16GB vs 32GB DDR3: Is the extra $140 worth it?

[oleguy]

I've been searching here and elsewhere to see what people think about using 32GB of DDR3 in place of 16GB. Even for simple 1600 CL9 DDR3, the price increase is around $140 for the extra set (it seems cheaper to get a quad-kit vs. two dual kits). Problem is that most of what I've found were two or more generations back in terms of hardware being discussed.

What I've seen is that Win7 and later are better aware of the extra RAM and use it appropriately. But does that mean anything in terms of gaming with other background programs open, like a browser with multiple tabs? While it would definitely be future-proofed, is it really worth adding an extra 10% to a $1,300 build?

 

[Gillbot]

If you can utilize the ram, yes. If not, then no.

I had 64gb in my machine but I used all of it. For an every day machine though, it was WAY overkill.

 

[Jimzz]

Most desktop users will have a hard time using 8gb, let alone 16 or 32gb.

 

[magomago]

I may eat my words, but I'd argue no. When Sandybridge came out I built a rig on 16GB of ram that I use to this day, and I have a tough time cracking 11 Gigabytes (Need to be doing Lightroom and pano stitching of 30+ photographs and have lots of tabs open).

The goal of ram to be used as much as possible; having huge banks of empty space that is never utilized is a waste.

That said, for my usage, there were times I would break 8GB specifically because of my photography passion; therefore, it made sense to go for 16GB. Also, I got the entire 16GB kit for ~110 dollars.

If you have some use cases that WILL break 16GB, then you should absolutely get 32GB.

If you are just into gaming right now, I'm not entirely convinced that PS4/XBone will usher in an era of 16GB minimum. Consoles are capped at 8GB, and while usage inflates when ported over, this seems to not be as big of a deal because of common architectures. 16GB at this point will probably still be perfectly healthy and viable for a long time to come. More importantly, its an extra 140 dollars, and that seems 140 dollars too many.

Of course I could be wrong and 32GB is the new healthy amount in 1-2 years, but that is why I primarily emphasized your current use cases and expected use cases.

 

[oleguy]

If you can utilize the ram, yes. If not, then no.

I had 64gb in my machine but I used all of it. For an every day machine though, it was WAY overkill.

The most specific use case that I can think of for me is gaming while streaming music or podcasts through a browser. I plan on gaming at a higher detail level with the new build. Even right now, I'm sitting at around 2GB of physical memory used with my top five processes using physical memory being Firefox, Tbird, Flash, Steam, and Google Drive. I toss something like Kerbal or Borderlands 2 on there, and I'm up around 3.2GB of physical memory is use, and over 4.5 GB between physical and virtual.

 

[Gillbot]

The most specific use case that I can think of for me is gaming while streaming music or podcasts through a browser. I plan on gaming at a higher detail level with the new build. Even right now, I'm sitting at around 2GB of physical memory used with my top five processes using physical memory being Firefox, Tbird, Flash, Steam, and Google Drive. I toss something like Kerbal or Borderlands 2 on there, and I'm up around 3.2GB of physical memory is use, and over 4.5 GB between physical and virtual.

then probably not

I was doing a lot of VM's and database work so I could use all the ram I could get. When I was gaming, browsing or typical "home" tasks I had no need for that much ram.

 

[lehtv]

The most specific use case that I can think of for me is gaming while streaming music or podcasts through a browser. I plan on gaming at a higher detail level with the new build. Even right now, I'm sitting at around 2GB of physical memory used with my top five processes using physical memory being Firefox, Tbird, Flash, Steam, and Google Drive. I toss something like Kerbal or Borderlands 2 on there, and I'm up around 3.2GB of physical memory is use, and over 4.5 GB between physical and virtual.

Sounds to me like you'd be fine with 8GB. You can always add more RAM later

 

[Morbus]

I went with 2x8GB and it seems, now, a bit overkill.
That said, it is nice to not have to worry about RAM for a freaking change. Totally tired of having to balance system resources. Now I don't close anything, when I game, I leave the browser open and even other stuff, I just freaking do as I please.
I don't think I've gone over 8GB of usage though. But I do plan on using virtual machines later on, and that's the primary reason I went for 16GB. Otherwise I might have gone with a single DIMM of 8GB, but I'd have to make sure the performance wouldn't be affected (I think two DIMMs in dual channel are faster than a single DIMM, but I'd have to check on that).

