- Status
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]TSnor[/nom]1. Note vista 64 was used even in the 3GB test. Vista 32 would be a better, higher performing 3GB solution2. Dual Channel enambed with both the 3GB and 6GB configs? Or were 1/2 the dimms pulled leaving a single channel?3. As noted everywhere, this is not a Tom's review.[/citation]
I saw some test the other day about vista 64 sp1 not being slower than vista 32. I don't remember where I saw it though. But afaik the only speed difference, apart from driver differences, would be that programs need to read twice as long addresses in memory access. And I really can't imagine that being so much slower, as most memory data isn't addressing but content of the given variables.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Of course you should take the results with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean you should disregard them altogether. As Tuan said, you can read this and then go and buy another brand. There will undoubtedly be less "questionable" benchmarks comparing 3GB and 6GB (and more hopefully) in the future which you can look at too, but until there is this is all that you can look at.[/citation]
Exactly.
[citation][nom]velo116[/nom]I don't understand why despite having 3GB of ram the games don't max out the 3GB. Why can't the same results be acheived with 4GB as all of the total windows memory usages are under 4gb??[/citation]
Windows internally (unless they changed this for vista) uses half of the memory available for its own purposes (up to 2gb), so even if games are 64bit and can address the full range of memory in a given system, it will always lose access to whatever part windows itself uses. While the memory windows uses can be put into the swap file, programmers of the games don't nessecarily want that, as it'll decrease harddrive access. In short. With 6gb memory even a 32bit application in vista 64 will be able to address the full 4gb, and with 3gb only 1,5gb without system data being swapped.
I saw some test the other day about vista 64 sp1 not being slower than vista 32. I don't remember where I saw it though. But afaik the only speed difference, apart from driver differences, would be that programs need to read twice as long addresses in memory access. And I really can't imagine that being so much slower, as most memory data isn't addressing but content of the given variables.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Of course you should take the results with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean you should disregard them altogether. As Tuan said, you can read this and then go and buy another brand. There will undoubtedly be less "questionable" benchmarks comparing 3GB and 6GB (and more hopefully) in the future which you can look at too, but until there is this is all that you can look at.[/citation]
Exactly.
[citation][nom]velo116[/nom]I don't understand why despite having 3GB of ram the games don't max out the 3GB. Why can't the same results be acheived with 4GB as all of the total windows memory usages are under 4gb??[/citation]
Windows internally (unless they changed this for vista) uses half of the memory available for its own purposes (up to 2gb), so even if games are 64bit and can address the full range of memory in a given system, it will always lose access to whatever part windows itself uses. While the memory windows uses can be put into the swap file, programmers of the games don't nessecarily want that, as it'll decrease harddrive access. In short. With 6gb memory even a 32bit application in vista 64 will be able to address the full 4gb, and with 3gb only 1,5gb without system data being swapped.
i_hate_flying
Distinguished
- Dec 13, 2006
- 417
- 0
- 18,790
Wait just a moment. Corsair says you need double the amount of memory for twice the cost? Well, I guess we should trust them, they MAKE memory!
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]i_hate_flying[/nom]Wait just a moment. Corsair says you need double the amount of memory for twice the cost? Well, I guess we should trust them, they MAKE memory![/citation]
So if pirelli sais you need to replace your tires when the threads are gone, you automaticly assume you won't need any ? because they make money on it ? I see your point .... or something
So if pirelli sais you need to replace your tires when the threads are gone, you automaticly assume you won't need any ? because they make money on it ? I see your point .... or something
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
amdgamer666
Distinguished
- Oct 24, 2008
- 101
- 0
- 18,680
I think we would all much rather see a comparison done by toms rather than the manufacturer but beyond that, 2 gig vs. 4 gig and/or 4 gig vs. 8 gig. It would be much more relevant to 99% of us rather than the
amdgamer666
Distinguished
- Oct 24, 2008
- 101
- 0
- 18,680
wtf? my comment got murdered. It would be much more relevant to 99% of us that use dual-channel 2, 4, or 8 gigs rather than the
amdgamer666
Distinguished
- Oct 24, 2008
- 101
- 0
- 18,680
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
more memory = more performance...
k....
No kidding. i personaly use 8 gigs its huge in pretty much everything. I didnt need a website to say what everyone knew years ago even when bill gates was saying we didnt need more memory.
anyways most multi channel kits arent 2x more then buying each stick. there is something like a 25% discount for buying them in the kits give or take obviously.
The thing im asking my self is why did this artical even need to be put up? are people this stupid?
[citation][nom]velo116[/nom]I don't understand why despite having 3GB of ram the games don't max out the 3GB. Why can't the same results be acheived with 4GB as all of the total windows memory usages are under 4gb??[/citation]
I have had many games go up to 2.5 gigs in usage (if i consult the task manager of course) but in a 32 bit system if you have 3 gigs and a game is using 2.5 leaving 500 for windows and whatever else all i can say is get ready for some frame game slowing paging.
