Does more RAM improve IGP performance?

Does more RAM simply just grant the IGP more space towards graphics use, or can an increase in RAM actually make the IGP perform a bit better? This is simply a question pertaining to capacity of the same speed of RAM towards performance, as I know that faster RAM definitely improves IGP performance because of increased bandwidth. I had been scouring the internet, hoping for an answer, but did not find one. I found one place where someone simply said that more RAM does help IGP performance, but no data was given to back that up.

In 3d rendering, a gpu can take advantage of higher vram when rendering on a high definition, when using high resolution textures or with anti-aliasing. However, when it comes igp, allocating a high amount of ram (like 512 or 1024mb) won't really help as the computing power isn't high enough to render at a decent speed.

in 2d mode (windows desktop), as long as you have enough vram to hold "the desktop picture" (trying to vulgarize as much as i can), it's useless to allocate more ram to your igp as it may slow down your computer, because it's gonna have less ram to work with.

DiscostewSM, on 08 February 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Short: No it does not help graphics but increases the performence.

long: Basicly Ram memory is a fast memory the computer loads stuff in too to gain fast access to it. it does not help with the graphics performence, dut it does speed up loading stuff, because loading and writing every change from a harddrive every time it needs to be loaded it would take a long time.

Just a note, the capacity of RAM does not affect the speed of loading things because that's all dependant on the (slow) speed of the hard drive.

Originality, on 08 February 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

...Uhm.

Native frequency of RAM modules is *quite* important aswell - the higher the better. As far as capacity is concerned - the more you have the more you'll load.

Foxi4, on 08 February 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Not really, the memory clock speed dictates data rates, however it's useless to pick ram that has a higher clock rate than of the memory controller, as the memory controller would bottleneck the data transmission.


what differentiate ram performances is the CAS latency labeled as "C#" where the # is the first of the series you see bellow, ie the corsair set is a ddr3-2400 C10, by opposition the official standard (jedec) latency for ddr3 1600 is 9 hence the name ddr3-1600 C9.

Best Timings at 1.65 V . ................................DDR3-2400 ................. DDR3-2133 ......... DDR3-1866 ...... DDR3-1600
Corsair Dominator GT CMGTX8 (4 x2GB) ...... 10-12-10-12 ................ 9-10-9-10 ............. 8-9-8-9 .......... 7-8-7-8
G.Skill Ripjaws Z F3-19200CL9Q-16GBZHD......................................... 8-10-9-10 .............. 7-9-8-9 ................ 6-7-7-7
Geil Evo Corsa GOC316GB2133C9AQC ........................ ........................ 9-11-9-11 .............. 8-9-8-9 ................ 7-8-7-8
Mushkin Redline 993997 .................................... ............................. 9-10-9-28 ................. 8-9-8-9 ............ 7-8-7-8

If you take a look at benchmark again knowing that the g.skill has thee lowest latency, you'll see that it does have marginally better performances in the 1600 test, but that it can't be differentiated form the others at higher speed because the memory bus is saturated.

Then you might ask why vendors are pushing those module?
the reason is called overclocking. When overclocking, you raise the motherboard base clock, The ram and the cpu doesn't have clock generator, they rely on the motherboard's clock and simply set their speed with a multiplier, Meaning that if you raise the mobo's clock (do an overclock), ram will run at a higher speed than designed. Knowing that your module are certified to run stable at a higher clock rates means that they won't limit your overclock, or at least not until you reach the base clock they're certified to run stable at.

sources:
http://www.tomshardw...eview,3100.html

marcus134, on 08 February 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Hehe, I currently have 800Mhz RAM installed and I DO see a difference between this crap and a 1600Mhz ones, so yeah, I just thought I should mention it.

Ok, I think I found my answer. True as everyone has been saying, the amount of RAM won't affect performance...

...but...

...just now, I found this little article. Come to find out, going off of just capacity from 4GB to 8GB won't affect anything, but going from 1x4GB to 2x4GB (thus making 8GB) definitely will if dual-channel is supported. Heck, even going from 1x4GB to 2x2GB increases performance.

