Do you really need 2Gb of RAM for gaming?

T

thisgeek

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
5
Location
East Rand
For quite some time 512MB of memory was an ideal amount, as it kept WinXP sailing along smoothly and was sufficient for most games. However, as games evolved there was more and more data being loaded into the memory and 512MB quickly became a minimum specification. Games such as Doom 3 will not play smoothly without at least 1GB of system memory. Today most games are still more than happy with 1GB of available system memory. However, there is now a new genre of games that require even more memory. The new and very popular massively multiplayer games run best with 2GB of memory.
Click to expand...

Read More @ Legion Hardware

I definitely notice a difference with BF2 now that I have 2Gb RAM in my machine, rather than 1Gb (I'm usually one of the first to spawn) -- But then again, I moved to an AMD Athlon64 3200+ from an Intel P4 2.6 - So that is probably also a factor in the better performance.
 
Last edited:
Nah u dont need 2GB, in fact 2GB of ram will only make things slower. It's best that you send that exta gig over to me!!!

Seriously, I think we are definetly moving to a 2 gig scenario to play games as it's meant to be played

:)
 
Yea - so that's how you spawn so damn fast ...
Grrrrr.
Sigh - may as well start saving for 4* 1GB DDRII's, cos by the time I can afford them, the requirement will be 4GB, not 2GB any more.
 
While I'm not going to comment on the AMD/Intel issue (yes I'm an Intel fan.. not the one that comes with the CPU and I've had too many problems with AMD's blowing up in my face and I dont overclock either)

2 gigs will be what is making that huge difference for you. I also recently upgraded to 2 gigs and the difference is remarkable! From programs opening up in a blink, to games loading in a few secs. I dont know how I ever played online without it
 
I am a AMD fan thru and thru!!!

flip most of the new celeron d's run extremely hot!! as opposed to AMD's which are know to run at high temps!!

i justs comes down to preference...intel - amd, geforce - radeon....

ya u can never not have enuff ram, hard drive space, processing / graphical pwer....
 
Gaming is really expensive nowadays. Cannot seem to keep up. :(
 
My Athlon64 runs at 34C when not doing anything in particular - and that's from running for days at a time.
 
Coolermaster Hyper48 on a64 3000+ (1.8Ghz) @ 3Ghz, idle: 28 full: 34

ps. Prescotts run hot because thats what happens when you sell old generation chips overclocked beyond their lifecycle and sell it as new technology.

baha ;)
 
Clipse said:
ps. Prescotts run hot because thats what happens when you sell old generation chips overclocked beyond their lifecycle and sell it as new technology.
Click to expand...

true true
 
Hmm sorry but can anyone show me where that is true? I did 10 mins of searching quickly and most articles I find state how the Intel chips are produced at a level that AMD cant compete with due to superior technology, and also that the new Intel's are true 64 bit CPU's while the AMD's are64/32 bit hybrids, and cant run 64 bit and 32bit programs at the same time. (granted the Intel needs an emulator to run 32 bit.. but it can)

Further tests by companies show that the Intel while currently under performing in Clock speed tests (Which is why AMD changed there naming convention because they said clock speeds where not an indication of performance and are now riding this train), most say that this is due to the fact that most applications currently do not put the Intel processors to full use as they do not take the newer technology into perspective?

Price wise.. yeah.. AMD is better, Heat wise.. maybe.. Though have any of you ever looked at a temperature vs resistance graph... Sometimes too cold can have the reverse effect.. Ever thought that maybe intel have taken this into account with the new chips?

Couldn't find anything stating that the intel chips where old tech though? where did you guys hear this?
 
I know a mate who is running a 3000+ at 2550MHz between 26/30C.
 
*calls out*
Perdition!!!! Some help over here, please. :)

But as far as I know a CPU can't really be too cold. Otherwise VapoChill and others like them won't be making any money. :p

Also haven't heard about this "old tech" thing of the P4. Hell, the new centrino chip is based on the P3 and people are overclocking it passed P4 specs. While running using less then half the power and heat.

Intel did have their butts handed to them tho. They were way behind on the 64 bit front while AMD has been playing around with theirs a while now.

