Tests: 2gigs vs. 1gig

I'm tired of hearing people argue about games needing more than one gig of memory and having to reply that they don't and you won't notice the difference. I recently decided to run some tests and see if what I was saying is true. Here is what I did and what I got:

Method:

I ran two games for my little test: Battlefield 2, a game which is often said to take 2 gigabytes of memory and UT2K4, my favorite game, generally acknowledged to run fine on one gig of memory. I started up the system and then opened up BF2 and loaded the last map, whatever it's called, can't remember. The I noted the result and then did the same for UT2K4 on AS - Mother Ship. I played both games a little to see if there was any stuttering. Finally, rebooting was in order and so I did. Took out a gig and ran the same tests. Pretty self-explanatory.

Here are the specs of the system I used for testing:

MSI K8N NeoII Platinum
AMD Athlon64 3200+ Winchester core
Built by ATi Radeon 9800pro
2X Maxtor 160gig HDDs, RAID-0
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS
1 gigabyte/2 gigabytes of system memory, PC3200

Nothing was overclocked for these tests.

Results:

2GB System Memory:

BF2
Map loading time: 48.19S +/- 1s
No stuttering

UT2K4
Map loading time: 26.82.82s +/- 1s
No stuttering

1GB system Memory:

BF2
Map loading time: 55.41s +/- 1s
No stuttering

UT2K4
Map loading time: 31.35s +/- 1s
No stuttering

1GB system Memory, less processes:

BF2
Map loading time: 49.64s +/- 1s
No stuttering

UT2K4
Map loading time: 29.31s +/- 1s
No stuttering



Conclusion:

Well, I was right and wrong at the same time. I didn't really feel a noticeable difference, even though there was in fact one while loading the maps, up to over 7 second difference in fact. UT2004 was impacted, which surprised me. I would never have thought that a game which seemed to use less than a gig was actually affected when memory was added. Now, while doubling up on memory does produce results, you have to realize that it will hurt your overclockability as well. Also note that there was no stuttering in-game in any case and that closing memory-hogging applications like FAH made a fair difference when running a gig, almost bringing you up to par with double the memory.

If you don't mind paying two times as much on system memory for that 7 second increase when running memory hogging processes and losing overclockability then go for it. Otherwise I would suggest sticking with a gigabyte for now.

GREAT TEST there, really informative, will think about this.

oh btw, if i did take away alot of process from some third part progs that im running, would it make it run as if i had double the memory?
my processes list has the scroll bar the size of pea, to give you a idea of how many i have.

As for the amount of processes, that's way too many Shady!

I can fit my mouse inside the scroll button 6 times, if you get me. You would notice a huge difference in performance if you killed even just 50% of those.

this should be stickied!! nice job mrPS2 .

Dngrsone is a Mem. mod, il PM him.

I'd like to see further overclocking/memory related tests. I have some good TCCD on the way, when I get my new system up and running I'll do some benchmarks and overclocking setups to see just how much it will actually effect you both positively and negative to add to what you've started mrps2man.

Good idea though. =D

There are actually a TON of good overclocking 2gb kits out right now...a lot do 290+ 3-3-3-8

yes, there is a rule that there is no such thing as too much ram.
if you have the cash -> why not?

Well if you have the cash you could throw away as much money as you want on a system. What we want to know is, what can we get the best performance / price from. Obviously 2GB is going to be better than 1GB; even if it does lower your overclocking. But the question is, do you gain so much performance that its worth spending twice as much money on your RAM?

As this test shows, the difference between the two in the arena of gaming is fairly negligible. As such, for the purpose of gaming (at least, in these particular games,) the added RAM is obviously not worth the investment.

Although, I think more comprehensive testing should be done before making any final conclusions.

And, as always, you must consider the future. 2GB will eventually (within a year I would assume) be very useful for new games, and eventually be required, so if you want to spend the $$ now for the future I guess its just up to you...

yip. i would also assume that in general (video encoding and multimedia stuff) more ram is better. and the rule : too much ram is not enough would probably apply, since the future is coming. remember when 64mb of ram was top of the line? well, now its no more 64 - 64 can barely run anything!