Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss
Win7 x64u as I'm typing
Are you telling me the standby ram is unavailable?
Where are those 2GB?
DDR3:
That's what I said.
But even though it's twice as fast, here are some numbers:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/17...e/index10.html
GB RAM vs fps:
I remember reading a review last year where they benchmarked several games with different amounts of ram, they didn't get any increase in fps when over 4GB.
Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...de,2264-3.html
However this may change with newer games, if you have any prove, feel free to post them here. Such stuff is always interesting.
What? Are you trying to show off? |
Not positive if the 2gb are system reserved or in "use" but it has only 10gb available and 2gb as used upon bootup/all the time.
The reason there was little differance in those BM is because crysis is not made to use more than 4gb of ram (on average) because it was made for 32bit operating systems. It cannot address more than the 4gb cap (depends on OS version, program version etc), therefore the rest is not used and the reason for a tiny performance increase is because the extra ram goes to running other system operations.
Like said, 2 years ago this was true, but not anymore with a 64bit system/software. I just took issue with the flat out statement that you made saying there are NO benefits over 4gb of ram (that have been shown) which is flat out untrue on 64bit systems and especially 64bit software. Also remember that the GPU fps, cpu etc could be limiting the "upper end of the ram" by bottlenecking it. Crysis was demanding on the cpu for physics as an added burden, and the gpu for the lighting, as far as the load it placed on ram that makes cysis stand out, I am not sure.
I agree though that ram speed is less of a dif then people say, this is due to the proportion of ram mhz to cpu mhz (1:2?), although I believe the new intel cpu's are 1.5:1. But DDR3 helps because like said it opens up more "bandwidth" which is the bottleneck, not so much the speed itself.
-For the showing off part, I didnt really intend to try and show off, I posted it to say: These are the ram specs, it uses 6gb of ram, therefore if you were to reduce it from there it would effect performance.
@ Masex: sorry for calling you out, but I think that having the correct facts/information is more important than being 100% polite, which I normally am until someone posts something rediculous. Been wrong plenty of times, dont mind having a debate but you brought the reply to you down on yourself. Also I was more "impolite" than "rude". The reason I responded that way is that for some reason on this forum for all the really intelligent gamers who know about the planes, tactics, history etc, there seems to be a lag interms of comp hardware knowledge (in general). Its in alot of places, I think it is more pronounced here because IL2 being an older game, if thats the forum users primary game, does not use more recent hard/soft tech and therefore people are not as up to date as say on S2TW forums (which are also bad) but there is a core of people who help inform the community.
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...ead-first-post)
Read the title post, in it they used one of my posts about system specs etc. It was pre release of the system specs and everyone was panicking about there PC. Wish there was an equivalent here (although this forum has alot less volume, which is a mixed blessing). So I will try to be more polite, but its frustrating that old info seems to keep bubbling up because the change from XP->W7 is a decade gap.