FarCry on Win98 with 1GB memory

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrWho
  • Start date Start date
D

DrWho

Well... I thought I had a pretty darned kick-ass machine, until I tried
to play FarCry. :)

From what I've been reading, my biggest problem with FarCry is that I
have only 512MB of RAM. So, I'm planning to buy another 512MB. Here's
the hitch: I'm running Win98SE (please - no discussion of why I haven't
moved to XP yet - not relevant to this discussion).

I have researched the whole Win98SE/512MB limitation thing. I believe I
should be able to double my ram to 1GB and avoid the Win98 memory
management problems by setting the vcache limit to 512MB. So, the
question is: has anyone done this? Anyone out there playing FarCry on
Win98 with more than 512 MB?




XP2100 @166 --> XP2700
512 MB CAS 2 Corsair RAM
ATI 9700 non-pro overclocked to 9700pro
 
running FC on a computer much like yours, except its a 9800 pro.
Game set to combination of medium and high settings, average fps is
30-50. XP1700+ OC to 2 GHz with 166 fsb. 512 MB ram. Other than tweaking
the ram settings for 98 I dont see how the OS affects the game at all.
But 1 GB would help us both out more than anything ~
 
DrWho said:
Well... I thought I had a pretty darned kick-ass machine, until I tried
to play FarCry. :)

From what I've been reading, my biggest problem with FarCry is that I
have only 512MB of RAM.
Click to expand...

I had 512MB PC3200 in my machine for a while, upgraded to 1GB. I saw no
difference in Far Cry performance.

XP3000+
nvidia 5200 ultra

I think for most people their video card is the sole reason Far Cry
isn't running faster.
 
DrWho said:
Well... I thought I had a pretty darned kick-ass machine, until I
tried to play FarCry. :)

From what I've been reading, my biggest problem with FarCry is that I
have only 512MB of RAM. So, I'm planning to buy another 512MB.
Here's the hitch: I'm running Win98SE (please - no discussion of why
I haven't moved to XP yet - not relevant to this discussion).

I have researched the whole Win98SE/512MB limitation thing. I
believe I should be able to double my ram to 1GB and avoid the Win98
memory management problems by setting the vcache limit to 512MB. So,
the question is: has anyone done this? Anyone out there playing
FarCry on Win98 with more than 512 MB?




XP2100 @166 --> XP2700
512 MB CAS 2 Corsair RAM
ATI 9700 non-pro overclocked to 9700pro
Click to expand...

ahh just give up and get winxp
win9x sucked even back when it was the norm, it really sucks these days

i'm sure there are lots of poeple playing farcry with 1gig, and it runs much
better i hear
1gig ram is now more or less needed for newest games now really i think
 
Far Cry seems to rely completely on top of the range GPU`s and everyone else
is left frustrated by lack of performance with the only option being
reducing detail levels or resolution or sometimes both. checking out
everyone`s complaints about the game`s graphics performance on this ng you
seem to need an A64 cpu, 1 gig ram and an X800 GPU to get decent fps.
IMOH of course...
 
I've been playing Far Cry on 98SE w/1gig of RAM. When you go to 1 gig you have
to make sure you limit your maximum vcache size -- otherwise you will have
problems.

Far Cry works fine on my system w/maximum details (except shadows) at 1024x768.
I've got a gig of RAM and a Barton running at 2338Mhz w/a 9800 Pro overclocked
to 438/378. The Nforce soundstorm sound kicks ass in this game. I personally
have my vcache maximum set to 58MB just because FC is such a memory hog. I
might try upping the vcache maximum again, maybe to 128MB.
Well... I thought I had a pretty darned kick-ass machine, until I tried
to play FarCry. :)

From what I've been reading, my biggest problem with FarCry is that I
have only 512MB of RAM. So, I'm planning to buy another 512MB. Here's
the hitch: I'm running Win98SE (please - no discussion of why I haven't
moved to XP yet - not relevant to this discussion).

I have researched the whole Win98SE/512MB limitation thing. I believe I
should be able to double my ram to 1GB and avoid the Win98 memory
management problems by setting the vcache limit to 512MB. So, the
question is: has anyone done this? Anyone out there playing FarCry on
Win98 with more than 512 MB?
Click to expand...


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Far Cry seems to rely completely on top of the range GPU`s and everyone
else is left frustrated by lack of performance with the only option being
Click to expand...

I played through Far Cry on my ageing GF4 4800. It was smooth as silk the
entire game through. I didn't tweak any graphics settings.

I can't remember a single area where it chugged. I have read a *lot* of
accounts of people that upgraded from 512 to 1GB memory and got immense
performance increases with all the remaining hardware being equal though.


- --
Frode


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQPrb0+XlGBWTt1afEQL2MwCgsADNeRAJ7W/KDDDcXVuu/vTT3R8AoMlA
JK4e4xcQVx6d+Eedgl/NQcB6
=4Rnj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
David Besack said...
I had 512MB PC3200 in my machine for a while, upgraded to 1GB. I saw no
difference in Far Cry performance.
Click to expand...

Really?! From what I've read, the studdering/glitches/freezing is a
factor of how much system memory is available. In general, low frame
rates are from the video card stuggling, but the screen studders are
generally caused by doing disk accesses during game play. THAT problem
should be mitigated by more memory.

I know more memory won't allow me to turn up video settings, but it
should reduce/eliminate the studders.
 
Wblane said...
I've been playing Far Cry on 98SE w/1gig of RAM. When you go to 1 gig you have
to make sure you limit your maximum vcache size -- otherwise you will have
problems.

Far Cry works fine on my system w/maximum details (except shadows) at 1024x768.
I've got a gig of RAM and a Barton running at 2338Mhz w/a 9800 Pro overclocked
to 438/378. The Nforce soundstorm sound kicks ass in this game. I personally
have my vcache maximum set to 58MB just because FC is such a memory hog. I
might try upping the vcache maximum again, maybe to 128MB.
Click to expand...

Ah. Excellent. This is response I have been waiting for. I'll be
buying more RAM immediately.

Why have you limited the vcache so much? I guess the better question
would be: how big does the vcache get under normal circumstances on my
512MB machine? I was planning to limit it to 512, but you believe I'll
get better game play by going a LOT lower?

Thanks!
 
DrWho said:
Wblane said...

Ah. Excellent. This is response I have been waiting for. I'll be
buying more RAM immediately.

Why have you limited the vcache so much? I guess the better question
would be: how big does the vcache get under normal circumstances on my
512MB machine? I was planning to limit it to 512, but you believe I'll
get better game play by going a LOT lower?
Click to expand...

On Win98 the VCache will get just about as big as it feels like. The
problem is that it rarely releases that RAM for anything else.

Without limiting VCache you are almost certainly going to run into problems
with a game like Far Cry. I used to use Cacheman to optimise the parameters
of Win98. It's appalling without being set straight, and workable with. I
don;t recall what I used to limit it to, but with 512MB RAM, maybe 96MB is
enough. With a 1GB, maybe double that at 192MB. Depends on what your
requirements are really - try it and see if it helps - but they're probably
reasonable values. Cacheman has presets for "gaming" "multitasking" or
whatever.

In my opinion there are two primary reasons why WinXP or Win2K are better
then Win98. The first is the way in which the new kernel deals with
multiple programs and shealds them from each other, as well as itself - what
this means is that if one application crashes, it will rarely take
everything else with it, unlike Win98. The second is the general way in
which it manages memory - it is just FAR better than Win98 is.

Cacheman:
http://www.outertech.com/?_charisma_page=product&id=2

Ben
 
DrWho said:
David Besack said...

Really?! From what I've read, the studdering/glitches/freezing is a
factor of how much system memory is available. In general, low frame
rates are from the video card stuggling, but the screen studders are
generally caused by doing disk accesses during game play. THAT problem
should be mitigated by more memory.

I know more memory won't allow me to turn up video settings, but it
should reduce/eliminate the studders.
Click to expand...


It did exactly that for me when I doubled my mem from 512 to 1gig. Shaun
 
Far Cry seems to rely completely on top of the range GPU`s and everyone else
is left frustrated by lack of performance with the only option being
reducing detail levels or resolution or sometimes both. checking out
everyone`s complaints about the game`s graphics performance on this ng you
seem to need an A64 cpu, 1 gig ram and an X800 GPU to get decent fps.
IMOH of course...
Click to expand...

NF7-S v2.0, 1GiG of shite 3200 memory, ATi 9500np on Omega drivers
with all ' pipes ' open and it goes ' full welly ' on full speck !

No idea on Win98, in priciple I agree with the vcache running but I've
never tried it . . . . so I dunno.

Wot ? MOBO ?

Wot ? PC rating ?

Same [ish] card

Agreed, but each to his/her own

Very, very true, at least true of ' FarCry ' !

BoroLad
 
DrWho said:
David Besack said...

Really?! From what I've read, the studdering/glitches/freezing is a
factor of how much system memory is available. In general, low frame
rates are from the video card stuggling, but the screen studders are
generally caused by doing disk accesses during game play. THAT problem
should be mitigated by more memory.
Click to expand...

FWIW My system (XP2600+ @ 2241MHz, 512Mb PC2700, Radeon 9700 @ stock) runs
Farcry admirably as far as frame rates are concerned- FRAPS reports 30FPS+
even outdoors, everything high (AA off, AFx4, couple of special effects
turned off) yet the game still chugs, even when the framerate is reported at
50+. Whether this is related to RAM or my ridiculously old, slow 20Gb HDD is
to be revealed- I hope to get some more RAM this month.

Oh, and Farcry is fantastic... although it hasn't quite grabbed me like Half
Life did first time round. Wish I didn't have to reload so often...
 
From what I've been reading, my biggest problem with FarCry is that I
It did exactly that for me when I doubled my mem from 512 to 1gig. Shaun
Click to expand...

I think your results are probably more typical. In fact I've read
somewhere that Far Cry is optimized for a gig of RAM. I don't know why
my situation is different, or maybe I just never noticed the "stuttering".
 
David said:
I had 512MB PC3200 in my machine for a while, upgraded to 1GB. I saw
no difference in Far Cry performance.

XP3000+
nvidia 5200 ultra

I think for most people their video card is the sole reason Far Cry
isn't running faster.
Click to expand...

Iv'e run Far Cry only on a P4 rig with 1 gig of ram. Granted, I've
changed mobos/processors and RAM three times, and video cards twice.
But I've always used a gig of ram, either PC800 Rambus or PC3200+
DDR400. Used a P4-2.0/400, 2.66/533 and now a 3.0E/800. Video cards
have been FX5900-128 and Radeon 9800 Pro 128 meg. I've never seen the
kind of lagging and bad stuttering a lot of folks are talking about. I
can tell you that I think the reason you haven't seen a major
performance increase when you upped to 1 gig of ram is your FX5200, it's
your bottleneck.
McG.
 
Win 98 doesn't address over 512 megs of ram I do believe....
but does that mean games can't use the extra ram with win 98 ??
 
Back
Top