Upgraded: 512MB vs 1GB Benchmarks Inside - Page 2

Sharky Forums


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Upgraded: 512MB vs 1GB Benchmarks Inside

  1. #16
    πr≤ rabidmoose171's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Domestic War Zone
    Posts
    5,023
    Originally posted by Stop_Sign
    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.
    just buy another stick of 512

  2. #17
    Bearded Kirklander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,814
    Bit Torrent is what you should run on your 2nd or 3rd machine, maybe? Sure makes cost justifying a new machine a bit easier, I must say...
    Last edited by Bearded Kirklander; 03-20-2005 at 08:04 AM.

  3. #18
    Mako Shark Bootleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    T. Dot!
    Posts
    3,486
    but it's nice to have all your movies/music/otherstuff *cough* on your main rig. unless you've got a super fast lan in which you can transer files between comps, it nice to run most stuff on the main rig.
    "If brute force doesn't solve your problem, then your not using enough!"

    P4 3ghz // Asus P5P800 // 1gb RAM // Radeon 9800pro // Seagate 160gb 7200.7 // LG DVD Burner // Lite-On CD Burner // Viewsonic PF795 19" // Altec Lansing ACS54 // Sony Studio Monitor Headphones

  4. #19
    Hammerhead Shark Z3R0C00L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,262
    No offence, but why bother playing these games at 640 by 480?

    And that is, as I said initially, the only area where you seem to gain fps.

    If you do a test at 1600, where even I with a ti 4400 play half life 2, you will find that ram volume hardly matters at all. And video card really dictates performance, as usual.

  5. #20
    Bearded Kirklander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,814
    Originally posted by Bootleg
    but it's nice to have all your movies/music/otherstuff *cough* on your main rig. unless you've got a super fast lan in which you can transer files between comps, it nice to run most stuff on the main rig.
    Download on one, move 'em over to the main one when finished.

  6. #21
    Bearded Kirklander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,814
    Originally posted by Z3R0C00L
    No offence, but why bother playing these games at 640 by 480?

    And that is, as I said initially, the only area where you seem to gain fps.

    If you do a test at 1600, where even I with a ti 4400 play half life 2, you will find that ram volume hardly matters at all. And video card really dictates performance, as usual.
    Some online gamers and competitive gamers like 640x480 for the ultimate in speed, or so I have read. Them CPL dudes maybe?

  7. #22
    Tiger Shark Fiero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    697
    Originally posted by Z3R0C00L
    No offence, but why bother playing these games at 640 by 480?

    And that is, as I said initially, the only area where you seem to gain fps.

    If you do a test at 1600, where even I with a ti 4400 play half life 2, you will find that ram volume hardly matters at all. And video card really dictates performance, as usual.
    None taken but, I don't think a 10% to 45% increase in Doom 3 in 1600 is something to be ignored.

    More over, again I refer to the minimum frame rates. In UT2004 with 512MB there minimum frame rates of 1 to 2 in all tests. With 1GB we saw 8 to 10FPS minimum. 4X to 10X improvement!

    Load times were cut in half. Multi-tasking improved. The system simply runs better.

    What detail level do you run HL2 in at 1600?
    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.

  8. #23
    Tiger Shark Fiero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    697
    Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
    Some online gamers and competitive gamers like 640x480 for the ultimate in speed, or so I have read. Them CPL dudes maybe?

    Correct. But also it will also show less of the limits of the video card and more of the limits of supporting components.
    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.

  9. #24
    Hammerhead Shark Z3R0C00L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,262
    The point is, as much as I love to see your benchmark work, the use of very low end benches really overstates the need for ram.

    The load time improvement is shocking to me, and that alone might be worth the ram. But the changes in game, im not quite sold...

  10. #25
    Tiger Shark Fiero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    697
    Originally posted by Z3R0C00L
    The point is, as much as I love to see your benchmark work, the use of very low end benches really overstates the need for ram.

    The load time improvement is shocking to me, and that alone might be worth the ram. But the changes in game, im not quite sold...

