I bought a 64 GB RAM not because for gaming but my hobby for not closing Google Chrome tabs in which I have 100 tabs open. Edit: for the people who makes fun of my old comment, at the time google used to load all your tabs even when they are not open, a recent update fixed this but its just a workaround, google wont load them if you dont click the tab but of course if you click all your tabs your RAM usage will be the same like before, but luckily I dont open all of my tabs, they are just there, yes bookmarking is a thing but I like it better this way and also easier to navigate.
I bought a gaming PC that came with 32 and then added another 32 because for just another $80, why not fill the empty slots and guarantee you won't have any ram congestion no matter what you try to use the computer for
@@dwaynethequandaledinglejoh5327 prolly used for that because i cant see why anybody would leave so many tabs open, i might be used to having a bad pc and leaving no more than 6 tabs open even with a decent pc.
The nice thing about 32gb paired with a 12 core processor is that you can have tons of stuff open in the background with little to no performance impact.
Went from a R5 3600 16 gig system to a 7900x 64 gig system and yes it is quite an experience. I know I went overkill but I really enjoyed PC gaming and it was justified imo.
it does increase performance in games that take up more than the amount you have, if you have 16gb but the game wants 18gb, it will either make your game very ugly (or broken shaders completely) or take fps away
I think we all fall victim to marketing. Still, it's nice when windows is idle to have that ram at just 2% when you have 64 Gb as opposed to 10-12 at 32 Gb 🤣🤣🤣
32gb is the sweet spot now for newer games. Seems most of the new one need about 20gb of RAM may as well get 32 if thats the case. Went from 16gb on my old to 32 on my new PC because I was going for a bit over what i needed. Glad i did too since it look like 16gb will be a tiny bit low going forward.
No, the issue isn’t we need more ram. It’s game companies have become lazy to optimise games due to the fact they know people have super computers nowadays and know that people will upgrade > hence why game companies often have sponsors with graphics cards companies.
hey so how did he record all that, does he has 4 PC ? or is the there any software that records your PC 3, 4 times multiple GPU maybe or maybe he installed 8gb first record, and remove and put 16gb then do the same thing and move on to 32gb, 64gb ? What do you think he did ?
I was really considering jumping to 32gb but i think i can wait, thank you so much for this. All though i would have like to see comparisions during more fast action sequences
@@CAVALO-QUENTE Yes but add like two tabs in browser plus discord and steam in background and u are out of RAM, imo fact is that if u want to play on high settings or higher in full HD comfortably in 2023 u need to have above 16GB of RAM
@@LOOTLORD605 But remember, if you are not using dual channel & if your system doesn't support flex mode then you shouldn't use 24GB of ram & even if it supports Flex mode the stick that's on single channel will be slower but yea it'll get the job done 👍✅
The benefits of having more ram is that your games session won't crash after the ram runs out so can have longer game session. Have more program opened. Can set to no file system caching good for SSD. Running 64GB ram.
Went to 64 Gb years ago. What people forget is that you can play games and have a crap load of things going on in the back ground with no degradation. Or have your UA-cam play list running at the same time while playing your game. Or do real video/streaming/graphic editing. Yea you can play certain games at lower Ram, But if you do not have at least 32 GB or higher then you are missing out on getting all of the potential performance from your computer. And DDR4 prices are good now.
@@ResumenExpress It actually take GPU power if your browser using hardware acceleration. Running Jedi survivor with 50% cpu and 99% gpu usage made my youtube heavy lagging.
64GB RAM is useless even if what you are doing is opening thousands of tabs browser and playing games plus many apps in the background, I have 32GB and so far the most usage ram record I'm using is about 21/32GB while running two heavy games, emulator and many shit in the background.
Got to think about some wiggle room for mods and the like. Also having other apps running, a browser maybe, side apps, and the convenience of multi-tasking.
@@user-fj8lx8cl5c no. if you are running the game through steam (1 app open) talking to friends through discord, (2 open which is huge cuz it sends data), now you are streaming or recording (3 open with MASSIVE data transfer) plus the game is open, (4 the game is massive obv.) and other normal background pc funtions (5 open) you can see how more ram makes your performance better while also increasing the longevity of your other hardware. Its a good investment. 32gbs min if you run steam, a game, and discord or TeamSpeak all at the same time.
@@user-fj8lx8cl5c also people run more than 1 monitor so alot of programs aren't closed down and running in the background they are just on a separate screen soaking up memory
Memory is sometimes not as simple as a FPS counter. When I have a browser and other things open to deliberately starve games, the average FPS are not effected directly. I more see animation freezes or hitches in games and sometimes the textures are not loaded in correctly, because it is running out of space to work with. A figure or person in a game can load in without textures and looking like something from low settings in original World of Warcraft, before it gets the correct shadows and textures 1 sec later.
To be honest I will avoid way easy a not upgrade ram pc with "just" 16gb of ram memory (total system memory than a modern console uses, 16 for ram and vram together). Than some Nvidia GPUs that have 8gb of VRAM (again a console with less powerful core could address 10gb to the GPU and let the CPU with 6gb if they need to). It's clearly a problem when you Google Deathloop VRAM problems and you notice than running the game at 2k, let 4k alone, the game force you lower the texture quality or enable dlss cause the GPU haven't got enough memory to run it. I couldn't understand why people avoid 16gb for gaming but are happy to pay overpriced 8gb GPUs.
Yes I wish videos would show this and going back and forth between open applications and gaming seeing the difference in stutter for each amount of RAM
I would like to point out that people running a Ryzen CPU may really want to consider upgrading amount of ram. GamersNexus did a video over a year ago about 2 vs 4 sticks of ram. His test were all 8GB sticks. So 16gb (2X8) vs 32gb (4X8). All using optimal CL 14 timing. 4 sticks boosted performance in all games. Anywhere from a low 1% boost to upto a 10% boost. Just by running 4 sticks instead of 2. It's not that any of the games even used 16GB of ram. It is simply that it benefited from using all 4 slots. He also verified his findings with a level 1 tech from AMD. If you have the budget and plan on keeping your AM4 socket for a long time. You may want to grab more ram before DDR4 goes up in price because they'll stop making DDR4.
32GB is future proofing and also so cheap right now, you can get away with 16GB for now but games are starting to use more and more ram and 32GB is starting to slowly become the recommended. You can also just do more with 32GB in terms of background applications while gaming so it's an advantage of 16GB.
If you run out of vram and the game uses 15.1GB of your 16GB RAM then you will have problems. If you dont have enough vram it loads onto system ram and the 32GB is ideal if you want to use that.
I've had 32GB since 2012, only the past few years have I been borderline. Though I've only ran out of ram twice from memory leaks. 20-25GB is pretty common for gaming now.
I think, 16 GB is already on the edge. When games massively starts to jump on Unreal Engine 5 from UE4 - 16 GB will be a minimum with turned off background apps.
16GB minimum. I use UE5 daily for work and have had to upgrade to 64GB as 48GB was getting completely used up just rendering a 1080p video. I tried a 4090 paired with 16GB and couldn't even render, the bottleneck of that little RAM was causing UE5 to crash. Although presumably games will be better optimized.
This benchmark is good, latency and speed aren't an issue due to all kits being equal, but I'm worried this is a synthetic benchmark with a fresh windows install so it doesn't have as much stuff happening in the back as a more fleshed and used session would normally. I know for a fact my windows has over 5gb in use just after finishing booting and about 7.2gb when I open Brave with over 100+ tabs open which is not a general case but its almost in the middle.
Of course, you have to remind yourself that any program or software you could run in the background or on another monitor would take some RAM, so 16 GB would be much more comfortable than 8 GB if you play at the same time. I myself switched to Linux partially because Linux takes a lot less RAM compare to Windows and I usually didn't have enough RAM on Windows to run a game plus Firefox alone (I have 8 GB). But still, even if we're talking about Windows, that's really weird you have 5 GB used just after booting: unless you have hundreds of programs installed on your PC and you have a dozen which need (or you need them) to start as soon as Windows start, it's not normal to have as much RAM taken like that. When I was still on Windows, I had 3.2 to 3.5 GB or about 40 % to 45 % of the total and I had with almost no program launching at boot (except of course everything which was linked to Windows). And on my current system, I use 3 GB by having Steam, Discord and Firefox open with a few tabs loaded (and some minor programs which use few tens of MB, pretty much negligible), knowing that Linux takes about 1 GB of it. Now for the 7.2 GB usage with Brave open, it's pretty much normal: when you have 100 tabs in your bar, your PC don't actually load the 100 tabs, otherwise your RAM would just die, it would take 20 to 25 GB of RAM. Instead, it loads only the tabs you open,clicked on. However, your pretty heavy RAM usage comes from your browser itself, Brave, which is based on Chromium, the open source version of Chrome, which is known to be pretty heavy on RAM usage. So what I would advise you to do is to check the programs you have open in your program manager, prevent for the ones that do and you don't want to from starting up as soon as Windows boots and eventually manage your usage of your tabs in your browser, or simply changing of browser, one that isn't chromium-based preferably. There are good sites which list really lightweight browsers that use two third or even a half of what Chrome or Brave would use. Brave is really excellent for privacy and avoiding fingerprinting but concerning RAM usage, it's pretty bad, as most (but not all) chromium-based browsers, especially when you open tabs.
@@GoldSrc_ You are correct, I was under the understanding that "synthetic benchmarks" meant it was on a clean windows installation with no overhead to account for an everyday use system but I was mistaken. Thanks for clarifying.
I don't know about this benchmark, the 1% and MIN fps in some games on 32gb is lower, then on 16gb system, which is odd. It means something wrong with these particular tests of 32gb kit, or the kit itself, which means that these results are not fully valid.
