How much RAM does a PC need for games?

[FireFox]

On steam people are using 2gb to 4gb and u guys say 16 to 32 gb ))))

There was a time when 4GB was enough but i used 8GB, 8GB was enough but i used 16GB and today 16GB is more than enough but i use 32GB

 

[mroofie]

16GB and an SSD of your choice per size. Honestly a good HDD is fast enough.

I see somebody doesn't play indie games

if he buys the "recommended amount" by the Guild of Ram manufacturers , he likely wont have enough money to build a PC to list.

"its recommended you have $650 worth of Ram to play your $60 Game"


Potato Pc requirements: 32GB

 

[FireFox]

Potato Pc requirements: 32GB

Dont make me start.

According to your System Specs now i understand your post.

 

[theFOoL]

As most* User's say 8GB but 16GB if you have alot of programs in background while gaming. 8GB is more than enough for Most* games

 

[coonbro]

even with boo coo's of background you should not be using that much unless it something like google chrome the well knowncan be a resource hog type thing

all you got to do is watch the memory use in task manager or use hwinfo64 and lod you use everyday for a few weeks and see . you will find 3gb at the top most just like the old 32bit days nothing really changed I only got one program I can set to use any amount of memory that in my system .

now unless windows is not letting the memory refresh or superfetch is borked and can force swap or you got bad memory leaks [which all needs to be addressed and fixed ] 16 is plenty for normal everyday users and gamers

professional use is different story depending on what you do [editing, photo , autocad , ect.. ]

https://www.drivereasy.com/knowledge/high-memory-usage-windows-10-solved/

it does work well but it can bugg out for me when it bugged it was as easy as disable it a day or 2 shut down and restart and re-enable it then it worked well and as intended

'' SuperFetch is part of Windows' memory manager; a less capable version, called PreFetcher, is included in Windows XP. SuperFetch tries to make sure often-accessed data can be read from the fast RAM instead of the slow hard drive.. it just can forget to refersh the banks it uses [its a easy resolve ] most pops up with a fresh install of the OS onece you kick its butt on line its never a issue after / so far .


best thing to do is get something to log your daily memory use and see what your max and average is and buy accordingly you may find even 16gb is overkill for your needs and 8 would do all you want and ever need [I'd still go 2x8for 16 if the prices are right to be insured your well covered if you did need it for something over the top ]

 

[mroofie]

Dont make me start.

According to your System Specs now i understand your post.

Joke..

I want to play games on my personal computer, if I want to speed up the execution of video games, do I need to add more RAM?

12GB would be the best

8 for gaming
4 for Windows and third party apps

For "Real" results get a SSD like Toothless suggested. More RAM only helps with bottlenecks.

Conclusion:

12GB + low capacity (150-250GB) high quality ssd.

 

[coonbro]

sdd don't speed up your games at all may load faster by a slight tad that's about it


''
The Bottom Line




We can definitively state that our gaming performance as shown prior on our HDDs is exactly the same under the SSDs; there is no difference in gameplay performance. All the feedback and suggestions that we should upgrade to SSDs because our HDDs were holding back gameplay performance and consistency were misplaced. We were not being held back. The actual consistency and smoothness under the SSD is the same as we experienced under our previous HDD; and that HDD was not exactly "new."



Consistency, framerate, gameplay performance, is exactly the same under our new SSDs. That said, the load times of actually getting into the games is greatly improved, and that alone helps us since we are loading in and out of games all day while testing. That's just a time saver. As stated, we are now running SSDs on our video card review systems, but as tested there are no gameplay performance differences because of it. The load time improvements though are very welcomed.

and you know my WD blacks aint much if any at times slower then my buddies ssd at least real noticeable that it really even matters or a OH my gosh moment

see here again folks fall for hype and gimmicks and led lighting ..lol.... you see some on how it can and will but how do you know they did not test the hd at stock and the ssd with a overclock to prove there points ? you don't

kinda like the gpu reviews here how they show the aftermarket card reviewed better in the charts and use the last models reference results not say the gtx 980 ti classy and this has no 4xAA and that did ?

