No point trying to future proof.
When you need to upgrade, that extra ram will cost a fraction of what it does now. Getting it today won't give you any extra performance. You're just pissing money away.
You won't say the same when next year the games actually need more than 16GB of RAM and you'll have constant stuttering when you run out of RAM and the game starts using your SSD's backup memory.
32 is not that expensive, you can get good and fast 16GB (x2) sticks of DDR5 RAM for $100.
>No point trying to future proof. >When you need to upgrade, that extra ram will cost a fraction of what it does now.
moron take. Ram was at its cheapest a few months ago, its already going up again.
I Got 64 gb ddr5 for 100,-. And if you think 100,- is pissing away money, pc is not for you
Ps1: 4mb
PS2: 32 mb
PS3: 256 mb
PS4: 8gb
PS5: 16gb
technological progress has stopped. We should be at 256gb at the very minimum, but somehow you can get away with still having only 16gb. 16gb system ram, and at least 12 gb vram on your gpu. That's what you need.
Still, 256MB or 512MB, that's a massive jump to 8GB.
I mean, I do have some vague memory of some devs, either Epic or Crytek, saying consoles were RAMlets and the newgen needed at least 8GB or some shit
PS3 was a multicore machine on steroids. Having low memory didn't matter as much when you could run so many cores in parallel. That's why it was so hard to develop for because you had to write code to utilize all cores as equally as possible to get the most performance out of it. Sony had to send out teams of engineers to studios to make ports playable because developers were only just starting to make multithreaded games.
PS3 didn't use x86-64 (what your desktop uses) as the cpu ISA, PS4 does. PS3 also had performance problems often and it wasn't all due to bad dev optimization.
CPU architecture doesn't really determine how much memory a system needs, just how much memory the CPU can theoretically address. Those systems both used 64bit processors.
Also a fair number of desktops now run on ARM 64 chips, probably a lot more in the future as Microsoft starts pushing it.
What you're missing is that the 16GBs consoles have is shared between the CPU and GPU. The ratio changes depending on the game, but I doubt you'll ever have more than 12 allocated to either.
You need a minimum of 128gb to even come close to remotely being able to even think about potentially being able to running modern AAA titles on low grafix settings
Pretty soon they are going to use web browsers to map textures onto every single model at this rate so we are going to all need to get gpus that have 128gb of vram minimum and at least 2 terabytes of system ram.
You still don't need more than 16. If a game needs more than 16 to run well in this day and age, something's wrong with it. No game so far has complex enough systems or graphics to justify it.
Yes. And so far I have not run into a game needing more than 16 to run well. The only one was Jedi Survivor but that was a launch bug that got patched. If you've futureproofed your system by getting 32 or 64 then good for you, but I still have yet to play a game that asks for that much RAM without it being some sort of memory leak or terrible coding.
8GB minimum for MacOS or GNU/Linux based systems.
64GB minimum for Windows 11, and ideally you'll want more.
Windows 12 will probably require another update.
I guess you're right, you probably are safer getting 128GB for Windows 11. Even if 12 really needs 256, better to be safe than sorry in the short term.
I just have 64GB in my system so I run a GNU/Linux based OS since I'm not at the minimum requirements for Windows these days. Its always been good for low-spec systems like mine.
8 minimum, preferably 16+ because the difference is noticeable and cheap as frick there's zero reason not to it'll just speed up the things you want to do on a computer in general. SSDs are fast but keeping things cached in ram is even faster.
It's pretty irrelevant these days 99.9% of the time the bottleneck isn't going to be ram but rather gpu or cpu related.
For me it's 32Gb, I don't like to close everything every time I want to play games or do music recording or drawing or video editing. I don't feel like I need more so far, so I'll stick to this sweet spot for a while.
This always seemed like the solution to me, if you're recording/streaming and have browsers open in the background then you'll need more RAM, but if you don't then 16 is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of games.