There definitely seems to be an issue with the 32gb kit, the 1% lows are taking a huge hit, either something with timing or perhaps the way the memory is being allocated by that particular system. I have seen issues like these with RAM on ASUS motherboards that tend to do some funny things with memory timing, in some cases like my previous ASUS motherboard I was never able to get the memory kit that I had stable, it was a 32gb kit of GSKILL platinum but it worked fine in two other systems that I had. I ended up getting an Asrock motherboard and never experienced that issue again. Either way the strange 1% lows are just confusing in this scenario for the 32gb kit
agreed . ihad a hell of time getting my 16gb x2 kit to 3800mhz 14 14 14 28 cr1 on my X570 Asus Hero stable. I took weeks of adjusting sub timings. ram is Trident Royal z and cpu is 5900x that does 1900mhz Fclk...
I don't know about Zen 3 and newer like is being used for this test, but I know on the older Ryzen chips, you would take a performance hit if the memory clock wasn't matched with the SOC clock and it mostly manifested itself in the 1% and .1% lows.
i will never ever buy a asus mobo again my 3200 ram kit worked fine in other pc but whenever i put it in asus mobo it didnt start i had to put it in 2666 to start the pc wtf man,other pc i tested again but no problem
When it comes to using more than 16GB of ram its not about the fps its more the smoothness at that point less stutters and hitching happen when you use 32gb to 64gb of ram its a smoothness you have to experience for yourself in order to understand.
I have 32GB RAM and was about to upgrade up to one more 16GB so my target is 48GB, or do I have to pair with two 8GB? is it considered an upgrade or downgrade?
Had 32 and my ram was on sale so I upgraded to 64. I stream on a regular basis and have noticed the 64 helps while streaming. Other than that it's just nice to look at 😅
More RAM is only good for loading times. I noticed a huge difference in Total War Warhammer 3 after upgrading to 32Gb. During gameplay its usage is marginal. I got 32 just to be on the medium-high wagon. 16Gb is what you need. 32 is future-proofing. 64 is overkill - if a game reaches 64Gb DDR5 usage, we'll probably be at 16-32Gb DDR7 times. Or Quantum PCs with crystal-alloy RAM 😆
32GB is an ideal option for the next few years, because new games will ask for more and more memory, and with 32GB it is easy to switch to other tasks. Many of my games consume more than 16GB. 16gb is the minimum for a comfortable game, 8GB is a low budget
I would say 32Gb is a good number to shoot for. There are games out there that will utilize 15gb by themselves because they are poorly optimized and have memory leaks.
Star Citizen? Any game optimized for consoles that have 16gb of total memory RAM and VRAM together that's like 6 for the CPU and 10 GPU. 32gb on the CPU exclusively for gaming, of course there's another tasks that demands more, it's a waste of money and slow memory speed if sticks are using same controller and memory chips, they have to handle double the memory. So yeah 32gb for gaming only maybe for some really bad optimized Alpha could make a difference but even with obs and chrome you know your not gonna need more than 20. The game load assets as much as the ram could handle it, but realistically how many Games will benefit from staking all the game files in ram instead of load and unload them? As I said probably just random Work in progress game, that the devs working on it didn't have the intention of doing a game with this demands, but at the current state can get some benefits from it.
@@rubenmartin7759 Console versions of games have always been optimized better. Had the console players had to deal with the garbage we PC players do half the games wouldn't even run
@@gokublack8342 I don't have problems with games and my first self buy computer was a i7 4790 gtx770 back in the day the consoles are so bad that they couldn't run antialiasing, comparing the games was embarrassing, also the games with bugs or bad optimized will run bad on a console as well did you remember Payday2? Did you think they code the full game again for consoles, by the way the consoles of today have a great AMD Apu is not the ps4 days anymore with that awful CPU and GPU that slow down game evolution for years, with the realisms trend plus the bad hardware. Assassin's creed developers come to say that they have to redesign the game cause they doesn't anticipated such a bad CPU, it's not my personal opinion. But I mean did you use your computer just for pirate? Cause you can't say a game runs bad when the "developer" making the crack doesn't do it for free and probably the virus is what makes your pc running poorly, a lot of crypto miners while playing pirate games. I see more troubles with 8gb GPUs, for example Deathloop crash cause there's not enough VRAM when playing in 2k with the rtx3070, you can Google Deathloop VRAM problems, let alone 4k resolution. The solution is running dlss or turn the textures down. 👉👈 Yeahhhh 4k GPUs!!!! Then the ps5 with 8k in the box hahahahaha yeah for the menu wallpapers. People are ok buying 8gb vram GPU (same memory as a 1070ti) cause Nvidia won't sell you any better not cause they're ok with it, but then "need" 32gb of ram for gaming purposes. I really don't understand.
@@rubenmartin7759 It is true most of these goofballs complaining have bad combos. Many of the ones struggling in Starfield for instance have a good GPU but a severely underspec CPU and are heavily bottlenecked but I've seen Starfield playing at 30fps and the console version and with both versions at 30 fps the console looks like a better experience. I think console versions of games get more effort put into it for sure I mean ask Nvidia users they had to mod the game to even get their DLSS and the game still runs worse on their graphics cards then on AMD. It wasn't as noticeable back then because Consoles were so shit in comparison but the PS5 and Xbox Series are actually decent. And sure you gave an example of a game running better on PC but I'll give you one of a game(several ig) running better on console....the Batman Arkham Games. Arkham City I understand is notoriously badly optimized on PC and in fact many of the Steam Reviews literally tell you to go play the console versions. Another example of a game playing better on console than PC Doom 3 for the Xbox (though that is kind of a special example theres an interesting documentary about that game) the Devs actually explain how they specifically optimized the game more to run on the Xbox. I guess playing "better" isn't the right term it was better optimized and less demanding than the PC version. Look at alot of those games from back then Splinter Cell PC they literally cut levels into halves so the consoles would have an easier time running it. Like I said had you console users had to play the same version of the games were given half the games wouldn't run (if your 4k was real 4k those consoles would beg for mercy) Edit: Oh yes 1 more example Halo: Combat Evolved that game was 100% better optimized for the Xbox than the PC version. I remember PC version of Combat Evolved was demanding at the time. So yes I think the devs do have to make an altered version of the game for consoles I seriously doubt your consoles would be able to run the PC version of Starfield or Remnant 2 but these devs realize that most gamers are pitiful console peasants and that their game would be a flop if the main demographic couldnt play it
@gokublack8342 but I just said a bad game runs with bug regardless of the platform cause the trouble is in the code, the game I choose runs bad in consoles and PC. Don't want to make the exercise of trashing games because by the level you have I think both know there's games not even optimized for controller and for keyboard and mouse, let alone if they work or not😢 mostly shooters design for consoles or strategic games design for pc running on the other platform, there's some awful examples of games don't even take care of the controllers properly. In my opinion big corps do the job as capitalism dictates, cheap production big price. Most of the optimization work been done in games for consoles is like particles at 65%, frame cap in some animations, low texture in specific objects, less fidelity on 3d objects... You can't match the same settings on PC cause from 50% particle you jump into 75%. It's not like they add a patch where the cpu use better the ram like the 2.0 patch exclusive for specific brand, doesn't matter if it's Sony, Microsoft, AMD, Intel, Nvidia.... That's like a paid promotion I don't think it's a big deal even with the super sampling tech, not cause it doesn't make a difference but cause you never know when you buy how the technology will evolve, dlss is better but you know not so many games, the first to generations on rtx the 20 and 30 struggle a lot to play raytracing but now they been out of dlss 3.0 as well. On the other hand AMD isn't as good, but runs on Nvidia gpus and developers are forced to use it cause consoles are unable to run dlss cause the lag of RT cores. So the future is unpredictable, looking back the early adopters of raytracing that never have the chance to use it and now they also been removed from dlss. So your right usually trending games are better optimized for consoles, even though most simulation, construction, realistic fps not the Rambo simulator, strategic... Tech demos like crysis or control, but that's irrelevant. The number is high on console games. That's a fact. But my point was that the optimization of the consoles isn't as great as double the amount of total system memory just for the cpu, Windows is Windows but come on. To play on the same settings that the console is running you don't need 40gb of total system memory in a Nvidia pc 32+8 or 46 on AMD gpu pc 32+16. According to Steam less than 2% of the players have the gpu and the display to run the at native resolution the games, cause if you use dlss or fsr the ram you need is for render the game at 1080p. So jumping from 16gb in a console to 40gb or 46gb in a PC and excuse the optimization is so unrealistic. That's my point as the maximum compute power a game is designed for is the console... 👉👈... teraflops🤣 spending money in 32gb if you're gpu is unable to run native at 2k, like the 3070 in Deathloop, I mean it's not a cheap card and it's not like Crysis level game, most people adding 32 have lower ones,. Why you need 32gb if you forced to render the games at 1080 regardless of your display resolution. I'm sorry but I still think you could spend better the money on game pass, a great headset from a sound company, or invest more money on a great chair from a chair company like Recaro. I mean if they want 16gb to sit down on their computer without working is their choice, but then don't come to tell me why the computer it's so expensive, stop buying rgb mouse mads, rgb headset stands, more rgb ram than you ever gona use.... I mean it's the cheapest way to add price to a Bluetooth speaker in aliexpress: add 0.05 leds and sell for 1€ more with lower battery life. People are dumb and whe can't fix it.
I get that it’s not that big of a difference but what makes my balls itch is the fact that not even a year ago every single UA-camr was saying “16gb of ram will last you until the next gen consoles don’t bother upgrading” and now, whether it’s because game companies can’t optimize for shit or don’t give a shit, 16gb is now “minimum”
I have 32GB of RAM. And it seems to be what is needed in todays world for gaming. I was going to buy 16GB back in 2019 but glad I chose 32GB to future proof it a bit.
I choose 32gb 3600mhz because it only costed me 50 euro + i have a 12 core cpu so i can run my local minecraft server for my daughter without any problems. However for just gaming i see some improvements (not sudden fps drops because running out of ram)
So basically yes, more ram leads to slightly or noticeable increase in performance to a certain point with diminishing returns. however, its biggest impact would be in the involving of mods, emulation and gaming service/applications running in the background.
