Upgraded: 512MB vs 1GB Benchmarks Inside

Sharky Forums


Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: Upgraded: 512MB vs 1GB Benchmarks Inside

  1. #1
    Tiger Shark Fiero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    697

    Upgraded: 512MB vs 1GB Benchmarks Inside

    First off, I submit to the forum that Stonez was right. 1 Gig is a lot better then 512Mb. Put it in your sig

    After reading tarentinos upgrade thread I decided to upgrade the Ram in both my fiance's and my own computers. I did some basic benchmarking afterword to see if I actually spent my money well. Of coarse, using my system for 10 minutes surfing the web ( I usually have about 30 tabs open at any given moment), has already proven it was WELL WORTH THE UPGRADE.

    I am not a professional reviewer nor a benchmark gamer. So I just used games I play a lot. I went from 2x256 Corsair XMS 2-2-2-5 DDR333 to 2X512 Corsair Value Select 2.5-3-3-8 DDR400 (at DDR33 speeds though). For the benchmarks I reduced the latency of the XMS to the same as the Value Select.

    Rig: AthlonXP 2600 Throughbred, Asus A7N8X Deluxe, WD Raptor 74GB, 9800PRO 256bit 128MB AGP card.


    Resolution 512MbFPS/1GBFPS 4XAA/8XAF 512MBFPS/1GBFPS

    Doom 3 Ultra TimeDemo1

    640x480 37/49 4XAA/8XAF 35/39
    1024x768 27/30 4XAA/8XAF 19/22
    1600x1200 11/16 4XAA/8XAF 9/10

    Doom 3 Medium TimeDemo1

    640x480 61/62 4XAA/8XAF 46/46
    1024x768 47/47 4XAA/8XAF 27/27 (odd, I know)
    1600x1200 20/21 4XAA/8XAF 12/12

    I rounded the decimals off because I simply don't care. But basically the benchmarks only tell one small part of the story. The game ran MUCH more fluidly. The stutters that were present with 512MB vanished with the RAM upgrade. The game smoothed out more then the number suggest.

    Unreal Tournament 2004

    Resolution 512MbFPS/1GBFPS 4XAA/8XAF 512MBFPS/1GBFPS

    UT2004 UTMARK Torlan w/ 12bots on Highest Graphics settings

    640x480 61/66 4XAA/8XAF 56/66
    1024x768 65/66 4XAA/8XAF 60/60
    1600x1200 25/26 4XAA/8XAF 25/26

    These numbers don't seem to show that much of gain. But again, what you don't see is how much smoother the game is. There simply WAS NO STUTTERING in the 1GB system. Seriously, it was much much much smoother. I recall seeing minimum frame rates of 1 and 2 FPS on the 512MB system. The 1GB rig has minimums were between 8 and 10. Much better.

    Some of you might be saying that the Cas 2 512MB might be faster then the Cas 2.5 1GB. So I ran the numbers same setting as before.

    640x480 54/61 4XAA/8XAF 61/56
    1024x768 64/65 4XAA/8XAF 60/60
    1600x1200 24/26 4XAA/8XAF 26/25

    Again, the numbers don't show the gain of smoothness going to 1GB. Let me say this now, in actual play, Cas 2.5 1GB absolutely smokes Cas 2 512mb. Again the minimum frame rates mirrored the previous benchmark

    I did game level load tests with BF1942. Here I can simply tell you that number don't lie. I loaded a single player level with max bots and AI.

    LEVEL 512MB Load/ 1GB Load (in seconds)

    El Alamen 42/19
    Stalingrad 36/17

    Read the numbers. Nuff said.


    I also upgraded my fiance's from 256MB to 512MB of Corsair Value Select Cas 2.5 DDR400. Huge benefits here.

    Rig: Barton 2500 @3200, Shuttle AN35ULTRA, Ti-4200 64MB, 30GB 7200RPM HD.

    Resolution 256MBFPS/512MBFPS 4XAA/8XAF 256MBFPS/512MBFPS

    UT2004 UTMARK Torlan w/ 12bots on Highest Graphics settings

    640x480 42/72 4XAA/8XAF 22/30
    1024x768 36/50 4XAA/8XAF 10/11
    1600x1200 20/23 4XAA/8XAF 06/06


    If you haven't upgraded, do it. It's the best $99 you'll spend. Multitasking is MUCH smoother, games load much faster and play more fluidly, and everything from OpenOffice to Windows load more quickly.
    Iím very discrete. I have no code of brand loyalty. I will build anything, anywhere; Gaming PC, workstation, HTPC, doesnít matter. I just love building.

