Corsair says that 4GB is better than 2GB

2008-05-06 13:09:20

#1

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6724|The Twilight Zone

Corsair sent us a PDF document before which takes 13 pages to explain why 4GB of memory is better than 2GB. This, of course, coming from a memory company, who is looking to sell as much of the stuff as possible.

Okay okay, we’re sorry Corsair. The document actually goes into quite good detail about the differences and some in-depth testing in several games including Company of Heroes, Crysis and Flight Sim X.

Don't know if this statement is meant for Vista only, haven't read the PDF yet. Yes theres a a whole article in a PDF file. Download link below.

Download link

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-05-06 13:16:31

#2

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6852|SE London

It's bloody obvious that 4GB is better than 2.

2008-05-06 13:16:58

#3

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox: Big Mouth Prick; +219|6801|Golf 1.8 GTI Wolfsburg Edition

Even if your running XP, having more is better.

2008-05-06 13:18:42

#4

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6793|...

"so and so explains how having 4 quid is better than having 2."

2008-05-06 13:19:23

#5

02fxnmaurer: Member; +75|6753|Birmingham UK

jsnipy wrote:
"so and so explains how having 4 quid is better than having 2."

rofl tbh

2008-05-06 13:20:07

#6

Nessie09: I "fix" things; +107|6941|The Netherlands

But what about 3GB
Well, I suppose there aren't a lot of people with that.

And yes, more is most of the times better. Only more RAM in computer = less money in wallet.

2008-05-06 13:21:27

#7

Volatile: Member; +252|6975|Sextupling in Empire

Having more is better?

Wait, lemme write this down.

2008-05-06 13:22:23

#8

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7003|St. Andrews / Oslo

and...?

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2008-05-06 13:23:34

#9

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6764|N. Ireland

Umm..."obvious"?

2008-05-06 13:25:34

#10

CrazeD: Member; +368|6944|Maine

Um, more is only better if you need more. Having more RAM than needed will make it slower.

2008-05-06 13:25:51

#11

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6820|UK

stfu fools, it wasnt a fact till the guy at corsair said so

2008-05-06 13:33:01

#12

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6764|N. Ireland

CrazeD wrote:
Um, more is only better if you need more. Having more RAM than needed will make it slower.

Excuse me?

2008-05-06 13:33:50

#13

killer21: Because f*ck you that's why.; +400|6862|Reisterstown, MD

CrazeD wrote:
Um, more is only better if you need more. Having more RAM than needed will make it slower.

Ummm....in what universe?

2008-05-06 13:38:26

#14

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7003|St. Andrews / Oslo

killer21 wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
Um, more is only better if you need more. Having more RAM than needed will make it slower.
Ummm....in what universe?

actually, I've heard that as well.

Something about the OS having to check all the ram sticks, even if they can't be used or something.

2008-05-06 13:38:55

#15

CrazeD: Member; +368|6944|Maine

RAM doesn't magically make things faster. It is only faster when you are exceeding its space and have to use pagefile. For example, if you play BF2 with 1GB of RAM, it will lag since it uses more than that. If you use 2GB of RAM, it won't lag. If you use 3GB of RAM, it will be the same speed - since it doesn't exceed 2GB. And then, it will be slower because you have to cache all of the RAM, even the un-used portion.

Look it up.

2008-05-06 13:39:33

#16

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6793|...

... and this is where the thread unravels into chaos.

2008-05-06 13:43:13

#17

CrazeD: Member; +368|6944|Maine

Jenspm wrote:
killer21 wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
Um, more is only better if you need more. Having more RAM than needed will make it slower.
Ummm....in what universe?
actually, I've heard that as well.

Something about the OS having to check all the ram sticks, even if they can't be used or something.

Yes, it's called caching. It has to search all of the RAM for the file it wants, even after it finds it. If it's not there, it has to load it on, if it is there it uses it.

2008-05-06 13:43:58

#18

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6764|N. Ireland

CrazeD wrote:
RAM doesn't magically make things faster. It is only faster when you are exceeding its space and have to use pagefile. For example, if you play BF2 with 1GB of RAM, it will lag since it uses more than that. If you use 2GB of RAM, it won't lag. If you use 3GB of RAM, it will be the same speed - since it doesn't exceed 2GB. And then, it will be slower because you have to cache all of the RAM, even the un-used portion.