After using 16gb of ram for 3 years and switching to 32gb very recently. I can advocate for any average-hardcore gamer to absolutely think about 32gb. With today’s games being so demanding(and 16gb actually being recommended now), 32gb went from “being overkill” to the sweet spot No, you aren’t going to be reaching 95% usage with 32 as of right now. But bottlenecking and slow down is something you won’t have to worry about anymore. No performance drops, no lag, nothing bad at all. Take into consideration how much process power things like edge, google, and steam(mostly steam Jesus) take up mixed with the games you are playing. 32gb is definitely the way to go
У меня ddr4 32gb, но у меня слабая видеокарта 970 gtx 4 gb 256 bit, и по моим наблюдениям , она тоже ест оперативную память при нехватке собственной. Все же, я не пожелел, что купил сразу 32, я перестал беспокоится о включённых приложениях фоновом режиме.
16 GB is enough for almost any game, but if you have a web browser with several tabs open while running a video game the user experience is not going to be optimal. The 16 GB will be exceeded. When you switch tasks leaving the game in the background and then return to the game the system will paginate. It can get even worse if you stream while playing the game. So even if the game does not lose performance with 16 GB the PC experience is better when you have more than 16 GB of RAM.
Had some guy on Reddit tell me 8gb of ram can barely run chrome in 2023. Glad to see the difference between 8gb of ram and 64gb of ram is like maybe 5-10% on average. Hilarious.
Am still using DDR3 8gb memory(2x4gb) and it struggles now. Barely runs Chrome and youtube but not much else. Trying to play a dvd in vlc player causes my system to lock up and eventually shuts down. I guess that is the CPU thermal throttling?
Overall I find looking at pure FPS meters aint the way to go when it comes to ram true enough its quite clear that we don't really need more than 16gb for gaming at least not right now but what tests like this rarely does is having like Spotify running in the background and have a couple of pages up in your browser maybe a youtube video running on the side which is quite common for me. Another thing I consider is that here in Sweden at least the difference between 16gb and 32gb with same brand and speeds can have a pretty small difference in price basiclly if I were to build the build I'm currently looking at today I would get the extra 16gb of ram for less than 1/3rd of the price of the first 16gb. And the cost of my total build would go up with roughly 1%. That 1% isnt something I can put somewhere else to get a more powerful build. If you spend 2000 bucks on a computer it doesnt feel all that bad to go to 2020 and get double the ram heck can even see it as a cheap insurance in case we start seeing games that really see an noticeable improvment with 32gb. Because upgrading to 32gb won't be cheaper than getting the 32gb from the start, if you decide to upgrade later from 16gb to 32gb you will have to buy another 16gb for full price instead of getting it for pretty much 33% of the price. But its good people are making these videos to show people what to expect from the amount in games etc.
So like the last gen, consoles having limited ram pools has meant 16GB is still fine for PC gaming. I am assuming the extra performance on the few games where its anything more than 1 or 2% is down to either developers taking advantage of the extra ram if available or that the ram is making up for development shortcomings. All my PCs run 32GB+ apart from the the Steamdeck and Legion Go, but it seems for just gaming, 16GB is fine. 32GB seems to be the entry level on DDR5 as I have not seen a 16GB kit short of going a single stick, so it seems PC RAM even 8GB, will do the trick for the forseable future, especially with the rise in popularity of PC handhelds and them being targeted baselines by many developers.
As long as the mobo has 4 ram slots, going for 8x2 (16gb) is good. If necessary, we can upgrade later to 32 GB. It's more than enough for most activity.
@@NameMyCat not much better, that extra 30 bucks is probably spent better elsewhere but yeah I did get a bit of performance increase in some video games. Also 16 will eventually become obsolete
I still have 16GB and I haven't seen any game that reaches that number, not even the broken port of TLOU that reached 12 GB at most. And regarding the vram 8GB is perfect for 1080P there hasn't been an important graphic jump that justifies more memory for 1080P we mustn't let the developers laugh in our faces.
I jumped from 8GB on an RTX 3050 (way too little) to 32GB on an RTX 3050 (just right for me) and I have never been happier. I can even play Spider Man a game I couldn’t even get to work even a little working at nearly the top tier quality. The only thing to do now for me, is to test the Resident Evil 4 REmake demo.
The thing with RAM is that you only see dips in performance when you run out. Hogwarts Legacy for example is the most System Memory intrusive game at 22GB, so 32GB should be fine, right? Well if you have background tasks open its going to fill all of that up. That is why we are seeing a huge rise in 64GB and 96GB builds, where it can maximize the memory on two slots so that the memory speed can be as high and latency can be as low as it can while giving as much storage as possible. While 96GB is honestly too much, 64GB is great for if you want to game, but you also want heavy background tasks to run too. I personally am on 16GB, but I am planning to go to 64GB. DDR4-3200 in specific.
Hey Guys, let's consider that in case you are running discord, browsers, recording screen or other tasks in your computer they all will be consuming some RAM. Which makes less available RAM for the game running. The task is definitely legit but I don't believe its taking in consideration those aspects. Having 8gb of RAM will definitely run those games as showed above but in case you want to have multiple things open at once on your PC It WILL NOT be enough at all. I strongly believe that 8GB for gaming now a days is the worst option, 16gb should be minimum requirement and 32gb just in case you really need It. I have 16gb and have only reached 13gb of usage when having discord, browsers and game running ;)
In 2024 maybe 64gb is overkill and unnecessary. But... if you buy a PC in 2024, how likely is it that you will buy a new PC in 2025, 2026...? I just replaced my i7 4770k 4gb ddr3 1600 R9 285 computer, after 13 glorious years, with a new one. I bought it for the next 12 years. 64 gigabytes ddr5 6000 is going to barely scrap it 12 years from now. Do not buy a PC based on your needs now. It's way too expensive. Buy it with plenty of extra power you don't need, so in a few years you'll still be in the sweet spot. It doesn't cost that much more to get 64 vs 32 gigs.
The main reason for switching to 32 would only be a good deal from an editor's perspective. If you got photoshop, after effects(decent 4k rendering) and a couple of games running, you know 32GB is needed.
For programmig and multitasking too, in my case with some projects in Visual Studio + SQL + Spotify + Browser, I use like 12-16GB Ram without gaming, now sum a game and it would use like 28GB.
@@cheekigod5631 As if games now use 12 to 16 Go haha It's not even half of that, the only exception I know being Star Citizen but honestly, good luck compiling or running a 3d simulation next to that game, I think your CPU being too weak would the first thing to slow you down. When games specify “12 GB recommended”, they consider you run on Windows which already takes 3 GB (on 8 GB of RAM free) at the very least and consider there are other basic programs running next to it.
I initially purchased 2x16GB (32GB) DDR5 4800/6000 RAM for my new 1440p build & then ordered the same thing again a few days later to make 64GB total - simply because two empty memory slots on my motherboard triggered some latent OCD in me & looked "off". 🤣 Not like it costs that much extra anyway. If it helps some at certain things then great.
2024 is upon us here is something to think about, Diablo 4 needs atleast 32gbs of ramm to run at ultra settings. Ramm prices are fixing to sky rocket soon so if your thinking about getting ramm at a decent price you better get it now. :) 32 is good but i had some cash to splurge on 64 for my am5 upgrades.
2017 i bought 4x16gb for 200€. On jacob there was the kit with an packing malfunction. The price was only a half. I think it was one of the best prices i'll got. Corsair Venegance 3200 CL16 @ 3733 I use it since this time.
I remember my friend in 2014 or maybe 2015 bought a GTX 980 and a 4790K and went with 64GB of ram I think that was 1600Mhz lol. Spent like $200-$300 on ram. Like it was future proofing in reality 1600Mhz sucks now.
@@valentds vram is more important, if u have 1gb vram and 64gb ram ur not gonna get good fps it will crash and if h have 24gb vram and 1gb ram u can run some games
I need the same test on low-end processors to compare cpu usage in games please, I really appreciate it in advance if you could make that effort, I want to improve performance without spending a lot of money and I need to get rid of that doubt if I can reduce processor bottleneck using more ram
The Last of Us Part 1 is the first sight. People with 16gb really should start upgrading to 32gb before they release more demanding games. Or if you are rich,just get 64gb 4x16, ain't no games gonna bother you lol.
I have a question with the way you test. 1. Were you using 1 stick or do you use 2? 2. Were you using stock or you're using top of the line RAM brands? 3. Did you test the games on stock or did you test on top of the line brands? 4. Did you test the games on stock performance or did you test the games on overclocked ram?
i bought 128GB DDR4 not because i needed it but i was looking to max out my mobo, but damn when you have fine transfers that have used up to 50GB of memory it was well worth it!
We have just touched the ERA of 16GB. But only a few games use 16GB, not worth to go all in yet. Wait till 16GB become the norm, until then get bang for buck IMO.
thx for the content. I would have appriciated to see the 1% & .1% lows, as memory shortage, even if only for a handful of frames, can lead to a less smooth experience.
Truly if you are running more than 3 monitors 64 is kind of understandable. Running 2 monitors with chrome and a bunch of tabs, gaming and watching media at the same time, 32gb is more than enough. Testing 16gb vs 32gb with 2 monitor set up and the way I have tabs up there is a noticeable difference .
Dual Channel is more important than the amount of ram mind you 16gb should be the minimum you should aim for, it is enough to even multi task or have some videos open on your second monitor. Ram is fast enough to pick up where it left off and store whatever it doesn't need on your ssd and pick up again in a fraction of a second.
16gb isnt always sufficient when playing some games. So it "depends" on what games each gamers are playing. I found out that a mmo game i play, needs more ram than 16 gb ram. One way to figure it out is to configure in windows to not allow SSD to be used as SWAP memory. Whenever i run the game for 10 minutes then the game crashes. This is mainly because i didnt allow SSD to be used as swap. When I re-enable SWAP again, i can play my game normally. I would say 32gb ram is more a "safe" recommendations if some games are very memory hungry.
