How much memory is enough?

WAKE UP

I'd like to start a huge argument about how much memory you SHOULD have to play GW. But I won't.

I'm tempted to make a poll, but, I don't know how. Sorry.

I have 256Mb currently in my P4-2.26GHz Dell box. I know that is the minimum memory requirement. At least I think I know that. And I think I know that 512Mb is the recommended memory.

PLEASE RELATE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH 256Mb, 512Mb, uhh 256Mb plus 512Mb, and uhhh 1Gb of RAM

Thank you for your continued support.

With lower memory your computer will have to use virtual ram (hard drive space) to unpack the graphics (your Initial load times will be slower) however once you have unpacked a zone once, you only need small updates. I remember someone posting in a thread awhile ago where he'd jump into the next mission and then run back into town, after loading the mission the first time, when he finally got a team, they didn't have to wait for him to load. More memory- Faster load time. I suggest 768+ for any current game.

I am currently using a dell with 512 meg ram I can run the game and it plays ok except the video (onboard) really bites, so I get choppy places in video.

So, I normally play the game on my wifes computer- 768 meg ram and a TI4200. the game runs great on her computer. So far, no major slowdown anywhere.

GuildWars~
Forget what you thought you knew about online gaming.

Get another stick of 256....It would run better a lot better

XP will take up most of that 256. you should run with 512 at least.

If you absolutely can't purchase more memory, it's advisable to kill all of your unneeded processes before you start the game. I've created a batch file that you can customize to your liking to do this (it's really simple). You just run it and it takes down all your processes and "mine" even asks which game you want to run (because it also takes down explorer... a huge resource hog), this is why I prefer Linux.. but I know it's not to the point Windows is yet.

Lansing Kai Don

Oh i got quite a good memory...I don't forget stuff too easy..

If you don't have enough memory, like Darkmane said, your computer will switch to the Page File on the HDD, which is used as a backup (But obviously has its drawbacks, since the HDD transfer rates are slower) however this is not always the best idea, and using RAM is simply a good thing to have. 512MB of RAM is typically sufficient for the majority of todays programs. Of course having 1GB will help, and up to 1.5-2GB will allow your computer a lot of freedom when it comes to games and how long the computer can stay active, but are not necessary for decent (And even high) playable settings depending on your computers specifications. I would say buy another 256MB if you could, it would most likely help a fair bit.

If you can't, I suggest downloading a program called RamBooster, which will clear RAM memory (On a level specified by you, the user) so that you wont have to have a fresh restart all the time.

256 should not be too expensive. I run 512 ddr ram I it works fine. Oh and By the way the poll option are at the bottom of there it says sumit post. you can make one when you post or add one later.

Ren

I would try to get to 1 gig atleast. That seems to be the norm these days. Even though GW might not be as memory intense as other games, you just never know.

I agree many games don't run good on 512, Far Cry is one of them...

1 GiG of ram
2 GiG XP Athlon Processor
128 Nvidia GForce 5600 (overclocked)


That is what I have.....Runs the game smoothly.........

I am very impressed with GW, in the fact that is does not require a super computer to run it on decent settings. Very well done to the GW team.

I have 1GB of Dual Channel DDR400, and I love it. I don't recommend running Win2K or XP with less than 512, personally, but I'm a performance nut.

1.3 ghz celeron (talatin core)
512 133 fsb (hahaha!)
nividia 5200 Fx PCI 128 ram

384k-1.5m DSL ("Tier II")

My Experience: No lag at all at 1026 x 768 medium-to-high quality w/zero aliasing.

You got alot more computer than I do so listen to the above posts and add at least another 256, in fact, if you can get 2 matching you might notice a slight speed enhance compared to one 512 or a 512 and 256.

The only lag was server side when they were loading up the gwens or bone dragons, etc.

*Edit* Remember one of the key selling points to GuildWars is the small client. Not a memory hog and likely not hogging the stack and other pointer memory pages.

I dont wan't to run XP with 256, it runs but barly.
384 (?) works for XP and single apps
512 if you want to multitask with light apps.
Any heavy app (like a game or photoshop or such) and more heavy multitasking really should have 1GB or more.

At 2GB and more you will get diminishing returns since XP and few programs use it properly.

At 3GB+ you will have to start to really set the machine up in a special way to be ably to use it all.

I have a bit over 1 gig of ram it really isn't expensive i think i got 512mb for $40 on sale. It also makes a big difference, for example when i played WoW with a 9800 pro and 512mb of ram i got 30 or so FPS in Ironforge which is the main alliance city. When i got another 512 and had 1034mb of ram i was running at 65fps in Ironforge. I would at least buy another 512mb of ram if i only had 256.

actually your 1024 is a gig of ram (due to the way it is measured)

Though I am sure Guild Wars will function with 256mb of ram; it is more than wise to boost it up to 512mb as to ensure a smooth experience. As for 1gb, it probably has an impact on the game's performance, but as far as I am concerned it is far from needed.

I have 512mb ram and it runs beautifully on high at 1024 x 768. Granted I also have an Athlon AMD XP 2800 oc'ed to 2.4ish and a Radeon 9600 Pro. But I just ordered another stick of 512mb pc3200 for only $20 with rebates at tigerdirect.com.

is that the infamous *ULTRA* brand they are pushing?

Thank you to the few people who actually answered my question of how well GW ran with their memory rig. Even the Village Idiot was aware that 512mb was better than 256mb.

My box uses RDRAM at PC800. RDRAM is about 4x more expensive than DDR but it supposedly is 4x faster. Go figure. And it has to be added in pairs. A pair of 128mb RDRAMs is about 100.00 USD at least. A pair of 256mb is over 200.00 USD (270.00 USD from Dell. Suck eggs Dell.) If I could add 1gb for 80.00 or 100.00 USD I would.

Problem is I have 4 RIMM slots, currently holding two 128mb and a pair of nothing (continuity RIMMs). If I buy two more 128mb, my slots are full and I have to jetison two 128mb if I want more memory later. 100.00 USD down the Idiot's terlet.

Question is, does memory over 512mb help any with GW? I guess I should be asking the GW tech folk, but that would be too intelligent. If it doen't make a significant difference, then going above 512mb is just a waste.

Man. My dog has caught his tail and he's chewing on it. Sigh. Now he's barking cuz his tail hurts. It's like the blind leading the deaf with me and him.

Ouch RDRAM, well of course the gameplay is going to improve with more RAM. Worth 170 dollars, I would rather buy a new motherboard and DDRAM (and stick it in the Dell case if your warranty is already gone) for 270.00 that is VERY possible.

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. So no, I wouldn't pay that much for any RAM (if you want to I'd get the pair of 128, but that just hurts my wallet looking at it), and RDRAM is not 4x faster than DDRAM. The difference is RDRAM is serial so they have to run it at higher clock cycles in order to obtain the same efficiency as the parallel. They CAN make serial faster than parallel if running it fast enough (as seen in Yellowstone).

from tests i have seen rdram is not much faster than ddr ram i hate to say it but your best bet would be to check with the GW help staff on that

IT HURTS, THE PAIN.

Okay, the Village Idiot has done all the research he can stand for the moment. On paper, PC800 RDRAM should be 4x faster than PC3200 DDR.

PC800 RDRAM: 800MHz, chips are 64 x 16
PC3200 DDR : 400MHz, chips are 32 x 8

(Would be 8x faster (2x clock speed and 4x data width/depth) but DDR transfers data on both the leading and trailing edge of each clock cycle, thus the name Double Data Rate.) In real life, this doesn't get you anywhere near 4x faster though. Maybe 1.5x faster.
(Source: www.computer-memory-store.com)

And PC3200 DDR is about 43.00 USD for 256mb, that is, without "rebates" *cough* *refurb* *cough*. So, bang for da buck is worse, but not horrible, and overall bang is higher with RDRAM. At the time (3 years ago), the RDRAM model (Dimension 8200) was inexplicably the same price as the slower RAM model (Dimension 4200? 4500?) so I went with the bonus speed. I guess RDRAM didn't catch on, or compete well with DDR. Like I should expect anything different from that with my luck?

So, unwilling to spend money for a new motherboard that gives me cheaper but slower memory, I'm left with 3 choices:

1. Do nothing. PROs: GW isn't that bad with 256mb, even with my first generation low-end nVidia GeForce 4 video card. Memory will be cheaper in the future. Put my money into REITs or SPDRs or sumpin. NOTE: The Village Idiot is not responsible for losses resulting from some fool taking my advice. CONs: Still using 256mb for everything.

2. Buy another 256mb. Let's see, one 128mb RDRAM for 50.00 USD, or two for 105.00 USD (kit). Think I'll stay away from the kit. PROs: Cheapest way to a nicer lump of system RAM. CONs: Paying 100.00 USD (memory only gets cheaper over time). GW may not be 100.00 USD better with the extra RAM. If I ever need more than 512mb, I can use these two 128mb RDRAMs for expensive and ugly Christmas tree ornaments.

3. Buy another 512mb. One 256mb RDRAM for 102.00 USD, or two for 201.00 USD (kit). That makes more sense (2 being cheaper per unit). PROs: I get yummy 768mb RAM. If I ever need 1gb, I only have to buy 2 more 256mb RDRAMs. Yeah, I will still have the original 128mb RDRAMs for Christmas ornaments, but those were paid for 3 years ago. CONs: Paying 201.00 USD (memory only gets cheaper over time). GW may not be 201.00 USD better with the extra RAM.

i cant help with the ram but depending on the model of the MX card you have (if 420 all bets are off) you should notice a big increqse in quality witha budget video card that supports direct x 9

the reason is the MX series cut costs by axing support for direct x 8/9 which is what is used for the neat pixel and shader special effects

if it is a 420 instead of 440 or 460 it has only sdr ram instead of ddr ram on the card (another cost saver)

This is sad, another stuck with PC800, it is very sensitive, in other words you can not upgrade, you must replace, if you do not have 3 or 4 ram sticks (depending on the mobo) you have to buy blanks! It is very expensive so it costs 100+ to buy 256 AND THAT IS BARELY ENOUGH TO RUN WINDOWS XP! It dosent seem as stable as DDR, and DDR only costs 40-50 dollars for a 512 stick!

My computer is on DDR but the family computer (DELL) is on PC800, there is no better choice then to upgrade the motherboard. Unless they drop that damn high price.

John TrickKnee, sorry your RAM is so expensive, and on that note....RAM doesn't necessarily get less expensive over time (they treat it like seafood ). The more popular technology will drop in price so long as enough manufacturers build enough items using it and the market absorbs it at a reasonable rate--supply and demand never governed price in the manner most of us were taught, and with RAM, you are dealing with a man made "commodity." You've seen the posts regarding the RAM speed tech you have, you appear to be aware your RAM's tech didn't catch on, and you've had more than one suggestion to get a new motherboard.

One aid to understanding the speed issue might be to search the web for "Sequential File Structure" and "Random Access File Structure." I am suggesting these in analogy (though maybe not the best one) as once you read definitions of those you can think of your RD800 as similar to the Sequential and DDR as similar to Random.

In a nutshell sequential files are very fast access, so long as what your looking for is in the closest chunk that loads--usually loading the whole file/page/ with index at once (Serial)--where as random access you can access any record without loading the whole file (parallel) however it can be slower for smaller files due to the indexing system. The parallel indexing system is basically a tiny sequential file referencing the entire record area quickly (hardware direct with DDR).

Now, sticking with this in analogy, delivering data to the processor, a serial system will be very fast for initial memory chunks, maybe 4x but as the addresses go farther and farther out, the indexing system (stack) starts to grind the processor becoming too big and bulky to manage, and, due to virtual memory off-loading, become part of the memory process--redoubling the effort. None of this occurs with parallel technology, or at least it takes 1000 times the ram to have this type of a "bottlneck."

If it were me and I was facing the challenge you are with your system I'd swap out the motherboard. If that is too technically challenging for you I'd see if you can get some help, most people who do that kinda thing (not as their livelihood) will easily help you. Hope this helps. (Comments and corrections welcome! )

Upgrade the computer, it has to be done eventually...getting more RAM will only suffice for another 3 months

Perhaps the RAM upgrade would only last you 3 months, but it would likely last me 3 or more years, at which time I would need a whole new computer anyway.

Somehow I find a sequential file system completely unlike RDRAM. The RAM in RDRAM does stand for Random Access Memory does it not? Are you saying that RDRAM searches memory sequentially? That seems unlikely. But it is true that I don't understand (and really don't want to understand) the nuts and bolts of how different types of memory work.

As for RAM prices, higher volume does lead to lower unit costs. But you seem to ignore that demand applies to DDR, which could make DDR more expensive if it outstrips supply. And you seem to ignore that supply applies to RDRAM, which could make RDRAM cheaper if there is less demand than supply. But the rule of thumb is absolutely true: memory prices do fall over time, barring some lag in bringing more manufacturing plants online (such as when Windoze 95 came out and required twice the memory everyone had at the time (from 1Mb to 2Mb, unlike OS/2 which only required 1Mb)), or some collusion among chip makers. Once upon a time, a company I worked for bought a 512Kb (that's kilobyte) memory card for 500.00 USD. It was a good price.

