Well, I've had BF2142 for a while now. I finally got the PnkBstrA + B thing sorted out. But I have extremely choppy gameplay because I have 512 RAM. So I was wondering, what amount of RAM do the other BF2142 fans have?
3gb.
2x1gb sticks
2x512mb sticks
2x1gb sticks
2x512mb sticks
1 GB will make a big difference, but 2GB of ram is perfect.. you wont any probs with 2 gb
I have 3 gigs. Bf2 and Bf2142 load really fast and i have really smooth game play.
QFT. I'm on 2 GB right now and I have no problems.Andoura wrote:
1 GB will make a big difference, but 2GB of ram is perfect.. you wont any probs with 2 gb
I went from 1.25g and on titan mode used to get chop all the time, to 2g now I have no lag at all even with most settings on high unlike before.
Indeed, 2 is the magic number.
i went from 512 to 2 and it was like day and night. Better everything, even the maps loaded faster and lag disappeared
Just 512? And I thought I had it bad...
lmao.......... you know you got it bad when you need a pull cord to fire up your computerDeadmonkiefart wrote:
Just 512? And I thought I had it bad...
Do you?
A warning to anyone with 3GB and 32-bit architecture/OSes.
Do not go over the 3GB mark... you will unlikely start to actually utilize the RAM properly beyond this, thanks to the way hardware and memory is addressed.
There is a fundamental limit in 32-bit systems, which is 4GB. The reason you will not actually use 4GB is because your PCI bus and other hardware needs to also be addressed, which limits the maximum amount of memory that your system can "map" (or address).
So effectively, you can maybe use 3.5GB, if you're lucky, but in many cases, 3.1GB.
And to top it off, you will likely run into serious stability problems due to the large amount of partially unmapped memory.
3GB is the max you should consider in 32-bit.
You may get away with more in 32-bit if your OS AND your hardware support the PAE extension. It's a dirty trick used in memory addressing past the 4GB mark, but generally this is rare in desktop hardware. FYI, folks.
Do not go over the 3GB mark... you will unlikely start to actually utilize the RAM properly beyond this, thanks to the way hardware and memory is addressed.
There is a fundamental limit in 32-bit systems, which is 4GB. The reason you will not actually use 4GB is because your PCI bus and other hardware needs to also be addressed, which limits the maximum amount of memory that your system can "map" (or address).
So effectively, you can maybe use 3.5GB, if you're lucky, but in many cases, 3.1GB.
And to top it off, you will likely run into serious stability problems due to the large amount of partially unmapped memory.
3GB is the max you should consider in 32-bit.
You may get away with more in 32-bit if your OS AND your hardware support the PAE extension. It's a dirty trick used in memory addressing past the 4GB mark, but generally this is rare in desktop hardware. FYI, folks.
I can back this up, I tried to go 4Gb Dual Channel, it registered at 3.5Gb, which was still pretty damn fast....kachunkachunk wrote:
A warning to anyone with 3GB and 32-bit architecture/OSes.
Do not go over the 3GB mark... you will unlikely start to actually utilize the RAM properly beyond this, thanks to the way hardware and memory is addressed.
There is a fundamental limit in 32-bit systems, which is 4GB. The reason you will not actually use 4GB is because your PCI bus and other hardware needs to also be addressed, which limits the maximum amount of memory that your system can "map" (or address).
So effectively, you can maybe use 3.5GB, if you're lucky, but in many cases, 3.1GB.
And to top it off, you will likely run into serious stability problems due to the large amount of partially unmapped memory.
3GB is the max you should consider in 32-bit.
You may get away with more in 32-bit if your OS AND your hardware support the PAE extension. It's a dirty trick used in memory addressing past the 4GB mark, but generally this is rare in desktop hardware. FYI, folks.
But, Don't just buy any old ram if your going to do this configuration, Usually the company that makes the 2x1gb ram sticks will have an set of 2x512mb with the same timings, this is important because some 512 ram has shitty timings. And, your 2x1gb ram will only run as fast as your slowest ram.ThomasMorgan wrote:
3gb.
2x1gb sticks
2x512mb sticks
15 more years! 15 more years!
Unless if you're overclocking and need every single frame in your framerates, I don't think the timings matter as much as the market wants you to believe. But yes, that is something to consider!
