muirplayer's forum posts

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
[QUOTE="muirplayer"]

Read your little forum post again. It clearly says 3gb for vista under recommended specifications. You're still not going to notice a difference in game performance with dual or single channel ram.

Haha... ninja edit.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

There isn't a single game that recommends 3GB of ram and no Fury is not one of them. http://forums.auran.com/fury/forum/showthread.php?t=363

Who installs 3GB of ram anyway. That will be single channel so the ram runs slower and like I said the actual OS only use about 300MB. I think people look at the task manager and thing OMG I am using 1GB of ram. The truth is it's not actual being used just cache.

imprezawrx500

I don't necessarily want 50 background applications. There often comes a time when a person uses applications simultaneously. I could have Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, DreamWeaver, Premiere, Vegas Video (not all at the same time but some, and quite often) and ram usage goes up, fast. And wether the 1gb of ram is being used by what the user is doing or not, it's still being used.

well i just put your little theory to test, firefox, photoshop, word, fireworks, dreamweaver, freehand, indesing, and flash all open at once and only 1.34gb of ram used, so really you don't need 3-4gb to make vista multitask, 2gb is basicly as much as it is in xp despite what everyone seems to think

1. Do you have any idea what a paging file is?

2. Did you just have them open for the sake of having them open or were you actually using the programs?

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts

I don't think the video card ram is included in the calculations, unless you're running some integrated video graphics that share system ram. Then it'll suck off some ram, but since he's got a real video card that won't happen.

As for getting more ram, if you want you can go to 4GB. I'd definitely keep it even so that you don't lose dual channel. Not sure how much benefit you'll be getting performance wise though. XP-32 (and I suspect Vista-32) will only see 4GB max but I read that you won't actually see 4GB since the top 1GB is reserved for the OS.

fynne

It is. Thats why some people see different variations of ram above 3gb. 3.2, 3.5 and 3.8gb.

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
If you have 4gb of ram in 32bit vista, it will subtract the amount of your videocard, so yes, 3.5gb would be visible to you. I'd get the 4gb.
Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
Even if your cpu, ram and mobo are creating a bottleneck, you're not going to be able to max crysis with an 8800gts.
Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
He used a gamespot review as a reference... gamespot reviews are horrible.
Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts

Read your little forum post again. It clearly says 3gb for vista under recommended specifications. You're still not going to notice a difference in game performance with dual or single channel ram.

Haha... ninja edit.

There isn't a single game that recommends 3GB of ram and no Fury is not one of them. http://forums.auran.com/fury/forum/showthread.php?t=363

Who installs 3GB of ram anyway. That will be single channel so the ram runs slower and like I said the actual OS only use about 300MB. I think people look at the task manager and thing OMG I am using 1GB of ram. The truth is it's not actual being used just cache.

Deihmos

I don't necessarily want 50 background applications. There often comes a time when a person uses applications simultaneously. I could have Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, DreamWeaver, Premiere, Vegas Video (not all at the same time but some, and quite often) and ram usage goes up, fast. And wether the 1gb of ram is being used by what the user is doing or not, it's still being used.

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"]If you have XP, 2 is fine, but if you have Vista, get 3 GB.Deihmos

2GB is more than enough if using Vista. Adding more memory wouldn't make a difference.

2gb is almost a joke. Honestly. Or I suppose it just depends on how you use your computer. It's more than enough for the average joe internet, word, powerpoint, etc. user. If you're going to be using one program (i.e: any video game) at a time with a few background processes, ok; 2gb is fine. However, there are games out there with a 3gb recommended amount for vista. One of those games would be "Fury". Also, pplications such as photoshop or any workstation type programs LOVE and WILL use all the ram they can. For reference, photoshop can use a maximum of 3gb of ram. 2gb more than enough?

On the other hand, there are people who play their mmo's in window mode with multiple clients open, tab out of a game for whatever reason, or even have more than 1 fullscreen game going at the same time. Tell me if I'm wrong but multitasking with any game or other applications will increase your ram usage, thus the need for more ram. 2gb is simply not "more than enough".

Oh yes, don't forget; more ram = less page file usage = more performance. Period.

Dual Channel does yield an increase in framerates, but nothing to die for

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
Sounds like your mobo doesn't like 224mhz fsb or higher. You can try raising the nb and vcore voltages to see if that helps any. Higher voltage = higher temps.
Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
With some boards they are, others they arent. The link I posted is for an Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe. It has a 590 SLI chipset. New bios versions give support for phenom processors.