Why is RAM so $$$ now?

[theFOoL]

Ha what game uses more then 8GB? Ha WoW?! Maybe GTA5 Modded but

 

[EarthDog]

I think a few were just mentioned...and again, more as time goes on.

There really isnt much to refute 8gb is minimum these days as there are already titles which eclipse or come close to 8gb use.

 

[yogurt_21]

cheapest DDR4 ram i found on cyber monday for those looking, single 8GB stick

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820164010

like value meals vs individual items, memory sets vs individual sticks will always fetch a better deal

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313771

129$ on sale for 16GB or 64.49$ per stick

swap to the same speed in ddr3 and its pretty much the same price. So yeah memory isn't as cheap as we'd all like it to be, but its not that crazy expensive as it seems on the surface.

It's basically mirroring motherboards at this point. You can pay 130$ or you can pay 500$ (same chipset), the overall differences (especially over a 3 year period of time) are not going to make all that much of a difference after all so much of the features are limited by the chipset.

But someone buys the 500$ board, just like someone looks at the Corsair or GSKILL sets and buys the 300$ set instead of the 150$ set. As long as those buyers exist there will be an overpriced variant. However, as long as smart buyers exist there will be a more affordable alternative of the same product at similar specs.

 

[dirtyferret]

Ha what game uses more then 8GB? Ha WoW?! Maybe GTA5 Modded but

WoW uses 5-6gb, I've never seen it use more even in Legions toughest zones and cities. If you have a ton of add ons then it's a different story. I've also seen tests done on WoW showing little FPS difference between 4-8GB. I'm not recommending 4GB but it is obviously playable.

 

[Vayra86]

Ha what game uses more then 8GB? Ha WoW?! Maybe GTA5 Modded but

Why would a game that is over 10 years old consume more memory than even the top-end of rigs at the time could possibly have? Why would GTA V, being a console port based on configurations with 6-7 GB addressable?

There are quite a few games that, with 8 GB system RAM, will push a lot of data into pagefile. When the engine is coded in a way that data needs to be streamed out of RAM to build the game world, you notice this in a big way. Those microstutters, that's your 8GB limit kicking up, when you've eliminated your GPU VRAM throughput (and frame pacing is very stable these days looking at GPU alone - on reviewers' systems that have sufficient, relatively fast, RAM).

With my 8GB rig I notice this behaviour almost daily. Is it playable? Certainly. But noticeable regardless.

 

[dirtyferret]

Why would a game that is over 10 years old consume more memory than even the top-end of rigs at the time could possibly have?

Because the game's graphics have been updated multiple times over that ten year period with each update built upon the last rather then built from scratch with a squeaky clean graphic engine. WoW is one of the more hardware demanding games (hardware demanding does not always mean state of the art graphics) out there when played at maxed out settings. The WoW forum full of people complaining about FPS, even with a GTX 1080 video card, in raids and large scale PvP.

The link below is from a top german tech site that did a full graphic review of the latest WoW expansion

World of Warcraft is prettier than ever in version 7.0. Despite the improved graphics, Blizzard's perennial favorite runs well with dusty graphics cards from the beating of a Geforce GTX 460 or Radeon HD 6950, as long as you're content with at most Full HD resolution and CMAA anti-aliasing. Who uses a powerful PC, however, all offered graphics options, WoW experiences almost flicker-free and deadly. The best compromises between performance and image quality are achieved with 4 × MSAA modes including transparency smoothing and 2 × SSAA plus CMAA. If you have a nimble Geforce GTX 970/980/1060 or Radeon R9 390X / Fury X graphics card, you can combine several enhancements in the extended graphics menu. But do not overdo it, WoW can actually jerk, if you put all the delicacies to the maximum position - even on an overclocked GTX 1080 or Titan X, as our extreme benchmarks above prove.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/World...5966/Specials/Legion-Test-Benchmarks-1204205/

 

[Vayra86]

Because the game's graphics have been updated multiple times over that ten year period with each update built upon the last rather then built from scratch with a squeaky clean graphic engine. WoW is one of the more hardware demanding games out there when played at maxed out settings, the WoW forum full of people complaining about FPS even with a GTX 1080 video card in raids and large scale PvP.


