Okey guys, I'm just here to tell you that there is nothing wrong with your hardware. 1. I play this game on my laptop(2009, ~€800,-) 2. I use a 20Mbit down/ 10Mbit up wifi connection. 3. I don't have any problems concering disconnections, desync, damage register bugs of lag.(at least not for me, there are random others showing these problems sometimes) 4. I can play the game at ~40 fps in the middle of nowhere to ~25 fps in major bases(now ~18 because of some strange bug in gu2 or gu3) 5. Now go whine and moan at SOE for creating such a crappy buggy game and hope they fix it!
Yeah you sure convinced me there by demonstrating that you know more about building and designing computers than I ever could. Especially with the fact that you seem to think 4GB of RAM is enough for a modern PC, which is complete BS. And accessing from a HDD is 1000x slower than from RAM. I guess you think using the page file instead of RAM is a good idea?
Says the one who believes that measuring a video card's FLOPS will accurately tell how fast or slow it is compared to other video cards? Sorry, but you're full of bad info.
Do you even know that windows will use more ram the more it gets? It'll just start loading more and more crap onto it as long as no other programs need it.
Yes, I know that. That's why I have 16GB. It won't load things past a certain point, however. There's plenty unallocated when you have 16GB, which isn't even that much. I have a friend who has 32GB on his "gaming" desktop. An LGA2011 single socket motherboard can easily support 64GB of RAM with cheap 8GB UDIMM's.
What do you measure their performance with? Highly subjective benchmark tests? The most objective measurements is FLOPS. Yes, you need to test their real world performance too. I never said you didn't.
So you also know that windows can empty your ram to less than 500MB if your programs need it, and because planetside 2 is a 32-bit game you can never run out of ram with only 4 GB? So: What is your point in having more than 8GB?
That is so wrong it hurts. For example, a stock HD7970 has 3.8 TFLOPS. A stock GTX680 has 3.1 TFLOPS. Yet a GTX 680 is often times just as fast, if not faster, than a HD7970.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/NyNp I tried to spend 5K but seen no reason to go over 3 Running 2 SSD's in Raid 0 total of 512GB, 1 TB HDD, Xfire 7970's, good CPU cooler ready to pull that thing up to 4.5GHz, 16 GB 1866 memory, keyboard and mouse that I use, good sound card and 150Watt speaker system, Eyefinity monitor system 69" of monitors, and a really good PSU.
Windows is 64 bit. I use things other than PS2. Even if the game can only use 1GB, running Windows with a few programs open will use more than 4GB, like I said. Where does Windows empty your RAM to? The page file, which is 1000x slower than RAM. I got 16GB because it was cheap and I don't have to buy more until I get a new PC. I want Windows to put as much of the things that are running in RAM, rather than trying to conserve it. It's much better to have too much RAM than not enough.
Which is why I also said you do need to test real world performance. I know actual performance isn't ever what the theoretical performance is. However, it's still the easiest way to approximate what performance CAN be. It's much less subjective than running some random game and saying "oh I got 60FPS under these highly subjective conditions". This is the reason that TFLOPS and MIPS are so commonly used to compare CPU's and GPU's.
It's not really "approximately subjective" if a card with lower flops can out perform a different card with nearly 30% more flops, now is it?
You apparently can't read. You're talking about specific instances, while I'm speaking generally. Generally, FLOPS and MIPS are used to discuss the computational power of a chip. Specific applications might or might not be optimized to take advantage of it, which is why you'd need a controlled benchmark methodology to say which is better for which specific applications.
And this is where you fail. You boast about building computers based off of theory, which holds no water when talking about building a computer based off gaming.
What I'm saying is that windows + a few programs can drop to less than 500MB in ram, so the game can have the other ~3,5GB. The point is that it isn't used in there! It doesn't matter how slow something is if it isn't used anymore! RAM is cheap, though, that's true. So why would you need those in ram? I suppose you aren't running loads of **** when gaming as this game is highly cpu dependant, so that would **** up your perfomance...
Windows can drop its memory usage by putting the stuff in RAM in the page file, and then lagging like **** when you put it back from the HDD to the RAM, when you close your game. I'd rather just keep it all in RAM all the time. In fact, that's why they make RAM arrays for cloud STORAGE now. Keeping things in RAM makes for almost instant access. What isn't used anymore? I don't really know what that sentence is referring to since it's so vague. The HDD will be used for instead of RAM if you run out. I don't use more than 8GB of RAM typically, but I went for 16 since it was so cheap, just in case I ever need it. Having Steam and Ventrilo doesn't really screw up my performance, and neither does leaving open a few hundred MB of Internet Explorer. I shut off Skype since it uses CPU even when it's idle and sucks.
I too could pay some guy $30,000 to wipe my *** for me to have "the ultimate experience," but at some point you realize that taking a **** by yourself and banking that 30k is a much wiser use of your money.
