NotebookForums.com › Forums › NotebookForums Gaming Community › PC Gaming Support (peer to peer) › Are any games using over 1 gig of ram?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are any games using over 1 gig of ram?

post #1 of 14
9/6/06 at 1:10am
Thread Starter 
Im finding EQ2 is using about 1.7 gigs in raid situations. Are there any other games you are finding that says recommended one gig but is actually using more then that? If so how much and what is the game?

I've been having a debate where one person thinks 2 gigs is over kill..nothing currently out is using that... I feel if you dont have enough you can end up with ram being a bottle neck..especially when it comes to a turbocache type card like in my sig... what is you guys opinion..
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 14
9/6/06 at 1:25am
2GB is definately not a overkill for most MMORPG, especially if have a vocie chat program also running side by side. WOW, City of Hero, and even a bunch of RTS is peaking above 1GB.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 14
9/6/06 at 1:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz33
2GB is definately not a overkill for most MMORPG, especially if have a vocie chat program also running side by side. WOW, City of Hero, and even a bunch of RTS is peaking above 1GB.
So ram can end up being a bottleneck if you dont have enough correct?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 14
9/6/06 at 2:02am
very much so
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 14
9/6/06 at 2:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe
very much so
Thanks darling..

Can anyone else name some games they know off hand and tell me how much over 1 gig the game is using?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 14
9/6/06 at 3:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergi
So ram can end up being a bottleneck if you dont have enough correct?

Yep, the moment you run out of physical RAM, you'll be taking a noticable performance hit since the system start using HD space as virtual memory but it is a lot slower than physical RAM.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 14
9/6/06 at 9:20am
Well in some situations you can find games needing more ram. Back in my WoW days when me and my guild raided dungeons and enemy cities, i found 1 gb not enough ram.
MMO's also use 3rd party voice programs, which when running in the backround, increase your need for ram.
I would upgrade to 2gb, but that's just my $0.02
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 14
9/6/06 at 9:51am
Thread Starter 
Thanks everyone..
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 14
9/6/06 at 11:20am
depends what settings you run, ive never seen anyone show in there Windows Task Manager where they are using over 754 mbs for WoW or EQ, EQ2 and BF2 ive seen screenies of over 1.2gb, but thats with people who have 19 inch lcd's running at native rez on a leet video card that can pump 30+ fps on it

me, i play halo and multi task, i have a 300mb paging file,

3 app's, 31 processes, and only 337mb's being uses

so yeah umm, 2 gigs is ok, speicaly if you can get it for a nice price like the egg has a few rebates where its 160 bucks, which is nice!

aside from that paying 100 per gig is silly

soulsaver
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 14
9/6/06 at 4:36pm
Thread Starter 
What about video cards.. lets say you have a 7950gt with 512 on board. Does a card like this make you need less ram? Lets say you have a average card..6600 or so...with 128-256 on board.. now does this make your ram and processor work harder then someones system with the elite card that can pump out 100 fps?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 14
9/6/06 at 5:26pm
Well, it's almost the same thing. If you vidoecard does not have room to hold all the texture and graphic info at a ceratin resolution and detail setting, it will be swaping them in and out as need from the HD. On Card that use shared memory, it mean it will first try to fill up the allocated system RAM first but in either case, you take a performance hit.

Usually 256MB will be ok for running anything at 1280x1024 or below. You can probably get away with it on 1600x1200 or 1680x1050. Anything beyond that, you would want 512MB if you expect to run in native and high detail. I'm currently only using a 256MB 1900GT on a Dell 24" at 1920x1200 but it's more of an interm card while I wait to see how DX10 turn out.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 14
9/6/06 at 5:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz33
Well, it's almost the same thing. If you vidoecard does not have room to hold all the texture and graphic info at a ceratin resolution and detail setting, it will be swaping them in and out as need from the HD. On Card that use shared memory, it mean it will first try to fill up the allocated system RAM first but in either case, you take a performance hit.

Usually 256MB will be ok for running anything at 1280x1024 or below. You can probably get away with it on 1600x1200 or 1680x1050. Anything beyond that, you would want 512MB if you expect to run in native and high detail. I'm currently only using a 256MB 1900GT on a Dell 24" at 1920x1200 but it's more of an interm card while I wait to see how DX10 turn out.
Ok lets say I have a 512meg card and im getting 100 frames per second..does this mean the card itself can handle most of it without accessing much of the memory of your ram or swap file? At the same rate if im getting 20 frames per second does this mean the entire set up..ram, processor and card is working harder to keep up with the demands of the game?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 14
9/6/06 at 6:40pm
It's more of the resolution you are running vs the framerate you are getting. The Framerate you get is based on the power of the GPU rendering the stuff in memory. The memory you use is based on the resolution and detail level you're running at. The higher the res and detail the more Memory it will use.

As I said, generally 256MB will be enough to hold all the texture and stuff for a game running at 1280x1024 and below and maybe even one running at 1600x1200 or 1680x1050. But if you plan on running games at reslution beyond that, you'll probably want a 512MB card.

It's also important to balance the GPU power with the amount of memory. Getting a X1300/X1600 or 6800 ultra card with 512MB is a waste as the GPU won't be powerful enough to render high resolution with acceptable framerate. I would say that in order to take advantage of 512MB and still have enough GPU to render them will require a X1800 or 7900 series at a minimium.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 14
9/6/06 at 6:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz33
It's more of the resolution you are running vs the framerate you are getting. The Framerate you get is based on the power of the GPU rendering the stuff in memory. The memory you use is based on the resolution and detail level you're running at. The higher the res and detail the more Memory it will use.

As I said, generally 256MB will be enough to hold all the texture and stuff for a game running at 1280x1024 and below and maybe even one running at 1600x1200 or 1680x1050. But if you plan on running games at reslution beyond that, you'll probably want a 512MB card.

It's also important to balance the GPU power with the amount of memory. Getting a X1300/X1600 or 6800 ultra card with 512MB is a waste as the GPU won't be powerful enough to render high resolution with acceptable framerate. I would say that in order to take advantage of 512MB and still have enough GPU to render them will require a X1800 or 7900 series at a minimium.

Ahh thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Wiz
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › NotebookForums Gaming Community › PC Gaming Support (peer to peer) › Are any games using over 1 gig of ram?