Look it up.

Okay, let's use your Battlefield 2 example: more RAM will mean your textures, geometries and shaders should likely load quicker. Overall reducing game load time. RAM basically stores data, and the more it can hold the better. Also, bit-tech even wrote an article on Battlefield 2 and memory.

2008-05-06 13:45:07

#19

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6724|The Twilight Zone

kylef wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
RAM doesn't magically make things faster. It is only faster when you are exceeding its space and have to use pagefile. For example, if you play BF2 with 1GB of RAM, it will lag since it uses more than that. If you use 2GB of RAM, it won't lag. If you use 3GB of RAM, it will be the same speed - since it doesn't exceed 2GB. And then, it will be slower because you have to cache all of the RAM, even the un-used portion.

Look it up.
Okay, let's use your Battlefield 2 example: more RAM will mean your textures, geometries and shaders should likely load quicker. Overall reducing game load time. RAM basically stores data, and the more it can hold the better. Also, bit-tech even wrote an article on Battlefield 2 and memory.

I thought you wrote that one.

2008-05-06 13:46:23

#20

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6764|N. Ireland

.Sup wrote:
I thought you wrote that one.

lol. I'm fortunate enough not to have the surname "Smalley"

2008-05-06 13:47:09

#21

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6793|...

CrazeD wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
killer21 wrote:

Ummm....in what universe?
actually, I've heard that as well.

Something about the OS having to check all the ram sticks, even if they can't be used or something.
Yes, it's called caching. It has to search all of the RAM for the file it wants, even after it finds it. If it's not there, it has to load it on, if it is there it uses it.

This really depends on the application itself. Applications are aware of where exactly to look at in memory for what it wants (does every variable declaration result in a memory scan? no).

2008-05-06 13:57:09

#22

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6468|Winland

Lol at both Corsair and this thread.

Lol.
Lol.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-05-06 13:59:07

#23

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6920

kylef wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
RAM doesn't magically make things faster. It is only faster when you are exceeding its space and have to use pagefile. For example, if you play BF2 with 1GB of RAM, it will lag since it uses more than that. If you use 2GB of RAM, it won't lag. If you use 3GB of RAM, it will be the same speed - since it doesn't exceed 2GB. And then, it will be slower because you have to cache all of the RAM, even the un-used portion.

Look it up.
Okay, let's use your Battlefield 2 example: more RAM will mean your textures, geometries and shaders should likely load quicker. Overall reducing game load time. RAM basically stores data, and the more it can hold the better. Also, bit-tech even wrote an article on Battlefield 2 and memory.

Problem is that article mentions nothing about using more RAM than required.

2008-05-06 14:03:39

#24

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6764|N. Ireland

ghettoperson wrote:
Problem is that article mentions nothing about using more RAM than required.

Meh, read the first sentence in my post then

2008-05-06 14:04:39

#25

mikkel: Member; +383|6872

jsnipy wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
actually, I've heard that as well.

Something about the OS having to check all the ram sticks, even if they can't be used or something.
Yes, it's called caching. It has to search all of the RAM for the file it wants, even after it finds it. If it's not there, it has to load it on, if it is there it uses it.
This really depends on the application itself. Applications are aware of where exactly to look at in memory for what it wants (does every variable declaration result in a memory scan? no).

Yeah, depends on the application and the language it's written in. For most any language, a variable is a direct reference to a location in memory, and there's no need to scan anything to address a specific location in memory.

With 64-bits available to represent the locations of bytes of memory the maximum theoretical memory address size increases to 2^64 bytes, which equates to 16TB (terabytes) or 16,384GB (yes, gigabytes!)

Is it just me, or is 2^64 closer to 2 exabytes? That's a few orders of magnitude off.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-05-06 14:11:23)

BF2S Forums Corsair says that 4GB is better than 2GB

jsnipy wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

killer21 wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

killer21 wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

kylef wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

.Sup wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

killer21 wrote:

kylef wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Board footer