@@johnmase924 Well this video shows that with 16gb ram 15% is redundant in most games then with 32gb 75% is redundant for just a 1/2% increase in FPS. There for its not worth spending the extra money just yet.
i see, i still want to consider the upgrade, currently at 16 gb, and planning to go for the 32 gigs, but considering the performance increase, and plus my RAM usage only touching 12 GB of usage when i play some demanding games, giving the conclusion that i will wait till the time is right , or when i starting to put some professional work load (heavy Video editing, 3D Rendering) , the only current work stuff i did was only programming stuff, basic website and mobile where 16 gigs is pretty decent
I'm getting 96GB in my upcoming build because I usually have a shit ton of apps, folders, tabs open while playing a game. Like a hoarders can't throw away shit...I can't close shit.
32 will probably be the number for quite a while, several years. 16 can pretty much handle anything as long as you are playing a single game and nothing much else is running.
As 32g owner,its really not about the fps,its about when u in the middle of gaming,then somebody send u some messages/u want to search something ,16g will crash ur game the minute u open chrome.
8x2 GB RAM in Dual Channel Mode is the best, Or any other Dual Channel Config with Higher Ram, Quad Channel doesn't even make that much of a difference, it isn't allot better than Dual Channel, But Single Channel sucks.
32 GB is safe spot for now. I went from 16 GB because even AC Valhalla and a fresh install of WIn 10 was using up 12 - 14 GB of ram. Heck, windows alone just doing nothing is over 7gb.
I think to all domestic consumers fall victim to marketing and advertorials but I guess it's nice when Windows stays ar around 2% RAM when idle at 64 Gb as opposed to 32 qdn I also guess for those streaming while gaming or doing some other stuff on the Pc it's important
By the way people if you are still on the AM4 platform 8GB sticks of RAM in a pair 16GB. Are not that expensive brand new now for 3200MHz.Just check you have the best stable bios for your board and it will/should boot even if it takes a little time to RAM train on older boards.
At 1440P in COD Battle Royal mode with all the settings turned up to max on DLSS / Ray Tracing / extra shader package, it’s a different story. Hell I’m using 19 gigabytes of VRAM. I’m using 64 gigs of Memory RAM but really only need 32.
I game without a bunch of cluttering programs running in the background. 32 GB for me has been more than enough with my i7-9700K rig and my next rig will also get 32 GB.
The funniest thing about having 32g of RAM is I still have an 8 gig mindset, out of habit I close everything in the background and exit my browser before launching a game lol. I have to remind myself I don't need to close tabs and can leave that podcast on when I'm playing Street Fighter.
i went to 32gb ram when i upgraded to the 5900x to max my am4 build. plenty for future gaming and enough if i went back to CAD/3d modeling. next build will start at 32gb, but if ram is on sale 64gb OTT
all a mixed bag pc building- a gpu with 16gb of v-ram probably not gonna sell the difference in sys ram size compared to a 8gb v-ram card. i've seen vids show 8gb of 4000+mhz and 64gb of 2000mhz can even out performance (expensive fast but small vs cheaper slow but large). all about budget vs performance for me- 5700g then got 3060 as said to be good multi media card and was actually the cheapest card to amd to reaching 12gb of v-ram! i upgraded sys ram to 64gb (4x16) as i can use up to 20gb in web tabs alone! i'd expect to do that while playing games too so a shed loads of ram good just keep things off the cpu! Anyone using ddr4 should consider upgrading sooner than later if they intend to just add the same kit to their board as finding a match when the stuff not being made anymore might force you to just buy a separate larger kit! 5900x is tempting now the price dropped- would be nice to see how fast my web tabs pop up but all that junk is saved on a mech drive that screams 100% load for 10 minutes before everything is taken into the ram! (at which point the hdd drops to 0-24 % use and cpu from 16% to 2-10%) only an ssd will improve that....
if you want visually appealing gaming experience and still be able to play consistently above 120FPS on like a 144Hz or 165Hz gaming monitor like mine, 16GB DDR4 ram might NOT be enough, trust me. DDR4 RAM will be relevant for at least 5~6 more years and it's not really expensive to buy 2x16GB DDR4, so go for two RAM cards of 16GB each, that is, if you have a good graphics card and storage drive like NVMe M.2
32gb ram is ideal; however, the choice between 16gb vs 32gb for Mac M2 isn't so easy as the additional 400 bucks aren't cheap for the potential performance boost that isn't too significant
Thank you fpr the informative video. Conclusion: 8 GB is too less for almost every game. For windows, a bit Multimedia, Office, it's okay-ish with 8 GB but that's it.
I bought a 64 GB RAM not because for gaming but my hobby for not closing Google Chrome tabs in which I have 100 tabs open.
Edit: for the people who makes fun of my old comment, at the time google used to load all your tabs even when they are not open, a recent update fixed this but its just a workaround, google wont load them if you dont click the tab but of course if you click all your tabs your RAM usage will be the same like before, but luckily I dont open all of my tabs, they are just there, yes bookmarking is a thing but I like it better this way and also easier to navigate.
I bought a gaming PC that came with 32 and then added another 32 because for just another $80, why not fill the empty slots and guarantee you won't have any ram congestion no matter what you try to use the computer for
With that pfp I wonder if all those tabs are full of henta! 🤡
@@dwaynethequandaledinglejoh5327why not?
@@dwaynethequandaledinglejoh5327 prolly used for that because i cant see why anybody would leave so many tabs open, i might be used to having a bad pc and leaving no more than 6 tabs open even with a decent pc.
Money left the chat
Remember, RAM that includes RGB and racing stripes will give you at least another 8~10 fps in Forza
Gamers when they don't have RGB in their life:😭😭😭
@@jkeek in nfs heat 32 fps
*horizon
I hate RGB, it's drawing power and heating in microwatt for nothing. It's like Christmas decoration they eat power of all BTC network for one year.
And if you paint it red, it’ll go 3 times faster.
The nice thing about 32gb paired with a 12 core processor is that you can have tons of stuff open in the background with little to no performance impact.
3900X here! 32GB RAM 3200MHz I know that feeling.
Funk master flex over here, but imagine using intel
@@keith23ukfor real bro stop flexing nobody cares and nobody asked
@@noname-qy9uvhe aint even flexing lol you lot just salty af
Went from a R5 3600 16 gig system to a 7900x 64 gig system and yes it is quite an experience. I know I went overkill but I really enjoyed PC gaming and it was justified imo.
(tip) RAM doesn't increase performance but increases the chance you won't experience stuttering or frame drops due to a lack of memory
Petah
it does increase performance in games that take up more than the amount you have, if you have 16gb but the game wants 18gb, it will either make your game very ugly (or broken shaders completely) or take fps away
so it increases performance 🤣
it does in some games.
You are wrong a good kit whit high mhz and low cas latency give you a boost in fps , right now a good 16gb kit outperform a cheap 32gb kit
We are lucky that the 64gb do not have just 1 frame more, then we had to buy more ram.
True but with the poorly optimised and demanding new games who knows 🤣🤣🤣
Too late. I have 64 GB RAM since 2019.
I think we all fall victim to marketing. Still, it's nice when windows is idle to have that ram at just 2% when you have 64 Gb as opposed to 10-12 at 32 Gb 🤣🤣🤣
I am going to upgrade to 128gb ram to get those extra 2 frames. /jkz
@@TeacherGamer1981 Me at 40%
32 is becoming the ideal choice now, cosidering background apps and stuff
But i think 16 not bad
@@omaralawne2172 last of us you cant load your saved games with 16 gb
i have 32 gb but i close every app before playing, same on phone, i have 8 gb and i close apps after using them
Да нужно но никакой прирост нету,Тупой всегда будет тупым 🤦♂️ 2х8=16 gb это лучши выбор
Yeah. Its hard to alt tab and doing browsing now without affect performance event make game crash ir hang in certain game . Iam using 16gb from 2012.
32gb is the sweet spot now for newer games. Seems most of the new one need about 20gb of RAM may as well get 32 if thats the case. Went from 16gb on my old to 32 on my new PC because I was going for a bit over what i needed. Glad i did too since it look like 16gb will be a tiny bit low going forward.
No, the issue isn’t we need more ram. It’s game companies have become lazy to optimise games due to the fact they know people have super computers nowadays and know that people will upgrade > hence why game companies often have sponsors with graphics cards companies.
8gb VRAM didnt become irrelevant, the developers just got lazy optimizing the games and instead just relies on DLSS/FSR
hey so how did he record all that, does he has 4 PC ?
or is the there any software that records your PC 3, 4 times multiple GPU maybe
or maybe he installed 8gb first record, and remove and put 16gb then do the same thing and move on to 32gb, 64gb ?
What do you think he did ?
@@officialyashvirgamingI think he did the last option. He just installed different ram and tested the game again.
I played the last of us part 2 on ps4 with 8gb ram without vram it running well no issues 😂
@@noname-vs6bvPlus very old CPU(stripped down) and GPU
I was really considering jumping to 32gb but i think i can wait, thank you so much for this. All though i would have like to see comparisions during more fast action sequences
only the last of us and hogwarts (in some setups) are having issues with 16gb
@@CAVALO-QUENTE Yes but add like two tabs in browser plus discord and steam in background and u are out of RAM, imo fact is that if u want to play on high settings or higher in full HD comfortably in 2023 u need to have above 16GB of RAM
@@CAVALO-QUENTE Those games have memory leak issue, only restarting the game can solve those without a proper patch from the devs.
@Rafael Lima 24Gb is the sweet spot confirmed.
@@LOOTLORD605 But remember, if you are not using dual channel & if your system doesn't support flex mode then you shouldn't use 24GB of ram & even if it supports Flex mode the stick that's on single channel will be slower but yea it'll get the job done 👍✅
The benefits of having more ram is that your games session won't crash after the ram runs out so can have longer game session. Have more program opened. Can set to no file system caching good for SSD. Running 64GB ram.
