time there was no improvement at all. The same with Crysis - If the average is 1.0 ie. the same, and the best improvement they got was 1.5 then sometimes Crysis must have been running half as fast.
So maybe not so clear cut after all? In fact, my guess is that 4Gb is no better than 2Gb most of the time.
So maybe not so clear cut after all? In fact, my guess is that 4Gb is no better than 2Gb most of the time.
Soldato
1.7x faster game loading is nothing to be sniffed at either
do any of those tests indicate the snappiness of the OS? I know following everest etc that vista is happy to fill about half of whatever you've got (and no I don't think its a hog, I think its dynamically using whats spare which I think is a great idea and to be applauded not moaned about as MS haters love to do) and I have noticed after the switch to 4GB that folder opening/picture opening/low level app opening etc is much much faster.
Its like you're flicking on/off switches on actually requesting that you open or close things.
Its like you're flicking on/off switches on actually requesting that you open or close things.
Don
Task switching covers that I think matt100.
Soldato
my old pc....
single core pentium m @ 2.4ghz, 2gb ram, vista32
new pc
e2180 @ 3ghz, 4gb ram, vista64
i really am hard pushed to tell the difference between the two on the windows desktop.
Quelle suprise
Windows desktop hardly pushes a system though, does it? In benchies the new machine will destroy the old one but it's a bit like driving a Gallardo and a 2CV in a straight line in a 30 zone - both are just doing 30, but one has a lot more left in it than the other one.
indeed. but you'd think it would given some of the ramblings i see everyday in the windows forum. apparently vista with anything less than 4gb of ram is crap. even a single core cpu isn't enough to power it either.
absolutely. gaming is much faster now. admittedly i upgraded my gpu too.
Don
indeed. but you'd think it would given some of the ramblings i see everyday in the windows forum. apparently vista with anything less than 4gb of ram is crap. even a single core cpu isn't enough to power it either.
i ramble those things a lot
This does really prove that i need 4GB ram, of course 4GB ram won't give speed increases in most games, that's not what it does. It will however make multitasking a lot more pleasant, i'm playing Age of Conan which uses 1.3GB RAM and with Vista on top of that, it's horrible.
If you want faster gaming etc you need FASTER ram unless you're already RAM limited, going to 8GB won't make it any faster either, it's only if the game is caching to the HD that RAM helps. But 4GB is quickly becoming a standard and that's a good thing, most things are 64-bit compatible by now too
If you want faster gaming etc you need FASTER ram unless you're already RAM limited, going to 8GB won't make it any faster either, it's only if the game is caching to the HD that RAM helps. But 4GB is quickly becoming a standard and that's a good thing, most things are 64-bit compatible by now too
Im surprised this is still questionable to be honest
Ive had 4GB in most of my pc's for the last 2-3 years, even in general every day use 4GB is far smoother to use than 2GB (with lots fo disck swapping)
No matter whether its XP or Vista (32 bit or 64) - and due to the inherrant overheads with Vista, I just hate it without 4GB (without turning stuff off)
Ive had 4GB in most of my pc's for the last 2-3 years, even in general every day use 4GB is far smoother to use than 2GB (with lots fo disck swapping)
No matter whether its XP or Vista (32 bit or 64) - and due to the inherrant overheads with Vista, I just hate it without 4GB (without turning stuff off)