Using Ram Drive Memory

[CrusaderOne]

My system has 32 gigs of memory and I have a utility called RamDisk that creates a virtual drive in ram.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

I am trying to discover if this extra ram can be used to realize any performance increase with COD.

I am curious if anyone has knowledge about how COD uses ram? Will COD use whatever ram is available and continue to fill the ram with scenery, sound and special effects files?

If the \STEAM\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\ folder is only 4 gigs total, which would easily fit into a virtual ram drive of, say, 5-6 gigs, can the program be launched and executed from ram or, will COD have to be "installed" into a virtual ram drive to run from memory?

If it does have to be installed, this should be doable because the RamDisk utility has the ability of loading a saved disk image at boot up.

Any ideas or info from the experts about how COD uses ram would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks


BTW, I tried copying the complete \STEAM\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\ folder into the ram drive and ran the launcher from ram, but based on the amount of hard drive access, COD still seemed to be running from the hard drive....even after I renamed the folder on the hard drive.

[von Pilsner]

I believe the answers you seek are here...

[Stublerone]

Quick answer: Not usabl nd handy. You will soon do not want to wait. With the current launcher problem and the bugs, u will perhaps even lose your startup and reload it again.

As soon as I know, CloD is also using some kind of streaming engine and using this method will reduce stutters, but don't impact the fps in a manner, you would like to.

I see in general a big advantage of a fast storage, such as SSD's. Even if you buy a fast drive and just have an old sata controller with sata 300 on your board, the impact is good enough and streaming engines like arma 2 are working well with a boost in stability and performance.

As more and more complex games are using streaming methods to work with massively detailed or large maps, I would recommend an SSD. Currently, very good ssd with a very good controller and good values in the reallife performance are coming from samsung (830 series). Compared to several other ssd brands the samsung is well equipped and you currently get a good performance for the money with this series. (sandforce or other controllers have to be double checked, as they often produced enormous performance in the lab, but are not that good in reallife circumstances).

So far...

[335th_GRAthos]

As von Pilsner said, use his link for the answer.

If you have 32Gb RAM (nice!) you can practicaly run everthing you want using a RAMDISK

With so much RAM (I am getting jealous...) you do not need to spend money on a SSD drive [unless if you want to use a SSD for your Win7 OS].

RAMDRIVE is a fantastic tool and in combination with the Link Shell Extension it is an excellent way to speed up loading times and avoid any delays due to HDD slow access (if no SSD).

What is the fastest way:
An SSD for Win7 + an SSD for your apps
But because SSDs are still small (capacity-wise) you are always better off with:
An SSD for Win7 + a 2Tb HDD for your apps + RAMDRIVE images

~S~

PS. I had solid improvement using RAMDRIVE+Link Shell Extension. Not in speed but in smoothness of play.