16GB still overkill for modern games?

[aaksheytalwar]

I am talking of something which is almost guaranteed to happen. Back in 2005 did you think that 4gb would become the minimum to run games today. Or back in 2000 did you think that 64mb of 2000 would become 512mb just five years into the future. And in 1996 8mb was fine but four years hence 64mb became the minimum.

There has been a recent stagnation but that is due to reasons which no longer exist. We are moving to 64bit and next hen consoles trump current consoles. Within 12 months of official release of next gem consoles we will see games with a minimum of 8gb requirement and within 36months from their release some games would have 16gb as the minimum.

 

[Sidekicknichola]

Can you imagine entire games being loaded into RAM? Woot.

I run the DayZ portion of Arma2 off RAM.


I have 16gb of RAM (stupid good newegg sale to blame) and set aside 2gb for DayZ... running the game off of that makes much more smooth than even a SSD.

 

[smackababy]

I am talking of something which is almost guaranteed to happen. Back in 2005 did you think that 4gb would become the minimum to run games today. Or back in 2000 did you think that 64mb of 2000 would become 512mb just five years into the future. And in 1996 8mb was fine but four years hence 64mb became the minimum.

There has been a recent stagnation but that is due to reasons which no longer exist. We are moving to 64bit and next hen consoles trump current consoles. Within 12 months of official release of next gem consoles we will see games with a minimum of 8gb requirement and within 36months from their release some games would have 16gb as the minimum.

I am not sure what world you live in where you think this nonsense. Just because we move to a 64-bit game engine, does not automatically increase the requirements of that engine.

 

[Midwayman]

I am not sure what world you live in where you think this nonsense. Just because we move to a 64-bit game engine, does not automatically increase the requirements of that engine.

Yup. Possible doesn't mean probable. Granted games will take some leap up in requirements with the ps4/xbox720 ports. But much past 8gb for the next several years is probably wishful thinking. Depending on background apps etc I could say as far as 10-12 gb might be *useful* -not required.

 

[BladeVenom]

BF3 runs decently with 4GB but it runs ideal only with 6-8GB in your rig.

Link?

Till 2011 you could. Games of 2013 will stutter with only 4gb.

BioShock Infinite came out, minimum specs are 2GB, recommended 4GB. So 4GB is still enough to run brand new games. Simcity 5 was the previous major game to come out this year, same memory recommendations.

 

[Stuka87]

For me, BF3 swapped to disk constantly with only 4GB of RAM. Once I moved to 8GB it would consume just over 4GB by itself on large 64 player maps.

So 4GB is certainly not enough for newer games. 16GB is over kill. I have 12Gb and like it as I can keep things open in the background without any performance impact. But really 8GB is enough.

 

[Stuka87]

Link?


BioShock Infinite came out, minimum specs are 2GB, recommended 4GB. So 4GB is still enough to run brand new games. Simcity 5 was the previous major game to come out this year, same memory recommendations.

BioShock is a console port, and thereby a bad comparison. Simcity was designed to run on lower hardware due to its audience.

 

[Sleepingforest]

BioShock is a console port, and thereby a bad comparison. Simcity was designed to run on lower hardware due to its audience.

So are you saying that the majority of AAA games are PC games ported for consoles rather than the other way around? I'm fairly sure that most AAA games we get these days are console ports, and thus it is a good comparison.

 

[smackababy]

BioShock is a console port, and thereby a bad comparison. Simcity was designed to run on lower hardware due to its audience.

The Witcher 2: released in 2011 recommended 4gb of RAM and only required 2. Developed for the PC.

 

[Bateluer]

The Witcher 2: released in 2011 recommended 4gb of RAM and only required 2. Developed for the PC.