As for prices, assuming www.computer-memory-store.com is a reasonable competitor, 512mb of non-ECC PC3200 DDR is 80.00 USD. Not the 40 to 50.00 USD as a previous poster claimed. (Perhaps he was quoting "back o' the truck" pricing.) Two 256mb non-ECC PC800 RDRAM are 201.00 USD. So while the RDRAM is 2.5x more expensive, it is also 1.5 to 2.0x faster according to the limited bar graphs at Computer Memory Store.

I am capable of swapping my motherboard (mobo) out. I just think it will likely cost more than the additional RDRAM for the mobo and DDR RAM. Plus the Village Idiot doesn't have a grounding strap so I'm capable of frying just about everything I touch. Plus I have to worry about the new mobo supporting all my current stuff. And if everything works perfectly, I will have spent some fair amount of money for nothing more than extra memory that is slower.

*points to avatar*
DDR!

*looks at JjK's avatar. scratches various areas of the body. shrugs*

I apologize for my post. Merely sharing with you what I have learnt since the days of punch card readers to load a program into a computers to-the-present stand alone pcs at home in hopes it might have helped you realize how many good suggestions and ideas you were getting from the people here since posting your thread. I meant no harm.

You had punch cards!!? You lucky BASTARD! We could only DREAM of punch cards. We have to input addresses and instructions with paddle switches, one bit per switch. I bet you had printouts too you lucky, lucky swine! WE had to look at red LEDs (the only color there was; I bet you had green and amber LEDs, you LUCKY, LUCKY BASTARD) (one LED per bit) to figure out what was in the 8-bit accumulator as our only output (I bet you had 16-bit accumulators, you LUCKY, LUCKY, LUCKY DOG).

Appreciate the sarcasm! (they didn't have LEDs when they had the flip switches), again was merely sharing what I had hoped would help.

Note: I collected older systems with their whopping 50 byte virtual memory platters and vacuum tubes, the whole system taking up the garage. Only reason I knew there weren't any LEDs in those. Flip the 8 switches and hit the big red (door knob) sized "return," then wait for the system to reset for the next byte of input. Just read the manual, didn't program it once--too much work to get it all working, eventually scrapped that one.

I was talking microcomputer, not power-sucking room-filling massive-cooling-required behemoths.

IMSAI 8080
Announced: August 1975
How many: Around 20,000
Price: US $931 assembled
US $599 as a kit
CPU: Intel 8080A, 2.0 MHz
RAM: 64K max (4K standard)
Display: front panel LEDs
Controls: front panel switches
Expansion: card-cage w/ S-100 bus
Storage: optional cassette or
floppy drive
OS: CP/M, BASIC

(no CP/M or BASIC without OPTIONAL cassette or floppy - just key in your 8080 assembler code)



Built by IMS Associates, Inc. of San Leandro, California, the IMSAI 8080 is one of the first consumer computers available.

Well I feel better knowing you were serious

So few people would even begin to know what Assembly language is. I tell you one of the most refreshing things about GuildWars is how so many people are over not just over 20 or over 30, but over 40! hahahaha

Nice ta meet ya John!

i remember one marathon order for buick i had to send in for replacement parts

47 FEET of that nauseating pale yellow just under inch wide punch tape

did it with only 7 bogus numbers (3 were invalid the rest were chevy parts we gave to the dealer down the block rather than go thru the paperwork to return them-gasket sets)

I guess 2 dual 40 gig DDR sticks would satisfy me.

Anyone that doesnt have 1 gig of ddr ram, really needs to think about an upgrade. Not saying this game needs one gig, just everything thats coming out will run so much smoother on 1 gig. Just make sure your Board is rated for it.

How much is enough? 2 gigs.
How much is too much? 4 gigs ( takes forever to start your computer )
How much is too little? 256 mb
How much is alright? 512 mb
How much will do good? 1 gig.

So 2 gigs is the best, but 1 gig will do good, do not think of playing anything under 512 mb.

My first XP machine was a 350MHz celeron with 64mb ram, ran smooth and even could play Red Alert 2 great. I had a voodoo 3 16mb though. ^.^

XP (and NT based machines) will use a percentage of your RAM to keep a lot of the OS and files cache'd. At 512mb it usually idled around 70mb or ram usage, and now with a gig it's usually at 200mb or so. If you've only got 256mb of ram, I suggest turning off your page file, defraging your fastest hd, then turning it back on at a 1GB size or so, ensuring it's as close to the front of the drive as possible.