ya, with that I'm sure the reviewed card would show better results / sales hype . . in the end you got to take all this stuff with a grain of salt and can help keep your money in your pocket not in there cart .

all you can do is go with what you think is best for you and your billfold

 

[FireFox]

12GB would be the best
8 for gaming and 4 for Windows and third party apps

As most* User's say 8GB but 16GB if you have alot of programs in background while gaming. 8GB is more than enough for Most* games

8GB is more than enough for Most* games

you may find even 16gb is overkill for your needs and 8 would do all you want and ever need

Playing DOOM, Real temp and CPU-Z opened max memory usage was 10GB

 

[Atomic77]

My computer has 12gb ram and a 2tb hard drive. It’s 2 years old.

 

[Vayra86]

View attachment 100628

Playing DOOM, Real temp and CPU-Z opened max memory usage was 10GB

Correct but that does not say a whole lot about the performance of the game or your rig with 8 GB in the same situation

Don't get me wrong though, 8 GB is minimum and definitely not for a long term / performance oriented rig.

 

[FireFox]

Correct but that does not say a whole lot about the performance of the game or your rig with 8 GB in the same situation

And what would happened if i had 8GB instead 32GB, would everything works/performance smoothly?

 

[mroofie]

And what would happened if i had 8GB instead 32GB, would everything works/performance smoothly?

Trust me 8 is not enough, some games start stuttering due to shitty memory management or data "piling" due to long game time (Big games)

 

[FireFox]

Trust me 8 is not enough,

I know that, but i would like to hear @Vayra86 opinion

 

[newtekie1]

I would say 8GB is the minimum to get into PC gaming, but 16GB is preferred. There is definitely no need for more than 16GB, and won't be for a good few years to come.

But really, to pick the right amount, the rest of the specs of the computer have to be taken into consideration, specifically the graphics card. If you are only going to be putting a GTX1050 or GTX1050Ti, or maybe even a GTX1060, in the computer, I wouldn't worry about having more than 8GB of RAM. Because you are going to be dropping the setting of the game down to the point that the 8GB is not going to really be a noticeable limit. But at the same time, I'm not going to be pairing 8GB with a GTX1080Ti either.

There is much more too answering the question than just a definitely amount that applies to every situation.

And please never stick single sticks ina diual channel board thinking yu can "get a 2nd one later".... it rarely ends well.

Single channel is not as big of a hindrance as it use to be, not with RAM speeds what they currently are. All dual-channel does in increase the memory bandwidth, and a single stick of DDR4 running at 3000MHz is providing over 90% of the bandwidth as two sticks of DDR3 running at 1600MHz. And I know plenty of people playing games just fine on 4790K systems running DDR3-1600 in dual channel.

If I was in the situation of only getting 8GB, I would definitely just get a single stick.

 

[Jetster]

If you would have posted your specs it would be helpful to see is there is anything holding you up. But the first answer is accurate. 8 min, 16 is the preferred. Any more than that at today's prices is a waste.
SSDs help in load times

 

[FireFox]

Any more than that at todays prices is a waste

Agree with you.

I have 32GB because when i bought it DDR4 was cheap.

 

[Jetster]

Agree with you.

I have 32GB because when i bought it DDR4 was cheap.

Same here, I got the DDR4 3000 for $89 a set of 16

 

[newtekie1]

Same here, I got the DDR4 3000 for $89 a set of 16

Yep, I only have 32GB right now because I got the RAM stupid cheap. If it wasn't for that, I'd have 16GB. And honestly, 32GB is still a waste, because I don't think I've even come close to 16GB used.

 

[FireFox]

DDR4 3000

Running at stock or OC'ed?

 

[newtekie1]

Running at stock or OC'ed?

Stock. If you overclocked it to 3200MHz it would give the same bandwidth as DDR3-1600 in dual-channel.

 

[eidairaman1]

I want to play games on my personal computer, if I want to speed up the execution of video games, do I need to add more RAM?

It is game dependent, they have minimum specs required on each game website.

8GB is the supposed minimum.

Stock. If you overclocked it to 3200MHz it would give the same bandwidth as DDR3-1600 in dual-channel.

Considering those are theoretical numbers anyway...

