🚀 go-pugleaf

"Aki Peltola" <aape@POISTAgamma.nic.fi> wrote in message news:cha297$eah$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> "Marshall" <marshall@nospam.com> wrote
> > With 2GB of RAM in this box, I can't remember the last time my
> > system slowed down or even burped due to something having to
> > be retrieved from the harddrive and loaded into memory during
> > in-game action. 1GB is the minimum I would even consider, for
> > running todays games.
>
> I got Far Cry and first I tried to run it with all the details set
> to HIGH (ha, xp1700+, 512megs DDR400, R9600pro
> 128mb) but it was quite terrible, hard drive screaming all
> the time and no talk about playability. Then I noticed that
> lowering texture details to medium alone (every other detail
> still set to High) completely made the swapping go away
> and levels loaded up a LOT faster. I didn't notice any big
> differences in texture quality between High and Medium
> but game still was quite a piece of visual candy.
>
> So for those who are praising how 1Gb is the "absolute
> minimum" for Far Cry... There are details you can adjust
> separately, you know, like textures that eat RAM like
> hell! I don't think that anyone is going to get blind or die
> watching "only" medium detail textures ;-)

True. If you can get framerates and game visuals that are
acceptable to you, with less RAM, great. I just said that 1GB
of system RAM is the minimum that *I* would consider, since
I prefer all the pretties and good framerates as well. YMMV.
    -Marshall