How Much RAM Do Gamers Need? 8GB vs. 16GB vs. 32GB

Even though 32 GB showed a small improvement in some cases with the 2080ti, it does not make alot of sense since 8 GB was often enough for the Vega 64 in those same scenarios. I am thinking driver issues.

It would be interesting to see if quad-pumped memory would help the 2080ti. Unfortunately, you would need to use a slower CPU than the 9900k for that testing.

You will never satisfy our unquenchable thirst for benches Steve, but I think a lot more would like the focus to be on the midrange. As you have stated, the big boys are going to have 32gb anyhow, so what us the point of comparing less?

Going forward, I think there would be more use comparing 8gb, 12gb, and 16 GB systems when using mid level cards. It could help people really build the most cost efficient budget machine before hitting a ram bottleneck: an Rx580 (8gb) with 8gb system memory, a Gtx 1060 (6gb) with 12 gb of system memory or a cheaper RX480(4gb) with 16 GB of memory.

Mid-range cards were used and you can't use 12GB configurations on modern DDR4 platforms, at least not without breaking performance.
 
Even though 32 GB showed a small improvement in some cases with the 2080ti, it does not make alot of sense since 8 GB was often enough for the Vega 64 in those same scenarios. I am thinking driver issues.

It would be interesting to see if quad-pumped memory would help the 2080ti. Unfortunately, you would need to use a slower CPU than the 9900k for that testing.

You will never satisfy our unquenchable thirst for benches Steve, but I think a lot more would like the focus to be on the midrange. As you have stated, the big boys are going to have 32gb anyhow, so what us the point of comparing less?

Going forward, I think there would be more use comparing 8gb, 12gb, and 16 GB systems when using mid level cards. It could help people really build the most cost efficient budget machine before hitting a ram bottleneck: an Rx580 (8gb) with 8gb system memory, a Gtx 1060 (6gb) with 12 gb of system memory or a cheaper RX480(4gb) with 16 GB of memory.

Mid-range cards were used and you can't use 12GB configurations on modern DDR4 platforms, at least not without breaking performance.


12GB might not break performance too much due to asymmetric RAM / "Flex" mode that intel CPUs use! Supposedly, 8gb would run in dual channel with the remaining 4gb in single channel. I noticed that no reviewers have tested the performance of 12gb/asymmetric ram. Would make for an interesting video/article.

Not sure if AMD uses tech similar to "Flex" mode.
 
12GB might not break performance too much due to asymmetric RAM / "Flex" mode that intel CPUs use! Supposedly, 8gb would run in dual channel with the remaining 4gb in single channel. I noticed that no reviewers have tested the performance of 12gb/asymmetric ram. Would make for an interesting video/article.

Not sure if AMD uses tech similar to "Flex" mode.

Flex mode does cripple bandwidth, at least with a 4GB + 8GB module configuration apposed to just two 4GB modules, sustained bandwidth drops by around 35%. So I don't recommend using it.
 
Flex mode does cripple bandwidth, at least with a 4GB + 8GB module configuration apposed to just two 4GB modules, sustained bandwidth drops by around 35%. So I don't recommend using it.

I was actually wondering about a (4+4) + (2+2) configurations for older ddr3 systems that are using a nicer gpu. Does that setup take a bandwidth hit?
 
try adding another 8gb world of difference. and for Microsoft office Applications use the 64 bit version not the 32 bit one

drugs?? it would explain that answer
rly? I ran into issues with the 32-bit versions and I had to switch to 64-bit. If you open a large powerpoint or database in an excel you will need the 64-bit version. I don't think Microsoft would waste developer effort to make a 64-bit version if it wasn't needed...

I am also a work user with 16gb ram and it makes a difference
 
LEGEND SAYS: that there is an actual screen in Windows that pops up if you don't have enough memory to run your programs.
 
I was actually wondering about a (4+4) + (2+2) configurations for older ddr3 systems that are using a nicer gpu. Does that setup take a bandwidth hit?
My System is DDR3 so I hate saying this. DDR3 is a has been, so it is pointless in continuing to review performance in every article.

The configuration you mention is the preferred method for 12GB. However DDR4 doesn't come with 2GB modules. So like Steve is saying, it is not possible to get that preferred arrangement. Which is why it is best to skip ahead for 16GB instead.
 
My System is DDR3 so I hate saying this. DDR3 is a has been, so it is pointless in continuing to review performance in every article.

