Sandy Bridge HD 3000 performance bump, going from 4gb to 8gb?

Someone in another forum said there's a significant Sandy Bridge graphics performance increase in WEI going from 4gb ram to 8gb. I hadn't considered using more 4gb since my usage isn't at all ram intensive, but if there's a 'significant' graphics increase (I'm not a heavy gamer) I'll upgrade to 8gb instead considering memory prices these days. I'd appreciate any feedback whether 8gb does bump Graphics WEI a lot and if this translates to an actual performance increase.

Thanks in advance.

 

I'm only talking about graphics performance. I know it won't be of use to me for anything else (or maybe at all). I'm using about 3gb out of total 4gb currently and don't typically exceed that. How much memory does HD 3000 use up to? I don't want to bump the limit either since I only have 1gb free left. Google search says 384mb shared, is this the max?

 

Uhh...HD 3000 GPU can run almost all Source games at native resolution with no issues. Source = 6-7 year old engine.

Heck my Latitude 13 can play Source games with a much weaker 4500MHD.

More RAM will be beneficial for IGP but after a certain point it is wasted.

 

I dunno, according to notebookcheck, hd3000 getting 104fps on 'high' on cs:source, so it's not that bad. However i must agree that upgrading your ram to 8gb would be nonsensical.

edit: beaten to it.

 

Yes OP was talking about Intel HD 3000 GPU.

3200 is more powerful than the 4500MHD in terms of IGP, I have seen people do gaming with it.

 

More ram won't make any difference unless you use your 4gb on various apps which is doubtful. Faster ram might make a small difference (more bandwidth).

 

I wonder if the HD 3000 will only play games better if only paired with high powered sandybridge quad cpu or the top end dual core i7-2620.

Will the i3-2310m w/ intel hd 3000 run HL2, CS:S and World of Warcraft smmothly?

 

he said SB HD3k in the title?


anyways, what is with the rash of people thinking that more memory = greater performance?

at least this time, it doesn't involve a dGPU this time...sigh

 

do not under estimate RAM in games. Some games seem to be able to use as many RAM as there are for memoizaton which can improve FPS.

 

I'm pretty sure the bump, if it exists, isn't from 4GB to 8GB, but from one stick of ram to a matched pair which allows the system to run the memory in dual channel mode. Dual channel effectively doubles the bandwidth in many cases, since each memory stick has its own path to the controller.

A similar bump should be seen when going from 2GBto 4GB in a 2x2GB configuration

 

its not pretty when a graphics card has to use main memory...not pretty at all.

 

It is not 'has to use' but 'can use'. Between recalculating and retrieving from memory, whichever is faster means faster.

I have seen people swearing that enabling page file increase their game FPS. My initial reaction was just like yours, makes no sense. But giving it a deeper thought, memoization is the only possible explanation.

I am not a gamer so cannot test it myself.

 

recalculating what?

memory on the graphics card is generally used hold textures. I seem to remember the memory also being used as the frame buffer, but I'm not sure if this is the case with modern cards.

people 'swear by' alot of things...its not very scientifically significant though.

GPGPU computing is an ENTIRELY different story.

 

I have said that I found the claim 'not believable' but I am not a gamer and cannot test it myself, let alone 'scientiifically'. I can only guess why it was so if their observation is legit.

The last game I play was Pacman running on Namco machine.

 

IMO if you have the money to spend; and the potential for improvement is there; then buy the 8GB ram and see what it does (computer hardware is far past the point of being able to make generalized statements like 'more ram won't help'... take a look at the DIY ViDock, you are running a desktop gfx card at a very limited connection, yet even on my old C2D system I can play most all games at max all settings, with all effects on, and it runs pretty smoothly -even though it recommends ~medium or below settings, and it is on a limited link; go figure)


At the very worst you will have 8GB ram, and can disable page filing (or configure part of that ram to act as a 'ram disc' for super fast 'storage' when your computer is on)

 

He asked about the improvement in graphics performance while using the hd3000 integrated graphics; there will be none.

 

You have tried that ?

 

Come on man...

 

circa 2008 MBP - 4GB to 8GB proved a huge performance increase in games.

Don't know if you don't try.

 

And you have tried that ?

 

learning is not just about taking in what you have been 'told', well that was the case when I was a student long long time ago.

 

Of course. You listen to what has been said, and then either accept or deny the claim based on your own research. I don't see you doing this.

Regardless, the following evidence is available, which is something you have to 'take in'. A massively stronger graphics card (gtx 460) shows almost negligible difference when going from 1gb-2gb, so going form 4gb-8gb on the hd3000 will show no difference.

 

May be you haven't read carefully or not understand what I have said.

I said I have seen people claim that they see improvement in FPS by enabling page file(that was in discussions whether enable page file is a good thing if there is already enough RAM). Thus if enabling page file can make the difference, I cannot see a reason of adding more RAM would not do the same.

Also, some games refuse to run if there isn't a large enough page file which again suggest that these games need RAM for something.

IOW, there are cases which indicates games(not all but some) love lots of memory.

Unfortunately that is the only research I can do as I am not a gamer and cannot test them myself. I can only rely on information I can gather.

Given that I cannot 'ACCEPT' the claim that more memory doesn't help. I cannot 'DENY' it either as I have no first hand experience.

I asked 'have you really tried that'.

BTW, even you give me 1000 cases that show no difference, it means nothing as just one case of that there is a difference would invalidate the claim.