 

[AE-Ruffy]

do you run VM's? If so more is better
High end video or photo editing, then yes more is better.
Gaming? No,

 

[Doomer]

I recently borrowed half the RAM, 8gb, to use in another computer and noticed absolutely no change in performance so I decided to stay at 8gb.

 

[nenforcer]

If you are just into gaming right now, I'm not entirely convinced that PS4/XBone will usher in an era of 16GB minimum. Consoles are capped at 8GB, and while usage inflates when ported over, this seems to not be as big of a deal because of common architectures.

In the case of the PS4, that 8GB of GDDR5 is also split / shared between graphics VRAM, Texture memory and system (game) memory. Most games will probably stay close to a 4 / 4 split while some simpler games could use 2GB system memory and 6GB VRAM.

16GB on a PC should be all that is needed for the life of this console generation until probably 2020.

16GB at this point will probably still be perfectly healthy and viable for a long time to come. More importantly, its an extra 140 dollars, and that seems 140 dollars too many.

I would agree that saving that extra 10% now, this late in DDR3 lifetime is worth it. DDR4 on PC's will be here next year and mainstream by 2015. I'd rather save my money for that.

 

[BFG10K]

16GB vs 32GB DDR3: Is the extra $140 worth it?

If you have to ask, the answer's usually "no".

 

[futurefields]

In the case of the PS4, that 8GB of GDDR5 is also split / shared between graphics VRAM, Texture memory and system (game) memory. Most games will probably stay close to a 4 / 4 split while some simpler games could use 2GB system memory and 6GB VRAM.

This is slightly OT but I highly doubt any console games will use anything close to 6gb VRAM, considering you need to be running 4k res with insane graphics to even hit 3gb VRAM.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I think, if you gotta ask, then the answer is no.

edit: beat me to it

 

[Carfax83]

Unless you're running VMs or doing some heavy duty photo or video editing, then 32GB is beyond overkill.

Even if you're a hardcore gamer, 16GB is overkill. 64 bit gaming will become more and more common, but until the 360 and PS3 die, developers will continue to make their games with the memory deficient previous generation consoles in mind.

Witcher 3 will be one of the first true next gen games, as it's ditching the PS3 and Xbox 360 completely. Will be 64 bit as well, and open World with no loading anywhere, so it's definitely going to use a ton of memory..

That said, even 8GB should be fine for that game..

*Edit* Apparently Battlefield 4 can use almost 10GB of memory on a fully loaded server with ultra settings

Battlefield 4 using almost 10GB of RAM

So I guess 16GB will be the new sweet spot!

 

[nenforcer]

This is slightly OT but I highly doubt any console games will use anything close to 6gb VRAM, considering you need to be running 4k res with insane graphics to even hit 3gb VRAM.

This is true, it probably won't be until later in the life of the consoles until you will see that kind of usage. Sony already had 4K TV's on the market when PS4 hit so you can be sure they had this in mind before launching the PS4.

Both the PS4 and XB1 also share cores and resources with the OS & hypervisor so you'll never have the full 8GB at your disposal.

 

[oleguy]

Thanks for the replies, folks. I'm not a big BF or CoD fan, but I do have some games that do drive the physical plus virtual to around 7GB when combined with the rest of the stuff I have running. I'll probably get 16GB just to make sure I'm covered, and it will cover the occasional edge case where I decide to experiment with Access or try some computational stuff in Excel, just for self-study and the like... it will still probably be more potent than the slice of a VM 3,000 miles away that I run something on at work.

 

[FalseChristian]

I need 16GB. I have 8GB currently and not even running anything intensive but just a lot of web pages open my RAM drops to 0. Unfortunately, Windows 7 Home Premium only supports 16GB.

 

[KingFatty]

I need 16GB. I have 8GB currently and not even running anything intensive but just a lot of web pages open my RAM drops to 0. Unfortunately, Windows 7 Home Premium only supports 16GB.

RAM dropping to zero is good, that means you are not using any RAM. My current usage shows 2.78 GB memory usage, with a bunch of office documents open, Outlook, Chrome with a ton of tabs, etc.