I went from 4G to 16G ram , definitely a noticeable improvement.
8gb to 16gb bye bye sudden stutter
Same, after upgrade to 16 GB, my laptop can do anything
bro, 4gb was the standard back in to 2009...
8gb(but only 5.94gb usable which is 6gb) to 32 gb now i can feel the power when i cannot get crashed anymore or ran out of memory on opera gx!
@@vugu5589 i got 64GB, finally Firefox runs smoothly. I'm looking for 128GB, to anticipate next Firefox update
Went to 64 Gb years ago. What people forget is that you can play games and have a crap load of things going on in the back ground with no degradation. Or have your UA-cam play list running at the same time while playing your game. Or do real video/streaming/graphic editing.
Yea you can play certain games at lower Ram, But if you do not have at least 32 GB or higher then you are missing out on getting all of the potential performance from your computer. And DDR4 prices are good now.
YT playing also takes CPU power...
@@ResumenExpress It actually take GPU power if your browser using hardware acceleration. Running Jedi survivor with 50% cpu and 99% gpu usage made my youtube heavy lagging.
I already do that with 16gb
You don't need 64gb for that
64GB RAM is useless even if what you are doing is opening thousands of tabs browser and playing games plus many apps in the background, I have 32GB and so far the most usage ram record I'm using is about 21/32GB while running two heavy games, emulator and many shit in the background.
Got to think about some wiggle room for mods and the like. Also having other apps running, a browser maybe, side apps, and the convenience of multi-tasking.
You a right
Save x2 off price by buying 16GB and just close browser before game, no?
@Серега Капюшон that's exactly what I was thinking. I never have chrome just running in the background with tabs open.
@@user-fj8lx8cl5c no. if you are running the game through steam (1 app open) talking to friends through discord, (2 open which is huge cuz it sends data), now you are streaming or recording (3 open with MASSIVE data transfer) plus the game is open, (4 the game is massive obv.) and other normal background pc funtions (5 open) you can see how more ram makes your performance better while also increasing the longevity of your other hardware. Its a good investment. 32gbs min if you run steam, a game, and discord or TeamSpeak all at the same time.
@@user-fj8lx8cl5c also people run more than 1 monitor so alot of programs aren't closed down and running in the background they are just on a separate screen soaking up memory
Memory is sometimes not as simple as a FPS counter.
When I have a browser and other things open to deliberately starve games, the average FPS are not effected directly.
I more see animation freezes or hitches in games and sometimes the textures are not loaded in correctly, because it is running out of space to work with.
A figure or person in a game can load in without textures and looking like something from low settings in original World of Warcraft, before it gets the correct shadows and textures 1 sec later.
Yep 32GB is like a must have despite what all benchmarks tell you...
To be honest I will avoid way easy a not upgrade ram pc with "just" 16gb of ram memory (total system memory than a modern console uses, 16 for ram and vram together). Than some Nvidia GPUs that have 8gb of VRAM (again a console with less powerful core could address 10gb to the GPU and let the CPU with 6gb if they need to).
It's clearly a problem when you Google Deathloop VRAM problems and you notice than running the game at 2k, let 4k alone, the game force you lower the texture quality or enable dlss cause the GPU haven't got enough memory to run it.
I couldn't understand why people avoid 16gb for gaming but are happy to pay overpriced 8gb GPUs.
você está correto!
Yes I wish videos would show this and going back and forth between open applications and gaming seeing the difference in stutter for each amount of RAM
I would like to point out that people running a Ryzen CPU may really want to consider upgrading amount of ram. GamersNexus did a video over a year ago about 2 vs 4 sticks of ram. His test were all 8GB sticks. So 16gb (2X8) vs 32gb (4X8). All using optimal CL 14 timing. 4 sticks boosted performance in all games. Anywhere from a low 1% boost to upto a 10% boost. Just by running 4 sticks instead of 2. It's not that any of the games even used 16GB of ram. It is simply that it benefited from using all 4 slots. He also verified his findings with a level 1 tech from AMD.
If you have the budget and plan on keeping your AM4 socket for a long time. You may want to grab more ram before DDR4 goes up in price because they'll stop making DDR4.
32GB is future proofing and also so cheap right now, you can get away with 16GB for now but games are starting to use more and more ram and 32GB is starting to slowly become the recommended. You can also just do more with 32GB in terms of background applications while gaming so it's an advantage of 16GB.
If you run out of vram and the game uses 15.1GB of your 16GB RAM then you will have problems. If you dont have enough vram it loads onto system ram and the 32GB is ideal if you want to use that.
@@BladeCrew thats why im upgrading to 64gb, Im running out of my 16gb and only have 6gb vram
@@crazietech198464gb probably isn’t necessary for your use case. 32gb will be plenty for years to come.
@@ajuiceboxxx thanks your right im going to stick to 16gb or upgrade to 32gb. 64gb is pointless for me personally
I've had 32GB since 2012, only the past few years have I been borderline. Though I've only ran out of ram twice from memory leaks. 20-25GB is pretty common for gaming now.
I think, 16 GB is already on the edge. When games massively starts to jump on Unreal Engine 5 from UE4 - 16 GB will be a minimum with turned off background apps.
I believe that 16GB is still a good choice for games. 32GB will be for 3d modelling & video editing.
@@mykhailo_sorokin Sons of the Forest - 16 GB, Horwarts Legasy - 18 GB, Fortnite (UE5) - 22.5 GB, Dead Space 15.5 GB, Forspoken - 15GB, Cyberpunk 2077 - 14GB.
+Discord, +Steam (EGS, Origin, etc.), +Other software
16GB minimum. I use UE5 daily for work and have had to upgrade to 64GB as 48GB was getting completely used up just rendering a 1080p video. I tried a 4090 paired with 16GB and couldn't even render, the bottleneck of that little RAM was causing UE5 to crash. Although presumably games will be better optimized.
@@Monoville I believe that any work tasks such as rendering and video editing have always been more demanding on hardware and memory)
@@mykhailo_sorokin good point..and when 64gb is needed it will be dirt cheap
This benchmark is good, latency and speed aren't an issue due to all kits being equal, but I'm worried this is a synthetic benchmark with a fresh windows install so it doesn't have as much stuff happening in the back as a more fleshed and used session would normally. I know for a fact my windows has over 5gb in use just after finishing booting and about 7.2gb when I open Brave with over 100+ tabs open which is not a general case but its almost in the middle.
Of course, you have to remind yourself that any program or software you could run in the background or on another monitor would take some RAM, so 16 GB would be much more comfortable than 8 GB if you play at the same time.
I myself switched to Linux partially because Linux takes a lot less RAM compare to Windows and I usually didn't have enough RAM on Windows to run a game plus Firefox alone (I have 8 GB).
But still, even if we're talking about Windows, that's really weird you have 5 GB used just after booting: unless you have hundreds of programs installed on your PC and you have a dozen which need (or you need them) to start as soon as Windows start, it's not normal to have as much RAM taken like that. When I was still on Windows, I had 3.2 to 3.5 GB or about 40 % to 45 % of the total and I had with almost no program launching at boot (except of course everything which was linked to Windows).
And on my current system, I use 3 GB by having Steam, Discord and Firefox open with a few tabs loaded (and some minor programs which use few tens of MB, pretty much negligible), knowing that Linux takes about 1 GB of it.
Now for the 7.2 GB usage with Brave open, it's pretty much normal: when you have 100 tabs in your bar, your PC don't actually load the 100 tabs, otherwise your RAM would just die, it would take 20 to 25 GB of RAM. Instead, it loads only the tabs you open,clicked on. However, your pretty heavy RAM usage comes from your browser itself, Brave, which is based on Chromium, the open source version of Chrome, which is known to be pretty heavy on RAM usage.
So what I would advise you to do is to check the programs you have open in your program manager, prevent for the ones that do and you don't want to from starting up as soon as Windows boots and eventually manage your usage of your tabs in your browser, or simply changing of browser, one that isn't chromium-based preferably.
There are good sites which list really lightweight browsers that use two third or even a half of what Chrome or Brave would use.
Brave is really excellent for privacy and avoiding fingerprinting but concerning RAM usage, it's pretty bad, as most (but not all) chromium-based browsers, especially when you open tabs.
So.. 64GB to be safe 😉
This is not a synthetic benchmark lol.
Cinebench, 3D Mark, and UNIGINE Superposition are synthetic benchmarks.
@@GoldSrc_ You are correct, I was under the understanding that "synthetic benchmarks" meant it was on a clean windows installation with no overhead to account for an everyday use system but I was mistaken. Thanks for clarifying.
I don't know about this benchmark, the 1% and MIN fps in some games on 32gb is lower, then on 16gb system, which is odd. It means something wrong with these particular tests of 32gb kit, or the kit itself, which means that these results are not fully valid.
There definitely seems to be an issue with the 32gb kit, the 1% lows are taking a huge hit, either something with timing or perhaps the way the memory is being allocated by that particular system. I have seen issues like these with RAM on ASUS motherboards that tend to do some funny things with memory timing, in some cases like my previous ASUS motherboard I was never able to get the memory kit that I had stable, it was a 32gb kit of GSKILL platinum but it worked fine in two other systems that I had. I ended up getting an Asrock motherboard and never experienced that issue again. Either way the strange 1% lows are just confusing in this scenario for the 32gb kit
thought so too, 32gb kits shouldnt have much advantage, but no way they wouldve have had lower 1%. That is terrifying to hear about the Asus mobos tho
agreed . ihad a hell of time getting my 16gb x2 kit to 3800mhz 14 14 14 28 cr1 on my X570 Asus Hero stable. I took weeks of adjusting sub timings. ram is Trident Royal z and cpu is 5900x that does 1900mhz Fclk...
I don't know about Zen 3 and newer like is being used for this test, but I know on the older Ryzen chips, you would take a performance hit if the memory clock wasn't matched with the SOC clock and it mostly manifested itself in the 1% and .1% lows.