The configuration you mention is the preferred method for 12GB. However DDR4 doesn't come with 2GB modules. So like Steve is saying, it is not possible to get that preferred arrangement. Which is why it is best to skip ahead for 16GB instead.

That makes sense. I guess it would work for 24 GB (8+8) + (4+4) if you had 4 dimm slots. Just for those that run out with 16gb and don't want to drop $200 more for another 16 GB.
 
At this point I've put all new hardware purchases on hold until I see what Cyberpunk 2077 will demand for a maxed out experience on a 21:9 Ultra wide monitor at 60fps, as it is literally the only game I'm remotely interested in and the only one I'd consider spending big bucks on new hardware for.

..Until then, my i5 4690K, Nvidia 970 and 8GB of 2400Mhz DDR3 will suffice, As it still does everything I need it to.
Yea well they had too much time on their hands. Just up the rez to 4k and well yea you can run some cards out of memory.
8 gigs a 970 pro will play everything at 1080p. I have a 1080gtx and still prefer 1080p for gaming. I'm a fast twitch speed player. Some people do enjoy 4k at 20 fps slide shot but I think something is wrong with them in the head. Usually terrible gamers that like pretty.
 
There is big difference between what "gamers need" (...to run one single application (game)) at the time and what any normal person would "want to have" to use windows conveniently and not needing to close everything else before opening a game.

32 is the way for any average "power user" wannabe with more than 1 monitor and 50+ tabs open in a browser :D ... Hell, my firefox alone takes sometimes more than 12GB of ram. Tried Chrome, this one took with the same tab amount about +50% more RAM.
 
Decent article, although I do not like your choice of processor. I would think a more mainstream proc would have lead to a better standard. Not many people are going to be running that i9 proc. Decent nonetheless.

Exactly. We see many articles using extreme setups to prove certain point, but it does not translate into real-world experience most of us will face. A better coverage would be choosing or including common setups. Like from the Steam user-base.
 
Exactly. We see many articles using extreme setups to prove certain point, but it does not translate into real-world experience most of us will face. A better coverage would be choosing or including common setups. Like from the Steam user-base.

Why do you both think the choice of processor impacts the amount of RAM you need? Or don't need?
 
I got 32GB od DDR4 3200Mhz plus Ryzen 7 2700X in my gaming rig, lots of ram and lots of threads, hopefully I don't have to upgrade for a while :)

Ditto >.<
But Steve playing RAM Jenga.... idk whether to laugh or cry >.<
 
rly? I ran into issues with the 32-bit versions and I had to switch to 64-bit. If you open a large powerpoint or database in an excel you will need the 64-bit version. I don't think Microsoft would waste developer effort to make a 64-bit version if it wasn't needed...

I am also a work user with 16gb ram and it makes a difference

I'm assuming PC tech is not your strong suit since it would be obvious I have Windows 10 64 bit from my previous post breaking 4gb of ram in use.
 
Last edited:
1 st of all windows can be run on 1 gb ram. after some years out it was upgradet too 2gb ram. so running it on 4-32 64-128 gb can be done. lets talk about dx 12 games and som other dx 11 games. if you run fallout 3 4 you gonna need a fast system. deus ex old version and new deuse ex version. you can run deus ex old version on a p60 mhz and 128 mb ram vram. even a pc game like shadow man for pc thats need ing 200-500 mhz you can run it good. de new are only demanding in high res uhd and fhd gaming. so playing titles like tat and hope some patches make them better later can be NICE. if you remember win 95 b version ans so on you could run it on very low cpu gpu ram. if you installed win 98 se you could now run newer dx9c games in a decent fps.
to run 64 office you gonna need a 64 bit but you can run it in 32. its just rund doubble. now you dont need installing those buggers. just use your broadbandline and share big files. like exel powerpoint. be everywhere and still get your files alive online. if you got a 2 nd 3 gen cpu you can run good in office. but sine some games that are demanding and use pcie 3.0 and somehow pcie 2. 2.1 you cant get bandwidth to play it on full. som skipping to pci 3.0 and new 4.0 in som few monts you will se youre gpu can run in double bandwidt of a pcie 3.0 card.
if rtx series can now run in pcie 4.0 5.0 tha would be great. x570 motherboard in www.google.com
 
