Dual DDR quick question

Dempsey

irishguy wrote:

on the nf7 series boards, if you put the memory in slot 1 and 3 it will run [try to run] in dual channel mode any other slots and it will run normally.

To use performance Mode, matched pairs must be inserted into bank 1 & 3 or bank 2 & 4.

SirLemonhead

You can use 2 x 256 and 1 x 512 meg sticks on an abit nf7 board and still retain the dual channel, as far as I know.

RicardoSmith

I think other factors like the GFX card and the CPU will have more effect on gaming than moving from 512 to 1gb.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/doom3-cpu_6.html
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2156&p=2

I have some machines with 1gb and some with 512mb and I don't really notice the difference to be honest. But then the machines are very different so its not easy to compare them.

gline

not true, i noticed a massive difference on my system going from 512meg to 1gig ram, especially on latest games, CS:Source and colin mcrae 2004 (ok not really latest but newish) etc

RicardoSmith

gline wrote:

not true, i noticed a massive difference on my system going from 512meg to 1gig ram, especially on latest games, CS:Source and colin mcrae 2004 (ok not really latest but newish) etc

What the benchmarks aren't true? Can you link to "true" ones then?

Looking at the spc of your machine I could see why you'd notice the difference, everything else is top notch. But if you were do compare the difference between a 9700pro and a x800 or a 2500xp toa a 3500+ vs an extra 512mb of ram, I think you'd see more difference with the gfx or cpu upgrade.

Woden

i think the ram makes a different difference to game play then a new cpu or gfx card its more. load times aside (which i personally see a huge difference) it can mean the difference between a few frags and a few deaths on intial load in when the computer is still accessing the hdd and them similarly important pauses when the computer suddenly decides to access the hdd in game

while if you go to a x800pro from a 9700pro while you can run it at higher res and higher detail its not gonna make the load issues or in game performance drops go away.

gline

sorry its because im running these games at 1600x1200 with full AF and AA, so that probably needs a lot of extra ram for large textures etc, maybe on lower resolutions you mite not need that much ram. But i did notice a massive difference

RicardoSmith

Dataisgod wrote:

...while if you go to a x800pro from a 9700pro while you can run it at higher res and higher detail its not gonna make the load issues or in game performance drops go away.

Well it all depends if you are cpu, gfx or memory bound. Once the game has loaded you shouldn't have any more issues. Its only loading times that are effected by more ram. Or if you are running at the highest res with the largest textures and AA and AF turned up full whack. If you don't use the max textures you won't use that extra ram.

Oh and can someone post some stats to prove that 1gb is faster in anything other than max res with all detail turned up!

Anyone running at that already has a top of the range machine, anyone upgrading obviously doesn't. But I don't think that a 2500xp 9700pro 1gb is going to be quicker in games than a 2500xp x800 with 512mb. I also don't think that a 2500xp 9700, 1gb is going to be quicker than a 3500+ with 9700 and 512mb in gaming or in any other processing applications. Because by the time you are using the extra ram the bottle neck of some other component will already have been reached.

gline

Obviously extra ram isnt going to be as good as a better graphics card or better cpu, but extra ram does help if you have very little free on the system

RicardoSmith

gline wrote:

Obviously extra ram isnt going to be as good as a better graphics card or better cpu, but extra ram does help if you have very little free on the system

Most people thus far are saying scrimp on everything but the ram. That having 1gb is more important than a better gfx or cpu.

Woden

RicardoSmith wrote:

Well it all depends if you are cpu, gfx or memory bound. Once the game has loaded you shouldn't have any more issues. Its only loading times that are effected by more ram. Or if you are running at the highest res with the largest textures and AA and AF turned up full whack. If you don't use the max textures you won't use that extra ram.

i say this with a specific game in mind (BF:V as its what i play most) but i find though that even at moderate resolution such as 1024*768 and moderate details more than 512mb of ram is required for a smooth gaming experience, load times aside it is found that even after the game is loaded the hdd can be assessed quite a bit on 512mb of ram. while i don't doubt you are correct on the systems you mentioned above i find the gig of ram leads to an overall smoother gaming experience not just in game itself but also from other things as not having to close every app i have running before i go in game and also so i have the option to alt + tab out of game to easily access a server manager

so while moving from 512mb to 1gb may not have as big an impact as changing cpu or graphics card i still believe it has a substantial impact

gline

same here, game experiences are a lot smother after the xtra 512meg

RicardoSmith

Dataisgod wrote:

....
so while moving from 512mb to 1gb may not have as big an impact as changing cpu or graphics card i still believe it has a substantial impact

I take your word for it. I don't play that game myself. Though I have to be doubtful as no one can offer benchmarks to prove it....

I have a P2.8/1gb/fx5600 (mobile) and a XP2400/512mb/gf4-4600 here and farcry is only playable at 800x600 with all details low/med on the machine with more ram. That said, dx9/dx8 could be a factor aswell.

gline wrote:

same here, game experiences are a lot smother after the xtra 512meg

In fairness what else could you add to that rig!!!! :eek:

gline

RicardoSmith wrote:

In fairness what else could you add to that rig!!!! :eek:

Hopefully an x800 XT PE soon, LOL