  2. #2
    Bearded Kirklander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,814
    Thanks for taking the time to do the benchies and post 'em. Good work, mate.

  3. #3
    [Insert witty title here] Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,039
    Tell me about it!

    I'd never used more than 512Mb of RAM in any of my home machines, and I had always felt memory was one of the biggest weaknesses of my system.

    So with memory prices hitting rock bottoms these past few weeks, I decided to take the plunge.

    I ended up with 1gb of Corsair VS 3200, for only $100, and I'm very pleased.

    The difference is definetly noticeable over my 512 2700 Kingston RAM I had in my machine for so long. I might even throw another gig in a few months from now, if RAM prices stay low.
    Current System
    | Intel Core i7 950 | Gigabyte X58A-UD3R | OCZ 6Gb DDR3 1600 | PNY GeForce GTX 570 | WD Caviar Black 1TB | Windows 7 Pro x64

    Currently Playing: The Old Republic, Fallout New Vegas, Xenoblade Chronicles
    Last Completed:Super Mario Land 3D..... 8.5/10

  4. #4
    Bearded Kirklander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,814
    512 still works great for 9x machines.


  5. #5
    Tiger Shark Fiero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    697
    Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
    Thanks for taking the time to do the benchies and post 'em. Good work, mate.

    Welcome.

    I set the CAS on the new RAM to 2-3-3-7 and Prime tested over night with no problems. No stability issues either. I am going to slowly lower the CAS until I run into some problems. But I think I am probably already hit the limit.

    Of coarse, by my own benchmarks. We are talking maybe a 2% gain.
    Last edited by Fiero; 03-19-2005 at 12:43 PM.
    Iím very discrete. I have no code of brand loyalty. I will build anything, anywhere; Gaming PC, workstation, HTPC, doesnít matter. I just love building.

  6. #6
    Hammerhead Shark Russell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    2,826
    Definitely, thank you. Your experiences mirror my own. It's oh so smooooth.

    Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 400x8 1.37v
    Zalman CNPS9500
    ASUS P5k Deluxe WiFi-AP
    4x1GB Buffalo Firestix PC2-6400 @ 4-4-3-11 800mHz (3327MB shows up in Windows)
    500GB Seagate 7200.10
    eVGA 8800GTS 640MB (A3 stepping) @ 700/1080
    700W OCZ GameXStream
    Antec P182 (sooo quiet with all fans at low)
    22" Dell E228WFP Widescreen LCD
    Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
    3dMark06 Score with above OC: 11321

  7. #7
    nuclear launch detected kpxgq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    16,612
    anf for those of us who play games with bit-torrent, firefox and photoshop open, 2gb helps even more
    bitfenix prodigy, i5 4670k, asrock z87e-itx, zotac gtx 970, crucial m500 msata, seasonic x650, dell st2220t

  8. #8
    Richard M. Nixon '08 PCJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    8,187
    I agree completely. People only look at the benchmarks and don't believe anyone's gut feeling.
    In fact, I went from 512mb 3200 cl2 to 1gb 2700 cl2.5, and the 1gb is still nicer to work with.
    +++ F.O.R.U.M. I.L.L.U.M.I.N.A.T.I. +++
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvi
    How come you always choose the wrong side, first HD DVD, now Russians.

  9. #9
    Tiger Shark Stop_Sign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterloo, Ontario
    Posts
    567
    I use 512 and I can't run any stressful games like HL2 while running bittorrent, not smoothly at least. Damn I shoulda gotten 1 gig. I can't do anything about it now since I got nowhere to put my 512 if I get another gig.
    :: E6300 @ 3.2 GHz (1.22v) ::
    :: Gigabyte 965P-DS3 Rev. 2 ::
    :: BFG 7900GS @ 560/750 ::
    :: Buffalo Firestix 2x1024 @ 4-4-4-12 ::
    :: Seagate 160 GB SATA :: WD 250 GB SATA :: Seagate 320 GB eSATA
    :: Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic ::
    :: Enermax Noisetaker 420w ::

  10. #10
    Hammerhead Shark Z3R0C00L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,262
    Hmm, im probably the biggest jerk when it comes to suggesting that 1 gig doesnt help much.

    Can you tell me how any, but the load times, suggest that 1 gig helps? I see small or no improvements in almost all of your tests.

    Why doesnt this support my ideas? Help a brotha out, and thanks for doing the work, things like this really help me if they prove me right or wrong.

    Again, the biggest support for 1 gig helping is how it felt to you. But why isnt this recorded in the benchmarks then?