@@marcuscook5145 yes they need to be in sync to avoid latency penalty
i will never ever buy a asus mobo again my 3200 ram kit worked fine in other pc but whenever i put it in asus mobo it didnt start i had to put it in 2666 to start the pc wtf man,other pc i tested again but no problem
When it comes to using more than 16GB of ram its not about the fps its more the smoothness at that point less stutters and hitching happen when you use 32gb to 64gb of ram its a smoothness you have to experience for yourself in order to understand.
Also if you run out of vram it goes into system ram so the 16GB wont cut it
After a bit of testing 48gb seems to be a sweet spot for my Setup. Two 16gb and two 8gb.
I have 32GB RAM and was about to upgrade up to one more 16GB so my target is 48GB, or do I have to pair with two 8GB? is it considered an upgrade or downgrade?
Had 32 and my ram was on sale so I upgraded to 64. I stream on a regular basis and have noticed the 64 helps while streaming. Other than that it's just nice to look at 😅
Unless your are using more than 40GB of ram while streaming, you will not notice a difference between 32 and 64GB of ram.
@@GoldSrc_i want you to read your comment real fast lmao
@@johnzermeno3106no seriously what crack this dude be smoking when writing this
@djsazm3580 what is better, 2x32 or 4x16 ? I can't find information in this question
More RAM is only good for loading times. I noticed a huge difference in Total War Warhammer 3 after upgrading to 32Gb. During gameplay its usage is marginal. I got 32 just to be on the medium-high wagon. 16Gb is what you need. 32 is future-proofing. 64 is overkill - if a game reaches 64Gb DDR5 usage, we'll probably be at 16-32Gb DDR7 times. Or Quantum PCs with crystal-alloy RAM 😆
If you have a SSD this won't matter.
32 isn't future proofing, it's just a normal amount for a new PC, not even an expensive PC
32GB is an ideal option for the next few years, because new games will ask for more and more memory, and with 32GB it is easy to switch to other tasks. Many of my games consume more than 16GB. 16gb is the minimum for a comfortable game, 8GB is a low budget
And, ideally, you should go for 4 ranks total (2 double ranked RAM sticks or 4 single ranked)
8gb if you want games to stutter every 5 seconds lol
I have been using 24gb RAM for a few years. Honestly 16gb is plenty unless you play unoptimized ports like TLOU and Hogwarts legacy
I would say 32Gb is a good number to shoot for. There are games out there that will utilize 15gb by themselves because they are poorly optimized and have memory leaks.
Star Citizen? Any game optimized for consoles that have 16gb of total memory RAM and VRAM together that's like 6 for the CPU and 10 GPU. 32gb on the CPU exclusively for gaming, of course there's another tasks that demands more, it's a waste of money and slow memory speed if sticks are using same controller and memory chips, they have to handle double the memory. So yeah 32gb for gaming only maybe for some really bad optimized Alpha could make a difference but even with obs and chrome you know your not gonna need more than 20. The game load assets as much as the ram could handle it, but realistically how many Games will benefit from staking all the game files in ram instead of load and unload them?
As I said probably just random Work in progress game, that the devs working on it didn't have the intention of doing a game with this demands, but at the current state can get some benefits from it.
@@rubenmartin7759 Console versions of games have always been optimized better. Had the console players had to deal with the garbage we PC players do half the games wouldn't even run
@@gokublack8342 I don't have problems with games and my first self buy computer was a i7 4790 gtx770 back in the day the consoles are so bad that they couldn't run antialiasing, comparing the games was embarrassing, also the games with bugs or bad optimized will run bad on a console as well did you remember Payday2?
Did you think they code the full game again for consoles, by the way the consoles of today have a great AMD Apu is not the ps4 days anymore with that awful CPU and GPU that slow down game evolution for years, with the realisms trend plus the bad hardware. Assassin's creed developers come to say that they have to redesign the game cause they doesn't anticipated such a bad CPU, it's not my personal opinion.
But I mean did you use your computer just for pirate? Cause you can't say a game runs bad when the "developer" making the crack doesn't do it for free and probably the virus is what makes your pc running poorly, a lot of crypto miners while playing pirate games.
I see more troubles with 8gb GPUs, for example Deathloop crash cause there's not enough VRAM when playing in 2k with the rtx3070, you can Google Deathloop VRAM problems, let alone 4k resolution. The solution is running dlss or turn the textures down. 👉👈 Yeahhhh 4k GPUs!!!! Then the ps5 with 8k in the box hahahahaha yeah for the menu wallpapers.
People are ok buying 8gb vram GPU (same memory as a 1070ti) cause Nvidia won't sell you any better not cause they're ok with it, but then "need" 32gb of ram for gaming purposes. I really don't understand.
@@rubenmartin7759 It is true most of these goofballs complaining have bad combos. Many of the ones struggling in Starfield for instance have a good GPU but a severely underspec CPU and are heavily bottlenecked but I've seen Starfield playing at 30fps and the console version and with both versions at 30 fps the console looks like a better experience. I think console versions of games get more effort put into it for sure I mean ask Nvidia users they had to mod the game to even get their DLSS and the game still runs worse on their graphics cards then on AMD.
It wasn't as noticeable back then because Consoles were so shit in comparison but the PS5 and Xbox Series are actually decent. And sure you gave an example of a game running better on PC but I'll give you one of a game(several ig) running better on console....the Batman Arkham Games. Arkham City I understand is notoriously badly optimized on PC and in fact many of the Steam Reviews literally tell you to go play the console versions. Another example of a game playing better on console than PC Doom 3 for the Xbox (though that is kind of a special example theres an interesting documentary about that game) the Devs actually explain how they specifically optimized the game more to run on the Xbox.
I guess playing "better" isn't the right term it was better optimized and less demanding than the PC version. Look at alot of those games from back then Splinter Cell PC they literally cut levels into halves so the consoles would have an easier time running it. Like I said had you console users had to play the same version of the games were given half the games wouldn't run (if your 4k was real 4k those consoles would beg for mercy) Edit: Oh yes 1 more example Halo: Combat Evolved that game was 100% better optimized for the Xbox than the PC version. I remember PC version of Combat Evolved was demanding at the time. So yes I think the devs do have to make an altered version of the game for consoles I seriously doubt your consoles would be able to run the PC version of Starfield or Remnant 2 but these devs realize that most gamers are pitiful console peasants and that their game would be a flop if the main demographic couldnt play it
@gokublack8342 but I just said a bad game runs with bug regardless of the platform cause the trouble is in the code, the game I choose runs bad in consoles and PC. Don't want to make the exercise of trashing games because by the level you have I think both know there's games not even optimized for controller and for keyboard and mouse, let alone if they work or not😢 mostly shooters design for consoles or strategic games design for pc running on the other platform, there's some awful examples of games don't even take care of the controllers properly. In my opinion big corps do the job as capitalism dictates, cheap production big price.
Most of the optimization work been done in games for consoles is like particles at 65%, frame cap in some animations, low texture in specific objects, less fidelity on 3d objects... You can't match the same settings on PC cause from 50% particle you jump into 75%. It's not like they add a patch where the cpu use better the ram like the 2.0 patch exclusive for specific brand, doesn't matter if it's Sony, Microsoft, AMD, Intel, Nvidia.... That's like a paid promotion I don't think it's a big deal even with the super sampling tech, not cause it doesn't make a difference but cause you never know when you buy how the technology will evolve, dlss is better but you know not so many games, the first to generations on rtx the 20 and 30 struggle a lot to play raytracing but now they been out of dlss 3.0 as well. On the other hand AMD isn't as good, but runs on Nvidia gpus and developers are forced to use it cause consoles are unable to run dlss cause the lag of RT cores. So the future is unpredictable, looking back the early adopters of raytracing that never have the chance to use it and now they also been removed from dlss.
So your right usually trending games are better optimized for consoles, even though most simulation, construction, realistic fps not the Rambo simulator, strategic... Tech demos like crysis or control, but that's irrelevant. The number is high on console games. That's a fact.
But my point was that the optimization of the consoles isn't as great as double the amount of total system memory just for the cpu, Windows is Windows but come on. To play on the same settings that the console is running you don't need 40gb of total system memory in a Nvidia pc 32+8 or 46 on AMD gpu pc 32+16. According to Steam less than 2% of the players have the gpu and the display to run the at native resolution the games, cause if you use dlss or fsr the ram you need is for render the game at 1080p. So jumping from 16gb in a console to 40gb or 46gb in a PC and excuse the optimization is so unrealistic. That's my point as the maximum compute power a game is designed for is the console... 👉👈... teraflops🤣 spending money in 32gb if you're gpu is unable to run native at 2k, like the 3070 in Deathloop, I mean it's not a cheap card and it's not like Crysis level game, most people adding 32 have lower ones,. Why you need 32gb if you forced to render the games at 1080 regardless of your display resolution. I'm sorry but I still think you could spend better the money on game pass, a great headset from a sound company, or invest more money on a great chair from a chair company like Recaro. I mean if they want 16gb to sit down on their computer without working is their choice, but then don't come to tell me why the computer it's so expensive, stop buying rgb mouse mads, rgb headset stands, more rgb ram than you ever gona use.... I mean it's the cheapest way to add price to a Bluetooth speaker in aliexpress: add 0.05 leds and sell for 1€ more with lower battery life. People are dumb and whe can't fix it.
I get that it’s not that big of a difference but what makes my balls itch is the fact that not even a year ago every single UA-camr was saying “16gb of ram will last you until the next gen consoles don’t bother upgrading” and now, whether it’s because game companies can’t optimize for shit or don’t give a shit, 16gb is now “minimum”
I have 32GB of RAM. And it seems to be what is needed in todays world for gaming. I was going to buy 16GB back in 2019 but glad I chose 32GB to future proof it a bit.
