RAM or Graphics Card

sawyerdk9 · Post by **sawyerdk9** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:50 pm

Which would make my computer run SWBF2 faster? Would it be more RAM or a better graphics card? Right now I have a 64mb graphics card and 256mbs of RAM. I'm thinking of getting an extra 512mb of RAM

JabbaLovesLava · Post by **JabbaLovesLava** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:52 pm

Uhmm, you should DEFINATELY get a better graphic card. I used to have a 64 mb one (intel G 828 or something like that) and i got an ATI Radeon 9250 for 89.99 + tax, now the game runs like a charm (i have 512 of RAM, but i think GFX is more important.)

TheTao · Post by **TheTao** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:10 pm

I'd go with both, to be honest. In this day and age, you need at least a gig of RAM. A 128mb or 256mb graphics card wouldn't hurt, either.

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:12 pm

New card for sure. See BFII only needs about 756 mb of RAM so going to a gig won't do to much. The game is more CPU and video card intensive. However, a new card will give you MUCH better preformance. I would suggest something with atleast 8 pixel pipelines and high core (around 400) and memory clock (around 1000). Anything more is a little excessive and expensive. The two cards I would suggest would be either the X800 or the Nvidia 6600 (maybe the Nvidia 6800 or X850 if you have the money). That would give you good preformance in BFII and you would be atleast be able to set things on max and get around 30-60 fps at any moment. However if you have less than 512 mb of RAM go for a little upgrade (RAM is cheap) and also a video card.

-RDST

sawyerdk9 · Post by **sawyerdk9** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:06 pm

Thanks for replying so fast. I will probably wind up getting some RAM because I need money for other stuff. Do video cards make the game LOOK better or do they make it RUN better? It sounds like both. Anyways the game looks good when I play but when I play felucia,kashyyyk, yavin, endor, and for some reason Pollis Massa I get pretty bad lag.

So I guess you all are saying that ram is pretty much worthless?

Moving_Target · Post by **Moving_Target** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:37 pm

I wont say that RAM is worthless.
Random-access memory (commonly known by its acronym RAM) refers to data storage formats and equipment that allow the stored data to be accessed in any order -- that is, at random, not just in sequence. In contrast, other types of memory devices (such as magnetic tapes, disks, and drums) can access data on the storage medium only in a predetermined order due to constraints in their mechanical design.

Generally, RAM in a computer is considered main memory (or primary storage): the working area used for displaying and manipulating data. This type of RAM is usually in the form of integrated circuits (IC). These are commonly called memory sticks or RAM sticks because they are manufactured as small circuit boards with plastic packaging and are about the size of a few sticks of gum. Most personal computers have slots for adding and replacing memory chips.

RAM is typically erased when a computer is shut down, though some RAM chips maintain data indefinitely without electrical power. Technically, RAM devices are not limited to memory chips, and random-access memory as a storage format is not limited to use as working memory. In a broad sense, modern storage devices for long-term or secondary storage, including magnetic media and laser-readable CDs and DVDs, are forms of random-access memory.
Most RAM can be both written to and read from, so "RAM" is often used interchangeably with "read-write memory." In this sense, RAM is the opposite of read-only memory (ROM). Strictly speaking, however, "RAM" and "ROM" are not mutually exclusive designations because "RAM" refers only to the method of accessing stored data, not whether data can be written.

From Wikipedia.
In my opinion go with both (at least have 512 MB RAM)
Go luck shoppping!!!

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:17 pm

The RAM will make it run better, but only to a certain limit. I've had a gig in both of my computers and 512 in another. The two with a gig only get about 10 or so more frames per second. However, one computer has a X600 and the other has a Nvidia 5200. The X600 runs everything on high and gets around 40 fps. A card would make the game looks and runs better while the RAM (while it is important) will only make the game run a LITTLE better. Like I said, Both are good, but if you are short on cash go for a video card (again like I said, shoot for a X800 or 6600).

The video card will make all the difference.

-RDST

Post by **ShadowHawk** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:27 pm

AARGGG Technical Brain Freeze. Really depends on the system you are running. Rule of thumb, never go with minimum requirements. It will run the game, but will look like crap. Best thing is to make a compromise. Take the list of supported cards and get one around the middle of the line (from min to recomended) Same with the RAM. Recomended is usually a round about way to say "Spend more money so this game will run flawlessly until we make a new game to beat these requirements." I run a ATI 9600GT 128mb and 768 MB RAM and it runs fine. BF2 runs like a charm and SWBF2 looks great. Had the min before I upgraded for both and BF2 wouldn't run without choppyness (pain when running from a tank) and same for SWBF2. Now give it a few months and what I have will be on the "Minimum Requirements" list. That's the downfall with choosing he middle road. Better shelf life with the recomended, but not many people can afford that.

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:43 pm

ShadowHawk is very right. Don't go for to expensive but not the minimum. In fact, ShadowHawk has just about the perfect system for running Battlefront II (maybe not Battlefield 2, but that game is a system hog, but runs ok on my system) His card is good, while not being ridiculiously expensive. He also has just the right amount of RAM for Battlefront (considering the game is not RAM intensive). In fact if you are looking for a good cheap card go for the X600. The recomended is nice but very expensive and often time not needed.

However, ShadowHawk, since I play Battlefield 2 too, I would suggest going for some more RAM (2 gigs is the best). See, BFII, has quite a lot of geometry and static meshes to load. With more RAM would get around a 10-25 frame increase and the more the better (to a certain limit).

Happy hunting,

-RDST

Post by **ShadowHawk** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:50 pm

I would, but my wife kinda got me on a short leash. It runs fine enough though as long as I don't call for artillery in a heavily graphical area with a lot of bots. Makes it hard to run and hide then. I love the game though for nastalgia reasons (Enduring Freedom Vet.)

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:01 pm

Yep, know what your talkin about.

Leviathan · Post by **Leviathan** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:39 pm

sawyerdk', ShadowHawk was not wrong at all when he said that the choice you would have to make would "depend on the system you are running". Indeed, performance's gains may differ according to your current Computer's Specifications (In other words : Your processor, your Graphical Processing Unit, your amount and type of memory, etc...) and to many other settings, having more or less influence on the devices you could install on your PC...
Therefore, if you could build a list of all components present inside it, then I guess further GameToast members' advices might become more "relevant" and "constructive"...

JabbaLovesLava · Post by **JabbaLovesLava** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:57 pm

Maybe u should ask the "geek guy" (that's what he's called here i believe) at your computer store. They should be able to help you

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:03 pm

Lev is right. It would help to know a little more about your system (if you haven't decided already).

sawyerdk9 · Post by **sawyerdk9** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:26 pm

Ok this is the Direct X Diagnosis. I'm pretty sure I got the important pages. One other question... For video cards, do they need a certain amount of RAM. For ex. does the ATI 9600GT 128mb require 768mb of RAM? Also my only bus types on my computer are PCI

so is there are card that is for PCI bus types? When I say PCI I don't mean PCI express.

JabbaLovesLava · Post by **JabbaLovesLava** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:27 pm

ROFL! U have the smae specs i had. I went to Best Buy and got an ATI Radeon 9250. It's PCI and works really great. I recommend you get it.

Leviathan · Post by **Leviathan** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:25 pm

Personally, I have always preferred Video Cards built around nVidia Graphics Processing Units, and that's why I would suggest getting a GeForce FX 5200 model intended to a PCI connector if you do not wish to replace your current Mother-Board by another one owning either AGP or PCI-Express ports...

sawyerdk9 · Post by **sawyerdk9** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:00 pm

Thanks you guys/girls it is really appreciated. I'll be most definetly going with the same card as Jabba's

Jabba how much was the ATI Radeon 9250?

JabbaLovesLava · Post by **JabbaLovesLava** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:43 pm

It was... 99.99, but I got a discount so it was 89.99. It was very easy to install too

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:03 am

I too would suggest a Nvidia card (ATI is ok too though). However, a 5200 is NOT the card you want to get. I have that card in my other computer and I get horrible fps with things set on medium. I would god for 9600 GT although is not bad it just needs to be a little beefier (it has high core a memory clock but fairly average pixel piplines). Also like I said RAM would help quite a bit. Your CPU is fine, not great but not horrible either (plus it can be quite expensive to upgrade that). Then you should be set.

Also I would recommend you buy your card from a site like http://www.newegg.com or http://www.tigerdirect.com. They will offer the best prices (mush better than Best Buy).

Frag on,
-RDST

RAM or Graphics Card

RAM or Graphics Card

RE: RAM or Graphics Card

RE: RAM or Graphics Card