jesus...fear needs 2gb's of ram...

Post by **Freakaloin** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:11 pm

it wuz all good until interval 8...now i run out of memory...is this what it has cum to? must buy 1gb sticks?...

Post by **DiscoDave** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:04 pm

Pretty much. More and more games are demanding much more ram. Ie, its pretty much impossible to run Battlefield 2 with every setting on high without having 2gb of ram. Same goes for me with Quake 4, dispite having a 7800GT, 3700+ SD etc, my 1gb ram holds me back.

Gamers build system now with 2gb's of ram, thats more or less standard. Wont be soon before that doubles.

Post by **Canis** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:11 pm

I just bought another gig for my comp. I generally have ~500MB free and some games are getting the loading pauses and such that are rather irritating.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:36 pm

Post by **dzjepp** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:37 pm

You prolly ran out of the paging file n00b

Post by **reefsurfer** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:41 am

yea, fear runs better than Q4.. it dosent need 2 gig of ram.

Post by **jester!** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:56 am

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4 ... /page6.asp

"Add a gig if you will, but don’t expect it to do much for your Quake 4 performance. Gains are negligible at 1600x1200 and 1024x768."

Post by **booker** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:29 am

moron alert???...

Post by **SoM** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:53 am

booker wrote:moron alert???...

you read my mind

that moron obviously cant afford shit on a dishwasher salary

Post by **Canis** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:15 am

I'll have more RAM than you'll have...so there.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:33 am

reefsurfer wrote:yea, fear runs better than Q4.. it dosent need 2 gig of ram.

q4 runs twice as fast as fear on my shit...u an ati moron or something?

Post by **MKJ** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:39 am

it would also help if devs used the time to optimize their code instead of rely on gigs of ram

Post by **4days** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:25 am

MKJ wrote:it would also help if devs used the time to optimize their code instead of rely on gigs of ram

that's just crazy talk.

Post by **DiscoDave** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:46 pm

reefsurfer wrote:yea, fear runs better than Q4.. it dosent need 2 gig of ram.

For me quake 4 runs better =\

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:50 pm

it runs way better...this must be a ati moronic thing or he is just a moron...i'm thinking the latter...

Post by **reefsurfer** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:41 pm

nvidia..for ever.
and yea.. im a moron.

Post by **Die** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:35 pm

FEAR runs horribly. I haven't played Q4 yet, but Doom 3 ran like butter on my system if that is any indication. FEAR can't even run smoothly on 1024x768 and looks terrible compared to D3. Where the hell is the detail? The levels are only slightly above something like HL1 or System Shock 2 when it comes to the amount of detail they contain. I don't see anything that justifies a performance even remotely this bad.

Disappointing game. And poorly optimized. The way it looks it should be running much smoother than D3.

Post by **Grudge** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:38 pm

MKJ wrote:it would also help if devs used the time to optimize their code instead of rely on gigs of ram

You can't really "optimize" high-res textures, which is what eats up most of the RAM.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:41 pm

Die wrote:FEAR runs horribly. I haven't played Q4 yet, but Doom 3 ran like butter on my system if that is any indication. FEAR can't even run smoothly on 1024x768 and looks terrible compared to D3. Where the hell is the detail? The levels are only slightly above something like HL1 or System Shock 2 when it comes to the amount of detail they contain. I don't see anything that justifies a performance even remotely this bad.

Disappointing game. And poorly optimized. The way it looks it should be running much smoother than D3.

fear looks great moron...detail is all over...u prolly had ur shit set low...

Post by **Die** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:52 pm

No it doesn't, moron. I'm talking about the fact that the maps are barren, bland and contain the same 5 props over and over again (how many times do I have to find that same blue hammer?). No amount of high detail settings is going to change that. The office building bits were vaguely decent at best, the rest was pretty bad.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:24 pm

i beg to differ moron...

Post by **DiscoDave** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:59 pm

Die wrote:No it doesn't, moron. I'm talking about the fact that the maps are barren, bland and contain the same 5 props over and over again (how many times do I have to find that same blue hammer?). No amount of high detail settings is going to change that. The office building bits were vaguely decent at best, the rest was pretty bad.

lad to know someone else thinks this.

With my system (3700+ SD, 1gb DDR 400, 7800GT) I still find the graphics in FEAR rather bland, a bit blocky in places and boring.

And for Freakaloin i have set everything to max, just to see what the quality was like, which was dissapointing imo.

On some FEAR forums there seems to be a lot of people with good machines getting a poor framerate. Seems to be the game and not hardware drivers as from what i've read both ATI and nVidia owers have problems.

Post by **MKJ** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:57 pm

Grudge wrote:
MKJ wrote:it would also help if devs used the time to optimize their code instead of rely on gigs of ram
You can't really "optimize" high-res textures, which is what eats up most of the RAM.

i guess thats true

Post by **Psyche911** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:52 pm

In regards to games needing 2GB of RAM. I suggest you all read this article:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=468

As far as loading time or average framerate, more than 1GB of RAM is useless.

There are only a few moments in your average BF2 game where the performance takes a hit. But it's not common enough to be measurable in average framerate.

I really don't think it justifies the cost for most people. If you want completely smooth gameplay, after you spend $350+ on a GPU, then it might offer the slightest improvement.

Needless to say, that doesn't apply to most people.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:22 pm

its not about loading time...its about jerkiness...and more ram fixes that completely...