No, too much memory slow the pc performances if not used.
Vista need about 1.5GB to go fast and whitout sh3

I wonder where you got the idea that extra RAM slows down the PC when not used. I've certainly seen nothing but improvements from it. And since I have it in dual-channel, it's all the faster still.

Besides, as the Vista example amply shows, there's no such thing as extra RAM :p
On XP, while running any modern game I generally run over 1GB usage, SHIII included, and that extra gig sure comes in handy.

Ummmm... this is 100% WRONG. :damn: :nope: :damn: :nope:

I'm a win32/.net programmer, I know what I'm talking about. The more memory you have the better. There is no "overhead" to having more physical memory.

Unused memory is used for a disk cache, reducing the number of physical reads you need to make. If you don't have enough mem, and the total working set (PF usage or commit charge in task manager) is greater than your physical memory then your system will be constantly paging to disk then you are in a world of hurt.

And each core on a dual-core system is as fast as a single-core cpu running at the same speed - or even slightly faster, because the manufacturers generally squeeze a little bit more processing power out of each mhz with each new cpu.

Its true that dual-core doesn't help SH3 or most other games much, as they are (mainly) single-threaded and they can only saturate one core.

However, if you look at task manager you'll notice there is always 5-10% of background cpu usage, from internal windows things, AV, messenger, browser, and other stuff. All this can be handled by the spare core, so SH3 etc has 100% of one core to use, instead of 90% or so in a single-core system.

/rant end.

Sorry but one of my pet peeves is ignorant people spreading disinformation.

If you are using your pc mainly for gaming what matters most is your graphics card. With some exceptions though like FS9, in which you need more cpu speed and ram, would certainly help a lot.

Very true in most cases, but when it comes to time compression in SH3 (which is what this topic is originally about), that is all cpu.

You are not totaly wrong...but you are wrong.
It's a fact, more ram unused....more slow.
Caching slow down the memory access.
And ignotant all we are....or you know all?
And dual core works today more in a single core,
there is not a dual core with a single of 3,4 maybe a pentium D.
Disinformations????

Not correct sir,

there are many factors where 1GB and 2GB are different.

A 2GB is faster, but then again it depends on the amount of stick you use to create the 2GB ram if you use 4 sticks instead of 2 sticks, the 4 stick will leave more modules in a sort of pause mode that indeed slowsdown performance.

but people with new System that have 2GB in them , mention that the new generation of games (BF2, BF2142, Oblivion M&M Dark Messiah) etc etc that the 2GB improves their gameplay with smoother results opposed to the 1GB ram.

also its about how the system has been build and what you running on it, many factors will give you different results between 1 GB ram or 2 GB ram.

many factors play in thise case of whats faster (1 or 2 GB?)

now because of the development of newer systems and games. it only gets better and faster.
so 1mphunito you cant say 1GB is the BEST because it will be improved nor you can say 2 GB is the BEST because whats NEW today in the Computer world is OLD tommorow , the next week or the next month.

DUO cores, the amount of ram and the amount of Memory the Graphic cards are getting....it never stops.

what a wonderfull decade we live in isnt it

um..can anyone please answer my question regarding the Cool n Quiet feature of AMD? Refer to my above post , thanks.

Never i said thet 1GB it's better than 2GB, i say it depends

:hmm:No offence but this is what I understood from ur post

When Cool n Quiet is enabled, if the CPU isn't being utilized beyond a certain point, it will throttle back to 1000MHz to save power and keep it cooler.

With sh3 1GB it's better than 2GB of course.
Not in absolute
And i was referred to

Originally Posted by Kiwi
That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3

It's a fact, more ram unused....more slow.
Caching slow down the memory access.
That's why it's depends

1mPHUNit0: Care to give us a reference for your claim that more memory makes your computer slower if it is unused?

I'm especially interested as to why you say caching shows down memory access?

After all, a read from a memory address in cache is at least 10x faster than a read from main memory. Thats why you have cache.

If you can show me there is a small theoretical slowdown from having more memory in your system, this performance hit would be completely negligable compared to the large performance gain you get from having a bigger disk cache.

Agreed. It just doesn't make since that more RAM is worse.

Here are my systems specs that I am running;

AMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 2411.2

Processor Speed2411.2 1400 Mhz (1.4 Ghz)


Memory:
System Total 2047.4 Virtual Total 2047.9 Pagefile Total 3429.3

System Memory2047.4

Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)


Display Device:


MSI NX7600 GS (NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS)

Local Memory: 256.0Driver Version: 6.14.10.8419Device

Description MSI NX7600 GS (NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS) Manufacturer NVIDIA Corporation GUID D7B71E3E-40D2-11CF-D277-22260EC2CD35 Driver

Version 6.14.10.8419 Module nv4_disp.dll Date 3-7-2006

Memory

Total 256.0 Available 247.0 Non-Local 376.0 Texture 623.0

And SH3 plus IL2FBAEPPF just rocks.....:)