How much RAM?

I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple question...I am running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForce with 64 ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 'drawing' in front of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? **** "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles per second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't that just the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap (quote approximate)

On 27 Feb 2002 14:49:36 GMT, [email hidden] (TlgtrProd) wrote: >I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple question...I am >running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForce with 64 >ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 'drawing' in front >of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? I don't think so, 256mb is more than enough for those games with your system. Try setting Vsync to 'allways off' in your GF properties and see if that helps.. Andre

No, SCGT does not draw that far ahead, and there is no setting that I'm aware of that will increase the distance that it does draw. Some tracks like the new Le Mans seem to avoid most of those issues, but there are plenty of spots where you see the trees etc being filled in. I think it was a hardware/software limitation they built in to TRY and improve framerates. Unfortunately even with today's kickass cpu's there are still places that dog down SCGT on many systems. Best bet would be to try the GTmod for F1 2001. but...512 ram is still a good idea...just go NO HIGHER if you use any of the windows versions like 98 or ME. The server based windows, NT, 2000, & XP can handle more ammounts of ram...and in fact ...probably should have more ram... dave henrie "TlgtrProd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple question...Iam > running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForce with64 > ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 'drawing' infront > of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? > > > **** > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles per > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't thatjust > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap(quote > approximate) > >

FYI - 98 and ME will support more that 512MB of RAM, it just requires a change to the vcache settings in order for it to function properly. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pL6f8.7235$mG.36099@rwcrnsc54... > No, SCGT does not draw that far ahead, and there is no setting that I'm > aware of that will increase the distance that it does draw. Some tracks > like the new Le Mans seem to avoid most of those issues, but there are > plenty of spots where you see the trees etc being filled in. I think itwas > a hardware/software limitation they built in to TRY and improveframerates.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Unfortunately even with today's kickass cpu's there are still places that > dog down SCGT on many systems. > Best bet would be to try the GTmod for F1 2001. > but...512 ram is still a good idea...just go NO HIGHER if you use any of > the windows versions like 98 or ME. The server based windows, NT, 2000, & > XP can handle more ammounts of ram...and in fact ...probably should have > more ram... > dave henrie > "TlgtrProd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple question...I > am > > running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForce with > 64 > > ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 'drawing' in > front > > of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? > > > > > > **** > > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles

per

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't that > just > > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap > (quote > > approximate) > > > > > >

yeah. but the point is...if you have to turn off the ram, why have it? Just another setting/process that you have to run. Limiting yourself to 512 is simpler, CHEAPER, and doesn't require poking around in the guts of windows. If you absolutely need more ram, then junk windows 9x and get xp. dave henrie "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6R6f8.22370$[email hidden]... > FYI - 98 and ME will support more that 512MB of RAM, it just requires a > change to the vcache settings in order for it to function properly. > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pL6f8.7235$mG.36099@rwcrnsc54... > > No, SCGT does not draw that far ahead, and there is no setting thatI'm

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > aware of that will increase the distance that it does draw. Some tracks > > like the new Le Mans seem to avoid most of those issues, but there are > > plenty of spots where you see the trees etc being filled in. I think it > was > > a hardware/software limitation they built in to TRY and improve > framerates. > > Unfortunately even with today's kickass cpu's there are still places

that > > dog down SCGT on many systems. > > Best bet would be to try the GTmod for F1 2001. > > but...512 ram is still a good idea...just go NO HIGHER if you use anyof > > the windows versions like 98 or ME. The server based windows, NT, 2000,& > > XP can handle more ammounts of ram...and in fact ...probably should have > > more ram... > > dave henrie > > "TlgtrProd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simplequestion...I > > am > > > running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForcewith > > 64 > > > ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 'drawing'in

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > front > > > of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? > > > > > > > > > **** > > > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles > per > > > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't

that

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > just > > > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap > > (quote > > > approximate) > > > > > > > > > > > >

