Microsoft removes support page recommending 32GB RAM for gaming PCs

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Ripple effect: The global memory shortage is battering the entire IT industry, and PC manufacturing is feeling it most acutely. Microsoft is well aware of the problem – so aware, in fact, that it's now scrambling to walk back its own earlier guidance on how much RAM a gaming PC actually needs.

Earlier this year, Microsoft told Windows 11 users that a proper gaming rig needed 32GB of RAM. That support document has since vanished, as Redmond and the rest of the PC industry contend with an unprecedented supply crunch across memory, storage, GPUs, and other core components – fallout from Big Tech's aggressive overprovisioning for AI data centers.

Also check out: How Much RAM Do Gamers Need? 8GB vs. 16GB vs. 32GB vs. 64GB

Microsoft's post was aptly titled "How to optimize your gaming PC setup." It's no longer available on the public web and the original URL now redirects to the Windows Learning Center homepage. The original document can still be found through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

Microsoft published the guidance on November 2025, offering a handful of fairly unremarkable recommendations on the CPU, GPU, and storage needed to reach PC gaming nirvana. The company said 16GB of RAM would be "plenty" for most gamers, while 32GB was the ideal amount for those running the most demanding titles or heavy mods.

How much RAM you actually need to join the PC master race remains one of computing's most heated debates, and Microsoft itself keeps stoking it. Windows 11, after all, is the same operating system routinely criticized for shipping with unwanted advertising apps and unnecessary RAM-hungry bloat.

The AI-driven supply crunch (of which Microsoft is very much a part) has effectively forced the company to move backward through computer hardware history. The company is now selling pricey Surface laptops with just 8GB of RAM, an amount nowhere near sufficient for a modern PC user's needs.

It should be noted that this isn't purely a hardware problem. The lack of proper software optimization is just as much a part of the equation. Microsoft deserves its share of blame, but it's also a symptom of an industry-wide habit: developers have spent the better part of a decade building bloated software because RAM was cheap enough that nobody had to care. Electron and other web-wrapper frameworks became the default for building desktop apps not because they're efficient, but because they let companies ship one codebase everywhere and skip the harder work of writing native code.

Windows 11 is a prime example of that as much of its interface still leans on WebView2 and Electron-style wrappers, which reliably eat more memory than native equivalents ever would. That math worked fine when 16GB was a rounding error on a parts list. But it doesn't work now.

The quiet disappearance of that gaming optimization document says a lot about how aware Microsoft is of the industry's current state. Satya Nadella recently said his company is actively working to win Windows "fans" back through native Windows 11 apps and better coding practices, even as the memory industry isn't expected to recover from the current supply crunch until 2027, or possibly 2028.

Permalink to story:

Microsoft removes support page recommending 32GB RAM for gaming PCs

 

[brucek]

This is probably a true statement. As long as you're running Linux or MacOS.

 

[Anton Longshot]

Oh no I have 32 in the game box so I'll have to remove 16GB!

Hmm...of course I could sell it for whatever it's worth right now, half a million bucks or so (estimate).

 

[LordVile95]

To be honest I don’t trust this site (particularly Steve and Tim) on anything to do with RAM as they clearly have an axe to grind and do not approach the issue fairly or objectively. There’s a reason why they typically bring up tailor made benchmarks for the “low VRAM” GPUs they’ve decided are a problem and declare sub 60 FPS as adequate performance if it supports their position rather than use the standard suite, which for some unknown reason removes merely all noticeable difference between the “bad” and “good” SKUs of the card.

 

[The Talking Tech]

It's funny how these companies started reducing their RAM "recommended" specs as they want to make sure people keep buying their games, with no guarantees on how they are going to run.

 

[Subset6]

Kinda crazy, when I was spec’in out my build a few years ago I was going for 16GB of ram but it was actually cheaper to get a 32GB kit at the time, it was all so dirt cheap. Same with nvme drives. Even still have a spare 32GB kit in the drawer, but I see little need for 64gb of ram for what I do atm.

 

[m4a4]

You know what? I'll allow it. AAA devs have been getting lazy and not optimizing their games lately. Maybe this will be a silver lining to come out of this...

 

[amghwk]

This is probably a true statement. As long as you're running Linux or MacOS.

Err...I'm having 64GB DDR5 in my Ryzen 7 laptop which is running Debian stable.

 

[Megalomaniac]

When I got my newest Desktop, I went all out: 5090, 64GB DDR5, 8 TB SSD and 285k knowing I wasn't going to upgrade again for years. I had no idea that the market was going to flip and become completely unaffordable just a week after I got my computer.

16GB is enough for most uses, but 32 gives you a nice cushion for games that demand more.

For me: 64GB is future proofing till 2035.

 

[Hecate91]

Interesting how MS only removes that claim during the RAMpocalypse, also while Mac and Linux are gaining marketshare.

 

[Hecate91]

To be honest I don’t trust this site (particularly Steve and Tim) on anything to do with RAM as they clearly have an axe to grind and do not approach the issue fairly or objectively. There’s a reason why they typically bring up tailor made benchmarks for the “low VRAM” GPUs they’ve decided are a problem and declare sub 60 FPS as adequate performance if it supports their position rather than use the standard suite, which for some unknown reason removes merely all noticeable difference between the “bad” and “good” SKUs of the card.

This article is about DRAM, you're bringing up VRAM, and no 8GB of VRAM is no longer enough especially with what a dedicated GPU costs.

 

[starfalls]

I just turn on teams/discord and my ram usage goes to 70-80% on 8GB laptop. Thats windows 10 btw. W11 needs more. This is soo scammy. People should really get mad at MS. I mean I dunno how much more mad we can get but yeah. People got 0 love for that bad company.

 

[TechSavy101]

How long before they say only 4GB is enough? And You dont need more unless you play games.
They are feeding every GB of memory possible into Ai, hoping for an ROI which will never come.
These money laundering schemes to boost Ai bubble is not innovation, its corruption. Unfortunately, our bozo president is also in league with these *****.

 

[LordVile95]

This article is about DRAM, you're bringing up VRAM, and no 8GB of VRAM is no longer enough especially with what a dedicated GPU costs.

Testing says 8GB is fine.

Principles remain the same, if they keep altering methodology for VRAM testing so they have something to complain about, they’ll do it from DRAM too.

 

[Anton Longshot]

When I got my newest Desktop, I went all out: 5090, 64GB DDR5, 8 TB SSD and 285k knowing I wasn't going to upgrade again for years. I had no idea that the market was going to flip and become completely unaffordable just a week after I got my computer.

16GB is enough for most uses, but 32 gives you a nice cushion for games that demand more.

For me: 64GB is future proofing till 2035.

I've always been a bit sorry that I didn't go for 64GB or perhaps more because as mentioned, future-proofing.
As for the 32GB : my earlier box had 16GB and while that worked OK-ish 32GB fixed the occasional crash/lockup.
I don't even close programs anymore not even if I want to run a game...it just works and alt-tab is never an issue.
I use Win 10 btw, I have no experience with 11.
Propably never will ha ha (pet peeve).

 

[mgstrazze]

Microsoft embracing slop statements on all fronts.

 

[LordVile95]

I've always been a bit sorry that I didn't go for 64GB or perhaps more because as mentioned, future-proofing.
As for the 32GB : my earlier box had 16GB and while that worked OK-ish 32GB fixed the occasional crash/lockup.
I don't even close programs anymore not even if I want to run a game...it just works and alt-tab is never an issue.
I use Win 10 btw, I have no experience with 11.
Propably never will ha ha (pet peeve).

Issue is with future proofing you’re likely just going to be left on an old platform. If you buy 64GB of DDR5 today there’s only maybe 3 years of CPU support left for the platform, or none if you’re getting Intel, which means you’re probably going to be buying DDR6 for the next upgrade you do.

Also there’s nothing wrong with W11, it’s actually a massive improvement over 10 and all the “spyware” nonsense is already in 10, just less overt, and it starting in W7.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Everyone still looking to hate on anything they can get their eyes on.

Just admit you're tech wannabes so you can start getting some help.

 

[Rudyduu]

To be honest I don’t trust this site (particularly Steve and Tim) on anything to do with RAM as they clearly have an axe to grind and do not approach the issue fairly or objectively. There’s a reason why they typically bring up tailor made benchmarks for the “low VRAM” GPUs they’ve decided are a problem and declare sub 60 FPS as adequate performance if it supports their position rather than use the standard suite, which for some unknown reason removes merely all noticeable difference between the “bad” and “good” SKUs of the card.

How is objective data a bad thing? If an 8GB GPU performs significantly worse than a 16GB how is that wrong? If the 16GB model can run games at 1440p, but the 8GB model cannot due to not having enough VRAM how is that a problem they created? You didn't provide any specific issues you have with the way they benchmark cards. Even when I disagree with them, I know they have a lot more experience than I do and probably still have the consumer's best interested in mind.

 

[LordVile95]

How is objective data a bad thing? If an 8GB GPU performs significantly worse than a 16GB how is that wrong? If the 16GB model can run games at 1440p, but the 8GB model cannot due to not having enough VRAM how is that a problem they created? You didn't provide any specific issues you have with the way they benchmark cards. Even when I disagree with them, I know they have a lot more experience than I do and probably still have the consumer's best interested in mind.

Becaure it’s not objective? It’s a test constructed to output the result the predetermined conclusion wants. It’s the same methodology Wakefield used in his vaccination studies.

The 16GB card can’t play games at 1440p to a playable level when then 8GB can’t though. In their own testing the 9060XT 8GB averages over 60 at 1440p which is about 10FPs lower than the 16GB model but you’d be turning down settings on both cards anyway to maintain a better frame rate and wouldn’t be running things like Ultra textures which load at 4K and eat VRAM for no visual benefit

It’s to generate clicks. It’s not anything to do with the consumer and if anything is pushing people to spend more than they need to.

 

[Anton Longshot]

Issue is with future proofing you’re likely just going to be left on an old platform. If you buy 64GB of DDR5 today there’s only maybe 3 years of CPU support left for the platform, or none if you’re getting Intel, which means you’re probably going to be buying DDR6 for the next upgrade you do.

Also there’s nothing wrong with W11, it’s actually a massive improvement over 10 and all the “spyware” nonsense is already in 10, just less overt, and it starting in W7.

As always, I totally disagree with you.

 

[Rudyduu]

Becaure it’s not objective? It’s a test constructed to output the result the predetermined conclusion wants. It’s the same methodology Wakefield used in his vaccination studies.

The 16GB card can’t play games at 1440p to a playable level when then 8GB can’t though. In their own testing the 9060XT 8GB averages over 60 at 1440p which is about 10FPs lower than the 16GB model but you’d be turning down settings on both cards anyway to maintain a better frame rate and wouldn’t be running things like Ultra textures which load at 4K and eat VRAM for no visual benefit

It’s to generate clicks. It’s not anything to do with the consumer and if anything is pushing people to spend more than they need to.

I don't see how you can say the 16GB card can't play games at 1440p when there are tens of thousands of games out there. I looked up their 9060xt 8GB vs 16GB article and I didn't see any of the issues you complained about.

 

[Axeia]

Becaure it’s not objective? It’s a test constructed to output the result the predetermined conclusion wants. It’s the same methodology Wakefield used in his vaccination studies.

The 16GB card can’t play games at 1440p to a playable level when then 8GB can’t though. In their own testing the 9060XT 8GB averages over 60 at 1440p which is about 10FPs lower than the 16GB model but you’d be turning down settings on both cards anyway to maintain a better frame rate and wouldn’t be running things like Ultra textures which load at 4K and eat VRAM for no visual benefit

It’s to generate clicks. It’s not anything to do with the consumer and if anything is pushing people to spend more than they need to.

As someone who's pet peeve has always been crappy looking textures you bet I always max that out. Textures don't cap out at say 4k in any 3D game where you can move the camera closer to an object.
Since most 3D games let you move the camera POV directly or indirectly by moving the character higher quality texture are pretty much always beneficial.

VRAM before the current madness was also such a minor cost (talking about what the chips themselves sold for, not what NVIDIA etc upcharged you for it) that on pretty much card the costs were <10% of the entire card (the better the card the smaller the part of the total it is). Why would you be against spending that little extra to have your card
* Be able to run more AI stuff should the need ever arise
* Be able to max out textures (which come at zero cost to performance as long as you have enough VRAM)
* Future proof as the trend was games using more and more of it (now undoubtedly put on hold due to pricing, lucky break for 8GB card owners)

At the very least having the option to choose between 8GB or more would have been nice if the prices reflected the actual additional costs. imo Steve/Tim and every other hardware reviewer for that matter, never seen anyone considered a professional in that regard argue in favor of 8GB cards were all right in trying to push for more VRAM on cards.
Of course all the game devs were in favor for more VRAM as well, no one likes having to optimize / work around a limit that's been in place for god knows how long.

 

[LordVile95]

I don't see how you can say the 16GB card can't play games at 1440p when there are tens of thousands of games out there. I looked up their 9060xt 8GB vs 16GB article and I didn't see any of the issues you complained about.

The games under discussion it can’t.

Look at their later reviews when they run the standard test setup and the 8GB card is magically within 1% of the 16GB card at 1080p. In the 16 v 8GB tests they use unrealistic settings that artificially pump up VRAM usage rather than just a standard preset or what they use in every other review. If their was an issue for everyday use they wouldn’t need bespoke tests to show it.

 

[LordVile95]

As someone who's pet peeve has always been crappy looking textures you bet I always max that out. Textures don't cap out at say 4k in any 3D game where you can move the camera closer to an object.
Since most 3D games let you move the camera POV directly or indirectly by moving the character higher quality texture are pretty much always beneficial.

So you think you can see 4K textures on a 1080p render/dispapy?

VRAM before the current madness was also such a minor cost (talking about what the chips themselves sold for, not what NVIDIA etc upcharged you for it) that on pretty much card the costs were <10% of the entire card (the better the card the smaller the part of the total it is). Why would you be against spending that little extra to have your card
* Be able to run more AI stuff should the need ever arise
* Be able to max out textures (which come at zero cost to performance as long as you have enough VRAM)
* Future proof as the trend was games using more and more of it (now undoubtedly put on hold due to pricing, lucky break for 8GB card owners)

At the very least having the option to choose between 8GB or more would have been nice if the prices reflected the actual additional costs. imo Steve/Tim and every other hardware reviewer for that matter, never seen anyone considered a professional in that regard argue in favor of 8GB cards were all right in trying to push for more VRAM on cards.
Of course all the game devs were in favor for more VRAM as well, no one likes having to optimize / work around a limit that's been in place for god knows how long.

You can just buy the 16Gb model if you really care that much. What you don’t need to do is manufacture an issue to frighten people into thing they have to spend more on a GPU because a “measly 8GB” isn’t enough.

They are actively pushing 16GB models for entry level, 1080p cards when the 8GB models perform well at the resolution and settings the silicon can actually drive. Like they’re using Indiana Jones as an example at settings where the 16GB card is sub 30FPS. What does it matter that the 8GB card can’t run it or gets 8FPS when the 16GB model is sub cinematic. In games and settings you can have a good experience with the 16GB model you can du the same with the 8GB model and the only people who would see a difference are the ones with a data logger in the corner.