 

[newtekie1]

Considering those are theoretical numbers anyway...

Not really, bandwidth is bandwidth. There are going to be latency difference, but dual-channel won't affect those. And while the CL of DDR4 is higher, the actual latency time is lower. DDR3-1600 CL9 is the same latency time as DDR4-3200 CL18. And yes, there is other factors involved, like memory controller performance, but all of that is outside of the fact that dual-channel only amounts to increasing bandwidth and DDR4 in single channel has similar bandwidth to DDR3 in dual.

 

[Bones]

The fact of the matter is ,ram prices are absurd ,and purchasing more than 16GB of RAM out of the gate "blindly" for gaming because it is the "accepted amount" ,is just looking for something to throw money at it, which is fine, its only money. But sensibility tells us (if money matters) to buy what you KNOW you need, then if you can see your hitting 100% usage, order some more (dont worry, they'll be selling ram tomorrow too). This practice will show ram manufacturers it's not OK to increase price/Gb by 3x. If everybody bought only the ram they absolutely needed, consumer ram sales would drop 50%, & maybe then prices would decrease, im not sure, but this "buy more" mentality isnt working, as anyone can see. In recent years, i too have ordered 16GB right out of the gate , but this most recent build, i decided it was enough, as i refuse to pay suckers prices. I ordered 8Gb's, & its been plenty. Obviously I'm not saying 8 GB is sufficient for everybody, but I am advocating that it is sufficient for many people who have twice as much or more. Making a change w/ our wallets is our best weapon. im not posting this in reply to anyone here, but instead, in reply to the absurd Ram prices, so save your angry defense replies, as im not attacking anyone's purchasing habits, & im not interested.

Been running 8GB's with this build and I've yet to have a problem.
Personally I'd like to pop in 32GB's and be done with it since I'm expecting this build to be around for sometime.

If you're setting it up for the potential long haul as I'm having to do then grabbing 32GB's if you can makes sense, today's standards won't be the norm of tomorrow and we know how quickly things advance.
If you're a user that tends to upgrade their machine every other year or even with each new arch release then it doesn't make sense, 8 or 16GB's will do and not have you wasting $$ on something you'll do away with in short order.

An SSD does make things snappy vs a traditional HDD but even with that the exact SSD vs the exact HHD makes a difference to that end. I recently swapped out an SSD for an older HDD for reliability reasons for this system and I can tell a clear difference in how fast it is to open programs and execute in general.

Since an SSD can die without any warning I decided to go with an HDD, at least these typically will give a warning sign before actually falling over and allow time to backup things you woudn't want to lose. It's true anything CAN die without warning including an HDD but from what I've seen and experienced with both the HDD's will give some kind of hint, SSD's just "Stop" and that's it - Game over.

You'll find as many have already mentioned, upgrading to a faster drive is of more benefit than just increasing the amount of RAM itself. If wanting something you'd expect to be around for some time instead of following a frequent upograde cycle, then it would make sense to get more RAM and may as well get as fast of a PC rating as possible while you're at it - Your wallet being the ultimate factor here.

That's my 2 pennies worth if it's worth anything at all.

 

[Toothless]

I see somebody doesn't play indie games



Potato Pc requirements: 32GB

I play indie games and they work just fine. I use two WD Blacks as my game drives and have never had an issue.

 

[Vayra86]

I know that, but i would like to hear @Vayra86 opinion

Well its not a given that 'everything is a stutterfest' for example. 8GB can 'get by' in most situations and more so with some careful tweaking to reduce memory usage of applications (running as lightweight as possible, ie stock Windows with as much disabled as you can). On a 16 GB rig I also see usage at or around the region of 10 GB. On my 8 GB (also Windows 10) rig before this I would see 6,9 GB in use most of the time, almost never would I have it 'capped' and there are other factors that harm performance/smoothness.

Main point being, with a tight budget the first savings I would look at for a build is holding on to 8 GB and waiting with the second stick of 8GB RAM until budget allows. Its a nice thing of RAM, you can postpone half the purchase and not lose a single bit of performance on it, while a slower GPU would be noticeable all the time. 8GB is not yet in the realm of 'impossible to run well' for the majority of games.