    For the record, going from 512 to 1 gig I saw no improvement in how fluid things were. They always have been fluid.
    Last edited by Z3R0C00L; 03-19-2005 at 08:12 PM.

  11. #11
    Mako Shark rusty c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,366
    I don't game much but adding more ram to any of my rigs always showed me a nice gain when having several windows open. Tho I never tried more then 1 Gig. Like said things just run more smoothly with more ram. Nows the time to buy more ram.
    AMD XP3200---INTEL P4 3200


    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(") Hail bunny!

  12. #12
    Hammerhead Shark Russell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    2,826
    Originally posted by kpxgq
    anf for those of us who play games with bit-torrent, firefox and photoshop open, 2gb helps even more
    I can see leaving Bit-torrent or a browser open when playing, but why Photoshop? It's like you're trying to find excuses to spend more money on new hardware

    Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 400x8 1.37v
    Zalman CNPS9500
    ASUS P5k Deluxe WiFi-AP
    4x1GB Buffalo Firestix PC2-6400 @ 4-4-3-11 800mHz (3327MB shows up in Windows)
    500GB Seagate 7200.10
    eVGA 8800GTS 640MB (A3 stepping) @ 700/1080
    700W OCZ GameXStream
    Antec P182 (sooo quiet with all fans at low)
    22" Dell E228WFP Widescreen LCD
    Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
    3dMark06 Score with above OC: 11321

  13. #13
    Tiger Shark tarentinos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oooooklahoma
    Posts
    714
    Gj Fiero. Very informative.

    I wish there was a way to measure the "smoothness" factor as well as benching it.
    I used to own a nice tower, but then it was too expensive to upgrade consistently. And I only play Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors DEATHMATCH. And that doesn't need a lot of power (PM me if you want to get in some games). So now I own a MacBook, but I like to think of myself as a well-informed Apple convert who still uses Windows sometimes.
    I like the internet. So I have this www.tarentinos.com for wallpapers that I make since it is a strange obsession of mine. How wonderful.

  14. #14
    Tiger Shark Fiero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    697
    Originally posted by Z3R0C00L
    Hmm, im probably the biggest jerk when it comes to suggesting that 1 gig doesnt help much.

    Can you tell me how any, but the load times, suggest that 1 gig helps? I see small or no improvements in almost all of your tests.

    Why doesnt this support my ideas? Help a brotha out, and thanks for doing the work, things like this really help me if they prove me right or wrong.

    Again, the biggest support for 1 gig helping is how it felt to you. But why isnt this recorded in the benchmarks then?

    For the record, going from 512 to 1 gig I saw no improvement in how fluid things were. They always have been fluid.
    Its in one of the paragraphs above. The minimum frame rates in UTMark went from 1FPS and 2FPS with 512Mb, to no less then 8 to 10FPS. That indicates a substantial increase in playability.

    Second, I sat there and watched (I feel for pro benchmarkers, I really do) the Doom benchmarks over and over again. I figured out exactly which spots would hang and pause. With the 1GB installed, those spots no longer glitched.

    Third, in a test I did today playing 4 hours of BF1942, I was able to actually run the game in 1600x1200 with AA and AF turned on smoothly, where as before it would have pauses and hanging.

    Fourth, lets look at the numbers.

    In Doom 3 Ultra we see increase ranging from as low as 11% to as high as 32%! That's pretty signifigant. In medium mode we see little change however. This is because most if not all of the textures were able to fit into the 128MB on my 9800PRO and not hit the main ram. Seems like the 1GB is worth nothing right? Wrong. The pausing we saw earlier has vanished. The game is smoother. Not just feels smoother. It is visually smoother to any one with normal human vision...and cats...probably dogs too. Same can be said and proved in UTMARK for unreal by the minimum frame rates.

    Oh and Just FYI...these "Value" modules run at CAS2 2-3-3-7 with Prime stability.

    Last edited by Fiero; 03-19-2005 at 09:41 PM.
    Iím very discrete. I have no code of brand loyalty. I will build anything, anywhere; Gaming PC, workstation, HTPC, doesnít matter. I just love building.

  15. #15
    nuclear launch detected kpxgq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    16,612
    Originally posted by Russell
    I can see leaving Bit-torrent or a browser open when playing, but why Photoshop? It's like you're trying to find excuses to spend more money on new hardware
    i do freelance graphics.... i literally use photoshop at least 3-5 times a day... it takes quite awhile for it to fully load up.. so i like to keep it running 24/7
    bitfenix prodigy, i5 4670k, asrock z87e-itx, zotac gtx 970, crucial m500 msata, seasonic x650, dell st2220t

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •