3 GB to 12 GB Comparision

tomshardware are a bunch of idiots, I left that forum 2 years ago cause there is so much BS there.

I personally just for my browsers running and a few multitasking can tell you that 3GB will not due.

IF you follow tomshardware articles you will find yourself in a world of crap.

for example what is TH's idea of multitasking?

Because virus scans tie up the hard drive, we limited our background applications to video encoding (TMPGEnc with DivX) and file transfers (Windows Vista SP1 x64 standalone update at 726.5 MB) while retesting our Far Cry 2 benchmark. Simultaneous use of these tasks had no noticeable effect on game frame rates, and while DivX encoding times did slow down by around 60%, memory capacity did not affect those results.

they didn't even have the virus scanner running in the background because they know the mem usage would go high so instead they said they didn't do it cause it tied up the HDD

then the digalings go on to say that running multiple stuff had no effect on fps, really? cause its not suppose to, lack of ram does not effect fps, it effect your game/system running period.

they they admit that encoding slowed down by 60% but then they say its was not the memory, where is the 6GB test that shows its not the memory, I bet you it will make a noticeable difference.

You can tell these idiots are looking for speed from memory size, which anybody that writes reviews should know that ram speed = speed, ram size = multitasking not speed, lack of ram can sometimes produce lower speed but that is only in situations where the amount of ram is much lower then what the system needs.



Edited by DST4ME - 08 Apr 2009 at 11:15pm

You just have to be careful reading these reviews, its very hard to find a creditable site that has 100% correct reviews.

proper test would have been if they did the test 3GB vs 6GB in duplicate tasks and this time lets throw everything at it not just some pansy stuff.