>    Which is exactly where more RAM helps a lot: You can have more detailed
> models and higher-resolution textures (and other types of bitmaps) for
> larger visiblity distances, and overall have a larger "buffer" for the
> scenery, allowing for less visible changes in LOD levels.

If you need to send data to the GPU faster than a hard disc can supply 
then you're going to have far more serious problems with your game 
design.  And even if you do manage somehow to get good performance with 
loading that much data, your CPU RAM is going to run out in a matter of 
seconds (unless you have some carefully constructed repeated pattern of 
textures/meshes that are swapped in and out every second or so).  I 
can't think of a realistic situation where it is absolutely necessary to 
have a large amount of CPU RAM to achieve some effect.

> The counterargument makes it sound like
> one doesn't need RAM at all to draw a 3D scene in real-time.

Just to clarify we're talking about CPU RAM here, not RAM in general. 
It's completely possible to write a program on a PC that fills the GPU 
RAM with complex meshes and textures, then releases nearly all CPU RAM 
(apart from needed pointers and space for the CPU code itself).  It will 
still work and be able to draw the scene in real-time, CPU RAM usage 
will be minimal.

Post a reply to this message