>if you don't then 16 is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of games.
Yeah, pretty much, it's nice to have more if you need it but it's great that it's not necessary for gaming. It comes down to personal preference since RAM is fairly cheap at the moment.
that poster's main objective of coming on here is to be as contrarian as absolutely possible. there's a few of him in this thread. they do it for attention
i have 32 and so far so good
The more demanding games are asking for a minimum of 16gb these days, so ideally you'd get 32gb to be set for quite a few years.
16gb
No point trying to future proof.
When you need to upgrade, that extra ram will cost a fraction of what it does now. Getting it today won't give you any extra performance. You're just pissing money away.
32 moron
You won't say the same when next year the games actually need more than 16GB of RAM and you'll have constant stuttering when you run out of RAM and the game starts using your SSD's backup memory.
32 is not that expensive, you can get good and fast 16GB (x2) sticks of DDR5 RAM for $100.
>No point trying to future proof.
>When you need to upgrade, that extra ram will cost a fraction of what it does now.
moron take. Ram was at its cheapest a few months ago, its already going up again.
I Got 64 gb ddr5 for 100,-. And if you think 100,- is pissing away money, pc is not for you
>,-
>,-
did you have a fricking aneurysm while typing your post?
I have 8gb, anything worth playing that needs more?
No.
RAM has been dirt cheap for like six years dude get on 32.
I have 8
depends what you're doing but i'm on 16gb and i've had zero issues
Ps1: 4mb
PS2: 32 mb
PS3: 256 mb
PS4: 8gb
PS5: 16gb
technological progress has stopped. We should be at 256gb at the very minimum, but somehow you can get away with still having only 16gb. 16gb system ram, and at least 12 gb vram on your gpu. That's what you need.
You can't compare console specs with PC, they don't work the same way no matter how PC-like they are these days.
>PS3: 256 mb
>PS4: 8gb
what the frick was this jump
what the frick happened here
to be fair the PS3 had separate pools for video memory and system memory, so it was really 256mb of system memory and 256mb of video memory.
Still, 256MB or 512MB, that's a massive jump to 8GB.
I mean, I do have some vague memory of some devs, either Epic or Crytek, saying consoles were RAMlets and the newgen needed at least 8GB or some shit
PS3 was a multicore machine on steroids. Having low memory didn't matter as much when you could run so many cores in parallel. That's why it was so hard to develop for because you had to write code to utilize all cores as equally as possible to get the most performance out of it. Sony had to send out teams of engineers to studios to make ports playable because developers were only just starting to make multithreaded games.
PS3 memory even for the time was low and bit it in the ass.
exactly it did
PS3 didn't use x86-64 (what your desktop uses) as the cpu ISA, PS4 does. PS3 also had performance problems often and it wasn't all due to bad dev optimization.
CPU architecture doesn't really determine how much memory a system needs, just how much memory the CPU can theoretically address. Those systems both used 64bit processors.
Also a fair number of desktops now run on ARM 64 chips, probably a lot more in the future as Microsoft starts pushing it.
There's a reason shit like Bayonetta barely ran on the thing when compared to the 360
Also do have in mind it was a LONG generation
What you're missing is that the 16GBs consoles have is shared between the CPU and GPU. The ratio changes depending on the game, but I doubt you'll ever have more than 12 allocated to either.
microchips literally can't get any smaller
So, in theory, where do we go from here? Will components start to become bigger again to fit more chips?
They still can, but it's getting more difficult.
>microchips literally can't get any smaller
What did he mean by this?
>out of ram
>game becomes pixelated
that's new
You need a minimum of 128gb to even come close to remotely being able to even think about potentially being able to running modern AAA titles on low grafix settings
I have 16gb and it's the single most frustrating part of my build now. I will probably go absolutely stupid and get 64 next time.
i have 32 which i'm perfectly content with for now but for my next build which won't be for a few years i'll have 64 minimum as well
Pretty soon they are going to use web browsers to map textures onto every single model at this rate so we are going to all need to get gpus that have 128gb of vram minimum and at least 2 terabytes of system ram.
