Chris Jenkins Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 What will be affected by getting extra RAM? Will the battle take less time to compute, or will it look smoother? I'm getting 256MB tomorrow, and already have 128MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Ram makes it smoother. Other then that not much changes. After all its your processor that dose the processing. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Well, it depends on what kind of processor you have. If you are 667 or better, RAM is a good idea. Much slower, and you might want to upgrade the CPU too. Note that ram is nearly free now, so upgrading RAM would not be mutually exclusive with upgrading the processor. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 The real difference is seen with a better processor. I upgraded my RAM from 256 to 384 and I saw almost no change. Then I upgraded from a 500mhz processor to a 1.33Gig one and now slowdowns and choppy screens are no longer part of CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 I upgraded from 128 to 256 and saw no change. However, when I upgraded my cpu from a celeron 433mhz to a P3 750mhz I saw a marked change. The time for calculating turns and loading PBEM's was MUCH shorter. And there are no more slowdowns with the REALLY large maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Yes, processor speed is probably your best bet. Of course having at least 256 MB of fast RAM probably doesn't hurt either. By fast RAM I mean, at least PC133 SDRAM or better such as DDR. But upgrading from a Celeron 433 to a 1.2 GHz Athlon, there is a world of difference is both graphic processing and turn processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Yes, processor speed is probably your best bet. Of course having at least 256 MB of fast RAM probably doesn't hurt either. By fast RAM I mean, at least PC133 SDRAM or better such as DDR. But upgrading from a Celeron 433 to a 1.2 GHz Athlon, there is a world of difference is both graphic processing and turn processing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe, I recently upgraded from 100 mhz P1 to 1.2 ghz Athlon. That first piece of crap doesn't even come close to being able to run CM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 CM only needs & can benefit from so much RAM. I have about 300MB's, but I've only given CM some 60 MB's, just because giving it more doesn't make any difference. On the other hand, if you want to keep your web browser, emailer and other stuff open while you play CM, having extra ram is a good idea. Depending on the setup and the system used, 128MB's is just about the edge where upgrading RAM might, or might not, make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 This is all a bit vague. Bear in mind that different processors are affected by their amount of onboard cache, their onboard bus speed AND their onboard clock speed. Therefore, an AMD 850 Duron will NEVER be as fast as an 850 Athlon because the former has no primary cache, only secondary(I think that's the right way round). Similarly, an AMD K6/2 366 may run slower than a K6/2 350, because the 366 has a 66Mhz bus multiplied at 5.5, whilst the K6/2 350 has a 100Mhz bus multiplied at 3.5. It also depends on your OS. Windows 95/98 are notoriously bad at making use of memory over 128MB - remember, the standard when '95 was released was something silly like 16 or 32. Nobody ever envisioned PCs with 256 or 512MB of RAM in as standard (which is what I build for my customers). Windows ME, and 2000, by contrast, can make use of this memory. Windows ME needs over 128MB of RAM to run really smoothly - and that's without any programs running. :eek: Incidentally, if someone tries to flog you a Celeron, push it where the sun doesn't shine. For less money you can have a Duron - and it's just as reliable, faster, and cuter. My home PC has 512MB of RAM. I found the big gain was not turn processing but the ability to do a number of things at once. Winamp, in particular, is a real memory hog, and if you do what I do, which is play music whilst playing CM, that slows everything down. Having extra RAM meant that the music was stored there rather than on the hard disk, so no disk access and thus faster response time. I've also upgraded my processor to an 850 thunderbird from a 600 Duron. The fundamental change whilst playing CM was the speed at which turns were calculated. This seems to have been cut at least in half by getting a better processor. I can't speak about Macs, because I don't know anything about them. I'm sure there's a Mac expert out there who can advise you if that's what you've got. Hope some of this was useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 I guess my original point was unclear. Basically, it is a matter of balancing and eliminating the bottleneck. If you have a slow processor, you cannot use 1 GB of RAM. CM is choking on the data it already has, not all the extra stuff in RAM. On the other hand, a fast processor will be hamstrung by having only 64mb of RAM (which is what many 6-800mhz machines are sold with today). This was my case several months ago, I upped to 192mb on an 800mhz processor and CM got a whole lot faster. Later on, when I replaced the TNT with a GeForce2MX, I saw no difference save hi-res grass. And a fast processor with plenty of RAM will be hamstrung by a slow video card. So it really depends on what you have in your box. 128mb is probably adequate, but more never hurts. Oh, yeah, and Maximus: PC133 RAM runs at motherboard bus speed, so it is not any faster than PC66 on a 66mhz bus or PC100 on a 100mhz bus. DDR is a much different story. WWB [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: wwb_99 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Bear in mind that different processors are affected by their amount of onboard cache, their onboard bus speed AND their onboard clock speed. Therefore, an AMD 850 Duron will NEVER be as fast as an 850 Athlon because the former has no primary cache, only secondary(I think that's the right way round)." They both have 128K of L1 cache, the Duron only has 64K of L2 cache while the Athlon has 256K of L2 cache. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiborhead Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 WOW! I must be way behind the times!! :eek: I only have 64 RAM and a 1 ghz Athlon and CM runs fine. No slowdown whatsoever unless I play a HUGE operation, or load up on the mods. I was thinking about getting some more RAM, but I haven't the faintest idea of what to get, where to get it, or how to put it in. Sorry guys, but to paraphrase oddball from Kelly's Heroes, I just play with em, I don't know what makes em work. I would appreciate any help in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 RAM is very easy to put in, just a simple matter of finding the right place and plugging it in. Buying is a bit more complex. For simplicity's sake, the best thing to do is order direct from Cruical, as they have reasonable prices and quality RAM. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TP_Bomber Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 I was just wondering if the graphics card has more to do with slow downs then anything else. I am running a overclocked celeron 566 at 700mhz with 192mb of RAM and Voodoo 3 2000 16mb graphics card. I get slow downs with 3000pt and above battles. 5000pt battle almost turns into a slide show. Im open for suggestions if I should go with faster graphics card or get rid of the Celeron and go with a 850mhz PIII. I cant go with anything above 850mhz for my motherboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reichpapers Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 You guys are silly, I have a Packard Bell with a 333mHz Celeron processor, and 64 Mb of RAM. CMBO runs fine and smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Just to piss off those of you that paid way to much for your Giga-whatver PIII... I took a Celeron 600, which is a coppermine PIII ecept with 128k cache, and over clocked it to 900 MHz. No problem. Only cost me 70 bucks with all the parts (Fan, Converter card, processor). So naaaaaah. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TP_Bomber: I was just wondering if the graphics card has more to do with slow downs then anything else. I am running a overclocked celeron 566 at 700mhz with 192mb of RAM and Voodoo 3 2000 16mb graphics card. I get slow downs with 3000pt and above battles. 5000pt battle almost turns into a slide show. Im open for suggestions if I should go with faster graphics card or get rid of the Celeron and go with a 850mhz PIII. I cant go with anything above 850mhz for my motherboard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You seem to be in a position where upgrading one probably wouldn't show any difference. If you have the moola, I would upgrade the vid card, motherboard, and processor. I wouldn't buy a new 32mb vid card though unless you upgraded to at least a 800mhz processor with new motherboard. But with processor prices so low, why not go for that 1.33? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiborhead Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Just to piss off those of you that paid way to much for your Giga-whatver PIII... I took a Celeron 600, which is a coppermine PIII ecept with 128k cache, and over clocked it to 900 MHz. No problem. Only cost me 70 bucks with all the parts (Fan, Converter card, processor). So naaaaaah. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FYI, I didn't pay all that much for mine. I got the 1GHz AMD athlon with 64 MB RAM, and a 32 meg card for around $1,300 for the whole package (cpu, moniter, printer, etc. etc.) The only part I got ripped of on is the memory. I got the thing last winter when 64 MB RAM was on the low end of current standards. [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tiborhead ] [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tiborhead ] Whoa. 3 edits in less than 2 minutes. Is that some kind of record? [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tiborhead ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 I am with you jshandorf. I have my Celeron 533A running at 800. It could do 897 with a better fan and possibly a gig with a different motherboard. I have heard of the same chip that I have pushing 1.5ghz with the right cooling solutions. And the GeForce2MX is running about 10% over spec. Overclockers of the World Unite! WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 I am with you jshandorf. I have my Celeron 533A running at 800. It could do 897 with a better fan and possibly a gig with a different motherboard. I have heard of the same chip that I have pushing 1.5ghz with the right cooling solutions" Sure with a liquid nitrogen system maybe it could reach that high. Tiborhead do not worry. Celerons are nothing special and get smoked on most applications by the P3, Athlon, and the duron makes quick work of them. They were something special back in the days we were at 600Mhz but the celeron does not scale very well and gets basically eaten alive. He probably could have picked up a Duron 600 that costs 50 bucks and got over 1Ghz. Those things overclock crazy style. And it would have performed much better. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 woops double post... [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reichpapers: You guys are silly, I have a Packard Bell with a 333mHz Celeron processor, and 64 Mb of RAM. CMBO runs fine and smooth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can beat that I only have a 300 Mhz G3. But I do have 193 Mb of Ram so it doesn't slow down till you get over 5000 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: I am with you jshandorf. I have my Celeron 533A running at 800. It could do 897 with a better fan and possibly a gig with a different motherboard. I have heard of the same chip that I have pushing 1.5ghz with the right cooling solutions. And the GeForce2MX is running about 10% over spec. Overclockers of the World Unite! WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have a GeForce Hercules MX II 32mb. How do I go about overclocking on mine and will I see a difference in CM? Also, is it safe to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: I can beat that I only have a 300 Mhz G3. But I do have 193 Mb of Ram so it doesn't slow down till you get over 5000 points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny thing is, Rob, is that you can buy a rig like we're talking about here for about $1300. What would a 1.33GHz Mac cost? $5000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_WARHAMMER Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 Just to throw one more log on the fire: I have a 866mhz compaq, with 128ram, but only an 11mb video card. Could the video card be causing my slow downs and quick freezes?? Thanks in advance Warhammer :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts