How Much RAM Should You Get? 4GB vs. 8GB vs. 16GB Tested

[Capaill]

3 key upgrades if you (or your IT manager) can't afford a new computer:
1. More RAM
2. 64-bit OS if you go over 4GB RAM (it uses the same license so zero extra cost)
3. Get an SSD
Total cost should be around $200. But if you're on DDR2 RAM I'm not sure you'll have a SATA connection.

 

[Rage3D]

I wonder how VRAM plays into this. Bioshock Infinte used 1.8GBs out of 2GB on my 7770, but performed the same as a 1GB version.

It would be interesting to see how different game engines offload assets to VRAM to save system RAM.

 

[Puiu]

There is something bugging me about the last few tests. How do 65 chrome tabs use only 2.2GB? Just having 4-5 tabs I easily get over 1GB and around 1.5GB at 10 tabs. (this is without heavy video or flash) O_o

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

to be honest you have so many crap useless programs in the background that's why you need so much RAM an average or a power user doesn't need a 16gb kit when he can just organize his programs and shut the chrome off it takes like a few seconds to reload all the pages you left open what's really the point of leaving 60+ tabs open ???? ,

I tend to agree with you there. It seems the more storage you have (volatile & non volatile) the more you want. I'm not so sure thats a good thing on the whole generally but it sure is for manufacturers, resellers etc.

 

[alabama man]

Is ballstix elite ram good? never hear of them, been buying kingston for 20 years now and never got any problems so never even thought of changing brand. Great read even tough I have just ddr3.

I only have 1600Mhz ram and i7 4770k, If I want to overclock should I change or does it matter? Haven't overclocked in 15 years so bit rusty , it's 3.5ghz and thinking about 4. I have a fractal r5 case with 3 additional fans and noctua nh-d15 cooler so I think it could handle it stable.

 

[AnilD]

I don't have the proper data to back it up, but from my own observations over the past few years it'd appear Windows has gotten consistently better in managing RAM since the (horrible) Vista days, to 7 and then 8 and 10 have improved on dynamic allocation. That on top of using fast SSDs that don't slow you down like a crawl (remember hard disk thrashing?) makes the whole experience much smoother, even when you don't have RAM to burn.

As for Chrome...

 

[Brodo Laggins]

That's right, Windows actually got less demanding and more efficient at handling RAM, Vista was the worst, 8 the best and as far as I can tell 10 right now is a little worse than its predecessor.

The tests in this article were run Windows 10 and with a pretty fast system and hard drive. Windows 8 and 10 are incredibly memory efficient compared to older versions of Windows. Run a 6GB minimum game in 64-bit Windows 7 system with 4GB RAM and an older hard drive, and you'll see a difference: the game will probably run, but performance will be negatively affected, because Windows 7 really wants around 3GB just for itself. The game will run because Windows will create virtual memory on your hard drive, but that's where the performance drop comes from. And the game may not run at all in 32-bit Windows, because 32-bit Windows can't even access 4GB RAM (it maxes out at 3GB).

 

[Burty117]

to be honest you have so many crap useless programs in the background that's why you need so much RAM an average or a power user doesn't need a 16gb kit when he can just organize his programs and shut the chrome off it takes like a few seconds to reload all the pages you left open what's really the point of leaving 60+ tabs open ???? ,

What are you on about? I need to Export Video and it can take hours soo? What? You suggest I do nothing else and sit there in silence? I want to keep an eye on my Server Performance so vSphere is out the question? I want to check if any Virus's have been picked up so my Firewall Manager is just pushing the boundary too far?

Again, the entire point of my post was for those that actually use their PC for more than just gaming and browsing the web, I was merely suggesting getting a bigger RAM kit WILL help them out with games that eat a decent chunk of RAM.

Techspot's article is bang on for probably 95% of people who read it but there will be a few of us that would argue 16GB would be better these days as it was for me, Frame Rates doesn't tell the whole story here, Once you use up a lot of RAM Micro-Stutter is something I experienced.

Also on a side note, Crap useless programs? Chrome? Video Editing? Steam? vSphere? TeamSpeak? Corsair Link? Asus Ai Suite? please enlighten me oh all knowing one...

 

[Burty117]

If there is a SSD inside your PC, you should disable page file, so you need 12 GB of RAM. Because today the RAM price is very low, 16 GB is the best pick. Dual channel is not important, but disabling the page file translates into a longer life for the SSD and a boost in performance.

Well no, you've got that all wrong.
1) Disabling the Page File means if your machine ever Blue Screens, you will never be able to find out what caused it as the PC won't do a memory dump.
2) It doesn't increase performance at all and can actually negatively affect performance as certain applications actively look for the Page File and when it's not there it screws them up.
3) Since Windows 8.1 on wards, you only need 2048-4096MB free for a Page file to do a decent memory dump, SSD's have got cheaper, this isn't a problem any more.
4) You are correct, the SSD may last longer, but, Most of us here will probably be 20 years+ older if we tried to use the SSD as much as possible, lets face it, pretty much all of us would have replaced our SSD's by then, hell I wonder if SATA will still be around in 20 years.

Admin: Apologies for the double post, I'm at a hotel and the WiFi here is absolutely awful.

 

[mellamokb]

to be honest you have so many crap useless programs in the background that's why you need so much RAM an average or a power user doesn't need a 16gb kit when he can just organize his programs and shut the chrome off it takes like a few seconds to reload all the pages you left open what's really the point of leaving 60+ tabs open ???? ,

What are you on about? I need to Export Video and it can take hours soo? What? You suggest I do nothing else and sit there in silence? I want to keep an eye on my Server Performance so vSphere is out the question? I want to check if any Virus's have been picked up so my Firewall Manager is just pushing the boundary too far?

Again, the entire point of my post was for those that actually use their PC for more than just gaming and browsing the web, I was merely suggesting getting a bigger RAM kit WILL help them out with games that eat a decent chunk of RAM.

Techspot's article is bang on for probably 95% of people who read it but there will be a few of us that would argue 16GB would be better these days as it was for me, Frame Rates doesn't tell the whole story here, Once you use up a lot of RAM Micro-Stutter is something I experienced.

Also on a side note, Crap useless programs? Chrome? Video Editing? Steam? vSphere? TeamSpeak? Corsair Link? Asus Ai Suite? please enlighten me oh all knowing one...

100% Agree. It's like all the people on here think it makes more sense to have a 1 ft x 1ft desk, then just put everything away in a filing cabinet if your not using it that exact second. Done reading the letter from your friend? In the filing cabinet. Pull out the address book. Oops, I forgot what his address was. Put the address book in the filing cabinet, and pull out the later. Crap, now I can't write it down... (I seriously have watched people like ahem, my parents, use a computer this way. It makes NO sense whatsoever. Just leave the thing open for crying out loud until you're done with it!)

I have 16 GB RAM on my workstation at the office and at home and it is usually enough, but there I times I hit the limit there as well. Specifically running 2-3 Visual Studio instances in debug mode, 20 tabs in Chrome, Fiddler, SSMS, LINQPad, a copy of our production application software, Microsoft Lync, Spotify, and Eclipse. Why should I close each one as I open the next one when I'm switching back and forth between them all very often throughout the day?

Apparently these other people that disagree haven't discovered what high productivity looks like

 

[psycros]

That's right, Windows actually got less demanding and more efficient at handling RAM, Vista was the worst, 8 the best and as far as I can tell 10 right now is a little worse than its predecessor.

The tests in this article were run Windows 10 and with a pretty fast system and hard drive. Windows 8 and 10 are incredibly memory efficient compared to older versions of Windows. Run a 6GB minimum game in 64-bit Windows 7 system with 4GB RAM and an older hard drive, and you'll see a difference: the game will probably run, but performance will be negatively affected, because Windows 7 really wants around 3GB just for itself. The game will run because Windows will create virtual memory on your hard drive, but that's where the performance drop comes from. And the game may not run at all in 32-bit Windows, because 32-bit Windows can't even access 4GB RAM (it maxes out at 3GB).

Every hard-core comparison of gaming performance I've read so far shows only marginal gains with Windows 8, 8.1 and 10 over Windows 7 on the same hardware. And that's all 64-bit versions..no gamer in his right mind is using 32-bit, and frankly I don't even understand why there's' a 32-bit Windows 10. Maybe to support ancient legacy apps..?

 

[dirtyferret]

3 key upgrades if you (or your IT manager) can't afford a new computer:
1. More RAM
2. 64-bit OS if you go over 4GB RAM (it uses the same license so zero extra cost)
3. Get an SSD
Total cost should be around $200. But if you're on DDR2 RAM I'm not sure you'll have a SATA connection.

I can get a refurbished PC for $350 that will run circles around upgrading an ancient PC with more DDR2 ram and most DDR2 mobos have SATA connections including the one I use at work. I have SSD drives in my PCs at home (and love them) but it's an unnecessary add in at work plus then I would have to install it and I don't get paid to do IT work (I work in marketing, building/fixing PCs is my hobby). The issue is the companies cheapness, not the improvements needed.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Good stuff as always Steve! Congrats on being mentioned by Lifehacker: http://lifehacker.com/performance-tests-show-that-16gb-of-ram-is-overkill-1724827429

 

[Squid Surprise]

The article was aimed at the "average user" I assume... and is therefore correct in stating that there is little difference between 8 and 16gb...

But for some people, the more the merrier... I have 64gb - I generally use 32gb as a ramdisk, and it makes everything far speedier

I used to play a certain browser game (poorly coded flash, but it was bloody addictive) that I needed insane amounts of RAM to run "bots" to play for me while I was asleep/working (don't ask, it's just that addictive!!). I used to run out of RAM with 16gb...

I understand I'm in the minority - but there are others like me!

 

[ElTwo]

So much for "real world." The only graphics card used in the tests is a GeForce GTX 980, which is a $500 + card.

Many people, especially budget gamers, will be weighing getting a GTX 960 (about $200), or even a GTX 970 (a $300+ card) versus increased memory. The real question for these people is whether an upgrade from 4GB to 8GB or even 16GB of memory makes any sense, as opposed to doling out an extra $200 to $300 on a higher level video card.

 

[AnilD]

From the article's conclusion:

Virtualization is another wildcard, since virtualizing applications requires you to dedicate resources away from the host PC. If you are running more than one VM, or other related specialized work, it's safe to say you'll want a ton of RAM but those rules won't apply to regular PC users.

Amen to that.

For general purpose use (web browsing, email) I agree, 8GB is sufficient. Where extra RAM comes in handy is for running more programs concurrently without hammering slower storage and swapping, even if you've got a fast SSD. More RAM enables you to get more tasks done at the same time. You can be rendering a video while at the same time, browsing the web or even playing a game (assuming you've got a fast CPU, too).

But considering how cheap RAM is right now, you might as well get as much as you can afford if you are a developer, like to spin a VM or two, or like to hammer your PC with workstation tasks + personal productivity concurrently on a regular basis.

 

[SuperVeloce]

There is something bugging me about the last few tests. How do 65 chrome tabs use only 2.2GB? Just having 4-5 tabs I easily get over 1GB and around 1.5GB at 10 tabs. (this is without heavy video or flash) O_o

I agree with you on that one. Even some tech sites (tom's hw, I'm looking at you) are eating away ram like crazy...

 

[lripplinger]

8GB, on my computer. All the computers I build for clients have 8GB. It is plenty. It gives plenty of room for multi-tasking and the computer feels plenty snappy overall with that amount. Thank you for confirming this in the article.

 

[Burty117]

100% Agree. It's like all the people on here think it makes more sense to have a 1 ft x 1ft desk, then just put everything away in a filing cabinet if your not using it that exact second. Done reading the letter from your friend? In the filing cabinet. Pull out the address book. Oops, I forgot what his address was. Put the address book in the filing cabinet, and pull out the later. Crap, now I can't write it down... (I seriously have watched people like ahem, my parents, use a computer this way. It makes NO sense whatsoever. Just leave the thing open for crying out loud until you're done with it!)

I have 16 GB RAM on my workstation at the office and at home and it is usually enough, but there I times I hit the limit there as well. Specifically running 2-3 Visual Studio instances in debug mode, 20 tabs in Chrome, Fiddler, SSMS, LINQPad, a copy of our production application software, Microsoft Lync, Spotify, and Eclipse. Why should I close each one as I open the next one when I'm switching back and forth between them all very often throughout the day?

Apparently these other people that disagree haven't discovered what high productivity looks like

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can multi-task

On a related note, do you use the built-in multi-desktop feature in Windows 10? I've found myself using it a lot more than I thought I would, this has increased the amount of RAM I use substantially! I accidentally forget I've got another 4 desktops open with Chrome and Adobe CS and all sorts open and wonder why I''m at 95% RAM usage
Best shortcut key in windows 10, ctrl+windows key then left or right arrow, loving the switch desktop stuff Microsoft has added. Makes everything just a little bit easier.

 

[Geforcepat]

8Gb minimum 16gb recommended circa summer 15.

 

[Lionvibez]

Guess my 64GB of ram in my x99 is a bit overkill.....

If all you do is play games on this machine then yes.

All depends on the workload!

I wonder how VRAM plays into this. Bioshock Infinte used 1.8GBs out of 2GB on my 7770, but performed the same as a 1GB version.

It would be interesting to see how different game engines offload assets to VRAM to save system RAM.

Don't games load up Vram first then slip out into main memory.

Which to me makes sense since VRAM is faster than main memory you would want to keep as much as possible in VRAM which is closet to the GPU. Having the go thru the PCIE bus to get to main memory will incur a performance penalty. So keeping it in VRAM is more performance related and trying to save system memory? or Am I misunderstanding your statement?

 

[Impulse]

Photoshop can easily use 12GB+ with file sizes that approach 250MB (not that otherworldly if you're really working over a RAW file)...

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-Memory-Optimization-182/page4

So if you were gonna test with Premier, which is easily more prosumer focused than Photoshop, you might as well have tested with 4K video clips.

I'm actually trying to decide between 16GB & 32GB and video work is where it gets hazy, pros tend to overspec either because they have the money or they're working with more uncommon sources...

 

[Impulse]

I agree mostly with this article however, I have come across some issues with just 8GB of RAM and your a bit of a power user (loads of tabs open, video editing software and a couple of other bits and bobs).

I used to have 8GB of RAM and that was plenty really until I started playing Battlefield 4, if I had a fair amount open and played Battlefield 4 at the same time, I would get random micro stuttering (specially with 64 player maps). I monitored my PC's performance and found that basically all 8GB was in use and it was Paging quite a lot to my SSD, once I upgraded to 16GB of RAM, this has never occurred since.

I'm guessing the way the Frostbite engine works must store quite a few assets into RAM and when it was Paging causing the engine to have to go to the SSD for it's files was causing a considerable delay.

But why would you play games with a million background services running? Do you really need all of them running?
I also have 16 GB of RAM which is way overkill for me but the only reason I have it is because I bought my Patriot Intel Extreme Masters memory on a great special which was only about 7 quid more than the 8 GB kit.
That said I've never seen my memory usage go much above 5 GB in any game I play.

I think we might've bought the same kit (like $60 three years ago?)... I've seen higher mem usage tho. The answer to your 1st question is easy, why not? Not HAVING to close things is rather great.

 

[mcgrood38]

I have around 40 tabs open, including netflix, amazon prime video, multiple youtube pages, facebook, and more. Chrome alone is consuming almost 8 gigs of ram. But I have 32, so I just don't care anymore.

I also have a virtual machine running, with 4 gigs allocated to it. So for me, not even 16 gigs was enough. And when I play a game, I don't close Chrome. So ram usage goes up even more.

As for chrome, if you've never been on a never-ending Tumblr page, as you scroll down, the ENTIRE page is cached in ram, so it quickly consumes all available ram. That's probably a flaw in Tumblr, but still, I've hit 85% of 32 gigs just with a few Tumblr pages open. It's not unreasonable to expect this trend to continue either. Next time I may go for 64 gigs.

 

[shark975]

I registered just to point out this error

"Keep in mind there is little point in "future-proofing" your system with extra memory now as adding more down the track is always a more economical option, providing you have the empty DIMM slots."

Wrong. The problem is memory tends to get obsoleted and then actually increase in price. I'm still on 4GB DDR2. I looked into upgrading it to 8GB at one point. I haven't checked in a while, but the price for more DDR2 was quite expensive and a good deal more than DDR3, at least a few years ago. If anything I'd assume even worse now. The reason being DDR2 stopped being made. I'm pretty sure the same thing will happen with DDR3 as DDR4 takes over. If you buy a 8GB DDR3 system now, and are looking to upgrade to 16 GB say 5 years from now, dont be surprised if it's more expensive than it's worth.

I will say that to this day my Q6600/4GB setup is perfectly fine for everyday computing. About the ONLY thing I notice that betrays my weakling setup is that I cant play 1080/60 or 4k videos on youtube without stuttering.