Do Some PC games secretively require more then 2GBs of ram?

[EastCoasthandle]

Do Some PC games secretively benefit using more then 2GBs of ram?

I just upgraded from 2 to 4gigs of ram (3.25GBs in XP) and noticed that games do in fact run better. Not so much frame rate wise per say as it depends on the game. For example:

-BF2 loads faster with 3.25GBs of ram vs 2 GBs of ram when you delete the cache. Even though there is not much difference once the cache is already loaded the difference is noticed when you force BF2 to re-create the cache.

-DiRT maps load much faster with 3.25GBs vs 2GBs. Also, I notice less of a dip when I go into grassy areas. When racing other cars I notice no dips when when I am facing opposite/parallel to AI vehicles. For example, if a track bends 90+ degrees you have a tendency to go the opposite direction. There are times when the AI cars haven't reach the bend and I can see them from the left/right side of the map. This would cause some noticeable lag even though the frame rate was essentially the same. Now there is no problem on those kind of multi car tacks. If I am facing opposite to vehicles to the left/right of me they ride by me with no lag whatsoever.

-Medal of Honor: Airborne is much smoother when the frame rates dip which isn't often. Also, I noticed something very amusing, there is a mission where you have to take out the AI in bunkers as the US troops storm the beach. With 2GBs of ram there were very few troops on the beach. With 3.25GBs they are more on the beach.

I am still testing other games but so far I'm noticing a difference. It's not necessarily a frame rate improvement per say but, it's a improvement in other areas of the game as described earlier.

Anyone else notice this?

 

[GJSNeptune]

They don't require 2GB of memory. Having more than what is minimally required simply offers a more desirable gaming experience.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

They don't require 2GB of memory. Having more than what is minimally required simply offers a more desirable gaming experience.

I never said that games require 2GBs of ram. I am asking if some PC games require more then 2GBs of ram? In which I provide a few examples of my experience.

 

[GJSNeptune]

They don't. No game would say "2GB RAM" for a minimum requirement. Not for a few years, maybe.

They try to find a good amount for the game to be playable, which isn't acceptable to people like us. Is 2GB or more required for us? Probably.

 

[erocker]

With Vista I've seen recommended specs that are over 2gb.

 

[Easy Rhino]

its not like a diabolical secret. its common sense that more ram = better performance.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

They don't. No game would say "2GB RAM" for a minimum requirement. Not for a few years, maybe.

They try to find a good amount for the game to be playable, which isn't acceptable to people like us. Is 2GB or more required for us? Probably.

I would have thought by now this would have discussed more with all the folks getting 4GBs of ram. I can't be the only one seeing this. A lot of people want to play these games the way the developer intended. For some games, having more then 2GBs appears to be the best beat in achieving this in some cases.

its not like a diabolical secret. its common sense that more ram = better performance.

Well what about infamous? J/K
But I thought something like this would have been discussed more as the main reason why folks are going from 2GBs to 4GBs.

 

[OnBoard]

When I was still in XP I noticed smoother gameplay in BF2142 with 4GB(3GB) than with 2GB. Most noticeable difference was when you ended the game the music didn't play like a minute after that and whole computer was unresponsive. With 4GB the game ends almost instantly and ready to use for other stuff.

OS still takes some memory for it self, so you need to have more than two to have 2GB free for the game. More mem=less swapping to a point -> smoother gameplay.

Going from 1GB->2GB is more noticeable difference for anyone, 2GB-> 3/4GB it's still there, but needs a game that uses more than 1GB of mem.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Well what about infamous? J/K
But I thought something like this would have been discussed more as the main reason why folks are going from 2GBs to 4GBs.

i currently have 2 gigs of ram in my rig (which isnt all that powerful) and im looking to upgrade to 4 gigs. mainly because i know ill get a massive boost when it comes to loading up games. also there will be less skipping (you know, not lag but just skips when the cpu is loading a crapload of info during gameplay.) im running vista 64bit so im positive it will make a difference.

 

[GJSNeptune]

I would have thought by now this would have discussed more with all the folks getting 4GBs of ram. I can't be the only one seeing this. A lot of people want to play these games the way the developer intended. For some games, having more then 2GBs appears to be the best beat in achieving this in some cases.

Maybe you're using requirement when you mean to use something else. Why discuss something that's a given? More memory makes for smoother gameplay. To say a game requires 2GB means it will only "play" with 2GB of memory or more. That would be quite misleading. Are some games practically unplayable (to our standards) with less than 1GB or 2GB of memory? Absolutely. Are the games technically playable though? Yes.

Developers would love for everyone to have the money and performance to play their games as they intend, but they want to sell as many copies as possible. You also have to consider the people not running a 64-bit OS to take advantage of your 4GB+.

 

[candle_86]

lol biggest notice i ever got was going from 512mb of ram to 2gb

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Maybe you're using requirement when you mean to use something else. Why discuss something that's a given? More memory makes for smoother gameplay. To say a game requires 2GB means it will only "play" with 2GB of memory or more. That would be quite misleading. Are some games practically unplayable (to our standards) with less than 1GB or 2GB of memory? Absolutely. Are the games technically playable though? Yes.

Developers would love for everyone to have the money and performance to play their games as they intend, but they want to sell as many copies as possible. You also have to consider the people not running a 64-bit OS to take advantage of your 4GB+.

I already made an attempt to change the title to make it clearer for you. However, the original title of this thread and the contents of the original post never stated nor implied that any given game requires 2GBs of ram. For example: Do Some PC games secretively require more then 2GBs of ram? Is not an indication that any particular game requires 2GBs of ram. As you read the OP you would see a connection towards the title and my experience using 2GBs of ram. This is were the connection is made when referencing 2GBs was based on my experience, not about any particular game requirement.


In any case, the use of more memory should improve your gaming immersion in one sense or another. However, it's rarely discussed (if at all) and it's not clear for everyone what actual benefit is. I hope that others who have upgraded from 2GBs to 4GBs of ram would also share their experiences too.

 

[Black Panther]

Just like the OP says, more RAM = better loading times. But (unless you have only some 512MB RAM) the only advantage is in the loading times not during gameplay.

I've read on The Sims 2 forums about that. Because The Sims 2 is a game which has to 'load' every time one quits a house or goes to a new neighbourhood during gameplay itself so in that case yes a higher RAM is of an advantage.

But for other (more popular) games not many people will care whether before they start playing they wait 30 or 35 seconds...

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

It's pretty obvious that anything that is bigger is better!*

*This does not include adding video ram and calling a card improved (IE 3650 w/ 2gb ram)
*This does not include calling the 9600gt better than the 8800gt
*Does not include Pentium 4 extreme GHZ that meant nothing

 

[candle_86]

nah, not always, see if COD plays better with 2gb of ram, or Doom 2

 

[imperialreign]

without having more than 2GB myself to compare it to - I'd have to say that it would simply because there is more space for all the temp images, sounds and game files to be loaded into memory . . . there's less loading from HDD to MEM and back to HDD.

I'm sure that if there are games that are optimized form large SYS MEM like that, they'd probably see the most benefit - just as games that are optimized for multe core processors see a much better increase.

 

[Black Panther]

I think it ultimately depends on the game engine.

To give a personal example, to get Oblivion to run totally stutter-free (with QTP3 high-res mod) on my system I have to run it on a clean install i.e. msconfig and stopping all processes and start-up items.

On the other hand, I can play Crysis smoothly (2xAA, 1680x1050, and dx10 cfg file tweak for xp getting mostly 35+ fps) without the clean install, and Crysis is a much more modern game with more demanding specs!

It could be the case that maybe games like Crysis support multi-threading and Oblivion doesn't. Actually Oblivion only supports it in the sense of having the game run on one core and the rest of the processes on the other core but not like proper multi-core support actually.

 

[Mussels]

one big thing people forgot to say, it also depends on how your OS is setup.

having 2GB of ram doesnt mean much if your apps in the background use 1500MB of it themselves - skype, yahoo, firefox and MSN combined use almost 200MB of my ram as i type this - add a clunky antivirus, a few driver tray icons and you could lose upto 500MB of ram before the game has even started.

Also, more ram REALLY helps if you have a slow/fragmented hard drive.

 

[imperialreign]

one big thing people forgot to say, it also depends on how your OS is setup.

having 2GB of ram doesnt mean much if your apps in the background use 1500MB of it themselves - skype, yahoo, firefox and MSN combined use almost 200MB of my ram as i type this - add a clunky antivirus, a few driver tray icons and you could lose upto 500MB of ram before the game has even started.

Also, more ram REALLY helps if you have a slow/fragmented hard drive.

don't know about others here, but I take that for granted as I've always shut down everything I don't need when going into a game. AV software, net connection, explorer, etc. - unless I'm playing online, in which case I leave my network software in place, and only run a firewall (never had a problem, so . . .).

But, yeah, that's a really good point that is worth mentioning. Some A/V programs will cripple playability as they want to scan everything going in and out of MEM and to the HDD.

 

[Mussels]

don't know about others here, but I take that for granted as I've always shut down everything I don't need when going into a game. AV software, net connection, explorer, etc. - unless I'm playing online, in which case I leave my network software in place, and only run a firewall (never had a problem, so . . .).

But, yeah, that's a really good point that is worth mentioning. Some A/V programs will cripple playability as they want to scan everything going in and out of MEM and to the HDD.

quite often when i'm playing online i'm running teamspeak and MSN, but i quit things too. Many people dont (i have seen 'pro gamers' with so many tray icons they covered half the taskbar) and those are the same people who complain about lag and slow performance on their 'expensive' hardware.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Using 2GBs

Using 3.25GBs

This is with the same settings, gpu and cpu clock rates. Not much of a difference in this example however, the game does run smoother regardless of the frame rate.
1920x1200
All settings @ High
4XAA

 

[EastCoasthandle]

World in Conflict using 2GB

World in Conflict using 3.25GB

1680x1050
2xAA
2xAF
etc, both using the exact same settings

No difference in this game. In game play shows similar smoothness but there is a noticeable decrease in load time.

 

[Mussels]

the slight performance increase you're getting could just be due to 4 way interleaving between the ram modules, and the less stutter is simply cause its no longer loading from the HDD.

Yet another point to consider: games are optimised to some extent for systems of their time.

If i released a game in 2005 and the 'best' systems had 2GB ram, i'd make the game optimised to use 1.5GB of ram at most - it'd discard any un-neccesary data at that point, and only load new stuff as neccesary (rather than all at startup)
This would work well then, but later as people got 4GB of ram they'd go hey... why isnt it faster? why does it still chug? why is it not using 3GB+?

I have no specific examples of this, but its certainly an interesting thing to ponder.

 

[AddSub]

It really depends on what the game is doing and how that particular title was put together. I think games really benefit more from additional VRAM than system RAM. Especially the latest titles which can load up anywhere from 600MB to 800MB of textures into the VRAM. Add some AA/AF into the mix and amount of VRAM will be exhausted pretty quickly.

1GB vs. 2GB, or 2GB vs. 4GB RAM-wise is not as important as 256MB vs. 512MB, or 512MB vs. 768MB or more, VRAM-wise.