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

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
ENTERENTERENTERENTER
*sounds of automatic gunfire*
EN
^{(see: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2066259)}

Ok, 4GB RAM in a 32-bit envoirement is useless for the end user.

Why can nobody understand this?


NO


IT'S


NOT.


Which, as an end user, would you prefer:

A) 2GB dual-channel.
B) 3GB single-channel.
C) 3.6ishGB dual-channel.

?

Bertster7 wrote:

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

Nappy wrote:

why dont they have a really fast hdd that plugs into the ram slot

like a 10 gig raptor that spins at like 50,000 rpm, or something

Bertster7 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Nappy wrote:

why dont they have a really fast hdd that plugs into the ram slot

like a 10 gig raptor that spins at like 50,000 rpm, or something

Your question doesn't make sense.

http://geizhals.at/eu/a283590.html

It's a shame they never released the version they demonstrated, which uses SATA2, DDR2 and supports upto 8GB. 16GB RAMdisks on SATA2 RAID are pure awesomeness.

A mate of mine runs a similar setup, but he built the enclosures for his himself. It's not as efficient as a retail solution would be though, since it all runs through slower FPGA boards, which is all we could manage to setup (I gave him a hand with some of the logic stuff, since I quite like VHDL). Also, having components you've built yourself inside your PC is always nice - although all my PSUs I've built and used have ended up (after reasonable stints of working) either going bang, or catching on fire.....

Bertster7 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's a shame they never released the version they demonstrated, which uses SATA2, DDR2 and supports upto 8GB. 16GB RAMdisks on SATA2 RAID are pure awesomeness.

A mate of mine runs a similar setup, but he built the enclosures for his himself. It's not as efficient as a retail solution would be though, since it all runs through slower FPGA boards, which is all we could manage to setup (I gave him a hand with some of the logic stuff, since I quite like VHDL). Also, having components you've built yourself inside your PC is always nice - although all my PSUs I've built and used have ended up (after reasonable stints of working) either going bang, or catching on fire.....

You bulilt your own PSUs? Nice! For server or home use?

Home use. I wouldn't advise it (as I said, all of mine exploded or caught on fire eventually (one lasted nearly 6 months)). You can't build anything near the quality of stuff you buy (and it looks a mess, at least all of mine did).

It's pretty easy. Transformer, full wave rectification (a few diodes, basically) and some smoothing capacitance along with a voltage regulator and that's pretty much it - for each rail.

Bertster7 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Home use. I wouldn't advise it (as I said, all of mine exploded or caught on fire eventually (one lasted nearly 6 months)). You can't build anything near the quality of stuff you buy (and it looks a mess, at least all of mine did).

It's pretty easy. Transformer, full wave rectification (a few diodes, basically) and some smoothing capacitance along with a voltage regulator and that's pretty much it - for each rail.

And whats the most powerful PSU you ever made and have you measured its efficiency? +1 btw

I think you're missing the point that all the PSUs I've ever built were really, really rubbish.

CrazeD wrote:

Nikola Bathory wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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

yeah, this is sooo obvious, that I have no idea why do we have to discuss it!
The more RAM the better - of course!!!!!

You're wrong, sorry.

CrazeD wrote:

Go ahead, go get a 64bit OS and play BF2 with 4GB and then with 8GB, or 16GB or some ridiculous amount. You'll see no performance increase whatsoever.

More RAM only helps if it's used, otherwise it just sits there un-used.

Think of a quad-core CPU, playing BF2. You will get the exact same performance as a dual-core, or perhaps even a single core (forget about background tasks, of course). And, you'll get the same performance as an 8 core chip. Same principle...

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

I don't see why more ram would be ANY worse... It is pretty much either as good as less ram or better.  I would certainly get 8GB if I got it at same price as 4GB. Some programs do need excessive amounts of RAM. I don't use them but I know ppl who do.

De_Jappe wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

You're wrong, sorry.

No he isn't.

CrazeD wrote:

Go ahead, go get a 64bit OS and play BF2 with 4GB and then with 8GB, or 16GB or some ridiculous amount. You'll see no performance increase whatsoever.

More RAM only helps if it's used, otherwise it just sits there un-used.

Think of a quad-core CPU, playing BF2. You will get the exact same performance as a dual-core, or perhaps even a single core (forget about background tasks, of course). And, you'll get the same performance as an 8 core chip. Same principle...

More RAM gives you more scope for doing more intensive stuff. That's better.

The only way I could see it being any worse (realistically, based on modern apps) would be in a 32-bit environment where all the RAM was used through PAE.

More Ram than 2GB is ONLY better if you play or do stuff that make the used ram over the 2 GB. If you cross it, you're gonna use virtual memory which basicly means disk-writing, which takes a huge time.

If however You never use more than 1 GB of ram with your old games, IM and maybe a browser, then there is really no use buying 4GB if you have 2 GB. Cause everything will be loaded in the current ram.

"so what if I'm gonna use more ram in the future". If that future is 4 years from now, you're computer will basicly be outdated and then you spent money on useless ram (not that it's that expensive these days).

Btw, your computer checks first in the ram if the file is in there, and if it don't finds it, it goes to the HD. The more ram is has, the more it has to check, which can take longer. (but I'm guessing here that it doesn't check "empty" ram space.)


It's the same as power supplies. Yeah "more is better", please go buy a 1500W power supply, you never know you'll need it. Ram is like the amount of Watt. You just need a little more than the maximum you are ever going to use, otherwise it's overkill.

Therefor, 4GB owns 2GB, coming from a company that sells ram btw, is only true in some cases where you exceed the 2 GB ram usage. Which might be true on vista or so, but on most XP machines or lower it is not.