And it still holds a top three position in the best looking games ever made. The new Tomb Raider surpasses it.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Here's a graph I developed in Excel using PC games (2-3 PC games a year, mostly PC exclusives but some console ports, from 2003 to 2013). Many points overlap, so it looks like far fewer:

RAM requirements increased by 2^3 or 2^4 since 2003. However, the rate has stagnated since 2010, floating at 4GB or so, likely because of "legacy" support for 32-bit OSes. Even before then, you can see that the games take longer and longer between each doubling (a year at 256MB, three years at 512MB, 3 years at 2GB, 4 years at 4GB). Until a majority of computers and consoles can utilize more than 8GB (in the case of consoles, between the VRAM and the RAM), I don't think we'll see more than 4GB. Even the new consoles probably won't push past 5 or 6GB of RAM, since much of that needs to go to the GPU (shared space for RAM in consoles).

Additionally, more and more people are finding computers adequate for usage as the market matures, which pushes the need to upgrade down. That means that browsers and other programs don't have as much space to push for and take advantage of. I don't forsee needing more than 8GB for several years (past 2015, I would think).

 

[MrSquished]

For me, BF3 swapped to disk constantly with only 4GB of RAM. Once I moved to 8GB it would consume just over 4GB by itself on large 64 player maps.

So 4GB is certainly not enough for newer games. 16GB is over kill. I have 12Gb and like it as I can keep things open in the background without any performance impact. But really 8GB is enough.

i find the same thing. i have 16gb and i like it for the same reason you like 12, no worrying about keeping proggies open. i can have adobe lightroom 4 fired up with multiple RAW touch ups going on, my browser with a shit-ton of tabs, other proggies going and then just launch bf3 to play for a bit and not even blink about my memory usage. for the price of ram now, if you have the extra bit of money, it's a nice feature. 2x8gb sticks for a new build is my choice.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I think 8 gb is a good place to be for now, but if I bought a new computer I'd probably buy 16. I like to be slightly ahead of the curve. I also rage if my computer hiccups in the slightest.

 

[Rinaun]

You have no clue about IT bro.

Your opinion is incredibly valuable to me regarding my IT experience. No, I mean it. Really.

If you play BF3 on Ultra settings with a 4gb rig it will stutter bad. Me and others have faced this.

Ultra settings at 1600x900 Memory Usage, This obviously isn't 1080p but shows BF3 in MOSt scenarios will not use a max of even 3.5GB.
No lag at ALL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-LIfs2BeG0 4gb RAM used, single player mission on BF3. 1080P ultra.

The argument here is "DOES BF3 USE MORE THAN 4GB OF RAM". Not DOES BF3 RUN BETTER WITH 8GB OF RAM. The OS of todays operating systems take up 1GB alone. I also stopped playing BF3 before any expansion and at that time the maps weren't huge maps, so maybe they've added stupid effects that take up a bit more RAM. Regardless I WOULD NOT suggest 4GB of RAM for any gaming, or really any PC I'd build for a client.

It is a known fact that 1080p ultra stutters with 4gb rigs in bf3, everybody knows this.

No, it does not stutter. It sounds like you/your friends really don't know how to operate a computer correctly. with 4GB of RAM you won't be able to alt tab easily and your RAM will be maxed out, but it will play fine. Having 4GB of memory means even keeping steam open is going to slow your PC down (albeit not by a noticeable amount). Another thing I'd mention is why did you buy 4gb in the first place? No shit you are going to have problems running games with 4GB. Windows alone usually takes up 500MB-1GB+ depending on what you are running in the background. This isn't even factoring in that BF3 is terribly optimized and at some point had memory leaks that caused people playing for 1+ hour to crash on launch. Pretty bad game to have a RAM argument over.

 

[Obie327]

When I built my sandy 2600k two years ago to this day, I had 8 gigs of ram only. I decided to pull the trigger for another 8 to get the 16 gigs of Corsair Vengeance 1600 memory(a few months ago). Partially because of the price and the other reason so I could match the other mem pair. Not sure if I will ever need more that 8 but when hosting a lan I never really need to worry about any bottle necks with ram. I figure future proofing this rig was a good idea, Especially when code these days is getting poorly written. I also play "Supreme Commander" And Some of the maps are really bad (memory leaks)And can make the difference when you want to keep playing that map for an hour or two longer than someone with less ram. I don't regret my decision at all. But all my other systems run only 8 gigs with 64 bit OS's.