 

The statistician in me is wanting to chop you up with an axe right now

The page file claim is an interesting one, I don't suppose you have a link to the discussion do you?

 

That was around sept/oct last year on the OCZ support forum.

Unfortunately, I don't have the habit of keeping track of detail links of these things.

Another thing to remember is that HD3000 is a shared memory architecture which takes memory from the OS, so just extending the experience of a dedicated card with memory may not be relavent at all.

Therefore, unless there are people who have really tried that on HD 3000, the best we can say is 'no one knows'.

In fact, I believe the OP ask the question because he saw claims that more memory on HD 3000 does make a difference in WEI.

You can have lots of desire in your mind but on this forum, we can only discuss and voice our views

 

Going from 4GB to 8GB on my MacBook Pro made my HD3000's reserved RAM go from 384MB to 512MB. This is what is most likely leading to any performance improvements.

 

I guess it's appropriate to post context for the original post.

This is the driving force behind the thread, he has a Thinkpad W520 with a 2720QM or 2820QM. Much better processor than the 2520M I'll have in the X220. Maybe ram can be a bottle neck in high-end processors?

 

That!! is some key info there; the Intel 3000 gets ~6.0-6.3 WEI for gaming graphics; but about 4.6-6.3 WEI for desktop experience graphics (this is what seems is increasing in WEI with more ram) that is based on the info from the Intel 3000 page on NoteBook Check Intel HD Graphics 3000 - Notebookcheck.net Tech... so gaming graphics won't be improved, but the system would probably be better off with videos, multitasking, and more


... well, if you are looking for more performance on games, maybe get a DIY ViDock once they get one designed that works at the full speed of the Expresscard 2.0 slot the X220 has (and wait for Nvidia to release a Optrimus driver that supports the Intel 3000, so you can get that graphics power on the internal screen -which shouldn't be too long)

 

....is everyone talking about windows still??? cause there are MBPs in this discussion atm...

 

software drivers....not to mention differences in os implementations.

if people are using data gathered from playing games in os x, that could possibly heavily skew expected results. i honestly have no idea how ram is allocated for the IGP in os x.

 

I think it would be best to restrict discussion to the Sandy Bridge HD 3000/2000 IGPs - just in-case there is something specific to that graphics processor about adding more RAM.

Or it could be turbo boost speed of the HD Graphics 3000 coincidentally kicking in and not actually related to RAM.

 

OS/x is not 'magic' - if you see improvements there, there could conceivably be improvements on other platforms too.

As has been mentioned before - all that is needed is for someone to try.

 

of course its not magic....

its just dirty work. just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it HAS been done...its not magic after all.

 

Most games are 32-bit meaning they will use at most 2GB of ram. So very unlikely the difference between 4-8 is great unless your running tons of other programs in the backgroud. I have confirmed on a 2310m dual channel does help. I've seen as much as 30% fps improvement.

 

maybe the guy also upgraded to a lower latency memory?

 

No you run at the speed of the slowest chip. Cpuz says dual channel now and synthetic memory tests are 60-80% higher. To put it in perspective dedicated cards can have over 100GB/s memory bandwidth over 10 times single channel memory speeds.

 

They can only use 2GB of RAM but what about for the GPU process? Would they be the same limit or what?

 

A few games are now passing 1GB at 1920x1200 or above with advanced settings on. Try it on SB and your looking at like 2fps.

 

Uh, It seems like there's a lot of confusion here.

Remember, the Intel HD 3000 uses up Ram to run it's 3D graphics, for example, on the Toshiba R835, it shows 64MB to 1696MB of Ram. This means, if you have 4GB of Ram, you may only have as little as 2.5GB of Ram to use on everything else.

So in this case, of course you're going to benefit going from 4gb to 8gb since you have more resources and is not only limited to 2.5 or whatever you set the memory usage for your GPU at.

No video card will benefit from even 4GB of GPU at this time but in this scenario, you're pretty much going from 2GB of system memory to 6GB which your computer performance would benefit.

 

Umm...

I am not confused.

Win7x64 in 2011 with SNB needs 8GB RAM or more as a 'minimum' - otherwise stick to XP.

 

Numbers too high. I think in the majority of Sandy Bridge situations your going to top out at 384MB or so or else your trying to choose settings that are going to give you like 1-2fps That gives you at least 1.5GB for other programs/windows. I'm not saying EVERYONE doesn't need it I have 8GB on one machine and 16GB on the other. Just don't feel its a necessity for the types of games your limited to.

 

No way Jose.

 

My initial google search showed most people saying 384mb. How do you find out how much memory the igp is using? I'm not using this machine for gaming. But I use very gpu intensive shaders for HD playback which often puts the 3470 in my T400 at over 75% utilization.

 

The system I'm typing this on shows 2006 MB 'Total Memory' in task manager. Is this what's available for Windows, so the igp is using 42 MB?

 

If you have 4GB RAM, won't that mean 2GB is missing ?

 

I'm currently using an X61 (X3100 graphics) with 2gb ram.

 

well in that case, the driver/GPU may dynamically take memory from the OS. Just a guess as there is no where it can get memory(when needed) other than from your existing 2GB.

 

I just wanted to confirm in post 47 whether I'm using the correct figure for what's available to the OS. Is it the Total Memory number shown in task manager?

 

yes. the first number on the left column is what the OS can use(physical RAM seen by it). Though what is available is the last number on the right column because you have a page file and it can grow. IOW, the memory available to the OS is unlimited(well limited by your HDD space).