Like I've said many times before:
If you want more kilowatts then torque = AMD
If you want more torque then kilowatts = Intel

EDIT 25/01/2006

In light of new tech I will quote Angellus' revision of my analogy:
Angellus said:
If you want more kilowatts then torque = AMD Athlon 64
If you want more torque then kilowatts = AMD Athlon 64 X2 (While still keeping the same amount of Kw just double the torque) :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kalvaer said:
Hmm sorry but can anyone show me where that is true? I did 10 mins of searching quickly and most articles I find state how the Intel chips are produced at a level that AMD cant compete with due to superior technology, and also that the new Intel's are true 64 bit CPU's while the AMD's are64/32 bit hybrids, and cant run 64 bit and 32bit programs at the same time. (granted the Intel needs an emulator to run 32 bit.. but it can)

Further tests by companies show that the Intel while currently under performing in Clock speed tests (Which is why AMD changed there naming convention because they said clock speeds where not an indication of performance and are now riding this train), most say that this is due to the fact that most applications currently do not put the Intel processors to full use as they do not take the newer technology into perspective?

Price wise.. yeah.. AMD is better, Heat wise.. maybe.. Though have any of you ever looked at a temperature vs resistance graph... Sometimes too cold can have the reverse effect.. Ever thought that maybe intel have taken this into account with the new chips?

Couldn't find anything stating that the intel chips where old tech though? where did you guys hear this?
Click to expand...

Please provide me with a link for this information? Cause it sounds like a Intel-fanboyclub-site..

Intels new chips, the EMT64 is purely bought over from AMD licensing, its the AMD code with less of AMD in it. Its not Intels own technology. AMD can run 32bit and 64bit at the same time, allways could.

The Intel 64bit chips is also a hybrid, same as the AMD, the 64bit only that went pretty bad in the market penetration was related to the ItaniumII and had no 32bit backwards compatibility unless emulated and performed, well.. poorly..

Here is the reason AMD is better than Intel in my book and many others:

Less wattage required per clock

Runs effectively cooler per clock - This has been sustainable since the Thoroughbred B chips, till today.. AMD runs cooler than Intel.

Huge memory bandwidth and alot less latency in memory controller
Better quality production than Intel nowadays -> Best proof for this, 90% if not more of the produced chips are capable of the maximum performance chips available but unclocked to fill lower"class" market.

Memory efficiency, AMD is capable of 95% full memory performance on well tweaked machine, Intel would ideally sit at 70-80% maximum memory performance available.

AMD is in fact introducing newer technologies while Intel is riding a fake gravy train and they know its not sustainable.


I can honestly go on and on about just how Bad Intel really is, after having spend enough time with Intel and then moving over to AMD.
 
Toxin said:
Also haven't heard about this "old tech" thing of the P4. Hell, the new centrino chip is based on the P3 and people are overclocking it passed P4 specs. While running using less then half the power and heat.
Click to expand...

Its definitely not the centrino lol, its the Pentium M (old p3 mobile) and yes it overclocks and performs awesome on the clock cycle front. Intel can have a winner if they introduce a much more efficient/larger memory bus and decent motherboards aswell.. And whatever other new changes.. The problem is, Intel wont look that deep into "older" tech which passed its sell-by-date.
 
The P4 is a dead end. I saw a couple of artictles saying Intel is going to move away from that design. For example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/p4_560-07.html

@ Kalvaer - Are you maybe thinking of the Itanium when talking about the pure 64 bit chip. Which is turning out to be another dead end. Some PC vendors have stopped selling products based on Itanium.
 
Clipse said:
Its definitely not the centrino lol, its the Pentium M (old p3 mobile) and yes it overclocks and performs awesome on the clock cycle front. Intel can have a winner if they introduce a much more efficient/larger memory bus and decent motherboards aswell.. And whatever other new changes.. The problem is, Intel wont look that deep into "older" tech which passed its sell-by-date.
Click to expand...

*smacks himself against the head*

Eish, big slip that one. :o

The other problem Intel has is that they've invested so much into the P4 they have to try and stick with it for a bit longer. Not that they're in trouble tho. They've practically still got a monopoly in the bussiness sector. :(

BTW, what happened to that lawsuite AMD had against them? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X