Bindibadgi - I believe you are mistaking NEED for WANTS. You WANT your browser open all day... you do not NEED it open. I also said that there are certain scenarios where you NEED more RAM and your use of Photoshop and the other software is such an example. Please don't take your own experience as an example of average. Photoshop is most definately NOT software for an 'average' user. As for gameplay, there have been tests to see if it improves games performance (link posted above) and there was little performance benefit from using more than 2GB of RAM.
I'm not so sure. Technology advancement doesn't seem to be going the way of just using more RAM. Look at current i7 rigs and they use 3-6 as standard. The industry is pushing faster RAM by using DDR3 and even DDR5 on GPUs. There is a need to increase possible amounts for those who need it to run certain software or for those who just want to ever push the 'Extreme' benchmark but as standard, for the average user or even gamer? I think we are a long way off from 4GB being the upper limit.
There was an article on Tomshardware that looked into the benefits of games and 64 bit OSs. The main conclusion was right now there is little benefit, however if a developer codes for 64 bit, they will be able to utilise much larger textures etc, that could push photorealism even further.
As DDR3 becomes mainstream, DDR2 RAM prices will probably increase as production falls. 1 GB of DDR sodimm still cost ~ £30, as DDR2 is so cheap, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to buy another 4 GB if you intend to keep your system for a couple of years.
Turbotab - I totally agree with you. The problem is that if you actually sit back and look at 'gaming' on a whole, more and more developers are moving towards the console environment and the idea of cross platform developments. So any future development with respect to RAM will be held back to keep in line with current console technology.
P.S. I will be getting the extra RAM shortly, but as mentioned, that is because I WANT it, not because I NEED it. lol
Graphics memory is consistently increasing - it wasn't long ago when 256MB was the 'norm' and 512MB was considered 'too much' - mainstream graphics cards now come with 512MB as a minimum and most high-end cards feature 1GB. It won't be long before we double again, I reckon. The lust for AA and higher quality textures, despite the improved texture compression algorithms, is only going to continue the increased frame buffers - we've already seen a few 2GB cards. It's insane today, but in a few years it most definitely won't be.
With regards to Vista/Win7... there's a lot of application caching going on which means memory usage is quite a bit higher than XP by default. But the result is a more responsive OS when it comes to running the programs you use regularly.
Memory usage won't stop at 4GB... not a chance. I remember when Bill Gates said how nobody will ever need more than 640KB of memory... how wrong he was.
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog Bindibadgi - I believe you are mistaking NEED for WANTS. You WANT your browser open all day... you do not NEED it open. I also said that there are certain scenarios where you NEED more RAM and your use of Photoshop and the other software is such an example. Please don't take your own experience as an example of average. Photoshop is most definately NOT software for an 'average' user. As for gameplay, there have been tests to see if it improves games performance (link posted above) and there was little performance benefit from using more than 2GB of RAM.
I would bet Adobe will argue differently. Photoshop Elements *is* designed to be everyday user. Many of us multitask with several documents and things open at once - otherwise there would be NO need or desire for a quad core CPU.
I DO NEED my Firefox open all day because I work on the internet *ALL DAY* :P as do a lot of people I know, whether it's work or play. How many people have facebook open all day? flash games? forums? email? etcetc
More memory affords faster task switching, faster game boot times, better minimum frame rates in games so it's smoother.
2GB for my Mum is not going to make a difference. She never opens more than one thing at once. However we live in a world of multitasking and doing more at once and anyone reading this site will benefit from 4GB or more.
Tom's also did no proper multitasking either by the looks of it. :(
Tim S -
I agree with you that the situation with GPU's and their memory is an intriguing one. I would say though that it will still be some time before 2GB+ is standard on gaming cards. I bought a 4600Ti around 7years ago and that had 128MB or Memory and if standard is now 512MB then the memory on my old card has only doubled twice in all that time. But then according to steam, most PC gamers are still using old GPUs and gaming at 1280x1024. Not to mention that PCs with dedicated graphics are still a minority even if they are far more common now than they used to be.
