MEMORY: 1 Gig or 2 Gig

Loading times will decrease slightly (at least they did for me) and yes, there is a huge performance increase. I can play at 1600 x 1200 with 4x AA and everything on high but the shadows. before when i only had 1 gig, i had everything on medium.

true for battlefield2, everquest2 and boiling point. the three games which definitely need more than 1gig ram to run more smoothly.

I am going to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB soon, but not for gaming reasons...I want to run a 1GB RAMdrive for my swap files and internet cache and whatever else.

what is 1gb RAMdrive if you can explain? and i don't see why 2 gig of ram is like so required for bf2 i play bf2 fine on my desktop with 1 gig of ram

I'm confused, it sounds like you already have the answer but you want it clarified for the 100th time on this board.


yes it makes a difference on games and everything else...Its ram its what runs your programs, you think the more the worse performance?

yes ram runs your programs, however it won't be fully utilized unless whatever program you use has to fetch large amounts of data at any given time. 90% of CURRENT games won't benefit from the extra ram. They don't use an entire gig of memory to load their textures, AI, game engine, etc. Only one that seems to come up on a consistent basis is BF2. However, I am sure the next generation of games will continue to eat more memory as textures increase, AI becomes more complex, etc.
For the current time however, 1 gig of ram is more than sufficient. Yet since BF2 is your concen, go ahead & go for the extra gig.

I've heard that performance is decreased with 2GB of RAM. Have no first-hand experience, never had more than a gig on any system.

Ridiculous.

Can't be so....I've never heard of this.

I would just get 256 at dell then a 1GB stick at newegg. 1.25GB's is what I run and my 9300 runs any game I throw at it

Although a search of this forum might have given you your answers, Hisma hit the nail on the head. On my desktop I have a 6800GT with 1GB of Ballistix @ 240MHz, 2.5-2-2-6. With 2GB of this slower DDR2, games play much better. Loading times are much faster, and games play better. Doom3 on ultra mode no longer has those partial second pauses every now and then. I can finally put the textures in BF2 on high and (only setting that wasn't), and loading levels (especially vertifying client data) is much faster. I'd say if you're into gaming and have the money, why not.

ggalage, a RAMdrive is an amount of RAM you set-off to act like a hard drive. You can install programs and what not to it. However, putting the page file on it I think won't work, but try it out wonka, let us know how it works

It is not just games it is any program which is demanding and a resorce hog .The sweet spot is really still 1 gig of RAM for gaming. Except for some newer demanding games which demand more then most games which the thirst for more Ram will always climb because the software is always advanceing.Most of the time you wont go over one gig but on some newer games they want more then 1 gig Ram to performe on higher game settings.To play it safe if you want to play all the newer games on high settings its simple get 2 Gigs.As for more Ram slowing a pc can't happen theese days the more Ram the better with theese newer demanding games .

Okay, I'll add some to this thread to stir it up a bit more and let people think it over. At one time 2Gb RAM wasnt really needed. There was a big noticeable difference going from 512Mb to 1Gb but there wasnt as much noticeable difference going from 1Gb to 2Gb relatively speaking. Only the heavy apps users like CAD and graphic artists got any real use out of the 2Gb RAM.

Now with BF2 it seems there is a noticeable difference in game performance going from 1Gb to 2Gb. So far BF2 is the only game that seems to get a big boost. I never tried the game so cant really say. Just going by what I hear people say and some articles I read. So maybe BF2 will start a new trend other game developers will emulate by making a game that requires more than 1GB to get the really good performance? Online games are certainly getting more heavy on graphics. I have seen and experienced that.

Right now I'd say if you dont play BF2 then just stick with 1Gb. If you play BF2 or plan to get it then get 2Gb when you can afford it.

Battlefield 2 likes to eat a hell of alot of ram I'm running everything on high except dynamic lights and shadows that's medium and no AA. I tab out and BF2.exe is at like 900mb then I look at my overall memory usage and it's at 1.25GB. I have 2gb of ram. On startup I have 30 processes using <200mb. LOL at more ram slowing a computer down. I watch my friends with 512mb and even 1gb play BF2 they chug away and load the game so much slower than I. I'm in a server like 2-3min before them.

odious_m,

I suggest you look at this thread:

http://forums.us.dell.com/supportfor...sage.id=197186

here is a response from a guy who knows a HELL of a LOT about RAM:

"... in interest of brevity, virtually all synthetic tests using identical desktop and/notebook pc's, one pr (desk+note) fitted 1.0gb ram (2x512mb) and one pr fitted 2.0gb (2x1gb) of recognized quality memory modules (standard jedec timings) will show increasing productivity (over ram size of 1x512mb) @ 1.0gb level - @ 2.0gb level only marginal productivity gain occurs (over 1.0gb) ... please note ddr1 is fitted, as ddr2 still has some teething problems (it is only so slightly faster than ddr1, it is becoming abit ackward to explain) - sdram will simply not scale (bandwidth) in same manner, so no point testing, however results similar

yes an optimized mobo chipset memory controller can make difference, but we're talking server mobo's and no note chipsets

as internal dram cell density increases, max thermal becomes critical & can only be controlled by limiting power consumption; combined w/focus on optimized dram address bus (this is fast/tight ram timings) directly cell cluster schema & dram architecture/layout ... there are really only a small number of viable combinations of these variables, w/o shifting voltage level up measureably (something avoided in all jedec std ram modules)

optimized address bus (within each chip) is simply "faster" (cooler) in low to mid density dram chips as power level does not have to be limited - at highest density level (as used on 1.0gb modules) power levels are held down, to limit max temp rise, w/resulting increased signal time in-out, even though physical paths are shorter... and now 2.0gb modules having more severe max thermal issues...

I have intentionally left out fsb considerations (& cpu cache size)

to see any benefit, photoshop (not cs) must be heavily exercised by a user determined to use all features ... shop loves 2.0gb & runs measureably/perceptably better...

for all other apps only small improvement

and have not touched on bga vs tsop(2) merits

lastly, servers routinely run 4gb or more & no one complains about slow ram - it's all ecc & hdd banks refresh constantly so ram "mass" counts for more than ram "speed"

major vid stream processing genuinely needs ram "mass", but productivity does not double at 2.0gb

edit synthetic test run individually/serially - if simultaneously multiple apps / stress tests run no improvement 2.0 over 1.0 and some tests will time out longer..."