PDA

View Full Version : Doom III Performance and System RAM: The 2GB+ Issue


Dolphiend
07-23-04, 03:17 PM
All things considered, what shocked me most about the recently released id/[H]ard OCP DIII benchmark data were the massive, hulking amounts (4GB and 2GB, respectively) of main system RAM with which both benchmark platforms were outfitted. For the past year or more, 1GB has been considered the de facto “high performance” RAM number amongst members of gaming circles, with anything over that amount simply being overkill in the sense that it yielded no tangible performance increase.

Given that Doom 3’s highly anticipated release is but a handful of days away, most gamers are concerned about upgrading their video cards and CPUs in anticipation of this hardware-intensive game. However, what I’ve been wondering since the release of the D3 benchmark data is this: should those interested in the best possible gaming experience also be concerned about upping their main system ram amount from 512MB or 1GB to at least 2GB?

My current system, one built around a motherboard with an i875 chipset, is currently outfitted with 1GB of Mushkin PC3200 RAM in dual channel mode, running stably at 2,2,2,6 timings. Since it has been reported that my motherboard (an Intel D875PBZ) will not run with “performance accelerating technology” (PAT) when more than two DIMM slots are filled, it will be necessary that I ditch my current RAM for this, should I want to upgrade to 2GB:

http://www.mushkin.com/epages/Mushkin.storefront/410170f601c0993a2740c0a801020613/Product/View/991359

But before I ditch my 1GB of ram for 2GB of RAM that probably won’t run with timings as tight as the ram I currently possess, I would like to ask you guys if you think 2GB worth of RAM will make a tangible difference in terms of Doom III’s performance. I know that the benchmark data we currently have access to is too lacking in order to reach a definitive conclusion, but this is definitely an issue that’s worthy of some armchair speculation.

-=DVS=-
07-23-04, 03:25 PM
Not worth it at all , just becouse they benchmarked some lame DELL pc's with 2gigs of ram :bleh:
Maybe next year when we have better rams and timeing.

PaiN
07-25-04, 10:26 AM
I wrote about this in another forum.....because not only did the PC's used for D3's benchmarks have 2gb of system RAM, but also MaximumPC listed 2gb as a "max performance" must have for a number of other up coming games, as well.
The general consenus was to stick with 1gb as long as the rest of the system was up to snuff.....

|JuiceZ|
07-25-04, 11:38 AM
Ram doesn't really make a diff when it comes to fps. You'll see the benefits of added ram when it comes to loading maps & such, thats it. IMO 2gb+ system ram is overkill for todays gaming needs. If you do a lot 2D desktop publishing or 3D rendering thats a diff story all together.

mustrum
07-25-04, 02:34 PM
Ram doesn't really make a diff when it comes to fps. You'll see the benefits of added ram when it comes to loading maps & such, thats it. IMO 2gb+ system ram is overkill for todays gaming needs. If you do a lot 2D desktop publishing or 3D rendering thats a diff story all together.

I 100% agree. Noone needs 2gb RAM right now. In most games my 1 GB onbly decrease loading times by a lot. A few MMORPGS i played were smoother with 1 GB but i am sure no game within the next year will need 2 GB to run smooth.

If you got too much money and want to play :condom: then go for it but i think it's a waste of money. The moment games will need 2GB+ the actual DDR400 will be too slow as well i think.

fleshonbone
07-25-04, 07:57 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they using the high amounts of RAM because of the Ultra High uncompressed textures settings?

Given that farcry with it's foilage and long draw distances doesn't even come close to 1GB of RAM, I don't know why D3 would need 2 or 4GB of system RAM for the typical DOOM/Quake/ tight corridor environments - however, maybe all the neato shading maxes out the GPU too much thereby kicking it over to system RAM thereby causing a need for large amounts of it...don't know...

On another note, I heard Carmack mention that because D3 uses more transistors on the video card than any 3D engine to date, that oc with D3 will cause problems, anyone else know anything about this?

DaveW
07-25-04, 08:19 PM
The Robotic Factory map on UT 2004 can use about 1.2 - 1.3 gig of ram when you have the graphics maxed. Thats the only thing I know that uses over 1 gig.

FearMeAll
07-25-04, 08:29 PM
On another note, I heard Carmack mention that because D3 uses more transistors on the video card than any 3D engine to date, that oc with D3 will cause problems, anyone else know anything about this?
hmm..don't know if this means anything at all, but with my oc settings it ran the alpha fine. I will say though that the doom3 leaked demo was a good way to test OC stability because if there were any weaknesses at all it would artifact.

mustrum
07-26-04, 03:08 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they using the high amounts of RAM because of the Ultra High uncompressed textures settings?

Given that farcry with it's foilage and long draw distances doesn't even come close to 1GB of RAM, I don't know why D3 would need 2 or 4GB of system RAM for the typical DOOM/Quake/ tight corridor environments - however, maybe all the neato shading maxes out the GPU too much thereby kicking it over to system RAM thereby causing a need for large amounts of it...don't know...

On another note, I heard Carmack mention that because D3 uses more transistors on the video card than any 3D engine to date, that oc with D3 will cause problems, anyone else know anything about this?
Correct me if i am wrong :angel2: but they didn't test ultra high texture setting because there is no 512 mb graphics card out yet and they option is greyed out with 256mb cards?