I choose 32gb 3600mhz because it only costed me 50 euro + i have a 12 core cpu so i can run my local minecraft server for my daughter without any problems. However for just gaming i see some improvements (not sudden fps drops because running out of ram)
I using 32gb 3600 mhz too since 2years. Very good on games and apps. But i pair with recent Ryzen 7 5700X before that is pair with Ryzen 5 3600
@@KenzoAkabaneHi, what motherboard do you use?
What motherboard do you use?
So basically yes, more ram leads to slightly or noticeable increase in performance to a certain point with diminishing returns.
however, its biggest impact would be in the involving of mods, emulation and gaming service/applications running in the background.
CPU and VRAM, with newer games a NVME can also bear little to none difference, but RAM is always the bottom of the bottleneck scale.
Ram amount is.
But Ram speed is really important for cpu bottlenecks
Also it does matter what you are swapping to.
Try swapping to a HDD 😂
CPU RAM speed becomes less relevant at higher resolutions as the GPU/Vram becomes more relevant.
Good lad thanks for the video
Your welcome
After using 16gb of ram for 3 years and switching to 32gb very recently. I can advocate for any average-hardcore gamer to absolutely think about 32gb. With today’s games being so demanding(and 16gb actually being recommended now), 32gb went from “being overkill” to the sweet spot
No, you aren’t going to be reaching 95% usage with 32 as of right now. But bottlenecking and slow down is something you won’t have to worry about anymore. No performance drops, no lag, nothing bad at all.
Take into consideration how much process power things like edge, google, and steam(mostly steam Jesus) take up mixed with the games you are playing. 32gb is definitely the way to go
Indeed. I work and play at the same time so with microsoft apps, chrome with so many many tabs the games 16GB is so not enough anymore...
У меня ddr4 32gb, но у меня слабая видеокарта 970 gtx 4 gb 256 bit, и по моим наблюдениям , она тоже ест оперативную память при нехватке собственной. Все же, я не пожелел, что купил сразу 32, я перестал беспокоится о включённых приложениях фоновом режиме.
Thanks, this helped make a choice between 32 and 64. I'll go with 32.
16 GB is enough for almost any game, but if you have a web browser with several tabs open while running a video game the user experience is not going to be optimal. The 16 GB will be exceeded. When you switch tasks leaving the game in the background and then return to the game the system will paginate. It can get even worse if you stream while playing the game. So even if the game does not lose performance with 16 GB the PC experience is better when you have more than 16 GB of RAM.
after 2025 you are going to see effective frame drops between 16 and 32 gigabytes of ram
16gb still good for most games except the harry potter game, but i'd take 32gb for future proofing my pc
harry potter game eats around 20fps with denuvo XD
My condolences for your wallet.
SINGLE OR DUO?
yeaa I'm so sick of the dips, I'm upgrading from 16 to 32, fuck this
Also last of us
Had some guy on Reddit tell me 8gb of ram can barely run chrome in 2023. Glad to see the difference between 8gb of ram and 64gb of ram is like maybe 5-10% on average. Hilarious.
Lmao not true at all cause I'm a 8gb single user I can tell
he probably had a hard drive too
@@biancasda4772 probably hard drive makes things too slow fr
@@johnnycool9577 Do you mean you use 8GB of ram in single channel?
Am still using DDR3 8gb memory(2x4gb) and it struggles now. Barely runs Chrome and youtube but not much else. Trying to play a dvd in vlc player causes my system to lock up and eventually shuts down. I guess that is the CPU thermal throttling?
Overall I find looking at pure FPS meters aint the way to go when it comes to ram true enough its quite clear that we don't really need more than 16gb for gaming at least not right now but what tests like this rarely does is having like Spotify running in the background and have a couple of pages up in your browser maybe a youtube video running on the side which is quite common for me.
Another thing I consider is that here in Sweden at least the difference between 16gb and 32gb with same brand and speeds can have a pretty small difference in price basiclly if I were to build the build I'm currently looking at today I would get the extra 16gb of ram for less than 1/3rd of the price of the first 16gb. And the cost of my total build would go up with roughly 1%. That 1% isnt something I can put somewhere else to get a more powerful build. If you spend 2000 bucks on a computer it doesnt feel all that bad to go to 2020 and get double the ram heck can even see it as a cheap insurance in case we start seeing games that really see an noticeable improvment with 32gb.
Because upgrading to 32gb won't be cheaper than getting the 32gb from the start, if you decide to upgrade later from 16gb to 32gb you will have to buy another 16gb for full price instead of getting it for pretty much 33% of the price.
But its good people are making these videos to show people what to expect from the amount in games etc.
Thank you very much for this comparison. I thought it was very helpful.
So like the last gen, consoles having limited ram pools has meant 16GB is still fine for PC gaming. I am assuming the extra performance on the few games where its anything more than 1 or 2% is down to either developers taking advantage of the extra ram if available or that the ram is making up for development shortcomings. All my PCs run 32GB+ apart from the the Steamdeck and Legion Go, but it seems for just gaming, 16GB is fine. 32GB seems to be the entry level on DDR5 as I have not seen a 16GB kit short of going a single stick, so it seems PC RAM even 8GB, will do the trick for the forseable future, especially with the rise in popularity of PC handhelds and them being targeted baselines by many developers.
facts ^^^, i
As long as the mobo has 4 ram slots, going for 8x2 (16gb) is good. If necessary, we can upgrade later to 32 GB. It's more than enough for most activity.
Dual channel is proven to be better than quad channel
@@dirt_xo is it much better tho? I just got a new PC with 16GB but i'm not feeling like it's enough, going to buy two extra 8GB sticks
@@NameMyCat not much better, that extra 30 bucks is probably spent better elsewhere but yeah I did get a bit of performance increase in some video games. Also 16 will eventually become obsolete
@@NameMyCat dual channel is better, I'd recommend just sticking with 16gb if it's fast enough
@@dirt_xo I think my mb runs only on dual channel even if I use all 4 slots
I still have 16GB and I haven't seen any game that reaches that number, not even the broken port of TLOU that reached 12 GB at most. And regarding the vram 8GB is perfect for 1080P there hasn't been an important graphic jump that justifies more memory for 1080P we mustn't let the developers laugh in our faces.
TLOU only uses high ram for me on immediate startup and then averages to 12-14 for the rest of the time. 1440p ultra.
Rust... uses more than 16gb
Surprised nobody has said this but the ,win benefit is the difference in 1% lows and max fps. Sometimes it is almost double, meaning less frame drops
Simple, clear and informative. - Excellent video and thank you
I jumped from 8GB on an RTX 3050 (way too little) to 32GB on an RTX 3050 (just right for me) and I have never been happier. I can even play Spider Man a game I couldn’t even get to work even a little working at nearly the top tier quality. The only thing to do now for me, is to test the Resident Evil 4 REmake demo.
I have 64 GB RAM and I don't regret it. RAM is cheap nowadays and I multitask like hell. Why not? *shrugs*
Looks like diablo 4 wont even allow high res textures unless you have more than 16 GB ram.
The thing with RAM is that you only see dips in performance when you run out. Hogwarts Legacy for example is the most System Memory intrusive game at 22GB, so 32GB should be fine, right? Well if you have background tasks open its going to fill all of that up. That is why we are seeing a huge rise in 64GB and 96GB builds, where it can maximize the memory on two slots so that the memory speed can be as high and latency can be as low as it can while giving as much storage as possible.
While 96GB is honestly too much, 64GB is great for if you want to game, but you also want heavy background tasks to run too. I personally am on 16GB, but I am planning to go to 64GB. DDR4-3200 in specific.
Hey Guys, let's consider that in case you are running discord, browsers, recording screen or other tasks in your computer they all will be consuming some RAM. Which makes less available RAM for the game running.
The task is definitely legit but I don't believe its taking in consideration those aspects.
Having 8gb of RAM will definitely run those games as showed above but in case you want to have multiple things open at once on your PC It WILL NOT be enough at all. I strongly believe that 8GB for gaming now a days is the worst option, 16gb should be minimum requirement and 32gb just in case you really need It.
I have 16gb and have only reached 13gb of usage when having discord, browsers and game running ;)
32 is useless
@@MLD95992modern games already require 32 GB of RAM (Hogwarts Legacy says hello). 32 GB is the minimum for AAA today. 64 GB for work only.
@@qwertyuseradmin In fact it doesnt affect performances : ua-cam.com/video/ZEppw0jCrhE/v-deo.html
In 2024 maybe 64gb is overkill and unnecessary.
But... if you buy a PC in 2024, how likely is it that you will buy a new PC in 2025, 2026...?
I just replaced my i7 4770k 4gb ddr3 1600 R9 285 computer, after 13 glorious years, with a new one. I bought it for the next 12 years. 64 gigabytes ddr5 6000 is going to barely scrap it 12 years from now.
Do not buy a PC based on your needs now. It's way too expensive. Buy it with plenty of extra power you don't need, so in a few years you'll still be in the sweet spot. It doesn't cost that much more to get 64 vs 32 gigs.
The main reason for switching to 32 would only be a good deal from an editor's perspective. If you got photoshop, after effects(decent 4k rendering) and a couple of games running, you know 32GB is needed.
For programmig and multitasking too, in my case with some projects in Visual Studio + SQL + Spotify + Browser, I use like 12-16GB Ram without gaming, now sum a game and it would use like 28GB.
With DDR5 the smallest ram memory is 16gb a stick. If you want dual channel your minimum option is 32gb.
@@cheekigod5631 As if games now use 12 to 16 Go haha It's not even half of that, the only exception I know being Star Citizen but honestly, good luck compiling or running a 3d simulation next to that game, I think your CPU being too weak would the first thing to slow you down. When games specify “12 GB recommended”, they consider you run on Windows which already takes 3 GB (on 8 GB of RAM free) at the very least and consider there are other basic programs running next to it.
I initially purchased 2x16GB (32GB) DDR5 4800/6000 RAM for my new 1440p build & then ordered the same thing again a few days later to make 64GB total - simply because two empty memory slots on my motherboard triggered some latent OCD in me & looked "off". 🤣 Not like it costs that much extra anyway. If it helps some at certain things then great.
