Are you sure the amount of "system" memory is relevant to texture
memory? Granted, most ppl are using AGP - based systems but majority
of all video chipset don't properly use the AGP system memory properly
for textures and resolution. Hence, the addition of 32MB and up video
cards.
If the texture memory was utilized properly in the first place, you
wouldn't need so much memory on the video card if at all. The basis of
having memory on a video card is for :
The frame buffer: The resolution at which you run the game. The more
the better. IIRC, this is usually up to 4-8MB.
The remaining is for..
You guessed it.. Texture Memory.
W9x and even Me, perform exceptionally well up to 256MB even though
the OSes support up to 2GB IIRC. Anyhow, if you go to 512MB, there
have been problems reported on "lack of memory or insufficient
memory". Kind of funny isn't it? The solution is to add the "min/max
vcache" sizes to 512.
From my testing, it seems that 256MB is the sweet spot after
benchmarking with Sysmark 2001 and other utils. You can go 384 or even
to 512MB. But the question, do you have multimedia work that you plan
on working on the future? I feel that it's redundant or in fact, cost
prohibitve to purchase so much system memory that you are not going to
be able to use all of it. I know it's tempting since memory is so
cheap.
Nevertheless, as you surpass the 256MB barrier the W9x/Me start to
slow down just a tad.
If you get stuttering in games, especially with Nvidia drivers try
this:
DISABLE the SSE and 3DNOW instructions by using RivaTuner/NVMax..
Usually works like a charm.
If you get stutter still, be sure to turn of FSAA, get a faster PROC
or try adding more memory. There's that much of a difference going
from 256MB to 512MB, IMHO. If one sees it then it's more of a "placebo
effect" IMHO.