World of Warcraft is prettier than ever in version 7.0. Despite the improved graphics, Blizzard's perennial favorite runs well with dusty graphics cards from the beating of a Geforce GTX 460 or Radeon HD 6950, as long as you're content with at most Full HD resolution and CMAA anti-aliasing. Who uses a powerful PC, however, all offered graphics options, WoW experiences almost flicker-free and deadly. The best compromises between performance and image quality are achieved with 4 × MSAA modes including transparency smoothing and 2 × SSAA plus CMAA. If you have a nimble Geforce GTX 970/980/1060 or Radeon R9 390X / Fury X graphics card, you can combine several enhancements in the extended graphics menu. But do not overdo it, WoW can actually jerk, if you put all the delicacies to the maximum position - even on an overclocked GTX 1080 or Titan X, as our extreme benchmarks above prove.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/World...5966/Specials/Legion-Test-Benchmarks-1204205/

Great story but this is all rather uninformed. Set your Environment Detail slider to 6 or 7 instead of 10, and you remove the massive CPU bottlenecking that occurs from spawning assets miles away that you won't see in any case. Boom, 120 fps steady on a 1080 @ 1080p with all the other stuff maxed out. So that means I'm actually running internal 4K with CMAA. GPU load at that point is 65-70% tops.

And yes, new iterations of the old engine, but none of this speaks of system RAM. This is about GPU performance and the engine update is also visual of nature. It has actually become MORE efficient on all fronts. Those hundreds of posts about low FPS in cities and raids... well... have a long look at your CPU first. Taxing the GPU heavily doesn't create stutter.

So as always, you can have 95% of the visual quality for 50% of the performance hit, if you just take the time to tweak settings a little bit With that slider on 6, I still have my massive view distance, but I don't render my trees at max res at that distance.

In raids , the CPU load shifts to the huge amount of networking involved, no matter what CPU you have, if you went 40 man on Skorpyron and cheesed it, 10-15 FPS was 'good performance'. Story of an MMO's life.

@EarthDog here is a prime example of why I prefer my 720p low over 1080p ultra, and of how even a 1080ti won't be enough at this res. If you'd bench this at ultra for a CPU review, you'd be reviewing the GPU - not just a little, but 100%.

 

[EarthDog]

Graphics = RAM use?

@Vayra86

@EarthDog here is a prime example of why I prefer my 720p low over 1080p ultra, and of how even a 1080ti won't be enough at this res. If you'd bench this at ultra for a CPU review, you'd be reviewing the GPU - not just a little, but 100%.

And if you benched it at 720p you would be exaggerating any difference found at 1080p.

Again misleading readers...which was as your talking point in the other thread.

 

[dirtyferret]

Great story but this is all rather uninformed. Set your Environment Detail slider to 6 or 7 instead of 10, and you remove the massive CPU bottlenecking that occurs from spawning assets miles away that you won't see in any case.

Obviously in any game you can change the graphic settings to reduce the demand on hardware. Your query was "Why would a game that is over 10 years old consume more memory than even the top-end of rigs at the time" and I answered the graphic engine has been updated over the years increasing the need for better hardware to play the game at top settings. Pretty cut and dry.

 

[EarthDog]

Sorry, can you explain what the graphics engine has to do with system ram use? I understand there is a relationship, but... it doesnt go up proportionately or anything.

 

[theFOoL]

I would say if the game is badly optimized say a bad port to PC from a console game or just a bad game in general like Prototype 1 they could use more RAM then unneeded to

 

[Vayra86]

I would say if the game is badly optimized say a bad port to PC from a console game or just a bad game in general like Prototype 1 they could use more RAM then unneeded to

But... but... Prototype 1 was pretty awesome in my book. Performance was also silky smooth - on 8GB.

 

[theFOoL]

But... but... Prototype 1 was pretty awesome in my book. Performance was also silky smooth - on 8GB.

Yeah it was but some places were badly broken in loosing FPS or it of been my PC at the time so ha

Like watchdogs 1&2

 

[dirtyferret]

Sorry, can you explain what the graphics engine has to do with system ram use? I understand there is a relationship, but... it doesnt go up proportionately or anything.

Blizzard requires 2GB for the latest patch but recommends 4GB. From my own use I know the game can "hog" more then 4GB ram. I am in no means saying the game needs more then 4GB.

As for the graphic engine this article may help explain the incremental improvements to its overhaul over the years.

Wrath of the Lich King made leaps and bounds when it came to texture quality and model fidelity. This was evident in the system requirements, where the minimum RAM doubled to 1GB (from 512MB in BC) and the minimum graphic card memory also doubled. Northrend's zones are still among the most beautiful in the game.


https://www.engadget.com/2013/10/21/world-of-warcrafts-evolving-engine/

 

[EarthDog]

Good info, however not what i am looking for. The discussion is about syztem ram and you are talking graphical improvements. Im struggling to find the relationship.

 

[dirtyferret]

Good info, however not what i am looking for. The discussion is about syztem ram and you are talking graphical improvements. Im struggling to find the relationship.

I'm not sure I understand either. Are you asking how a game that has its graphic engine upgraded multiple times over the years also need more system RAM to help run the game?

 

[theFOoL]

Yes. Clearly if you upgrade the graphics engine then more ram rather it'd be system or the graphics card (I'd say more system ram)

 

[EarthDog]

I'm not sure I understand either. Are you asking how a game that has it's graphic engine upgraded multiple times over the years also need more system RAM to help run the game?

Yes. I can see some of that going to ram, however the majority would stand to reside in vram with textures, etc...I dont believe it to make as much of an impact on system ram as you seem to infer with this line of information.

 

[Vayra86]

Yes. I can see some of that going to ram, however the majority would stand to reside in vram with textures, etc...I dont believe it to make as much of an impact on system ram as you seem to infer with this line of information.

Well, there are more instructions moving back and forth I reckon, as there are more states for models with finer LODs, there are more objects to load, etc.

The engine update also added features for camera angles and other quality of life stuff unrelated to graphics.

But yes, of minor influence.

 

[theFOoL]

Yes. I can see some of that going to ram, however the majority would stand to reside in vram with textures, etc...I dont believe it to make as much of an impact on system ram as you seem to infer with this line of information.

would it be that the video card lays out the texture and the system ram holds it for later process if you were to go to the same area? That's how I think ram should be

 

[dirtyferret]

Yes. I can see some of that going to ram, however the majority would stand to reside in vram with textures, etc...I dont believe it to make as much of an impact on system ram as you seem to infer with this line of information.

Well there is also new additions to the UI (and I know from running UI add-ons it does affect RAM use), more game audio, a new player audio system ( think team speak or discord) more cut scenes, increased phasing (entire areas can completely change depending on story arc), cross realm playing (players from different servers are now in the same areas at certain times) and several other improvements outside of just graphics. While some of the improvements are server based others would be on your specific HDD. So I would say the client itself needs more ram not just the graphic engine. I'm also assuming some of the "improvements" mentioned above increase ram as well; I do know I was able to play the game at first with 512mb of RAM back at launch but today highly doubt it would still run (assuming it can even launch on XP anymore).

 

[EarthDog]

Thanks for clarifying. I am not sure that does much, but, I appreciate the info.

512MB of RAM at launch, 13 years ago, is different. Currently, the minimum is 2GB which it has been for several expansion packs back... most notably throughout some engine updates it has remained the same.

I don't recall when the last bump was from 512 to 1GB to 2GB...?

EDIT: http://www.pcgamer.com/world-of-warcraft-legion-system-requirements-are-here/

256 out of the gate, then with the first major expansion it jumped to 1GB, then the second major expansion, in 2016 2GB. Now, who knows what of that, if much at all, comes from graphics bumps, however.