 

[BFG10K]

16 GB is completely overkill; even 8GB is generally overkill.

 

[Stuka87]

So are you saying that the majority of AAA games are PC games ported for consoles rather than the other way around? I'm fairly sure that most AAA games we get these days are console ports, and thus it is a good comparison.

When I say console port I mean designed for playing on consoles as the lowest common denominator, and then ported to the PC. So the requirements are lower because of this.

 

[smackababy]

When I say console port I mean designed for playing on consoles as the lowest common denominator, and then ported to the PC. So the requirements are lower because of this.

Please find me a game that requires more than 2gb of ram. I cannot think of a single one. Even Crysis only required 1gb of ram and recommended 2gb.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

It's crazy how much RAM prices have gone up.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231569 (32GB DDR3 at $225)

I got two sets of those (64GB total) for $220 some time ago. I should have put my entire bank account into DDR3 RAM a year ago.

 

[Stuka87]

Please find me a game that requires more than 2gb of ram. I cannot think of a single one. Even Crysis only required 1gb of ram and recommended 2gb.

Just because a game like BF3 recommends at least 4GB, does not mean that you wont get better performance from more than 4GB of system RAM. I got bad disk scratching when I only had 4GB in BF3 multi-player (Single player does not need more than 4GB, it has been proven single player and multi are VERY different).

If a game recommends at least an HD7850, does that mean it will run perfectly with that? Or will it actually take an HD7970CF to run perfectly?

 

[smackababy]

Just because a game like BF3 recommends at least 4GB, does not mean that you wont get better performance from more than 4GB of system RAM. I got bad disk scratching when I only had 4GB in BF3 multi-player (Single player does not need more than 4GB, it has been proven single player and multi are VERY different).

If a game recommends at least an HD7850, does that mean it will run perfectly with that? Or will it actually take an HD7970CF to run perfectly?

But the thread is about games REQUIRING more than 8gb of RAM. No game is anywhere close to that. Even with the PS4 having 8gb of shared ram, at least 1/4th of that will be used strictly for vram, possibly more. I played BF3 with 6gb and had no problems.

Games won't require more than 4gb for years to come. A few unicorn graphics games might come and push that up (like a Crytek engine game MAYBE), but no sane developer will force people to upgrade their computer just to play their game. Sure, the best possible experience will always be with 100gb of ram, installed on an SSD, with 4 Titans, but that doesn't mean the game isn't playing with little to no hiccups on a modern gaming system.

 

[Stuka87]

But the thread is about games REQUIRING more than 8gb of RAM. No game is anywhere close to that. Even with the PS4 having 8gb of shared ram, at least 1/4th of that will be used strictly for vram, possibly more. I played BF3 with 6gb and had no problems.

Games won't require more than 4gb for years to come. A few unicorn graphics games might come and push that up (like a Crytek engine game MAYBE), but no sane developer will force people to upgrade their computer just to play their game. Sure, the best possible experience will always be with 100gb of ram, installed on an SSD, with 4 Titans, but that doesn't mean the game isn't playing with little to no hiccups on a modern gaming system.

Oh I am not arguing that games require more than 4GB. What I have been stating is that you get better performance from having more than 4GB. At 4GB BF3 will stutter at higher settings in large 64 player maps. When you move to 8GB it will no longer do that. Thats all I was saying, but some did not agree with that for whatever reason.

 

[AustinInDallas]

at one point I wanted 32gb of ram to make a ramdisk, but now that prices are higher, my 8gigs will last me a long time

 

[smackababy]

Yeah one of my sticks of RAM died awhile back so I just bought a 16gb pack (2x8gb) and figured I'd upgrade soon to 32gb but haven't. Just no longer have a reason.

 

[Stringjam]

I don't really see a big point in stockpiling massive RAM right now. By the time we even need that much we'll be dumping our DDR3 for nothing and buying DDR4, which is supposed to hit market...what....sometime this or next year?