Vista might need 2gb of ram to play games

Associate
Joined
26 Sep 2005
Posts
1,853
Location
Tonbridge, Kent
Its from the Inquirer so you may have to take what they say with a pinch of salt. Just copied everything from the site as it has competitor advertisements.

"RECENTLY we managed to spend some time using a Vista machine. The machine had Athlon 4000+ and 2 GB of memory with Geforce 7800 GTX card. We installed a game and we didn’t have anything else than Far Cry at the moment. We wanted to check how much memory you actually will need to play games on Vista. We know it is a beta, but it will at least give you a feeling what could you expect from the final one.

We moved the community with our story where we said you need up to 800 MB memory just to run Vista. You can read it here and we have to say that we do know the difference between page file and the actual physical memory, but trust me you need 1GB memory just to work in Word or Paint using vista. People were claiming that the machine used 400MB of physical memory but it will work like a beaten horse with 512MB. It works slow even with 2GB.

Here is another cool shot for you. You can clearly see that you need more than 1GB of memory to run the game. Far Cry is not that an intensive game, and we ended up with 1.23 GB page file and you can see that we are running a single instance of Explorer and a task manager. "

vistag.jpg


"I have a fear of FEAR the game as it will eat significantly more than Far Cry. We FEAR that you might need even more than 2GB as FEAR of already wants 2GB memory under Windows XP. It works with 1GB as well but it works better with 2GB, and so does the Battlefield 2. We are sure that you will soon be able to buy 4GB gaming kits, at least by the end of the year when Vista gets closer."
 
I did wonder about this TBH, with all the new features they have put into this, but never realised that it took that much system resources just to get it up & running. If it takes this much, I cant see many people upgrading :rolleyes:
 
It's not even a Beta - it's a pre-beta. It isn't finished. Nothing has really been optimised.

I'll reserve judgement until it's actually released.
 
baring in mind its a beta, and i have hands on with it hear at work, its still very resource hungry and not optimised in the slightest yet.

So im not worried.

2gb is almost a must for a decent gaming experiance as it is, with xp. But i doubt we will be needing 4gb until xmas '07.

By which time i hope we will be using quad core cpus and so on lol.
 
I must admit I am tempted to get this as soon as its released, but then again maybe its better to wait for a month or so to see how peoples experiences are of the final release, along with all the patches to fix all the issues that start to appear as it very often does.

What is the best option?
I think my P3.2, 2gb machine will be able to tackle it, just a case of when
 
it runs fine on my 3.2 with 2gb of ram, it is clocked to 3.8ghz though lol.

But runs just fine.

Havent played any games as its at work lol.
 
Well pre-release MS OS's have used masses amounts of kernel memory in their testing phases. At the moment, using the latest beta, it uses about 500MB for a fresh install. When i first tested it about a year ago, it was using about 900MB! Chances are when it finally comes out it will use about 300MB.

Xp uses about 120MB on a clean install, making a 256MB system fine for general web surfing and office. I expect Vista will need 512MB for general web surfing and Office. And yeah, probably a Vista gaming rig will be sweet with 2GB.
 
Personally I think the statement "Vista will need 2GB to play games" is not far off the mark. It is especially true for the x64 edition. Quite why the Inquirer is peddling it as a "downside" to Vista is another matter...

As people have said though, the version they tested is pre-beta and therefore has a ton of debug and tracing code embedded inside it - including the kernel. Not only does this slow things down it also uses up lots more memory (e.g. for all the method symbols!) So their test was not much more than FUD.
 
I must admit though, it looks really nice, although it will be good to see the screenshots and what genuine people actually think of it. Some people have said that it takes a lot of getting used to. Is this true?

Some of the main people that will be hungry for this release is the gamers amongst us, with 2gb ram and powerful cpu's just waiting for a go, with DirectX 10 to look forward to. Just hope its as good as its expected to be
 
It's already well known that 2 Gb will be needed for games within the next six months even without Vista, so I don't see where the problem is here?
 
They will probably make the most use of duel cores with Vista (hopefully) being built with that especially in mind rather than a quick patching job that doesnt work as well IMO. Would be nice to see a new board with 4 memory slots, and if you fit in 4 x 1gb they could work it in "quad-channel" not sure if that cold be done or not?
 
Hehe I see that they're rewriting 60% of Vista by order of those up high.... starting now....

There's a people reshuffle too... so that sounds like those that didn't tow the line are being given the boot and the work going ahead...
 
doesn't everyone have 2gb anyway :cool: bf2

not optimised as everyone has already said, and a large percentage of ocuk users will have it within a year of release i reckon..
 
Dunno not sure i can get a good overclock on 2 gig of ram out of my Opty compared with 1 gig. Still the the graphics horse power that matters in-games not CPU speed
 
Back
Top Bottom