It doesn't turn off the ram, it just sets the amount used by the vcache. Apps that require additional ram such as Photoshop, CAD apps, etc can still access it. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ft7f8.7536$mG.37003@rwcrnsc54... > yeah. but the point is...if you have to turn off the ram, why have it? > Just another setting/process that you have to run. Limiting yourself to512 > is simpler, CHEAPER, and doesn't require poking around in the guts of > windows. If you absolutely need more ram, then junk windows 9x and getxp.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> dave henrie > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6R6f8.22370$[email hidden]... > > FYI - 98 and ME will support more that 512MB of RAM, it just requires a > > change to the vcache settings in order for it to function properly. > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:pL6f8.7235$mG.36099@rwcrnsc54... > > > No, SCGT does not draw that far ahead, and there is no setting that > I'm > > > aware of that will increase the distance that it does draw. Some

tracks > > > like the new Le Mans seem to avoid most of those issues, but there are > > > plenty of spots where you see the trees etc being filled in. I thinkit

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > was > > > a hardware/software limitation they built in to TRY and improve > > framerates. > > > Unfortunately even with today's kickass cpu's there are still places > that > > > dog down SCGT on many systems. > > > Best bet would be to try the GTmod for F1 2001. > > > but...512 ram is still a good idea...just go NO HIGHER if you use

any > of > > > the windows versions like 98 or ME. The server based windows, NT,2000, > & > > > XP can handle more ammounts of ram...and in fact ...probably shouldhave

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > more ram... > > > dave henrie > > > "TlgtrProd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple > question...I > > > am > > > > running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForce > with > > > 64 > > > > ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2

'drawing'

Quoted text (7 lines)

> in > > > front > > > > of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500

miles

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > per > > > > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't > that > > > just > > > > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap > > > (quote > > > > approximate) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Just as a follow up I personally have seen little gain in going over 512MB of RAM in any OS unless you are running memory intensive apps like Photoshop and the like. Some tests have shown that XP even maxes out at 512 and shows little gain beyond that. "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tu7f8.22377$[email hidden]... > It doesn't turn off the ram, it just sets the amount used by the vcache. > Apps that require additional ram such as Photoshop, CAD apps, etc canstill

Quoted text (15 lines)

> access it. > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ft7f8.7536$mG.37003@rwcrnsc54... > > yeah. but the point is...if you have to turn off the ram, why have it? > > Just another setting/process that you have to run. Limiting yourself to > 512 > > is simpler, CHEAPER, and doesn't require poking around in the guts of > > windows. If you absolutely need more ram, then junk windows 9x and get > xp. > > dave henrie > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:6R6f8.22370$[email hidden]... > > > FYI - 98 and ME will support more that 512MB of RAM, it just requires

a > > > change to the vcache settings in order for it to function properly. > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:pL6f8.7235$mG.36099@rwcrnsc54... > > > > No, SCGT does not draw that far ahead, and there is no settingthat > > I'm > > > > aware of that will increase the distance that it does draw. Some > tracks > > > > like the new Le Mans seem to avoid most of those issues, but thereare > > > > plenty of spots where you see the trees etc being filled in. Ithink

Quoted text (24 lines)

> it > > > was > > > > a hardware/software limitation they built in to TRY and improve > > > framerates. > > > > Unfortunately even with today's kickass cpu's there are still places > > that > > > > dog down SCGT on many systems. > > > > Best bet would be to try the GTmod for F1 2001. > > > > but...512 ram is still a good idea...just go NO HIGHER if you use > any > > of > > > > the windows versions like 98 or ME. The server based windows, NT, > 2000, > > & > > > > XP can handle more ammounts of ram...and in fact ...probably should > have > > > > more ram... > > > > dave henrie > > > > "TlgtrProd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple > > question...I > > > > am > > > > > running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram,

GForce

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > with > > > > 64 > > > > > ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 > 'drawing' > > in > > > > front > > > > > of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 > miles > > > per > > > > > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't > > that > > > > just > > > > > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick

Schaap

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > (quote > > > > > approximate) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Schooner" < > Just as a follow up I personally have seen little gain in going over 512MB > of RAM in any OS unless you are running memory intensive apps likePhotoshop > and the like. Some tests have shown that XP even maxes out at 512 andshows > little gain beyond that. agreed, the further away from 128megs, the degree of improvement lessens. I think I remember a magazine article that tried to find the sweetspot for memory upgrades. (this is a rough estimate due to my foglike brainpan) but the amount needed to satify windows and most programs without inducing slowdowns or swap file access was approximentally 196mb. To be sure you still see performance increases if you use more, ESPECIALLY if you have background tasks like voice programs(game commander) running or joystick controllers, but the scale flattens out the higher you go. big improvement from 64 megs to 128. Still big improvement to 256, but after that the speed increase or lack of speed decrease becomes relatively minor...it's nice though to have that extra space available if you have other programs to run. dave henrie

Yup. Depends on your application really, for most gaming 256-512MB should be fine. Having used Photoshop on a dual CPU CAD station with a GB of ram I can tell ya that extra memory sure does come in handy with some apps :) "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7E7f8.13322$Dv1.49089@rwcrnsc53... > > "Schooner" < > > Just as a follow up I personally have seen little gain in going over512MB > > of RAM in any OS unless you are running memory intensive apps like > Photoshop > > and the like. Some tests have shown that XP even maxes out at 512 and > shows > > little gain beyond that. > agreed, the further away from 128megs, the degree of improvementlessens. > I think I remember a magazine article that tried to find the sweetspot for > memory upgrades. (this is a rough estimate due to my foglike brainpan)but

Quoted text (13 lines)

> the amount needed to satify windows and most programs without inducing > slowdowns or swap file access was approximentally 196mb. To be sure you > still see performance increases if you use more, ESPECIALLY if you have > background tasks like voice programs(game commander) running or joystick > controllers, but the scale flattens out the higher you go. > big improvement from 64 megs to 128. Still big improvement to 256, but > after that the speed increase or lack of speed decrease becomes relatively > minor...it's nice though to have that extra space available if you have > other programs to run. > dave henrie > > >

256 is plenty... in the Game set your draw ahead to a higher setting.... "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pL6f8.7235$mG.36099@rwcrnsc54...

Quoted text (36 lines)

| No, SCGT does not draw that far ahead, and there is no setting that I'm | aware of that will increase the distance that it does draw. Some tracks | like the new Le Mans seem to avoid most of those issues, but there are | plenty of spots where you see the trees etc being filled in. I think it was | a hardware/software limitation they built in to TRY and improve framerates. | Unfortunately even with today's kickass cpu's there are still places that | dog down SCGT on many systems. | Best bet would be to try the GTmod for F1 2001. | but...512 ram is still a good idea...just go NO HIGHER if you use any of | the windows versions like 98 or ME. The server based windows, NT, 2000, & | XP can handle more ammounts of ram...and in fact ...probably should have | more ram... | dave henrie | "TlgtrProd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:[email hidden]... | > I'm not a hardware person so I need help with a VERY simple question...I | am | > running SCGT and Heat ()high detail) on an AMD 950, 256 ram, GForce with | 64 | > ram...Often as I come out of turn 4 I can see turns 1 and 2 'drawing' in | front | > of me...will going to 512 ram clear this up? | > | > | > **** | > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles per | > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't that | just | > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap | (quote | > approximate) | > | > | | |

this post was starting to turn into a meeting of the minds.

Good thing that no one posted a dig to keep it going then eh? "COWBOYSFN9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > this post was starting to turn into a meeting of the minds.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:27:45 -0400, "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Good thing that no one posted a dig to keep it going then eh? > Hey, just what do you mean by THAT, you old fashioned, two masted, gaff rigged, anachronsim? KFG

FROM THE ORIGINAL POSTER...went from 256 to 512 an AMAZING difference in the clarity of the detail...it was there before but much better now...AMD 950...tried it in SCGT, Heat and RT...still had a little "filling in" ahead of me but less... **** "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles per second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't that just the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap (quote approximate)

Windows XP can handle 4 Gigs of memory (2 GB applied to running apps). -- Chris H. "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Bw7f8.22379$[email hidden]... > Just as a follow up I personally have seen little gain in going over 512MB > of RAM in any OS unless you are running memory intensive apps like Photoshop > and the like. Some tests have shown that XP even maxes out at 512 and shows > little gain beyond that.

It wasn't an issue of how much it could handle, noone was questioning that. It's a matter of how much is really needed for gaming, and at what point more doesn't show improvements. The concept of diminishing returns come to mind. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Chris H. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6sf8.212852$[email hidden]... > Windows XP can handle 4 Gigs of memory (2 GB applied to running apps). > -- > Chris H. > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Bw7f8.22379$[email hidden]... > > Just as a follow up I personally have seen little gain in going over 512MB > > of RAM in any OS unless you are running memory intensive apps like > Photoshop > > and the like. Some tests have shown that XP even maxes out at 512 and > shows > > little gain beyond that. > > >

Depending on the games you play....your bottleneck might be your 32 mb gfx card...there are so many games out now that can use 64 mb of vid memory or more. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Richard S Beckett <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a5ktpn$[email hidden]... x-no-archive: yes I just went from 128Mb to 256, and didn't notice any difference. AMD 750 @ 933, GF2 MX 32Mb, W98, squeaky chair. R.

using g force with 64 mb ram **** "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles per second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't that just the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap (quote approximate)

Just like people believe having two CPUs is really good. Except if programs aren't written to take advantage of the two processors, no increased performance is noted. Sort of like trying to race a Porsche with an old stock, 40-hp VW engine. 8-) -- Chris H. "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dXsf8.5544$[email hidden]... > It wasn't an issue of how much it could handle, noone was questioning that. It's a matter of how > much is really needed for gaming, and at what point more doesn't show improvements. The concept of > diminishing returns come to mind. > -- > Biz > > "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand > alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and > the....." - Ash > > > Chris H. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:C6sf8.212852$[email hidden]... > > Windows XP can handle 4 Gigs of memory (2 GB applied to running apps). > > -- > > Chris H. > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Bw7f8.22379$[email hidden]... > > > Just as a follow up I personally have seen little gain in going over 512MB > > > of RAM in any OS unless you are running memory intensive apps like > > Photoshop > > > and the like. Some tests have shown that XP even maxes out at 512 and > > shows > > > little gain beyond that. > > > > > > > > >

I was replying to Beckett's post and he has a 32MB MX card. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash TlgtrProd <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > using g force with 64 mb ram > > > **** > "Here we are on a planet moving and spinning though space at 500 miles per > second...and look...my beer stays right there in the glass! Ain't that just > the neatest thing?" -- Bob 'Spaceman' Lee interviewed by Dick Schaap (quote > approximate) > >

Schooner <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_Y7f8.22383$[email hidden]... > Yup. Depends on your application really, for most gaming 256-512MB should > be fine. > Having used Photoshop on a dual CPU CAD station with a GB of ram I cantell > ya that extra memory sure does come in handy with some apps :) > I personally have 512 MB SDRAM onbaord my personal machine, but I agree with you here. I have seen 1GB (1024 MB of reg DDR) on a 2 CPU AMD machine and it did make a difference over the same machine with 512 MB. I toyed with this 2 CPU box as a server for my league running 2002 and I have to say I was impressed with 2 CPU speeds (AMD 1900's I think they were) It was overkill and I unloaned the box back to the owner and thanked him for the experiment. I hosted 64 people (32 in N4, 32 in 2002) AND edited some large scans in PSP (I ain't got the fancy Photoshop, hehe) at the same time without glitch, impressive...wish I owned the machine and the pipeline I had that machine on... For anything else short of MP maahines, I think 512 is enough RAM for now. I say for now because I think it was Billy Gates that once said we'd never need over 64k of RAM, ever! HA! My mouse driver in Win XP Pro is bigger than that :)

"Blake"$[email hidden]... > 256 is plenty... in the Game set your draw ahead to a higher setting.... I just read a review today for a new title...can't even remember what it was...probably the latest Everquest add on...but...the minimum ram requirement was 256...so if that was the min...then 512 is sounding better and better...you always want some spare storage room in the memory attic. dave henrie