FPS vs RAM

[159th_Falcon]

Ok, its probably well known throughout the community that a faster CPU means higher FPS.

 

Though i have been reading in a view posts that people claim that faster RAM speeds also give an quite big increase in FPS.

I currently own an AMD Phenom II @3.4 Ghz and i am not getting the frames i want, on occasion they get as low as 20fps (SU25T+skhval on)

 

Now i am still running an AM2+ socket motherboard whit 800Mhz DDR2 RAM

Will upgrading to fast DDR3 RAM give any performance increase whit for the rest same hardware?

 

Anyone has experience whit this?

[connos]

You overclock only your cpu? With Phenom to see improvements with overclock you need to also overclock NB and HT. Note that HT should never surpass NB clock for stability. I have them both @ 2.4Ghz.

Edited June 1, 2010 by connos

[Kuky]

Unless you overclock your CPU faster RAM won't do anything for your game performance.

[sobek]

Unless you overclock your CPU faster RAM won't do anything for your game performance.

 

Aren't the RAM clock speeds more independant on newer architectures than on the old FSB system?

[EtherealN]

They are, but the CPU is still the bottleneck. Faster RAM without a faster CPU will just mean you get RAM with more downtime between data requests.

 

And for the record, in DCS:BS 1.0.1 I did run some tests with my RAM at 800MHz (stock), 1000MHz and 1100MHz, and it made absolutely zero difference for me (only diffs that are within error margins) even with my processor beefed up.

[159th_Falcon]

Thanx for the reply's everyone, guess i wont be needing to update my memory

any time soon then.

 

ps, 3.4Ghz is stock speed for my processor.

[Silent Warrior]

Hm... Not knowing how much RAM you already have, I'll just point out that when I went from 1 to 3 Gb (also DDR2 800) I had a HUGE boost. In The Witcher. :) LO loaded A LOT faster, but I don't think it translated into anything near as big in-sim.

[159th_Falcon]

Thanx for the info, but i am already running 8 and i think 16 is kinda overkill:music_whistling:

(personally i think that for any new gaming PC 4GB is the bare minimum of RAM though)

[Silent Warrior]

... 8... :shocking: :surrender:

 

My next build will start at 4, at least, though. Check.

[EtherealN]

Well, technically 8 isn't "special", but I myself consider 4 to be plenty still. Just ensure that you use 2x2 so future upgrades are easy. :)

 

In fact, the next computer I purchase will be the first since I switched from Amiga to PC where I did not at least double my RAM. :P

[Icarus2]

Just an observation:

 

For years I had 2 Gb of RAM and never maxed it out. Thus, I thought I didn't need anymore. Then I moved to 4Gb and realized I was now using over 3Gb for the very same OS and game. It also seems very much game dependant. It made no difference in F4AF whether I had 2, 4 or 8, but the CPU sure did.

 

With Crysis I tested it and I always used less RAM than what I had. Then I moved to 8Gb. Crysis now uses over 4.5 Gb of RAM on my machine! I did not think that going fron 4 to 8 Gb would have any benefits, but I was wrong in that case.

 

It does seem to follow the law of diminishing returns, however. For instance, I'm not sure if a move from 6 to 8 makes much sense for any game. Made no difference in F4AF whether I had 2, 4 or 8, but the CPU sure did.

 

Does this sound right?

[Slayer]

The more memory you have available the more Windows will use. If a game or app requests more than you have available it will either use swapfile or free up some memory. This is especially true for Vista and 7. XP is not as efficient at memory management as the newer OS's

[124SqZeljava]

Hi all, i don`t undestand why you guy`s running for so much memory when BS and FC 2 can`t overload 2gig`s of ram. It is ok to go for faster ram in Mhz, but not more then 2 gig for those 2 sim`s. As i remember games from 5 years ago when i had 512 mb ram let`s say, and GFX with 32mb ram, and game was looking for 1 gig of sistem ram. Main issue was that my PC in that case had to use virtual memory from HARD DISK, and you could hear the diference in work of games that looking for max 512 and those that looking for 1 gig of ram, cos HARD DISK was so noise and working hard to get that extra 512mb ram in virtual mode.

Now, in these days, everything is so silent and working just fine. For those who don`t belive in my words, they can make a litlle experiment with only 512mb sistem ram, and they will hear there HARD DISK how to trying to make those extra virtual ram needed for BS and FC 2 in noise working HARD DISK. I don`t wanna be here misunderstood, here im talking only for those two sim`s nothing more, like faster sistem, another games, etc. cheers, S!

 

P.S. If i recall, i have never saw that my pc using 100% of memory now when i have win7 and all those nice looking smart gadgets ;)

[talisman]

I think you will find that 5 years ago 32Mb graphics cards where being used as frisbes and book ends and had even had time to collect dust. 10 years ago they where in regular use.

 

My first "expensive" PC was an AMD Tbird running 800mhz and had 512 ram.

 

Yes this worked fine - but i wasnt playing Lockon FC2 on it was i? No i was playing janes ww2 and unreal tournament with the graphics settings on low.

 

Computers have moved on - and the games we play on them have also moved on.

