PDA

View Full Version : Amount of ram


JzzTrump22
May 1, 2004, 10:39 AM
How much ram do you think is sufficient to run most game? Not little games, big games that have high detailed graphics. Such as halo, splinter cell, mainly tom clancy games.

Golem
May 1, 2004, 10:56 AM
Well some high end games their is a definite improvememt if you go from 500mb to 1G ram total.

But if your thinking about new ram it basically comes down to how many slots you have free and a reasonable budget. I think it cost me $280 for a GB last time I brought ram which is nothing really

Grimace
May 1, 2004, 01:35 PM
Well some high end games their is a definite improvememt if you go from 500mb to 1G ram total.

But if your thinking about new ram it basically comes down to how many slots you have free and a reasonable budget. I think it cost me $280 for a GB last time I brought ram which is nothing really

$280 is a lot in the context of a $799 eMac! If your processor can support those intense games, you should definitely have 1GB or more. I haven't hear much difference between 1-->1.5 GB as I have from the big difference that comes from 512MB-->1GB.

ZildjianKX
May 1, 2004, 01:49 PM
I would argue that you will see little to no improvement upgrading from 512 to 1 gig of RAM when even the top games only require 256 megs of RAM as a minimum (UT2004, Halo). I personally upgraded my system from 512 to 1 gig and there was really no noticeable difference. In some games you may see a few frames per sec difference, but it will hardly be noticeable. If you want real improvement, upgrade your graphics card.

JzzTrump22
May 1, 2004, 03:14 PM
I am deffiantly getting the upgraded 128 mb video card which probably makes everything run much better. So if i had the 128 video card and like 512 ram, do you think that is good enough to run halo so it looks good and won't be too slow to the point where it gets on your nerves that it keeps stopping every few seconds.

pingin
May 1, 2004, 03:43 PM
I am deffiantly getting the upgraded 128 mb video card which probably makes everything run much better. So if i had the 128 video card and like 512 ram, do you think that is good enough to run halo so it looks good and won't be too slow to the point where it gets on your nerves that it keeps stopping every few seconds.

I'd be very interested to hear the answer to this question too. Besides resale worth, I'm wondering if there's any point in getting the 128MB video option. I would like to do some casual gaming with my new powerbook (fsp type games). I read this review:

http://barefeats.com/pb11.html

and got the impression that (a) in game terms, there doesn't seem to be that much a difference between the 9700 mobility and the 9600 and (b) maybe the bottleneck will occur on processor side. In the benchmarks, the powerbook graphics cards had 64MB only so I'm eagerly awaiting to see if the 128MB version will improve things (the review is due to be updated soon).

What are your thoughts? What do you think we can we expect from the extra video RAM?

Veldek
May 1, 2004, 04:17 PM
For most of the new games (mainly shooters, at least in this case), 1 GB RAM is recommended:

http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2004/04/facesofwar/index2.html#reqs

Golem
May 1, 2004, 11:34 PM
$280 is a lot in the context of a $799 eMac!

True but the ram I brought was for a Dual 1.8, Besides i waited 2 years before I could afford to go from 5mb of ram to 8mb of ram for my Mac II and that cost around a $1000:( Modern ram is very cheap compared to any time in the last 20 years.

virividox
May 2, 2004, 09:02 AM
1 gig and up is good for most newer games.

yellow
May 3, 2004, 09:16 AM
How much ram do you think is sufficient to run most game? Not little games, big games that have high detailed graphics. Such as halo, splinter cell, mainly tom clancy games. "Big" games require "big" preocessors. RAM doesn't really do diddly for you. It won't speed your game up. It'll just keep it from slowing down. All it'll do is keep the OS from swapping. Raw processing power is what you need for "big" games.

Coolvirus007
May 3, 2004, 09:44 AM
I have just been playing Halo for the last three hours (halfway there). I have a pb 15"w/ 128mb and 512mb. I don't have the settings at the highest but its nice and smooth. I can't believe I'm playing on a laptop!!!!

IrishGold
May 3, 2004, 09:52 AM
I can't believe I'm playing on a laptop!!!!


Welcome to where the windows world was years ago :p

osprey76
May 4, 2004, 11:57 AM
I am deffiantly getting the upgraded 128 mb video card which probably makes everything run much better. So if i had the 128 video card and like 512 ram, do you think that is good enough to run halo so it looks good and won't be too slow to the point where it gets on your nerves that it keeps stopping every few seconds.

You've yet to say what computer/processor you are running. I played Halo on my Dual G4/450 with a Radeon 8500 and 768 MB RAM. It definitely qualified as slow, but was still playable (though, it's good I've played through it on the XBox.) Since, I upgraded to a Dual 1.3 GHz and 1.25 GB RAM setup the game runs very smooth. Turning on the vertex shaders, etc. cause quite a performance hit, so I leave that off. I'm very happy with the upgrade and plan to avoid buying a new machine for another couple of years. At the same time, I can play all of the latest games without a problem, too.

Back to your original question, though. I think once you get past 600 MB RAM your returns will start to minimize. It really depends on what you are playing. Wolfenstein is going to require less RAM and horsepower than UT2004.

JzzTrump22
May 4, 2004, 01:53 PM
It's going to be on a powerbook, most likely the 15" 1.5 w/ 128 mb video card either that or the 15" 1.33

justin216
May 9, 2004, 06:07 PM
For newer games, I'd go with the newest and best graphics card and you HAVE to have at least a gig of Ram. X uses more memory than Windows on the whole.