I agree once again that 4GB will not be the end of memory increases but I do believe it will be some time before companies decide to tackle the sticky issue of 64bit with the average PC user.
Bindibadgi - From my experience you and your PC usage is more advanced than that of the average user and I would dare to say that the 'average user' is much more in line with your mum, who I am guesing isn't a gamer and wouldn't need a GPU either?
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog Bindibadgi - From my experience you and your PC usage is more advanced than that of the average user and I would dare to say that the 'average user' is much more in line with your mum, who I am guesing isn't a gamer and wouldn't need a GPU either?
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog Tim S -
I agree with you that the situation with GPU's and their memory is an intriguing one. I would say though that it will still be some time before 2GB+ is standard on gaming cards. I bought a 4600Ti around 7years ago and that had 128MB or Memory and if standard is now 512MB then the memory on my old card has only doubled twice in all that time. But then according to steam, most PC gamers are still using old GPUs and gaming at 1280x1024. Not to mention that PCs with dedicated graphics are still a minority even if they are far more common now than they used to be.
I agree once again that 4GB will not be the end of memory increases but I do believe it will be some time before companies decide to tackle the sticky issue of 64bit with the average PC user.
The Ti 4600 was a high end card in its day. Look at the Radeon HD 4870 X2 - it has 2GB of memory on board. A £160 graphics card like the 4870 has 1GB of memory on it these days. An £80 graphics card like the 4770 has 512MB of memory.
Tim S - That was my point. It was a high end card. So would you agree that it may be 5 years before the standard is around 2GB? Gaming is not the average use of a PC and even then high end GPU cards are a slim minority when compared to the mass of PC's sold every year. With the current gaming development trends I don't see games coming out that will push GPU memory that much more than they already do, otherwise the developers will be in danger of losing out on the cross platform option with consoles. Crytek have already announced that they are rewritting the engine for Crysis so it can play on a console. How many PC games come out though that push like Crysis has?
Originally Posted by Gazbarber And wouldn't be reading bit-tech?
Precisely.
We don't write for people who buy from PC World.
SchizoFrog your point is valid for those who will buy a netbook or a £299 Dell. People who do barely more than one or two things with a PC, but for our audience of (heavy) multi-taskers, gamers, workstation users and PC enthusiasts I'd like you to stress "2GB is enough" to them :D;)
What games max out a PC like Crysis? Stalker 2 and GTA 4 come to mind. But games are developed to hit a good frame rate on what products are available - people complained that they couldn't run GTA4 at the highest settings, despite the fact the developers claimed they built in "more features" than current hardware could power.
We've already seen 512MB not enough for the 4870 in the middle of last year and gaming at 1980x1200 is not uncommon because 24" monitors are cheap. Once you start labouring on AA and cranking up the texture resolution then you need plenty of memory. Consoles are simplified, compressed, cut down and mostly don't feature AA - which is a nugget of why PC gaming is still popular.
Pixmania is owned by Dixons, aka PCWORLD and Currys, apparently they are a bugger to deal with if anything goes wrong, are based in France (last time I checked) so delivery and returns could be a pain, but they are a "reputable" company, and it is a steal of a price.
Apparently ATI have dropped the price of most units by 10% which is slowly filtering through retail but that still seems like a good barging, being Dixons though I wouldn't be surprised if you got a 4950 or 4930 through the post when it arrives.
If true, why ATI is applying even more pressure on Nvidia is anyones guess, but maybe they trying to make up market share or just grab what ever buyers there are out there at the mo. Saw a GTX260 for £120 the other day so deals everywhere.
Originally Posted by Gazbarber And wouldn't be reading bit-tech?
Precisely.
We don't write for people who buy from PC World.