I kind of thought that smaller RAM amounts actually had better timings than the larger ones, however. But it's been a while (since the DDR days) that I even bothered to look into it. I could be wrong on both things.
I kind of thought that smaller RAM amounts actually had better timings than the larger ones, however. But it's been a while (since the DDR days) that I even bothered to look into it. I could be wrong on both things.
My 2x1gb OCZ is 2-3-2-5kachunkachunk wrote:
Unless if you're overclocking and need every single frame in your framerates, I don't think the timings matter as much as the market wants you to believe. But yes, that is something to consider!
I kind of thought that smaller RAM amounts actually had better timings than the larger ones, however. But it's been a while (since the DDR days) that I even bothered to look into it. I could be wrong on both things.
It was also $250... Ouch
Last edited by Dezerteagal5 (2007-06-13 21:48:46)
15 more years! 15 more years!
If your computer can handle it, go 2GB+. Sadly mine is only able to go up to 1GB......
POS Sony.
POS Sony.
I would recommend atleast 2 gigs.Undetected_Killer wrote:
Well, I've had BF2142 for a while now. I finally got the PnkBstrA + B thing sorted out. But I have extremely choppy gameplay because I have 512 RAM. So I was wondering, what amount of RAM do the other BF2142 fans have?
Don't run it like that anyway, because it won't run in dual channel mode.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
But, Don't just buy any old ram if your going to do this configuration, Usually the company that makes the 2x1gb ram sticks will have an set of 2x512mb with the same timings, this is important because some 512 ram has shitty timings. And, your 2x1gb ram will only run as fast as your slowest ram.ThomasMorgan wrote:
3gb.
2x1gb sticks
2x512mb sticks
2GB is what is needed for BF2/2142. For a lot of maps 1.5GB is fine, but you really need to be careful about what is running in the background then. 2GB is a nice solid amount, no amount beyond that will yield a performance boost. These people who claim to have 4GB and notice a difference in load times etc. are full of shit - load times are entirely dependent on HDD speed.
I got 2gb @ 533mhz running on Vista and get rather bad lag at the beginning of rounds Was silky smooth on XP however.
2 x 128MB on laptop.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Just 512? And I thought I had it bad...
/win?
I have to agree... 2 gig is the magic number if you're running a 32 bit system. Load times are determined by the hard drive... not RAM.
A nice fast 10,000 rpm raptor might get you in the game sooner, but more than 2 gig of RAM can actually slow your PC by having more addresses to have to scan through. (depending on your slowest component of course)
A nice fast 10,000 rpm raptor might get you in the game sooner, but more than 2 gig of RAM can actually slow your PC by having more addresses to have to scan through. (depending on your slowest component of course)
Last edited by Teknoir (2007-06-14 09:26:00)
Funnily enough, even 10k RPM drives aren't much help (if at all) over a 7200RPM hard drive. Why? The bottleneck in drive performance is the seek speed, not the spin rate.
There was an article on this somewhere, but I can't find it.
I'm running a RAID 5 here. A RAID 0 would yield the fastest performance, but I don't want to worry about losing my shit when one of the four drives goes down the toilet. I'd lose all my movies, mp3s, games, porn, whatever.
4x320GB for the win! Way overkill, but still pretty cool!
There was an article on this somewhere, but I can't find it.
I'm running a RAID 5 here. A RAID 0 would yield the fastest performance, but I don't want to worry about losing my shit when one of the four drives goes down the toilet. I'd lose all my movies, mp3s, games, porn, whatever.
4x320GB for the win! Way overkill, but still pretty cool!
oh noes the pr0nz0rz!kachunkachunk wrote:
Funnily enough, even 10k RPM drives aren't much help (if at all) over a 7200RPM hard drive. Why? The bottleneck in drive performance is the seek speed, not the spin rate.
There was an article on this somewhere, but I can't find it.
I'm running a RAID 5 here. A RAID 0 would yield the fastest performance, but I don't want to worry about losing my shit when one of the four drives goes down the toilet. I'd lose all my movies, mp3s, games, porn, whatever.
4x320GB for the win! Way overkill, but still pretty cool!
2 gigs of DDR2 ram.
my old system had/has 768 mb of DDR ram
my old system had/has 768 mb of DDR ram