Just download more ram
You still don't need more than 16. If a game needs more than 16 to run well in this day and age, something's wrong with it. No game so far has complex enough systems or graphics to justify it.
>t 16gb ramlet
Yes. And so far I have not run into a game needing more than 16 to run well. The only one was Jedi Survivor but that was a launch bug that got patched. If you've futureproofed your system by getting 32 or 64 then good for you, but I still have yet to play a game that asks for that much RAM without it being some sort of memory leak or terrible coding.
cope. you're just avoiding all the bigger games 16gb ramlet. imagine having 16gb ram
>all the bigger games
Name them, and show me where they struggle with 16gb ram.
The only game that has required me to upgrade is Armorded Core 6 due to how unoptimized it is with RAM, everything else can run at 8.
16 if you play video games, 32 if you don't.
8GB minimum for MacOS or GNU/Linux based systems.
64GB minimum for Windows 11, and ideally you'll want more.
Windows 12 will probably require another update.
try again
I guess you're right, you probably are safer getting 128GB for Windows 11. Even if 12 really needs 256, better to be safe than sorry in the short term.
I just have 64GB in my system so I run a GNU/Linux based OS since I'm not at the minimum requirements for Windows these days. Its always been good for low-spec systems like mine.
Basically, the more ram you have, the more ram you're game is going to use. It's one of those chasing the dragon kind of situations.
Show me a game that uses even close to 16 gigs of RAM
>t doesn't play video games
I rarely play new releases, that was a genuine question. If you have no evidence then zoom along.
Last of Us Part 1, but to be fair, that game's port is quite demanding, maybe too demanding.
32gb for Tarkov
16gb for anything else
8 minimum, preferably 16+ because the difference is noticeable and cheap as frick there's zero reason not to it'll just speed up the things you want to do on a computer in general. SSDs are fast but keeping things cached in ram is even faster.
It's pretty irrelevant these days 99.9% of the time the bottleneck isn't going to be ram but rather gpu or cpu related.
4-8GB as long as you have a nvme M.2 SSD with the page file set. It's so fast you'll hardly ever notice it was accessed.
dumbest post in this thread, i almost got cancer from your garbage post
Would it be worth upgrading to CL30 RAM from a CL36 kit? I have a Ryzen system btw.
32 gb
At least 32 GB moving forward. Maybe 64 GB if you play something not very performant like Resonite
32gb is the sweet spot
indeed it is, i love my 32. super comfy
game must be poorly optimized if its asking for that much
If you need more than 8 it's not a good game.
I don't play AAA trash so I don't know
For me it's 32Gb, I don't like to close everything every time I want to play games or do music recording or drawing or video editing. I don't feel like I need more so far, so I'll stick to this sweet spot for a while.
same, i like to have tons of shit open all while running smooth
This always seemed like the solution to me, if you're recording/streaming and have browsers open in the background then you'll need more RAM, but if you don't then 16 is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of games.
>if you don't then 16 is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of games.
Yeah, pretty much, it's nice to have more if you need it but it's great that it's not necessary for gaming. It comes down to personal preference since RAM is fairly cheap at the moment.
I don't know why are new games that barely looked better than games from 2015 requires triple the ram.
bitcoin miners and all sorts of other shit
Who cares, it's cheap as shit.
Unused ram is wasted ram, so you should really look at what you're playing to determine how much you need
>Unused ram is wasted ram
what the frick is this post? do you have dementia or something? get the frick off the internet
>Unused ram is wasted ram
I never got this mentality, like do you want your ram to be on 100% usage?
that poster's main objective of coming on here is to be as contrarian as absolutely possible. there's a few of him in this thread. they do it for attention
It's not the first time I heard that expression and it baffles me every time.