 

To your point, Hard Disks have a seek time - this is usually MUCH longer than RAM, this seek time slows your game down. When you first get into any cockpit in FS2 or BS, there will be a marked reduction in frame rates. This is caused by the game storing textures into RAM. If it had to do this in a swap file, the game would be much much slower.

 

I agree with the above posts, CPU speed makes a huge difference to framerates, but more RAM will also improove load times, general performance and the over all smoothness of the game.

 

PS if anyone is running vista etc, turn off the silly sidebar, you wont miss it and you will free up at least 15% of your system resources.

[Pilotasso]

The more memory the better. However you do have to calculate the optimum point were your investment is worth the extra performance.

 

For years I heard I would never need more than 2Gb but then I swapped over to 4 Gb and it made a huge difference. Maximum FPS are the same but minimum FPS do increase thanks to less hard drive operation and waiting times. And that is what matter the most to gauge playability.

[159th_Falcon]

Talisman, i did turn off the silly sidebar, but it did not free up 15% of my resources..........:lol::smilewink:

 

@=124Sq=Zeljava

I have been observing DCS RAM usage trough task manager and it regulary gets up to 4GB, and a few times i have been hosting a mission online i have

seen it using over 6GB of RAM.

(note, this is NOT total RAM used by entire system but RAM used by DCS.exe

total system RAM usage at that time was 7.3 - 7.5 GB or so)

 

Anyway, your statement DCS (and FC2 for that matter) cant overload 2GB's of RAM is WRONG and that's a FACT

 

***EDIT***

Agree 100% whit you there Pilotasso, more memory doesn't necessarily mean Higher FPS but usually DOES mean your lowest

FPS will end up being higher, giving an higher average FPS.

Edited June 6, 2010 by 159th_Falcon

[talisman]

lol .. quick re-think of that one. I have 2gb of ram - so that would be 15% of MY resources. With 8gb it would be barely noticable.

[EtherealN]

One more point: do check your motherboard before adding RAM for FPS. Depending on chipset and architecture you can actually slow down a heavily loaded memory controller if you occupy all memory banks, since they can then not use both lanes to the same chip.

 

I haven't seen any such issues with later hardware (including my C2D), but it's worth remembering to doublecheck that since I have zero personal experience with AMD chipsets since the original Athlon 64. Usually a more expensive motherboard will have less issues with this (it's one of the "first things" to make sure to get right on an "enthusiast" board), and CPU's with onboard memory controller like the newer intel chips are less affected as well.

[124SqZeljava]

Talisman, i did turn off the silly sidebar, but it did not free up 15% of my resources..........:lol::smilewink:

 

@=124Sq=Zeljava

I have been observing DCS RAM usage trough task manager and it regulary gets up to 4GB, and a few times i have been hosting a mission online i have

seen it using over 6GB of RAM.

(note, this is NOT total RAM used by entire system but RAM used by DCS.exe

total system RAM usage at that time was 7.3 - 7.5 GB or so)

 

Anyway, your statement DCS (and FC2 for that matter) cant overload 2GB's of RAM is WRONG and that's a FACT

 

***EDIT***

Agree 100% whit you there Pilotasso, more memory doesn't necessarily mean Higher FPS but usually DOES mean your lowest

FPS will end up being higher, giving an higher average FPS.

Wow, this is strange, i get if i remeber 1,7gig, and for GFX it uses from 400mb to 650mb, so i don`t know, maybe you are right, this new sistems are weird;)

[EtherealN]

Quick note: don't rely too heavily on the Task Manager. It shows several different types of memory load and can give confusing numbers.

[Boberro]

If LO2 can be quite well playable on my 1 GB RAM minus system ect so about 700 MB you don't need to worry about anything at all :D

[Mustang]

If LO2 can be quite well playable on my 1 GB RAM minus system ect so about 700 MB you don't need to worry about anything at all :D

 

Out of interest, what does it look like when you're flying around on your settings? could you take some screenshots? :)

[124SqZeljava]

If LO2 can be quite well playable on my 1 GB RAM minus system ect so about 700 MB you don't need to worry about anything at all :D

Now there is your operating sistem with other must run aplication...1gig, to low

[DrGonzo]

I'm not familiar with overclocking the Phenom or AMD in general, but make sure that any existing bottlenecks or ... ratios if you will, are eliminated-

 

I'm running on an E6600 [Core 2] which by default is clocked at 2.4Ghz, effectively setting the memory to run at 266mhz [533/DDR].

 

If the memory is set to run at full bandwidth and the voltages [especially for the northbridge!] adjusted accordingly, the processor speed jumps to 3.6Ghz [50% over stock!], stable, on air cooling-- which needless to say makes a world of difference.

 

For a simple example:

SuperPi 1M @ 2.4: approx 22sec

SuperPi 1M @ 3.6: approx 14sec

 

Again, I don't know how much the AMD Phenom utilizes the full bandwidth of the memory right out of the gate; I would assume more than the E6600, but it's worth investigating.

 

FSB : DDR should be 1:1 if possible.

[159th_Falcon]

I could be wrong but i believe the newer AMD models dont have an FSB?

At least, not in the way intel has it thus the ratio for FSB : DDR isn't applicable?