 

[dirtyferret]

256 out of the gate, then with the first major expansion it jumped to 1GB, then the second major expansion, in 2016 2GB. Now, who knows what of that, if much at all, comes from graphics bumps, however.

Burning Crusade was still 512mb

PC System Requirements

* OS: Windows 2000 (Service Pack 4); Windows XP (Service Pack 2)
* Processor: Intel Pentium3 800MHz or AMD Duron 800MHz
* Memory:
o 512 MB RAM,
o 1GB RAM is recommended
* Video:
o Minimum: 32MB 3D graphics processor with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as an NVIDIA GeForce 2 class card or above.
o Recommended: 64MB VRAM 3D graphics processor with Vertex and Pixel Shader capability, such as an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 class card or above.

WoTLK basically the same

PC:

• Windows XP SP3 or Vista SP1 (Windows 2000 no longer supported)
• Pentium 4 1.3 GHz or AMD Athlon XP 1.5 GHz. Dual-core recommended.
• RAM: 512 MB/1 GB for Vista, 1 GB/2 GB recommended.
• Video: GPU with hardware transform and lighting and 32 MB VRAM, Recommended 128 MB VRAM.

Cataclysm requires 1GB of RAM

Windows XP 32bit (SP3), Windows XP 64bit (SP2), Windows Vista 32bit (SP1), Windows Vista 64bit (SP1):

• Intel Pentium 4 1.3 GHz or AMD Athlon XP 1500
• 1GB or more of RAM
• NVIDIA® GeForce® FX or ATI Radeon™ 9500 video card or better
• DirectX-compatible sound card or motherboard sound capability
• 25 GB free hard drive space

Pandora requires 2GB for anything above Windows XP and a dual core

Minimum System Requirements

Operating System Windows XP/Vista/7 with latest service pack Mac OS X 10.7.3
CPU Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 Intel Core 2 Duo
Video NVIDIA GeForce 6800 NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
Memory 2 GB RAM (1 GB Windows XP)
Storage 25 GB available hard drive space

WoD requires an additional 10GB of HDD and 2GB for all OS plus a good leap in CPU and GPU

Minimum System Requirements
PC/Mac:

• 35 GB available HD space
• 2 GB RAM
• Broadband Internet connection
• Keyboard/mouse
• DVD-ROM drive
• 1024×768 minimum display resolution

PC:

• Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows7/Windows8 (latest Service Pack)
• Intel Core2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom X3 8750
• NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT, ATI Radeon HD 4850 or Intel HD Graphics 3000

And finally Legion with another increase to HDD by 20GB


MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

• Operating System: Windows® XP / Windows Vista® / Windows® 7 / Windows® 8 / Windows® 10 with latest service pack
• Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8500 or AMD Phenom™ II X3 720
• Video: NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 440
• Memory: 2 GB RAM
• Storage: 45 GB available hard drive space
• Internet: Broadband internet connection
• Media: DVD-ROM drive
• Input: Keyboard and mouse required. Other input devices are not supported.
• Resolution: 1024 x 768 minimum display resolution

 

[EarthDog]

That is what I linked 2 hours ago... yes.

 

[dirtyferret]

So having some free time I ran a little test with WoW last night. I logged on and ran around the current in game major city (Dalaran) and then went and did a world raid quest; about two dozen other players phasing in and out of the raid all going full blast on powerful spells & animation. Game settings were on Ultra - Level 10 and all add-ons turned off.

My gaming PC has 2 x 8GB of DDR4 2400mhz ram sticks

In the background I had the following running;
bitdefender free (no downloads or scans)
latest Mozilla fire fox with three tabs open (no video streaming)
the blizzard battle net app

In game ram use peaked at 41%
Without the game ram use was 19%
Without the Blizzard battle net app ram use was 16%

So it looks as if the game client & battle net app use 4GB combined.

I also ran everything with one stick of RAM (8GB) and saw identical results in terms of ram use. I also noted my PC seemed to post a split second quicker (just one stick I guess) although overall boot up was still the same.