More RAM = less stuttering in games?

[hat]

2GB is best performance/price wise and most common among enthusiasts/gamers. Go for a cheap 2x1GB set.

[Laurijan]

2Gb of ram should max out the motherboard & CPU performance. 4Gb is useless with an 32Bit operating system since only about 2,5Gb are recognized by 32Bit based Windows OSes

[Darren]

I've got 4 GB of ram, I had 2 GB previously, and I wouldn't go back, all my games play at full graphics without lag and I can listen to music, burn discs, and run anti virus in the background as I play these games and minimize to desktop within 1-4 seconds.

Crysis is an exception, it only plays at medium settings, but the frame rate is smooth without lag still. Ram in the UK is cheap, so there is no reason to have anything less than 4 GBs. But equally if you have a single core processor I recommend a dual.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by newconroer

It is?

Based on what? Because it taxes GPUs heavily?

It's not Crytek's fault that ATi is sucking and not giving Nvidia any competition, and thus Nvidia isn't bothered to release their new cards...

Anyways, Cevat did hint that Nvidia had something special for us around Christmas time; maybe the new GTS is what he meant.

You full of crap!

Why should the consumer be forced to pay for the latest $600 card every time ATI and NVIDA release it? Some of us can only afford midrange components. I don't see why a game such as Crysis which has been in development for years can't be customized to run on low end and midrange systems with a decent frame rate. All the half-life games run on midrange specs and they run smoothly at high settings, so why not Crysis. It's people like you who feed big companies like Nvidia and ATI to keep releasing expensive cards whenever they please, and its fools like us that keep buying their cards and playing hundreds just to play one superficial game which was coded badly.

[HookeyStreet]

Originally Posted by Laurijan

2Gb of ram should max out the motherboard & CPU performance. 4Gb is useless with an 32Bit operating system since only about 2,5Gb are recognized by 32Bit based Windows OSes

Well thats not entirely true. Im using Vista Home Premium 32Bit and I can use 3.325GB of my overall 4GB of RAM

[keakar]

Originally Posted by Darkmind

Thanks for all the replies guys (even you newconroer :P). So it was just a curiosity question, but based on what you guys said, on my next system (which im planning on buying on my next paycheck), I already planned to go 2GB crucial ddr2 800, but you've convinced me to get another set of 2GB. Should last me for a while . Just to let you guys know. I'm getting these components...

GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 Allendale 2.2GHz LGA 775 65W Processor Model BX80557E4500 - Retail

Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model BL2KIT12864AA804 - Retail

Scythe SCINF-1000 120mm CPU Cooler - Retail

All I really need right now. Plus my bro is probably gonna get an 8800gt and he'll give me his 8800gts 320mb which should keep me for a good while. I plan to upgrade to 4GB of RAM when I can, get Vista Ultimate 64, and in the future upgrade to one of the new penryn quad-core CPUs coming out in January (probably the lowest one with the 12MB of cache).

dont get 4x1gb ram get a set of 2x2gb, it will be a better way to go. look at these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2508081&name=4

myself i would get the G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 for $150

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by keakar

dont get 4x1gb ram get a set of 2x2gb, it will be a better way to go. look at these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2508081&name=4

myself i would get the G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 for $150

thats what i just bought 2x2gb should prove future proof and amazing. givin the preformance ill gain over the 3gb single channel mismatched sticks im running but i saw a jump in preformance over 2>3 so i dont think ill ever settle with less which is why i bought 4 instead of a nice g.Skill 2gb kit.

[Darkmind]

I should be able to afford that G.Skill 2x2GB set. Sweetness. Didn't even consider a 2x2GB set. Thought they were a bit more expensive. CAS4 for only $150, that's some cheap and good memory. I'll definitely get Vista Ultimate 64-bit afterwards.

Edit: Better idea, I won't buy the stuff yet, I'll wait till I have enough money for the full purchase all in one. Who'd be interested in buying my current setup?

[Davidelmo]

Originally Posted by Darren

You full of crap!

Why should the consumer be forced to pay for the latest $600 card every time ATI and NVIDA release it? Some of us can only afford midrange components. I don't see why a game such as Crysis which has been in development for years can't be customized to run on low end and midrange systems with a decent frame rate. All the half-life games run on midrange specs and they run smoothly at high settings, so why not Crysis. It's people like you who feed big companies like Nvidia and ATI to keep releasing expensive cards whenever they please, and its fools like us that keep buying their cards and playing hundreds just to play one superficial game which was coded badly.