Bindibadgi - This is getting off topic so I'll just say this... I thought you wrote articles for EVERYONE no matter what level they were. I can see where we disagree as your comments are based in the knowledgeable, high end user area where your comments are of course, correct, even if it is not the best way to make new comers feel welcome. My opinion and comments have been based from an overall view. It would be intersting to see which product sell more from SCAN over the next few months. The budget gaming or the high end. I am absolutely certain that a decent GPU with 1GB of memory will be absolutely fine to play future games for the next several years unless you are an extremist where an overclocked i7, 24GB Ram and Tripple SLi isn't good enough.
I personally am happy with a 32'' TV. I do not NEED a 50''+ or even a 32''. I am also happy with a 22'' montior. I do not NEED a 24''+ monitor. To play current and most likely nearly all PC games in the next 2-3 years on my monitor with the settings maxed out I need a certain level of hardware but it is, and I believe will be far less than your comments have suggested.
A 2GB dual GPU card is not the standard and should not be taken as a current rule of thumb. Evidence has shown that most PC gamers are playing current games on 1280x1024 on older hardware. They are not the elite but they are the majority (and as they are PC GAMERS I do hope you write for them) and therefor to suggest that an excess of 4GB RAM is NEEDED is surely incorrect. Just to claify, There are scenarios that NEED as much RAM as possible but as a rule of thumb, it is not NEEDED (in general terms but even for gaming) yet.
Originally Posted by Gazbarber And wouldn't be reading bit-tech?
Precisely.
We don't write for people who buy from PC World.
Bindibadgi - This is getting off topic so I'll just say this... I thought you wrote articles for EVERYONE no matter what level they were. I can see where we disagree as your comments are based in the knowledgeable, high end user area where your comments are of course, correct, even if it is not the best way to make new comers feel welcome. My opinion and comments have been based from an overall view. It would be intersting to see which product sell more from SCAN over the next few months. The budget gaming or the high end. I am absolutely certain that a decent GPU with 1GB of memory will be absolutely fine to play future games for the next several years unless you are an extremist where an overclocked i7, 24GB Ram and Tripple SLi isn't good enough.
I personally am happy with a 32'' TV. I do not NEED a 50''+ or even a 32''. I am also happy with a 22'' montior. I do not NEED a 24''+ monitor. To play current and most likely nearly all PC games in the next 2-3 years on my monitor with the settings maxed out I need a certain level of hardware but it is, and I believe will be far less than your comments have suggested.
A 2GB dual GPU card is not the standard and should not be taken as a current rule of thumb. Evidence has shown that most PC gamers are playing current games on 1280x1024 on older hardware. They are not the elite but they are the majority (and as they are PC GAMERS I do hope you write for them) and therefor to suggest that an excess of 4GB RAM is NEEDED is surely incorrect. Just to claify, There are scenarios that NEED as much RAM as possible but as a rule of thumb, it is not NEEDED (in general terms but even for gaming) yet.
I understand where you're coming from, but bit-tech is written with the hardware enthusiast and hardcore gamer in mind - not every one of our readers has thousands of pounds to spend on a high-end system, but what we consider 'low-end' is pretty high end for the mainstream gamer. Let's just say mainstream gamers really don't want to know the difference between a stream processor and a ROP or the amount of L2 cache from the size of a CPU's registers.
Bit-tech has always had the mantra of 'written for enthusiasts, by enthusiasts' and that mantra has never changed, even though our audience has grown significantly since running the site became a full time job for us in 2005. Of course, the mainstream market is much bigger and there are be more sub-£399 PC sales in a month than there will be GeForce GTX 295s sold over its lifetime - there's no denying that - but we've chosen to focus ourselves on the more knowledgeable enthusiast market because that's where the passion is for us.
Our success has and always will be built on the fact that our articles are tailored for our audience... and, based on the vast amounts of money we've spent on conducting independent reader surveys, our audience is not made up of 'typical' PC gamers like the masses you'll find opting into the Steam Hardware Survey. But they do love playing with high-performance PC hardware and PC gaming just happens to be the main application for a high-end PC. :)
I have to say I hate talking about our readers in that way, because it feels like an us and them when bit-tech has always been quite the opposite - it's one big community here and the staff are not above that.
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog Bindibadgi - This is getting off topic so I'll just say this... I thought you wrote articles for EVERYONE no matter what level they were. I can see where we disagree as your comments are based in the knowledgeable, high end user area where your comments are of course, correct, even if it is not the best way to make new comers feel welcome. My opinion and comments have been based from an overall view. It would be intersting to see which product sell more from SCAN over the next few months. The budget gaming or the high end. I am absolutely certain that a decent GPU with 1GB of memory will be absolutely fine to play future games for the next several years unless you are an extremist where an overclocked i7, 24GB Ram and Tripple SLi isn't good enough.
I personally am happy with a 32'' TV. I do not NEED a 50''+ or even a 32''. I am also happy with a 22'' montior. I do not NEED a 24''+ monitor. To play current and most likely nearly all PC games in the next 2-3 years on my monitor with the settings maxed out I need a certain level of hardware but it is, and I believe will be far less than your comments have suggested.
A 2GB dual GPU card is not the standard and should not be taken as a current rule of thumb. Evidence has shown that most PC gamers are playing current games on 1280x1024 on older hardware. They are not the elite but they are the majority (and as they are PC GAMERS I do hope you write for them) and therefor to suggest that an excess of 4GB RAM is NEEDED is surely incorrect. Just to claify, There are scenarios that NEED as much RAM as possible but as a rule of thumb, it is not NEEDED (in general terms but even for gaming) yet.
1280x1024 is 19inch monitor territory, you have 22", a lot of people are still using a 28 inch crt not 32" (LCD or otherwise) that you have and integrated graphics instead of discrete, I fail to see your point, the majority of people use lesser spec'ed kit, this site is for gamers... and this article is a buyers guide for pc enthusiasts looking to buy new kit/system. A recommendation on RAM seems to be in keeping with said topic?
RAM is very cheap right now and is something that has a real tangible effect and something you'll be thankful for when future applications (be they desktop or something online akin to flash or silverlight) require more resources, something that has very little reason to skimp on unless your on a very (very) tight budget.
I'd rather have 4GB ram over 2GB rather than a slight bump in CPU speed that could be had for the same price.
I don't think there is any need to muddy the waters with GPU memory and system RAM.
I also fail to see how a bit tech staff members opinion that says 4GB ram should be an aspiration minimum amount of system memory (£20 vs £38 for 2GB vs 4GB) some how alienates new members/lurkers?
But we can all have our opinions ;)
Also you don't NEED anything but some food in your belly.
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog Bindibadgi - From my experience you and your PC usage is more advanced than that of the average user and I would dare to say that the 'average user' is much more in line with your mum, who I am guesing isn't a gamer and wouldn't need a GPU either?
Tim S - Thank you for your response, it is much appreciated. I just found it disconcerting to read opinions and comments that seemed very narrow and almost oblivious to a much broader spectrum.
I'm confident that my £700 PC built last July could admirably hold its own against your Enthusiast Overclocker PC at the very least... And I'm proud of that.
Page 6 says:
"...Formula and 4GB of 1,066MHz DDR2 equates to about £360, while the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition, with MSI 790FX-GD70 and 4GB of 1,333MHz DDR3 is only £320. This is a £30 saving, but also at a loss..."
This 'Global Financial Crisis' must be pretty bad if £10 can disappear like that.
Comments 26 to 50 of 64
ReplyThere was an article on Tomshardware that looked into the benefits of games and 64 bit OSs. The main conclusion was right now there is little benefit, however if a developer codes for 64 bit, they will be able to utilise much larger textures etc, that could push photorealism even further.
As DDR3 becomes mainstream, DDR2 RAM prices will probably increase as production falls. 1 GB of DDR sodimm still cost ~ £30, as DDR2 is so cheap, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to buy another 4 GB if you intend to keep your system for a couple of years.