2024 is upon us here is something to think about, Diablo 4 needs atleast 32gbs of ramm to run at ultra settings. Ramm prices are fixing to sky rocket soon so if your thinking about getting ramm at a decent price you better get it now. :) 32 is good but i had some cash to splurge on 64 for my am5 upgrades.
More RAM only starts to matter if you’re a heavy multitasker who does a bunch of heavy photo editing/video rendering and other productivity stuff.
2017 i bought 4x16gb for 200€.
On jacob there was the kit with an packing malfunction. The price was only a half. I think it was one of the best prices i'll got.
Corsair Venegance 3200 CL16 @ 3733
I use it since this time.
I remember my friend in 2014 or maybe 2015 bought a GTX 980 and a 4790K and went with 64GB of ram I think that was 1600Mhz lol. Spent like $200-$300 on ram. Like it was future proofing in reality 1600Mhz sucks now.
I want to buy ddr 4 32gb ram, what should I buy? 2666 mhz, 3000 mhz 3200 mhz or 3600 mhz?
@@onlyromanian4002 3600
you're doing gods work posting this. thank you
Although 16 is the sweet spot. 32 is alwaays better for the newest games. Furthermore, 64 a bit too much.
A bit?? Even 32 is a lot 24 is perfect
@@crazygamingyt7245 he's talking about ram, not vram
@@valentds vram is more important, if u have 1gb vram and 64gb ram ur not gonna get good fps it will crash and if h have 24gb vram and 1gb ram u can run some games
I need the same test on low-end processors to compare cpu usage in games please, I really appreciate it in advance if you could make that effort, I want to improve performance without spending a lot of money and I need to get rid of that doubt if I can reduce processor bottleneck using more ram
The Last of Us Part 1 is the first sight. People with 16gb really should start upgrading to 32gb before they release more demanding games. Or if you are rich,just get 64gb 4x16, ain't no games gonna bother you lol.
I have a question with the way you test.
1. Were you using 1 stick or do you use 2?
2. Were you using stock or you're using top of the line RAM brands?
3. Did you test the games on stock or did you test on top of the line brands?
4. Did you test the games on stock performance or did you test the games on overclocked ram?
i bought 128GB DDR4 not because i needed it but i was looking to max out my mobo, but damn when you have fine transfers that have used up to 50GB of memory it was well worth it!
Nice to see 16gb is still enough.
I will not upgrade to 32gb
We have just touched the ERA of 16GB. But only a few games use 16GB, not worth to go all in yet. Wait till 16GB become the norm, until then get bang for buck IMO.
thx for the content. I would have appriciated to see the 1% & .1% lows, as memory shortage, even if only for a handful of frames, can lead to a less smooth experience.
The video displays 1 and 0.1 just look.
Truly if you are running more than 3 monitors 64 is kind of understandable. Running 2 monitors with chrome and a bunch of tabs, gaming and watching media at the same time, 32gb is more than enough. Testing 16gb vs 32gb with 2 monitor set up and the way I have tabs up there is a noticeable difference .
Dual Channel is more important than the amount of ram mind you 16gb should be the minimum you should aim for, it is enough to even multi task or have some videos open on your second monitor. Ram is fast enough to pick up where it left off and store whatever it doesn't need on your ssd and pick up again in a fraction of a second.
16gb isnt always sufficient when playing some games. So it "depends" on what games each gamers are playing. I found out that a mmo game i play, needs more ram than 16 gb ram. One way to figure it out is to configure in windows to not allow SSD to be used as SWAP memory. Whenever i run the game for 10 minutes then the game crashes. This is mainly because i didnt allow SSD to be used as swap. When I re-enable SWAP again, i can play my game normally. I would say 32gb ram is more a "safe" recommendations if some games are very memory hungry.
@@johnmase924 What bootleg MMO are you playing that can't run in 16GB of RAM?
@@johnmase924 Well this video shows that with 16gb ram 15% is redundant in most games then with 32gb 75% is redundant for just a 1/2% increase in FPS. There for its not worth spending the extra money just yet.
i see, i still want to consider the upgrade, currently at 16 gb, and planning to go for the 32 gigs, but considering the performance increase, and plus my RAM usage only touching 12 GB of usage when i play some demanding games, giving the conclusion that i will wait till the time is right , or when i starting to put some professional work load (heavy Video editing, 3D Rendering) , the only current work stuff i did was only programming stuff, basic website and mobile where 16 gigs is pretty decent
I'm getting 96GB in my upcoming build because I usually have a shit ton of apps, folders, tabs open while playing a game. Like a hoarders can't throw away shit...I can't close shit.
32 will probably be the number for quite a while, several years. 16 can pretty much handle anything as long as you are playing a single game and nothing much else is running.
As 32g owner,its really not about the fps,its about when u in the middle of gaming,then somebody send u some messages/u want to search something ,16g will crash ur game the minute u open chrome.
8x2 GB RAM in Dual Channel Mode is the best, Or any other Dual Channel Config with Higher Ram, Quad Channel doesn't even make that much of a difference, it isn't allot better than Dual Channel, But Single Channel sucks.
32 GB is safe spot for now. I went from 16 GB because even AC Valhalla and a fresh install of WIn 10 was using up 12 - 14 GB of ram. Heck, windows alone just doing nothing is over 7gb.
I've got 128 Gb of DDR4 3200 Rgb ram. It only cost me 180.00 bucks. Run it with my R9 5950X.
Nice, new setup this Black friday incoming. Picked 32gb
same fps for 16 and 32 gigabytes, but when switching tabs the 32 gigabytes of ram will feel A LOT smoother than the 16
I'll take 64gb ram because you can never have too much ram unless you use more than your cpu and motherboard support
I think to all domestic consumers fall victim to marketing and advertorials but I guess it's nice when Windows stays ar around 2% RAM when idle at 64 Gb as opposed to 32 qdn I also guess for those streaming while gaming or doing some other stuff on the Pc it's important
By the way people if you are still on the AM4 platform 8GB sticks of RAM in a pair 16GB. Are not that expensive brand new now for 3200MHz.Just check you have the best stable bios for your board and it will/should boot even if it takes a little time to RAM train on older boards.
Someone somewhere: "So 16gb is the sweet spot....guess I'll go for 64gb"
At 1440P in COD Battle Royal mode with all the settings turned up to max on DLSS / Ray Tracing / extra shader package, it’s a different story. Hell I’m using 19 gigabytes of VRAM. I’m using 64 gigs of Memory RAM but really only need 32.
I game without a bunch of cluttering programs running in the background. 32 GB for me has been more than enough with my i7-9700K rig and my next rig will also get 32 GB.
The funniest thing about having 32g of RAM is I still have an 8 gig mindset, out of habit I close everything in the background and exit my browser before launching a game lol. I have to remind myself I don't need to close tabs and can leave that podcast on when I'm playing Street Fighter.
I do the same and I have 64gb 😅
i went to 32gb ram when i upgraded to the 5900x to max my am4 build. plenty for future gaming and enough if i went back to CAD/3d modeling. next build will start at 32gb, but if ram is on sale 64gb OTT
Now is the time because crucial pro ram is like 50% off
Gracias por el video, aclara muchas dudas.
and here i am with 64GB (2x32) thinking of going up to 128GB (i do a lot of editing and graphics)
Thanks so much for testing.
16 GB is the best value choice and if u want the best performance in any game then u can get 32gb for these 1 or 2 fps more in SOME games.
all a mixed bag pc building- a gpu with 16gb of v-ram probably not gonna sell the difference in sys ram size compared to a 8gb v-ram card. i've seen vids show 8gb of 4000+mhz and 64gb of 2000mhz can even out performance (expensive fast but small vs cheaper slow but large). all about budget vs performance for me- 5700g then got 3060 as said to be good multi media card and was actually the cheapest card to amd to reaching 12gb of v-ram! i upgraded sys ram to 64gb (4x16) as i can use up to 20gb in web tabs alone! i'd expect to do that while playing games too so a shed loads of ram good just keep things off the cpu! Anyone using ddr4 should consider upgrading sooner than later if they intend to just add the same kit to their board as finding a match when the stuff not being made anymore might force you to just buy a separate larger kit! 5900x is tempting now the price dropped- would be nice to see how fast my web tabs pop up but all that junk is saved on a mech drive that screams 100% load for 10 minutes before everything is taken into the ram! (at which point the hdd drops to 0-24 % use and cpu from 16% to 2-10%) only an ssd will improve that....
1:07 Damn he opened that door a good 4 times
wow back in time 16gb ram was at top, now he get reduce -% performance what 32 and 64 don't have yo
Thanks for the tests
I also realized that ultra setting and high setting doesn't look different. But eats up on FPS.
if you want visually appealing gaming experience and still be able to play consistently above 120FPS on like a 144Hz or 165Hz gaming monitor like mine, 16GB DDR4 ram might NOT be enough, trust me. DDR4 RAM will be relevant for at least 5~6 more years and it's not really expensive to buy 2x16GB DDR4, so go for two RAM cards of 16GB each, that is, if you have a good graphics card and storage drive like NVMe M.2
So for right now... anything over 16 is overkill.
32gb ram is ideal; however, the choice between 16gb vs 32gb for Mac M2 isn't so easy as the additional 400 bucks aren't cheap for the potential performance boost that isn't too significant
You pay 400 bucks for 16 gigs of Ram?? I just ordered a 16gb stick of ddr4 ram for just 40 bucks..
i think ur confusing it with GPU lol
Try budget Systems,
- with weak CPU or GPU
- even HDD
-
Yep
Having more ram is great, you don't have to worry when multitasking
Need the same benchmark but with 4k Resolution please, pretty please😊
Thank you fpr the informative video.
Conclusion: 8 GB is too less for almost every game.
For windows, a bit Multimedia, Office, it's okay-ish with 8 GB but that's it.
16gb is good enough theres no need for more 32gb or64g unless you really want to make use of your money