    Doom 3 at 1600x1200 set to Ultra Quality is low end? What's your definition of high end?

    Last edited by Fiero; 03-20-2005 at 10:39 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.

  11. #26
    Mako Shark stonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,073
    Z3rocool. Try playing unreal 2k4 or an equally cpu/ram eating game. Then alt-tab out of it in the middle of the game. Try opening windows, ie, firefox etc. If you are getting the same results with 512mb than we are with 1gb, then you must not be loading very much on start up.. Kudos if you are though. But for me and these others, we find 1gb to be a VERY worthwhile upgrade. We multitask out the wazzooo.. Now my findings are with my P4 3Ghz. When I had 1gb in my wifes AMD 2000+, the gains were VERY minimal. But then again I wasn't playing Unreal 2k4 etc on her computer.

  12. #27
    Hammerhead Shark Z3R0C00L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,262
    Originally posted by stonez
    Z3rocool. Try playing unreal 2k4 or an equally cpu/ram eating game. Then alt-tab out of it in the middle of the game. Try opening windows, ie, firefox etc.
    Well first of all its too late because I have 1 gig of ram. And second, you sound like the mac people who suggest a ton of things that I would never need to do. I ran 2k4 on my old computer, a p4 2.0 with 512 of ram and it was just fine. But when I play a computer game, I dont alt tab out of it unless it has just crashed. Sorry, for me multitasking never really is a problem during games, because I focus on my game.

    And 512 works fine for the multi tasking I do, which means basically anything other than play a game and do other things at once. It includes AIM, watching a video or dvd, using IE, taking screen shots, editing the shots, copying files, dling things. I often will be this busy, and 512 and 1 gig both work for this, and without benchmarks, I cant tell the difference.

    I just have to resist the urge people have towards setting the minimum way too high. From 512 to 1 gig, you gain 0 to 20% in a select few instances, 1 gig to 2 gigs? A few percent. Diminishing returns are hit once you pass 512, and certainly once you pass 1 gig. A serious gamer could live just fine with 512 megs of ram, they would focus on a better video card. A serious multitasker would be better to focus first on a faster P4. Ram is a backseat issue really, and its just that those extra 512 wont always show improvements to normal people doing normal things. And I want to make it clear that for me, it didnt help all that much. Id hate for a guy looking for advice on a new system to read this, and buy extra ram that really wont help him.
    Last edited by Z3R0C00L; 03-21-2005 at 12:11 AM.

  13. #28
    Mako Shark stonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,073
    I agree. 1GB may not help everyone. It helped me. I went from a 2100+ with 512mb to a p4 3ghz with the same 512mb. I noticed a big difference when I upgraded to 1gb. Also It is dual channel, if anyone cares about that. My 2100+ seemed to handle 512mb better than my intel did, My intel seemed to hate 512mb. So read whatever into that, because I don't have an answer of why. I would suggest someone building a GAME ONLY computer to buy 2x256mb of High quality ram to run in dual channel and an AMD 64. Now someone who wants more of a game/multitask, I would obviously suggest INTEL/1GIG of ram. I have shifted from mostly games to occasional games and a lot more multitasking. Now my next computer will probably be an AMD, IF they stay faster in games. I think with these new dual core processors the whole HT makes Faster go go multitasking will be obsolete. We will see what happens there. But for now I'm sticking to a GIG because I like it and I can see the differnce. I would like to see how many 1gb AMD users are experiencing what you do as far as 512mb vs 1gb being no different. Maybe it is only an Intel thing?

  14. #29
    Sleeps with the Fishes Freddy_Kruger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7,770
    I went from 512 to a gig, not sure if there was any difference but at least I can brag that I got a gig.

  15. #30
    Mako Shark stonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,073
    Originally posted by Freddy_Kruger
    I went from 512 to a gig, not sure if there was any difference but at least I can brag that I got a gig.
    lol I would like people to post if a gig made a difference and what processor they have.

    ME..

    YES and Intel P4 530 3ghz

Posting Permissions

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