Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > How much system RAM to make available to the graphics card?

Reply
Thread Tools

How much system RAM to make available to the graphics card?

 
 
Scott Gardner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2004
This is kind of piggy-backing off of my other post about which card to
buy, but the other post was getting too long.

I have a P4/3.2 Ghz with 1 Gig of RAM. My graphics card (GeForce 3)
has 64 MB of RAM on it. I currently have my BIOS set to make an
additional 128 MB of system RAM available for texture storage. With
1024 MB of total RAM, would I be better off allocating more main RAM
for texture storage, or is 128 MB the right amount? I'm running
Windows XP Home.

I thought I remembered an old "rule-of-thumb" that said you should
allocate twice as much system RAM for texture storage as the video
card itself has. So, for my 64 MB GeForce, I set the BIOS to provide
an additional 128 MB. Is this still a good ratio, or have things
changed? It seems like video card RAM is getting larger more quickly
than system RAM as time goes by, so I didn't know if the "conventional
wisdom" still held true.

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael-NC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2004
I doubt it makes mush difference but the best way is to benchmark the video
card with the different settings and see which one your system likes. I use
Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001SE. You can expect no big increase in performance when
you get the cache optimized.



"Scott Gardner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> This is kind of piggy-backing off of my other post about which card to
> buy, but the other post was getting too long.
>
> I have a P4/3.2 Ghz with 1 Gig of RAM. My graphics card (GeForce 3)
> has 64 MB of RAM on it. I currently have my BIOS set to make an
> additional 128 MB of system RAM available for texture storage. With
> 1024 MB of total RAM, would I be better off allocating more main RAM
> for texture storage, or is 128 MB the right amount? I'm running
> Windows XP Home.
>
> I thought I remembered an old "rule-of-thumb" that said you should
> allocate twice as much system RAM for texture storage as the video
> card itself has. So, for my 64 MB GeForce, I set the BIOS to provide
> an additional 128 MB. Is this still a good ratio, or have things
> changed? It seems like video card RAM is getting larger more quickly
> than system RAM as time goes by, so I didn't know if the "conventional
> wisdom" still held true.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Gardner
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott Gardner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2004
You were right - it didn't make much of a difference. I adjusted the
texture cache size from 128 MB to 256, and my 3DMark score didn't
change a bit. I also adjusted the ABIT IC7-MAX 3 BIOS "Game
Enhancement" settings from "Auto" to "Turbo" to "Street Racer", and
those changes didn't make a significant difference either.

Overclocking the CPU didn't seem to matter, either. My CPU is a 2.8
GHz, but I've been running it at 3.2 Ghz since I bought it. Going
back to 2.8 Ghz left the 3DMark score unchanged as well.

I think my graphics card is so far behind the rest of my system,
performance-wise, that the tweaking had no real effect.

I hadn't realized how "behind the times" my graphics card was until I
submitted my results to 3DMark. Of the 2 million submissions using
3DMark 2003, there were only *ten* other systems that had a GeForce 3
card in a Pentium 4 Computer. Mine was faster than all but one of
them, but most of them had 1.4 or 1.6 Mhz CPUs. The one system that
was faster had overclocked the GeForce 3 card from 200 Mhz to 246.
I'm not going to mess around with overclocking my video card - at this
point it would just be putting lipstick on a pig. I'll just wait a
month or two and replace it altogether.

Thanks again for the help.

Scott Gardner

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:20:45 GMT, "Michael-NC"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I doubt it makes mush difference but the best way is to benchmark the video
>card with the different settings and see which one your system likes. I use
>Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001SE. You can expect no big increase in performance when
>you get the cache optimized.
>
>
>
>"Scott Gardner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> This is kind of piggy-backing off of my other post about which card to
>> buy, but the other post was getting too long.
>>
>> I have a P4/3.2 Ghz with 1 Gig of RAM. My graphics card (GeForce 3)
>> has 64 MB of RAM on it. I currently have my BIOS set to make an
>> additional 128 MB of system RAM available for texture storage. With
>> 1024 MB of total RAM, would I be better off allocating more main RAM
>> for texture storage, or is 128 MB the right amount? I'm running
>> Windows XP Home.
>>
>> I thought I remembered an old "rule-of-thumb" that said you should
>> allocate twice as much system RAM for texture storage as the video
>> card itself has. So, for my 64 MB GeForce, I set the BIOS to provide
>> an additional 128 MB. Is this still a good ratio, or have things
>> changed? It seems like video card RAM is getting larger more quickly
>> than system RAM as time goes by, so I didn't know if the "conventional
>> wisdom" still held true.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott Gardner
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael-NC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2004
Yeah, that's a valuable lesson. Screwing with your video card's timing's on
less than a dedicated gaming system can only bring you grief. The
performance gains are not worth it, IMO.

"Scott Gardner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You were right - it didn't make much of a difference. I adjusted the
> texture cache size from 128 MB to 256, and my 3DMark score didn't
> change a bit. I also adjusted the ABIT IC7-MAX 3 BIOS "Game
> Enhancement" settings from "Auto" to "Turbo" to "Street Racer", and
> those changes didn't make a significant difference either.
>
> Overclocking the CPU didn't seem to matter, either. My CPU is a 2.8
> GHz, but I've been running it at 3.2 Ghz since I bought it. Going
> back to 2.8 Ghz left the 3DMark score unchanged as well.
>
> I think my graphics card is so far behind the rest of my system,
> performance-wise, that the tweaking had no real effect.
>
> I hadn't realized how "behind the times" my graphics card was until I
> submitted my results to 3DMark. Of the 2 million submissions using
> 3DMark 2003, there were only *ten* other systems that had a GeForce 3
> card in a Pentium 4 Computer. Mine was faster than all but one of
> them, but most of them had 1.4 or 1.6 Mhz CPUs. The one system that
> was faster had overclocked the GeForce 3 card from 200 Mhz to 246.
> I'm not going to mess around with overclocking my video card - at this
> point it would just be putting lipstick on a pig. I'll just wait a
> month or two and replace it altogether.
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
> Scott Gardner
>
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:20:45 GMT, "Michael-NC"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I doubt it makes mush difference but the best way is to benchmark the

video
> >card with the different settings and see which one your system likes. I

use
> >Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001SE. You can expect no big increase in performance

when
> >you get the cache optimized.
> >
> >
> >
> >"Scott Gardner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> This is kind of piggy-backing off of my other post about which card to
> >> buy, but the other post was getting too long.
> >>
> >> I have a P4/3.2 Ghz with 1 Gig of RAM. My graphics card (GeForce 3)
> >> has 64 MB of RAM on it. I currently have my BIOS set to make an
> >> additional 128 MB of system RAM available for texture storage. With
> >> 1024 MB of total RAM, would I be better off allocating more main RAM
> >> for texture storage, or is 128 MB the right amount? I'm running
> >> Windows XP Home.
> >>
> >> I thought I remembered an old "rule-of-thumb" that said you should
> >> allocate twice as much system RAM for texture storage as the video
> >> card itself has. So, for my 64 MB GeForce, I set the BIOS to provide
> >> an additional 128 MB. Is this still a good ratio, or have things
> >> changed? It seems like video card RAM is getting larger more quickly
> >> than system RAM as time goes by, so I didn't know if the "conventional
> >> wisdom" still held true.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott Gardner
> >>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
available ram for 32bit single app in 64 bit OS with huge amount of ram ZF Windows 64bit 27 01-18-2009 11:37 PM
Want to "tweak" the system to eke out more overall available RAM Spin Computer Support 13 09-10-2008 09:20 PM
How to find the total and free memory available in RAM. and used & free space available in each disk? kathirvel.com@gmail.com Java 1 11-02-2006 02:31 PM
Need a method to see how much memory is used/available on a system (f.ex. a pc). Kjetil Java 2 09-23-2004 08:36 PM



Advertisments