ram question

[tone12 0]

the high end requirements for OFF for ram are between 2 and 2.5gb of ram for xp. i currently have 2gb of ram but when i open task manager while OFF is running OFF's peak memory usage is only around 400mb. this is true of most of the sims i have, the most ive seen used on task manager is 800mb but most are under 500mb.

 

and yet when i go on most the game forums im told that gettin more ram would improve performance? can someone please tell me if im right about the above, does OFF only use 400mb of ram? if it does then why are the ram requirements way higher?

[Tamper 9]

If a given task (in this case, OFF) were the only thing going on inside the computer, then you'd only need about the amount of memory that task required. But, the system itself uses some of that memory as well (generally referred to as "overhead"). Also, although I've admittedly not studied what you're referring to, the number is probably referring to the 'core' component(s) of OFF running. That being the case, you'd obviously need memory space to move parts of things in and out of memory; the more total you have, then the faster and more efficient the process.

 

Gross oversimplification, for the purpose of an example:

 

Imagine if you had two processes that each require 400M. If you have 1G total memory, then you can move the entirety of *both* processes in and out of memory at will, without ever having to do either move in parts. Plus, the 'overhead' that is managing the movement of both processes has to live somewhere itself. I can't actually imagine much of anything going on inside a PC that doesn't require some memory; for our purposes you might as well consider that everything you do is pretty much loaded into (and, at some point, out of) memory.

 

And Windows-based PC's are constantly shuffling crap in and out of memory. Again, oversimplified, but you can see the point.

 

The total memory requirement has to account for 'total' system memory; in order to run the 400M+/- task well enough, the system will need 2-2.5G to allow for everything else it does to run the 400M task. Also, having adequate RAM is essential - but everyone almost always overestimates the need for memory beyond what is required. Once you go past what is really needed, there is much less 'benefit per unit' of memory. Going from 512M to 1G makes a big difference (just talkin' Windows XP here), but going from 2 to 2.5G isn't that big a deal even though it's the exact same numerical amount of increase. The real reason more RAM benefits most users is as I described above, system overhead and particularly task switching between several open apps at once.

 

HTH, just my opinion here as always.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Tamper

[Red-Dog 3]

Thanks Tamper, i've learn't something there..

Edited August 26, 2009 by Red-Dog

[Hauksbee 103]

Like Tamper, the innards of computers and their workings are not my strong suit, but I know that in the case of Vista, it takes a half a Gb of RAM just to bring up the desktop. Add to that the overhead of runnng two processors, plus whatever is running n the background...and there are probably a few apps., or utilities, that launch on start-up.It adds up. Not long ago, here on the Forum, there was a thread that mentioned a utility that would look at what's running and shut down everything except a single, chosen app. In this case, that would be OFF.

[Cameljockey 3]

You must be referring to "Alacrity PC/FSAutostart". I have used AlacrityPc in the past and it works very well.

[BirdDogICT 3]

Good discussion here... Anyone wanting to know more about how XP and memory usage might read this: http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/memory-winxp/

 

There are a number of utilities like Alacrity (it's one of the best IMHO). Iolo now includes memory defragmentation and resource management utilities in system Mechanic 9. I use AMD Fusion for Gaming (only for AMD processors) and am able to get my available physical memory to 1.65K (out of 2K total).

 

Your mileage may vary.

[tone12 0]

good info there tamper but ponder this for a minute.

 

windows task manager right now is tellin me now (no games loaded) in the physical memory column that i have just over 2gb or ram. system cache is usin 450mb (mem to run windows?) and i have 1.4gb available. when i run OFF peak mem usage for it is around 400mb. that pretty much means that i have 1gb left unused.

 

im just surprised that most games only use between 400 and 1gb of ram to run, according to task manager anyways. when i see people writin on forums that such and such a game is usin 2, 3 or 4gb of ram i always wonder how they know this?

 

ive went ahead and bought 4gb of ram anyways so il see what kinda performace boost i get but im not holdin out much hope of seein it bein used.

[BirdDogICT 3]

ive went ahead and bought 4gb of ram anyways so il see what kinda performace boost i get but im not holdin out much hope of seein it bein used.

Tone12,

 

If you are planning on populating all four memory slots with 1Mb sticks, you are asking for problems. You will be forced to reduce your FSB speed to maintain stability. No amount of additional voltage to the memory will help, as the instability will be due to memory controller limitations. Doesn't matter which motherboard you're using.

 

You are right that XP won't recognize all of the memory...only about 3.5 will be recognized, depending on your system.

Edited August 26, 2009 by BirdDogICT

[carrick58 23]

Tone12,

 

If you are planning on populating all four memory slots with 1Mb sticks, you are asking for problems. You will be forced to reduce your FSB speed to maintain stability. No amount of additional voltage to the memory will help, as the instability will be due to memory controller limitations. Doesn't matter which motherboard you're using.

 

You are right that XP won't recognize all of the memory...only about 3.5 will be recognized, depending on your system.

 

 

Kudos, you guys got me hooked on this thread. A geek I am not, but I do wonder how much memory is needed when useing a XP operating system to maximise the OFF game. As birddog pointed out, 1Mb sticks filling all the slots wont work. I currently have 2 GB. and I would like to up grade my system just for OFF. The second question would be : would an increase in memory boost frame rates ? Thanks, Carrik58

[BirdDogICT 3]

As birddog pointed out, 1Mb sticks filling all the slots wont work. I currently have 2 GB. and I would like to up grade my system just for OFF. The second question would be : would an increase in memory boost frame rates ? Thanks, Carrik58

Carrik58,

 

Not that it WON'T work, but it's a tradeoff, since you have to reduce your FSB speed, and thus your memory speed to maintain stability. Here is a simple explanation of what's involved: http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN806_Memory_Upgrade_Resource_Guide.pdf

 

Upgrading to 4Mb can result in performance improvements, but it's also a tradeoff...if you're installing 4 older 1Mb DDR sticks, it's not cheap ($150+).

[tone12 0]

nah i wont be installin 4x1 sticks of ram. ive ordered 2 sticks of 2gb ddr3 (1333mhz) ram, il be interested to see if theres much improvement over my current 2 1gb sticks of ddr2 (667mhz) ram.

 

 

"If you are planning on populating all four memory slots with 1Mb sticks, you are asking for problems. You will be forced to reduce your FSB speed to maintain stability. No amount of additional voltage to the memory will help, as the instability will be due to memory controller limitations. Doesn't matter which motherboard you're using."

 

will this still apply to me?

[+Polovski 414]

Also don't forget OFF Manager takes memory, but so does CFS3 when it launches from the manager (so a lot more needed). Also scenery and aircraft etc texuture need a lot of video RAM and this can pass from main memory.

[Parky 8]

Tone12,

 

If you are planning on populating all four memory slots with 1Mb sticks, you are asking for problems. You will be forced to reduce your FSB speed to maintain stability. No amount of additional voltage to the memory will help, as the instability will be due to memory controller limitations. Doesn't matter which motherboard you're using.

 

 

 

 

From experience, this isn't necessarily dead accurate. My Asus Maximus ran stable as a rock at stock settings with all four dimm slots populated with Mushkin PC8500 Extreme Performance modules. This was with an e6850 running (obviously) at it's stock speeds. The only problem I encountered was when pushing it up to 3.6 Gig, at which point I found myself having to feed more voltage to the CPU, RAM and NB. That still resulted in some instability issues until I aimed a fan directly at the NB to bring temps down to acceptable levels. I did have to run a 4:5 divider, but had also jacked the FSB to 1600. Depending on which BIOS you're running on that board, it's entirely possible to run with increased FSB and RAM speeds and no dividers without sacrificing anything at all (and yes...with all four dimm slots populated). Guys have done it.

 

I think success has a lot to do with BIOS version, cooling, the quality of your RAM, and particularly your understanding of strap limitations on that specific board (the Maximus Formula). It also helps if you have enough patience for finding just the right settings to maintain stability. Having said that, I personally don't recommend using all four dimm slots either....particularly in an overclocking environment. I've since gone to two 2 Gig sticks of Corsair Dominator and I'm able to run 24-7 primed at 3.8 Ghz. There's no way in hell I could achieve that and remain stable with 4 slots filled no matter how hard I tried.

 

My point is simply this: It may not be ideal to populate all four dimm slots on your board, but it certainly isn't a recipe for disaster either. Chances are things'll run just fine as long as you've got a decent board, matching DIMMS and reasonably good airflow in your case. If you're running a board that has the memory controller assigned to the Northbridge, it wouldn't be a bad idea to aim a 50mm fan directly at it, particularly if you're gonna' be doing any overclocking.

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Parky

[nio48 0]

I am running 4 gb Corsair DDR2 800 MHz RAM in 4x1 format on my E6850, which is overclocked to 3.2 Ghz. It is rock steady.