1 st of all windows can be run on 1 gb ram. after some years out it was upgradet too 2gb ram. so running it on 4-32 64-128 gb can be done. lets talk about dx 12 games and som other dx 11 games. if you run fallout 3 4 you gonna need a fast system. deus ex old version and new deuse ex version. you can run deus ex old version on a p60 mhz and 128 mb ram vram. even a pc game like shadow man for pc thats need ing 200-500 mhz you can run it good. de new are only demanding in high res uhd and fhd gaming. so playing titles like tat and hope some patches make them better later can be NICE. if you remember win 95 b version ans so on you could run it on very low cpu gpu ram. if you installed win 98 se you could now run newer dx9c games in a decent fps.
to run 64 office you gonna need a 64 bit but you can run it in 32. its just rund doubble. now you dont need installing those buggers. just use your broadbandline and share big files. like exel powerpoint. be everywhere and still get your files alive online. if you got a 2 nd 3 gen cpu you can run good in office. but sine some games that are demanding and use pcie 3.0 and somehow pcie 2. 2.1 you cant get bandwidth to play it on full. som skipping to pci 3.0 and new 4.0 in som few monts you will se youre gpu can run in double bandwidt of a pcie 3.0 card.
if rtx series can now run in pcie 4.0 5.0 tha would be great. x570 motherboard in www.google.com

We understand that English is not your 1st language, but if that is the case, please separate your thoughts as stated above. Avoid long run on sentences and sentence fragments. It was really hard to get anything out of that.
 
You can get away with 8GB but for peak performance 16GB is definitely required on a multitude of titles today.

Batman Arkham Knight was the first title that drew major headlines for this. The PC port wasn't handled well, but most of the problems reported like the stuttering came down to people playing with 8GB of RAM. It was one of the first games that easily peaked beyond 10GB system RAM usage under Windows 7/8/10 and you knew about it performance wise, the game didn't handle it gracefully.

I played it with 16GB a year after it came out and wondered what all the fuss was about. It ran perfectly fine for me. So since that 16GB was the default minimum choice for anyone seriously gaming.

I agree with you, I am still 8gb although I can game really really well.
However I still feel the speed bumps in the road.
Come Wednesday night I'll have another stick of 8gb ddr42400 ballistix ram.
Besides gaming windows 10 and some other lead linux os.
Takes 2gb or 4gb for itself, don't believe me check task manager.
Whenever I game with citra it really does need the system ram memory.
To be able to play much more smoothly rather than a jolt every so often with windows apps doing whatever.
 
I've not seen any evidence of this, it has to be the exception rather than the rule. Please point me in the direction of someone who bought an RTX 2080 Ti and has 8GB of RAM or less.

All you have to do is visit any major forum, you know what those are right? Spend an hour or two reading the build request/check or "gaming performance not up to par" threads. Start at Tom's hardware forum where we get about two hundred of these each and every day.

It's no wonder the vast majority of readers feel like editorial folks, and not just you guys here atTechspot either, I mean across the board, are out of touch with what users are doing, asking and wanting. Sure, you probably DON'T see this, but you probably also don't directly deal with 60-80 help threads yourself per day like at do as a moderator and member at TH and TG so I can understand why this would seem unusual to you. I assure you, it is not.

Also, if you like, I'd be glad to come back here tomorrow or the next day and post links to about fifty or so threads showing exactly what I was referring to that you dismissed out of hand.
 
There is big difference between what "gamers need" (...to run one single application (game)) at the time and what any normal person would "want to have" to use windows conveniently and not needing to close everything else before opening a game.

32 is the way for any average "power user" wannabe with more than 1 monitor and 50+ tabs open in a browser :D ... Hell, my firefox alone takes sometimes more than 12GB of ram. Tried Chrome, this one took with the same tab amount about +50% more RAM.
50 tabs in a browser is how fools operate a computer. That is just a sloppy user looking for an exuse for 32 gigs of ram. That is for real power users with ECC ram like I have in my workstations not for tab nutso folks. For VMs yes more ram is good for everyone else 8 or 16 is fine.
 
Good article. Had bad stuttering with SOTTR on a 16gb DDR3 (4x4) Win7 system and a msi Duke 8gb OC gtx1080. Now on a msi gaming plus with a 2700x CPU, 16gb hyper-x 3466 cl19 ddr4 (2x8) on Win10. Same video card. Still had occasional lockups with cl16 settings and game boost on. Latest bios has fixed that. 100+ fps is the norm. I was interested in swapping mem for a 32gb gskill rgb (4x8) set but am really hard pressed to justify it. $385 is a lot of money for just some more pretty lights and zero gain in performance.
 
Last edited:
Back