P.S. I will be getting the extra RAM shortly, but as mentioned, that is because I WANT it, not because I NEED it. lol
Graphics memory is consistently increasing - it wasn't long ago when 256MB was the 'norm' and 512MB was considered 'too much' - mainstream graphics cards now come with 512MB as a minimum and most high-end cards feature 1GB. It won't be long before we double again, I reckon. The lust for AA and higher quality textures, despite the improved texture compression algorithms, is only going to continue the increased frame buffers - we've already seen a few 2GB cards. It's insane today, but in a few years it most definitely won't be.
With regards to Vista/Win7... there's a lot of application caching going on which means memory usage is quite a bit higher than XP by default. But the result is a more responsive OS when it comes to running the programs you use regularly.
Memory usage won't stop at 4GB... not a chance. I remember when Bill Gates said how nobody will ever need more than 640KB of memory... how wrong he was.
I would bet Adobe will argue differently. Photoshop Elements *is* designed to be everyday user. Many of us multitask with several documents and things open at once - otherwise there would be NO need or desire for a quad core CPU.
I DO NEED my Firefox open all day because I work on the internet *ALL DAY* :P as do a lot of people I know, whether it's work or play. How many people have facebook open all day? flash games? forums? email? etcetc
More memory affords faster task switching, faster game boot times, better minimum frame rates in games so it's smoother.
2GB for my Mum is not going to make a difference. She never opens more than one thing at once. However we live in a world of multitasking and doing more at once and anyone reading this site will benefit from 4GB or more.
Tom's also did no proper multitasking either by the looks of it. :(
I agree with you that the situation with GPU's and their memory is an intriguing one. I would say though that it will still be some time before 2GB+ is standard on gaming cards. I bought a 4600Ti around 7years ago and that had 128MB or Memory and if standard is now 512MB then the memory on my old card has only doubled twice in all that time. But then according to steam, most PC gamers are still using old GPUs and gaming at 1280x1024. Not to mention that PCs with dedicated graphics are still a minority even if they are far more common now than they used to be.
I agree once again that 4GB will not be the end of memory increases but I do believe it will be some time before companies decide to tackle the sticky issue of 64bit with the average PC user.
And wouldn't be reading bit-tech?
Too cheap, fishy?
The Ti 4600 was a high end card in its day. Look at the Radeon HD 4870 X2 - it has 2GB of memory on board. A £160 graphics card like the 4870 has 1GB of memory on it these days. An £80 graphics card like the 4770 has 512MB of memory.
Precisely.
We don't write for people who buy from PC World.
SchizoFrog your point is valid for those who will buy a netbook or a £299 Dell. People who do barely more than one or two things with a PC, but for our audience of (heavy) multi-taskers, gamers, workstation users and PC enthusiasts I'd like you to stress "2GB is enough" to them :D;)
What games max out a PC like Crysis? Stalker 2 and GTA 4 come to mind. But games are developed to hit a good frame rate on what products are available - people complained that they couldn't run GTA4 at the highest settings, despite the fact the developers claimed they built in "more features" than current hardware could power.
We've already seen 512MB not enough for the 4870 in the middle of last year and gaming at 1980x1200 is not uncommon because 24" monitors are cheap. Once you start labouring on AA and cranking up the texture resolution then you need plenty of memory. Consoles are simplified, compressed, cut down and mostly don't feature AA - which is a nugget of why PC gaming is still popular.
Pixmania is owned by Dixons, aka PCWORLD and Currys, apparently they are a bugger to deal with if anything goes wrong, are based in France (last time I checked) so delivery and returns could be a pain, but they are a "reputable" company, and it is a steal of a price.
Apparently ATI have dropped the price of most units by 10% which is slowly filtering through retail but that still seems like a good barging, being Dixons though I wouldn't be surprised if you got a 4950 or 4930 through the post when it arrives.
If true, why ATI is applying even more pressure on Nvidia is anyones guess, but maybe they trying to make up market share or just grab what ever buyers there are out there at the mo. Saw a GTX260 for £120 the other day so deals everywhere.
