Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Rocky

More RAM on the way

Recommended Posts

Okay I admit it I have GR2

XBox

I see that little xbox trying to hide. We just care about the PC version of GR2 you have hogging up all your time. Is it going to be worth waiting for or do we just need to carry on with good old GR? :o:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Rocky - In HL2 the main menu can take an age to load up if in fact the game is updating. Could this have been the problem maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Rocky - In HL2 the main menu can take an age to load up if in fact the game is updating.  Could this have been the problem maybe?

I suppose it could be, but I thought all that would happen during the grey steam dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I plan on doing some benchtesting to see what difference RAM makes in real world applications like games and video processing

:blink:

For apps I will do the same four tests for video rendering a complex movie and adding a complex filter to a paint shop pro image.

:unsure:

........readings..........recorded times.........resizing.........tests............benchmarks...........benchmarking tools

:wacko:

But I want to benchmark the improvement, so patience is the key

:yawn:

Crikey! This thread's like watching paint dry :rofl:

Anyway......it's inspired me to do some of my own benchmarking.

DS :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh I know, paint, dry, RAM, benchmarking, same difference.

I've been working alot of nightshifts though, cut me some slack guys :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK! We'll cut you some slack. Just give us the results by tomorrow. :wall::rofl: My guess would be little to no difference running games but I'm waiting patiently for your results. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not gonna cut you any slack til you can make it to a few more races... :nono:

Oh $%^& you're gonna have me in tears mate! I will be there tomorrow, but not the following Sunday, it's my youngest's 3rd birthday :thumbsup:

So, see ya on the track tomorrow boss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man you gotta be kidding me.

The Red Sector 500 @ Riki Raceway, full length 500 miler.

It's the 500 miler tomorrow isn't it? :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldnt wait for the results (I'm an impatient git) so after the psu blew up I decided to get another 512meg of ram to fit at the same time and after some initial hiccups its all working nicely now with an almost doubling of framerates in VBS so instead of mid-teens I'm now touching 30+ most of the time :D What you'll get with 2Gig is anybodys guess but I'd say it would run sweet as a nut mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a creative GF4 ti4400 with 128meg of ram in it mate, and no you cant have it for the missus's computer :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read an article in Comp. Games magazine dealing with this subject. They say 1GB of RAM makes the most sense in the price and performance category. 512MB is functional but adding 512MB'S more makes a huge difference. Going from 1GB to 2GB's of RAM improves things a bit more but not enough to justify the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was waiting for Rocky to post his results before I said anything, but since this thread has surfaced again, here goes :)

I have been running 2GB RAM (4x512MB) for a few months after runnning 1GB most of last year (individually testing both pairs). To be honest, for the apps I use at this point, it haven't really found a huge difference.

I think 2GB RAM would be worthwhile for people who do

- heavy duty video editing

- play games with large maps (Everquest, VBS1)

- like to run several resource-hungry apps at the same time ;)

Funny thing is that even with that much RAM, some programs still want to use Window's Page File, even though all the RAM isn't used up :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been running 2GB RAM (4x512MB) for a few months after runnning 1GB most of last year (individually testing both pairs). To be honest, for the apps I use at this point, it haven't really found a huge difference.

I think 2GB RAM would be worthwhile for people who do

- heavy duty video editing

- play games with large maps (Everquest, VBS1)

- like to run several resource-hungry apps at the same time ;)

I'm tending to agree, CR6.

Ran my primary rig with 512 for awhile. It was functional, but I notice more delay when running multiple applications concurrently.

Decided to plug in another 512 module, and immediately gained satisfactory results.

For the average "weekend user", 512 is a good starting point. Double that for the power user, and the typical gamer. 1.5GB would do nicely for those in graphics or video editing, or running those state-of-the-art games. 2GB - leave it for Pro-line stuff, and those crazy folks running dual Xeon procs in their home-built gaming rigs.

2GB certainly isn't excessive 18 months from now, just gotta give the software time to catch up.

Funny thing is that even with that much RAM, some programs still want to use Window's Page File, even though all the RAM isn't used up  :blink:

I noticed Windows tended to page more often with 512MB than at 1GB, however I tested the performance with VM disabled entirely. Obviously dependant on your application, but I noticed decreased latency for program execution and memory requests while inside the application.

The application doesn't need to wait for the information typically paged to the hard disk, as it's loaded directly in memory.

The downside is, obviously, if I sustained a system-wide crash, my probability of loosing pertinent data skyrockets.

Just save more often, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the results of my benchmarking. I'll tidy this up and add notes later, but hot off the press here you go - and some surprising results too.

BTW, sorry about the delay, but it was a right headache doing all this, I took multiple benchmarks for the sake of consistancy and to avoid freak results, which also meant alot of restarting the PC so the results were not influenced by the other tests.

I did not tweak any memory settings or page file settings between the tests, I just threw in the additional RAM and re-ran the exact same tests.

There's no analysis here yet, just the results.

Started with 1Gb of PC3200 before, then compared with 2Gb of PC3200 after.

Win XP Pro

Boot time - no difference at all.

Ghost Recon

Average FPS recorded at 1 sec. intervals Before : 43 After : 61

CSS Stress Test

67.64 FPS with 1Gb to 68.00 with 2Gb

Half Life

Game Load time - no difference at all.

Mission Load time - 79 seconds down to only 38 seconds with the additional RAM.

Average FPS recorded at 1 sec. intervals Before : 42.77 After : 48.93

Nascar 2003

No FPS difference at all

Video Studio

Create a DVD file - 3 mins 54 secs with 1Gb to 3 mins 44 with 2Gb

Paint Shop Pro

Resize an image by 2500% - 52 secs with 1Gb to 37 seconds with 2Gb

FPS_Benchmarks.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what I get from this is this. If you are on a budget, the performance gains don't warrant anything above a GB. A GB seems to be the magic number with XP, and in fact is probably the magic cutoff point for any personal computer user.(Industrial apps aside).

The performance gains in Rocky's tests are so small, that it really doesn't warrant the upgrade.

To me, it seems the money would have been better spent on HDD or video card upgrades.

Edited by =UE=Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told, I havent' noticed a preformance jump from 512 with Win2k to 1GB with XP. Running even 3dMark2003 shows a decrease in preformance compared using the 52.16 drivers for both OSes. Preformance in 3dMNark 2003 has actually decreased for me with newer drivers. Can't figure that one out. :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preformance in 3dMNark 2003 has actually decreased for me with newer drivers. Can't figure that one out. :wall:

That could be because some ATI/Nvidia drivers have been "optimized" for higher 3D Mark scores, and then have been "caught" by 3D Mark and forced to remove their optimizations in subsequent drivers.

Also, Futuremark has tried to make the newer 3D Mark test suites focus more on the actual video card's abilities, not the overall system's ability, so it tries to give a score that doesn't necessarily reflect the CPU speed, amount of RAM etc.

3D Mark is a useful theoretical/artificial benchmark, but the best thing is to see if there are improvements with newer drivers in the actual games you like to play. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know about all the driver optimizations both companies do. I always have taken 3dMark scores with a grain of salt. The thing is, scores for Aquamarks (uses a real game engine unlike 3dMark) is down too.

I have noticed a reduction in GR preformance too. Can't say why, but as long as everything is over 60FPS, I am happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you can't compare performance between the two OS'es, as 2K is more efficient, and isn't really like XP at all

XP is a resource hog where 2K wasn't as bad.

They also use their resources differently.

IF you really want to see, take your RAM to 512 and run Rocky's tests on your machine, and also run some of your games and apps. Then take it to a GB and run them again, and run some apps. You will note a big difference.

But you can't really compare the two OS'es, because for the most part, (Drivers aside), they aren't alike at all.

2k has an older HAL, and an older version of NTFS, and was designed originally as a workstation OS, and a server OS. Not a multimedia OS designed to run games and movies and such, like XP is.

Both OS'es were designed for different environments.

XP is a major resource hog, where 2K was more efficient when it came to resources, but 2K isn't as compatible as XP is, with different hardware and games and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×