I know I had asked about simply increasing the amount of RAM, but I forgot to mention about going from 1 memory stick to 2 memory sticks, which probably would have cleared up a few things.

I guess the question now is if I start with 1 stick and want to upgrade to 2 sticks, would it be best to get one stick that may not be the same type, or get 2 of the same type? The latter would cost more of course.

DiscostewSM, on 08 February 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

no, you asked if adding ram would increase your igp performances which it won't even if you allocate more ram to your igp from the bios, past a certain point ( probably 256mb) it won't make a difference as igp aren't really powerful. However, adding more ram to your computer will increase it's performance and it will do until you put much more ram than you actually use.

DiscostewSM, on 08 February 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

dual channel works with 2 identical stick. I've heard about asynchronous dual channel but I don't know if it's implemented in current amd mobo.
http://www.tomshardw...ook,1920-3.html

note- IGP in computer hardware means Integrated Graphic Processor, if you used the acronym to say in-game performance then my answer to your first question would be "depending on the case, it can"

the better the bandwidth the overall system has (called the system BUS), the best the data transfer. Oh, and the IGP clockspeed is also important. Remember that IGP does feed from the system bus bandwith, since it's RAM is shared with it

marcus134, on 08 February 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Yeah, my whole question involved simply adding more, not about different configurations of the RAM, allocation, etc. However, if that article I posted is true, then I can see an overall performance boost if I added a compatible/similar stick in the unused slot.

Dual Channel may sometimes work with seperately bought modules.
but even in matched pairs (when bought as a set, they are ALWAYS from the same production batch), problems can easily occur with more than a single pair, and with higher bus speeds.

I have two 8gb kits, for example. They are both the same item from G.Skill, they are both DDR3 1866 pairs. Exact same item.. Except they were bought about 3-4 months apart so of course they are from different batches. Before I added the second pair to my motherboard, I was able to get a very happy & stable overclock through raising FSB and increasing the voltage to my CPU ever so slightly. But when I added the second pair, over time, I discovered that I can only keep my system completely stable @ "DDR3 1600" timings which are actually below the memory's rating. I know this has little to do with the IGP subject, but in terms of explaining the intricacies of Dual Channel performance, I felt it was relevant.
http://tumbling.exangel.com/pc for more about my system.

Edited by exangel, 08 February 2012 - 11:12 PM.

@exangel maybe that's your northbridge, or RAM getting voltage hungry, even RAS,CAS,ROR on some chips, etc. An overclocked system is not my favorite choice anymore...

Coto, on 09 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I spent a lot of time tweaking my way back down from the overclock to find only stock (** for the motherboard/CPU, not the RAM), was stable. My motherboard has heaps of options to modify, and I've tried every conceivable compensation.
But I'm leaving the extra 8GB RAM in anyway, because the system's more than enough for everything I do at stock. And I've been planning to install a RAMdisk but that is all off the topic.

edit: correction. and uh, if anyone has more tips for me personally, just PM please.

Edited by exangel, 09 February 2012 - 02:57 PM.

ok, a little status update. I decided to get an extra 4GB for my laptop to see if using the 2nd slot would do anything performance-wise. Turns out it did. Using Rift on the Low setting as the benchmark, I was originally getting about 18-22 fps. Threw in another stick of 4GB, and now I'm getting upwards of 35 fps. The memory sticks are not the same, and I had thought of getting another 4GB of the same type/brand, etc so I'd have matching sticks, but if I'm to only get roughly ~50% boost, then I've kinda already hit that with what I have now.

The thing though is that according to the Windows Experience Index, the 2 sticks I have are giving quite different results when used individually. The newer one (that I just bought) is roughly giving a Memory score of +1.4 (5.9 to 7.3), Graphics score of +1.3 (4.5 to 5.8), and Gaming Graphics score of +0.4 (6.1 to 6.5) in comparison to the stick that came with the laptop. Having both gives the top values shown. I am not certain that having identical sticks would improve it any more, but the difference the two give atm tell me otherwise, as the lower-capable stick might be holding the newer one back.