Bindibadgi - This is getting off topic so I'll just say this... I thought you wrote articles for EVERYONE no matter what level they were. I can see where we disagree as your comments are based in the knowledgeable, high end user area where your comments are of course, correct, even if it is not the best way to make new comers feel welcome. My opinion and comments have been based from an overall view. It would be intersting to see which product sell more from SCAN over the next few months. The budget gaming or the high end. I am absolutely certain that a decent GPU with 1GB of memory will be absolutely fine to play future games for the next several years unless you are an extremist where an overclocked i7, 24GB Ram and Tripple SLi isn't good enough.
I personally am happy with a 32'' TV. I do not NEED a 50''+ or even a 32''. I am also happy with a 22'' montior. I do not NEED a 24''+ monitor. To play current and most likely nearly all PC games in the next 2-3 years on my monitor with the settings maxed out I need a certain level of hardware but it is, and I believe will be far less than your comments have suggested.
A 2GB dual GPU card is not the standard and should not be taken as a current rule of thumb. Evidence has shown that most PC gamers are playing current games on 1280x1024 on older hardware. They are not the elite but they are the majority (and as they are PC GAMERS I do hope you write for them) and therefor to suggest that an excess of 4GB RAM is NEEDED is surely incorrect. Just to claify, There are scenarios that NEED as much RAM as possible but as a rule of thumb, it is not NEEDED (in general terms but even for gaming) yet.
Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD4P for £95.
I understand where you're coming from, but bit-tech is written with the hardware enthusiast and hardcore gamer in mind - not every one of our readers has thousands of pounds to spend on a high-end system, but what we consider 'low-end' is pretty high end for the mainstream gamer. Let's just say mainstream gamers really don't want to know the difference between a stream processor and a ROP or the amount of L2 cache from the size of a CPU's registers.
Bit-tech has always had the mantra of 'written for enthusiasts, by enthusiasts' and that mantra has never changed, even though our audience has grown significantly since running the site became a full time job for us in 2005. Of course, the mainstream market is much bigger and there are be more sub-£399 PC sales in a month than there will be GeForce GTX 295s sold over its lifetime - there's no denying that - but we've chosen to focus ourselves on the more knowledgeable enthusiast market because that's where the passion is for us.
Our success has and always will be built on the fact that our articles are tailored for our audience... and, based on the vast amounts of money we've spent on conducting independent reader surveys, our audience is not made up of 'typical' PC gamers like the masses you'll find opting into the Steam Hardware Survey. But they do love playing with high-performance PC hardware and PC gaming just happens to be the main application for a high-end PC. :)
I have to say I hate talking about our readers in that way, because it feels like an us and them when bit-tech has always been quite the opposite - it's one big community here and the staff are not above that.
1280x1024 is 19inch monitor territory, you have 22", a lot of people are still using a 28 inch crt not 32" (LCD or otherwise) that you have and integrated graphics instead of discrete, I fail to see your point, the majority of people use lesser spec'ed kit, this site is for gamers... and this article is a buyers guide for pc enthusiasts looking to buy new kit/system. A recommendation on RAM seems to be in keeping with said topic?
RAM is very cheap right now and is something that has a real tangible effect and something you'll be thankful for when future applications (be they desktop or something online akin to flash or silverlight) require more resources, something that has very little reason to skimp on unless your on a very (very) tight budget.
I'd rather have 4GB ram over 2GB rather than a slight bump in CPU speed that could be had for the same price.
I don't think there is any need to muddy the waters with GPU memory and system RAM.
I also fail to see how a bit tech staff members opinion that says 4GB ram should be an aspiration minimum amount of system memory (£20 vs £38 for 2GB vs 4GB) some how alienates new members/lurkers?
But we can all have our opinions ;)
Also you don't NEED anything but some food in your belly.
where is it available for 180quid?
snap:)
"...Formula and 4GB of 1,066MHz DDR2 equates to about £360, while the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition, with MSI 790FX-GD70 and 4GB of 1,333MHz DDR3 is only £320. This is a £30 saving, but also at a loss..."
This 'Global Financial Crisis' must be pretty bad if £10 can disappear like that.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums