CPU/Mobo Is “Too Much†Really Just Enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.
b00gieMan

b00gieMan

Explorer
Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM (or even more than 4gb in that case)??

Is “Too Much” Really Just Enough?
The notion that bigger is better has taken a beating lately in all aspects of society.

Once the pride of the so-called upper middle class in the United States, McMansions and SUVs have now become symbols of excess and waste--at least the reminders of an era past. Green movement proponents should certainly be happy that so many “earth abusers” are beginning to see the light, but what about performance-computing fanatics? With memory prices near record lows, is there any good reason not to fill every slot with low-cost 2 GB DIMMs?

Environmentalists could point out that IC and PCB production turns a large quantity of natural resources into post-production waste, while most of the end-product is not recyclable and the additional components add to the system’s energy consumption. Power users could easily counter energy concerns by pointing out that a better-performing computer allows them to get their work done in less time. But neither argument is sufficient to answer the question we’ve asked so many times before: How much RAM do you really need?
Click to expand...

Read More
 
greenhorn said:
i think even 2 cores are two much :P
Click to expand...

I would not say that. Two cores are perfect these days and 4 cores are required by few people. But anything more than that it little too much. Am talking from the normal consumers like us.

When it comes to Ram, i think 4Gb is more than enough for now.
 
Exactly.. infact 4cores are just used by some professionals using heavy duty apps preferably for movie editing, special fx, etc. Users like us using a Quad is a waste of money purely.. It hardly even matters in games just for some multi threaded games.. which is something that is not adopted by all the gamer developers.. mebbe in near future it could be as Core i7 is out..

3GB rams works perfectly.. but i must say 4gb does add up some speeds but then again.. thz just with the apps that we use normally... nothing much with the gaming and stuffs..
 
I am satisfied with my 2GB kit , But planning to get 4GB kit as RAM prices are dropped :P

& if i has enough moolah , 8GB of RAM was most likely there , even if 4GB is sufficient .

i agree 4GB is more than enough for common user , most of who use 8Gb want to SHOW-OFF .
 
Sudarshan_SMD said:
I am satisfied with my 2GB kit , But planning to get 4GB kit as RAM prices are dropped :P

& if i has enough moolah , 8GB of RAM was most likely there , even if 4GB is sufficient .

i agree 4GB is more than enough for common user , most of who use 8Gb want to SHOW-OFF .
Click to expand...

My advice - an extra 1 GB atleast(prices as low as 550 bucks for transcend) is worth the upgrade. If you think you are running Crysis smooth on a 2 GB setup, wait till you do this upgrade.
2ndly, dont wait, get the extra RAM right away. You have all to lose and no gain in waiting.
 
vicente said:
My advice - an extra 1 GB atleast(prices as low as 550 bucks for transcend) is worth the upgrade. If you think you are running Crysis smooth on a 2 GB setup, wait till you do this upgrade.
2ndly, dont wait, get the extra RAM right away. You have all to lose and no gain in waiting.
Click to expand...

CRYSIS do run very smoothly on my computer with Very High settings, 16XAA & highest resoultion.
i am using a 15"crt monitor with resolution 1024*768, so 2GB RAM +880GTX +core 2duo E6750 ( stock) is enought to take on CRYSIS.
n this applies to CRYSIS WARHEAD too .

on 2nd. point: you have to wait if u don't have moolah:P
 
Sudarshan_SMD said:
CRYSIS do run very smoothly on my computer with Very High settings, 16XAA & highest resoultion.
i am using a 15"crt monitor with resolution 1024*768, so 2GB RAM +880GTX +core 2duo E6750 ( stock) is enought to take on CRYSIS.
n this applies to CRYSIS WARHEAD too .

on 2nd. point: you have to wait if u don't have moolah:P
Click to expand...

the upgrade to 3GB helped me run it noticeably better on a 4000+ with vista. Maybe its something to do with Vista then. What OS are you on?
And right,this applies to Warhead too. Runs on steroids now, ever better than Crysis.
 
Aphro_EVO said:
15 incher with 8800GTX, what has the world come to lol.
Click to expand...

before 8800GTX i had 8800GTS.
now when i think of upgrade, i think of getting a 4870 or 4850X2 and not upgrading the monitor.:P

vicente said:
the upgrade to 3GB helped me run it noticeably better on a 4000+ with vista. Maybe its something to do with Vista then. What OS are you on?
And right,this applies to Warhead too. Runs on steroids now, ever better than Crysis.
Click to expand...
VISTA 64bit.
my personal experience game run better on XP then Vista.
when i had 8800GTS CRYSIS at VERY HIGH ,16xAA was giving very low frame rates , while on XP fames were more .was same ofr GEARS of WAR . n GTA IV.
 
^I think you are the only person who would think that way :P. Get atleast a 22". They cheaper nowadays if you don't know yet.
 
my personal experience game run better on XP then Vista.

when i had 8800GTS CRYSIS at VERY HIGH ,16xAA
Click to expand...

Games do run better on xp but if youve got the hardware, you can use vista to make use of the few dx10 titles....And whats the point of maxing out crysis on a 15 incher? You cant enjoy its magnificence with a small monitor..a 22" is a must.
 
Guys, please talk sense when u say "Game runs better on XP THAN VIsta".. i hope u guys are aware of what ur talking..??

Its obv some games like Crysis, etc work better on XP ie. just gives u highe FPS just coz "ON XP ITS RUNNING ON DX 9 and not DX 10". On vista its as it is screwed up and above all the game goes to DX 10 mode... and yet if u dont have a good system then its obv its not gonna work fine.. my exp. with this is totally different.. When i was on XP i was on C2D 1.8Ghz, 2GB Corsair XMS 2 rams, etc and 8800GT.. games did run fine on XP but when i installed Vista with SP1 the proper versions where all was working fine.. i felt em working and running better than how they did on XP.. including GTA SA.. i had more fun playing that on Vista.. for some reason, it was better than XP.. even though there was no DX 10.

2ndly, After i upgraded my proc. to E8400 and better rams like 3GB and above.. thre was a huge difference and all game had major improvements.. So its nothing like games really suck on VIsta, just that if u dont have appropriate h/w its gonna suck coz Gaming on Vista requires atleast 2GB of DDR2 RAMs.

So moral.. Vista does suck while gaming but thz coz ur h/w is not that good enuff.. and herez where Vista was a flop as it required a hi-end system / hw to run Vista the way it was meant to be.
 
and yea.. Please upgrade the screen to 22" they are pretty cheap these days.. If ur using 15" CRT with 8800.. ur literally bottlenecking ur card :bleh:

The card is not even able to fully utilise itself coz ur playing at lower reso.. :S

Therez no fun of playing a high end game on 15" CRT. When i was on 8600GT i had switched to 22" LCD :rofl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom