I know that sounds like a silly question cause of course more RAM the better, but does more RAM mean a better frane rate?

I was playing the NHL 2001 demo and had the graphics swttings cranked up to the highest but I was experiencing major slow down so I had to move them back down some. MY computer has a Hercules GeForce 2 MX, 128 MB SDRAM, and a Celeron 500 running on Win2K.

Will uping my RAM by another 64MB improve my frame rate performance when I have my graphics settings maxed out on NHL 2001, or is it something else I need to have upgraded?

Thanks in advance for any help

Actually it will improve your framerate in that when a game has to use the swap file on the HD you get a stuttering effect. More RAM will alleviate that.

The answer, as usual, is "depends."

I have a GeForce 256 SDR on a PII 333DMhz CPU, 66Mhz PCI bus (33Mhz AGP bus), so most of my games are processor-limited. In other words, even though I have 192 MB of RAM, because of the limitations of my processor they're only gonna display so many frames per second REGARDLESS of what video card I have installed.

You may (or may not) be experiencing the same problem because of the limitations of your Celeron CPU. That, plus 500Mhz isn't very fast nowadays.

I CAN say that, generally speaking, upping my RAM from 128 to 192 made a SIGNIFICANT difference in the normal operation of Win2K.

As far as games, it didn't seem to make much difference in say, Soldier Of Fortune, where I was more processor-limited than anything else. Not to say SoF was bad; it only slowed down during the last segment when 15-jillion bad guys were trying to kill me, all at the same time.

More RAM may or may not help improve the frame rates of your games. Most modern games make use of the physical specifications of your 3-D card, and are less dependent on CPU RAM than they used to be. In other words, if you have a new hot & heavy 3-D card, they'll make use of it, DEPENDING on your CPU/RAM, etc.

It did make a BIG difference in Unreal when I first got my PII 333Mhz, and upped the RAM from 64 to 128, but at that time I was more graphics-limited than anything else.

That may explain the reasoning behind my, "depends" answer

Basically with games, though, there's more of a chance you'll be processor-limited than anything else if you have a bleeding-edge graphics card. (This also involves your bus speed to some extent.)

For a long, long time it's been thought that computer game demands drive hardware development much faster than software demands do, and I have to agree with that proposition.

When you think about it, my wife's P133 does just as efficient a job in developing software as my PII 333 does, but man, DooM is about the fastest game she can play on it!

Anyway, that's my opinion, and I'm stickin' with it. Good luck!

------------------
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" -Adolph Hitler, 1935

[This message has been edited by DeadCats (edited 24 September 2000).]

Deadcats described the situation very eloquently and accurately in my opinion.

All performance enhancing upgrade paths are dependant upon the main data processing areas: CPU operations (speed/L1/L2 cache), Memory Capacity and transfer rate, Video Subsystem (processor/bus type) and Data Storage Subsystem.

If your system is weak in any of these areas, then total system performance is naturally throttled by that bottleneck.

Its been said for many years in hardware, that the best and cheapest upgrade for a system is to add (double or better if you can afford it) more ram. My personal policy has been to always have at least double what the current system standard carries. I've been using 256mb and over (when I can afford it) since I had systems with PII-266. Especially when using Win2000 OS, use as much ram as you can afford. The systems boot faster, rarely cache to the hard drive and generally run smoother.

Your computer has some good parts in it, but even if you double your ram, you will probably not be able to play NHL2001 demo at the highest resolution with all the graphics options on. It may very well do that at 1024x768 or possibly 1280x1024 with decent frame rates. Remember this is a demo, and as such it is more than likely a beta engine or the release engine without final release tuning.

If you can afford it, your other alternative to increasing system performance is to plug in a faster CPU (or one with more onboard cache) or to overclock the one you have. An increase in CPU speed will enhance the ability of your GeForce2 to process video data and result in probable higher game play resolutions (next bottleneck is the monitor capability), and frame rates in those resolutions.

Good Luck

I agree i run a dual p2-400 which is quite fast with 128mb of ram i installed another 128mb of ram from a friends machine just out of interest and there was little or no obvious improvemnt in performance worth the upgrade so ill wait to get my 2x800 mhz.

dualing the way to go.

In Windows 2000 around 256 would be good. Load up UT, Quake 3, Ultima Ascension, Messiah and look at your peak mem. Also do an Alt+Tab while playing the game and look at how much memory your using. Mostly gaming in Windows 2000 memory peaks around 300+m and hangs a little below 200m.

you've got a good graphics card with plenty of RAM, just get a faster processor and u'll see a significant performance boost for your games.

------------------
2 Computers both have :

Intel SE440BX2
Pentium III 700Mhz (100)
LS-120 120 Mb (100MHz)
Fujitsu 17.3 GB Ultra DMA 66/10.2 GB Ultra DMA 66
Mitsubihi 50X IDE
Creative Vibra PCI 128bit
Matrox Millenium G400 16Mb AGP/Diamond Speedstar 8Mb AGP
Bay Netgear 10/100PCI
Medium ATX Tower case
120W Multimedia
MS INternet KB (PS2)
MS Win2000 Pro