Not at all. The game DOES run on lower-end setups. You just have to turn the graphics options down.

I admit that it doesn't look great at lower settings but most of the people bitching about it not performing well are simply trying to run the game with too much eye candy.

[Davidelmo]

Also, you simply can not compare half life to Crysis.

The half life engine is much simpler and you could never do the huge outdoor scenes, destructible environments etc with the source engine. Yes half life used physics, but not to the extent of crysis.

So yes, half life may run at ultra high settings whereas crysis runs at medium on most machine. Half life may even look better in some ways, but there is a lot more going on in the background of crysis. It will come into it's own once the hardware is out to support it!

[imperialreign]

Originally Posted by Darren

I don't see why a game such as Crysis which has been in development for years can't be customized to run on low end and midrange systems with a decent frame rate.

well . . . it depends on your idea of a decent framerate - but, TBH, Crysis runs great on my setup, and I by no means have high end equipment. Mid-range X1950 PRO, OC Pentium 4HT, PNY DDR2 . . . I average anywhere from 15FPS to 30FPS in-game - with all the options set on high and running 1280x1024 screen resolution. The only thing I can't enable, though is any AA/AF - it completely kills my FPS.

[Widjaja]

My bro has recently gone to 64bit OS with 4GB ram and has seen any improvement in performance in this game, but graphics were crisper.
I think the crisper graphics is due to the 64bit OS though.
Only thing 4GB ram really did for him was made apps and large files open and close quicker.
So made his sytem feel more responsive.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by Davidelmo

Also, you simply can not compare half life to Crysis.

The half life engine is much simpler and you could never do the huge outdoor scenes, destructible environments etc with the source engine. Yes half life used physics, but not to the extent of crysis.

So yes, half life may run at ultra high settings whereas crysis runs at medium on most machine. Half life may even look better in some ways, but there is a lot more going on in the background of crysis. It will come into it's own once the hardware is out to support it!

Well, I purchased Half-life epside 2 episode one like two years ago and it was more than able to run on my lowmid system at ultra settings. I believe I had a AMD sempron, 9600 pro with only 512mbs of ram.

Look at my spec now, it's also midrange spec like my system two years ago, so why can't I play Crysis at high settings like Half-life 2years ago. Two midrange systems of its time and generation, the only difference is one game was coded well, the other one...

[Darren]

Originally Posted by imperialreign

well . . . it depends on your idea of a decent framerate - but, TBH, Crysis runs great on my setup, and I by no means have high end equipment. Mid-range X1950 PRO, OC Pentium 4HT, PNY DDR2 . . . I average anywhere from 15FPS to 30FPS in-game - with all the options set on high and running 1280x1024 screen resolution. The only thing I can't enable, though is any AA/AF - it completely kills my FPS.

I consider a good framerate 25+ FPS constant, without dips. Glad the game runs well for you at high, must look fantastic. I've only played the demo, since I can only play at medium I rather not play at all. I'll probably buy it when I upgrade my graphics card early next year. Play it in it's full glory.

PAE, people!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

[Widjaja]

Originally Posted by Darren

Look at my spec now, it's also midrange spec like my system two years ago, so why can't I play Crysis at high settings like Half-life 2years ago. Two midrange systems of its time and generation, the only difference is one game was coded well, the other one...

Totally different engine.
Alot more phyics involved in Crysis.
I think crysis could possibly compared more to Far Cry when it first came out.
Systems just couldn't handle it very well at high settings.
With Crysis, it was built with future hardware in mind.
So as more powerful GPU's and proccessors come out, it will play at ultra settings without issues.

On the other hand though, Crytek is owned by EA so QA could possibly a bit lax.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Darkmind

So I have 1GB of RAM. There is sometimes some stuttering in games like crysis, and Oblivion mostly (I know there are .ini settings to change). I was just wondering, with my OS, and my computer, how much of a performance increase would I achieve if I got 2GB or even 4GB of RAM?

I noticed when my brother on his Vista system put in another 2GB of ram (upgraded from 2 to 4), Crysis ran smooth with barely any stuttering where he did have a little bit before.

we have very sim system and im fine in crysis what settings are you running? you may just be asking to much from your cpu