 

HTH

 

best

 

nio

[BirdDogICT 3]

From experience, this isn't necessarily dead accurate.

 

I think success has a lot to do with BIOS version, cooling, the quality of your RAM, and particularly your understanding of strap limitations on that specific board. It also helps if you have enough patience for finding just the right settings to maintain stability.

 

My point is simply this: It may not be ideal to populate all four dimm slots on your board, but it certainly isn't a recipe for disaster either.

 

Cheers,

 

Parky

Parky,

 

I agree completely, just trying to warn newbies of the need to know what they're doing, especially when trying to upgrade older PCs.

 

I find ASUS boards to be very forgiving, but they're designed for overclocking and are designed to dissipate all of the extra heat.

 

Best regards,

BirdDogICT

[BirdDogICT 3]

nah i wont be installin 4x1 sticks of ram. ive ordered 2 sticks of 2gb ddr3 (1333mhz) ram, il be interested to see if theres much improvement over my current 2 1gb sticks of ddr2 (667mhz) ram.

 

 

"If you are planning on populating all four memory slots with 1Mb sticks, you are asking for problems. You will be forced to reduce your FSB speed to maintain stability. No amount of additional voltage to the memory will help, as the instability will be due to memory controller limitations. Doesn't matter which motherboard you're using."

 

will this still apply to me?

Tone12,

 

You shouldn't have any problems.

 

The instability I was describing comes from populating all four slots and trying to run them at a high bus speed. Also, adding two sticks to an existing configuration is sometimes a problem, even if the sticks are the same brand and model, but bought at different times.

 

There are a lot of easy ways to screw up an upgrade...I've learned a lot from my own mistakes.

[Tamper 9]

good info there tamper but ponder this for a minute.

 

windows task manager right now is tellin me now (no games loaded) in the physical memory column that i have just over 2gb or ram. system cache is usin 450mb (mem to run windows?) and i have 1.4gb available. when i run OFF peak mem usage for it is around 400mb. that pretty much means that i have 1gb left unused.

 

im just surprised that most games only use between 400 and 1gb of ram to run, according to task manager anyways. when i see people writin on forums that such and such a game is usin 2, 3 or 4gb of ram i always wonder how they know this?

 

ive went ahead and bought 4gb of ram anyways so il see what kinda performace boost i get but im not holdin out much hope of seein it bein used.

 

The amount of memory you're talking about for a single task isn't necesarily small, honestly - so don't be too overwhelmed because it seems small. Again, as a function of total system memory, it may not seem like a lot, but there's plenty of that 'overhead' stuff to gobble up the balance of your memory. Plus, like I said, the problems with efficiency and speed really compound when it's time to move stuff into (or out of) memory - do a lot of that and your machine c-r-a-w-l-s. That's why it's good to have a reasonable amount of memory beyond what is required to run the stuff you do.

 

As for what you may have seen about a game is using 4G of RAM...well, it's possible, I suppose - but I suspect they aren't really considering what the game uses, so much as what the box says it 'requires' (much like the questions that started this thread). And for all the same reasons discussed. *lol* I've found more computer "experts" in forums that really don't know much about anything, except bragging about their hardware just because they heave thousands of dollars at the latest and greatest.

 

Now, take a guy (like me) doing things on a budget, getting "max whoop ass for the dollar" out of necessity: I consider getting a decent, stable gaming machine for way less than $1000 as exceptional, where anyone can spend $2000+ and pull it off. There are guys who live by 'bang for the buck'...the others are apparently fortunate enough to solve problems by throwing money at them :)

 

I guess I also should've stated that more processes obviously would require/use more memory (but then...that's why they call it "obvious"). And there are, as pointed out, a lot of different utilities that you can use to kill all the stupid "shovelware" apps that are kind enough to crap up a good system by loading themselves at startup. But, don't overlook the tool that ships with Windows - msconfig. Just go Start, Run, and type msconfig, and you have access to a list in the 'startup' tab that shows you (almost all) the offending parties. It's not as friendly as some of the utilities, but not as complicated as others.

 

As always, proceed at your own risk - Googling some of the more cryptic process names is a good way to learn about these processes and whether they're necessary.

 

Finally, regarding the issue of 4x1G sticks filling all slots...well, I'm doing it now, and this machine's "prime stable" at 3.71G (e8400). 'Course I did have to fiddle a lot with voltages, timings, etc, etc...as BirdDogICT points out, it ain't for novices :)

 

HTH