Though for vista i dont know the name for it i think its superfech is able to cache most frequently used programs into memory at startup which for me has been somewhat nice with the 8 gigs im currently using. So i would say 8 gigs isnt usless if your running 64bit. Hell ill be maxing out the new board im getting to 16 gigs also. cant wait to see what that does.
k....
No kidding. i personaly use 8 gigs its huge in pretty much everything. I didnt need a website to say what everyone knew years ago even when bill gates was saying we didnt need more memory.
anyways most multi channel kits arent 2x more then buying each stick. there is something like a 25% discount for buying them in the kits give or take obviously.
The thing im asking my self is why did this artical even need to be put up? are people this stupid?
[citation][nom]velo116[/nom]I don't understand why despite having 3GB of ram the games don't max out the 3GB. Why can't the same results be acheived with 4GB as all of the total windows memory usages are under 4gb??[/citation]
I have had many games go up to 2.5 gigs in usage (if i consult the task manager of course) but in a 32 bit system if you have 3 gigs and a game is using 2.5 leaving 500 for windows and whatever else all i can say is get ready for some frame game slowing paging.
Though for vista i dont know the name for it i think its superfech is able to cache most frequently used programs into memory at startup which for me has been somewhat nice with the 8 gigs im currently using. So i would say 8 gigs isnt usless if your running 64bit. Hell ill be maxing out the new board im getting to 16 gigs also. cant wait to see what that does.
Oevre Clocker
Distinguished
- Nov 17, 2008
- 19
- 0
- 18,510
I benched 24 gigabytes of ram this morning, I will do tomorrow the same, and day after and day after.
[citation][nom]zodiacfml[/nom]this is nonsense. how could ram increase framerates if the memory is not even saturated. [/citation]
As much as I question the validity of the benchmark - It took a while to stop laughing after reading the bolded header... The saturation issue isn't a concern...
The reason that the game may not max out memory is because data is loaded in discrete chunks (say datasets of 3-400MB, maybe larger, maybe smaller.
If you if you have 500MB free, and the next chunk you want to load (or unpack if it's in memory but compressed) is 700MB, then you won't load that chunk, and you leave 500MB free.
As much as I question the validity of the benchmark - It took a while to stop laughing after reading the bolded header... The saturation issue isn't a concern...
The reason that the game may not max out memory is because data is loaded in discrete chunks (say datasets of 3-400MB, maybe larger, maybe smaller.
If you if you have 500MB free, and the next chunk you want to load (or unpack if it's in memory but compressed) is 700MB, then you won't load that chunk, and you leave 500MB free.
zodiacfml
Distinguished
- Oct 2, 2008
- 1,228
- 26
- 19,310
well, i don't think that no game has a huge chunk as that. maybe around less than 100MB.
anyways, i meant saturated meaning around 90% memory usage.
4 gigabyte is enough for gaming.
there is an article in Tom's wherein we see warhammer online using more than 3 GB while crysis using around 2.5 GB and thats even on 64bit vista. on win xp, the games uses 1 GB less.
anyways, i meant saturated meaning around 90% memory usage.
4 gigabyte is enough for gaming.
there is an article in Tom's wherein we see warhammer online using more than 3 GB while crysis using around 2.5 GB and thats even on 64bit vista. on win xp, the games uses 1 GB less.
IronRyan21
Distinguished
- Oct 14, 2008
- 241
- 0
- 18,680
spearhead
Distinguished
- Apr 22, 2008
- 120
- 0
- 18,680
quite a diffrence between 3gb and 6gb as we can see. But 3GB on core I7 sill be better then 4GB of ddr2 on a core2quad. so 3GB might still be worth it. But 6GB isn't that much more expansive then 3GB about 40 euro but when you compare it to what an extra 3gb would cost if you needed to buy more modules this is worth it and still leaves you with a chance to upgrade to 12GB later. But i really hope these boards will support westmere when it comes around the corner that would be awsome. But yet we know intel for its lack of upgradebility with there boards so i doubt it will be supported on these boards. But i dont know this for certain yet. dous anyone have any source were i can refer to if it will support westmere or not?
crazyfool287
Distinguished
- Mar 5, 2009
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
Wow - a company that makes RAM, produces test results that show you should buy more RAM. That's brilliant marketing. Why didn't Tom's Hardware do this simple test? Try this:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1746/3gb_vs_6gb_memory_performance_analysis_on_x58/index.html
They use practically the same set up as what I have purchased for my new rig. I'm sticking with 3GB for now until someone unbiased puts out tests that show me I should upgrade.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1746/3gb_vs_6gb_memory_performance_analysis_on_x58/index.html
They use practically the same set up as what I have purchased for my new rig. I'm sticking with 3GB for now until someone unbiased puts out tests that show me I should upgrade.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram