Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 39848	2003-11-19 20:38:00	Is shared memory really that undesirable?	oggy (1250)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
193165	2003-11-19 20:38:00	Now that I can easily get 512mb RAM, is having shared memory as much of a poor man's option as it used to be? I don't play the latest fastest games or use graphics intensive software and I'm not too fussy about crystal clear sound...as long as it's adequate	oggy (1250)
193166	2003-11-19 20:44:00	Shared memory is fine, its just not as well suited to the gamer fraternity, as the access speed (and on-board video) give them a less-than-ideal experience. It was a compromise whan RAM was expensive and machines were always minimum spec, but with 512 being commonplace nobody misses 32 or 64 being shared. In truth, with dynamic sharing, probably not more than 16 MB may be used for normal applications. It will not affect sound, and for normal applications video is exactly the same with dedicated or shared memory. For most its more than adequate.	godfather (25)
193167	2003-11-19 20:49:00	I would be happy to recomend a shared memory system to anyone who only wanted internet and office stuff. a full graphics card would only be needed ina high end system for gaming ,video editing or desktop publishing. most home users that dont game will be very happy with a shared memory system.	robsonde (120)
193168	2003-11-19 20:53:00	It never really has been too much of a problem IMO. But now motherboards do come with much better onboard equipment than they have previously, especially the nForce2 based motherboards which will have an onboard GeForce4 graphics solution and high quality sound.	-=JM=- (16)
1