Just my thoughts....
How Much Is Too Much?
Published on October 15, 2016 By RedneckDude In Personal Computing

I have a question for the power users out there.

 

All bragging rights aside. If you do a little gaming, and a little skinning, is 32 GB of DDR3 ram overkill?

 

I have an 8 core CPU with a 240 GB SSD, and a R9 290 4 GB graphics card. Do I need 32 GB of ram, or is 16 enough?


Comments (Page 1)
on Oct 15, 2016

16 can do.

32 can do more.

At any one time i can have 24 instances of psp running, each with high res multi layer images loaded....

...and such games as FSX loaded....

....all depends on what you want to be doing.

on Oct 15, 2016

Nah, no bullshit here.... and I quit bragging when I found out mine's smaller than most.

However, I do do have 32 gigs of DDR3 RAM in each of my desktop rigs.  In my Intel machine I have 2133mhz, and in my octocore AMD machine I have 1866mhz.  I do have another Intel machine with 16 gigs of 1600mhz DDR3, and another AMD quadcore with 8 gigs of 1333mhz DDR3

Do I need 32gb?  Not all of the time, but when I'm editing video and/or audio and multi-tasking, listening to music, etc, 32 gigs comes in very handy indeed.

In other words, if there are times when you need the larger amount, then no, it's not overkill.

As for mine being smaller than most, Shaunna just informed me that she knows people who don't even have a bank account, let alone a small one.

on Oct 15, 2016

Unless you do video editing, AdobeP. for example can use all of the available memory to decrease render times.
While 16GB should be more than enough for gaming and using PS... seriously
32 and 64 seem to be targeted towards professionals 

on Oct 15, 2016


16 can do.

32 can do more.

At any one time i can have 24 instances of psp running, each with high res multi layer images loaded....

...and such games as FSX loaded....

....all depends on what you want to be doing.

And just think, if you got rid of that monstrous CPU cooler [that takes up so much space] for a more efficient liquid cooler, you could run 64, gigs... or even better, just do away with what you have and install 8 x 16 gig sticks.  Yeah, the bloke who owns my 'new' local PC store has a similar setup to yours, but in a Coolermaster Cosmo II like mine, and he has 128 gigs of DDR4 @ 2666 mhz. 

Yup, it's one hell of a nice machine... not that I'm jealous or anything.

on Oct 15, 2016

Yes...I'd need to dump the radiator in favor of a wet one...to get 64 in...but 32 of DDR4 is enough for me....at least for now....

on Oct 15, 2016

I'm a casual gamer. I can say from person experience that 8 gigs is enough for games  like GC III, Civ V, Endless Legends,etc.

I do however also have a 6th generation i7 cpu, and a 4gig dedicated graphics card.

 

on Oct 15, 2016

32 GBs of RAM right now will go unused.  Even Stardock's Ashes tops out at 16GB.  So, unless you are doing Video editing and rendering AVI files and the like, right now and for the near term you won't need more than 16GB.

 

Save the money for the next gen build.

on Oct 15, 2016

Ok, I didn't even know you could run multiple instances of PSP. I don't do all that, 32 is probably unneeded, for me.

on Oct 15, 2016


Yes...I'd need to dump the radiator in favor of a wet one...to get 64 in...but 32 of DDR4 is enough for me....at least for now....

Same here, 32 is ample for what I do, not that I currently have a machine that's capable of running 64 gigs anyway.  In fact, with other priorities taking precedence, household items and the like, I probably won't be looking at an upgrade or new build for quite some time yet, as much as I so wanted to dabble with Intel's latest i7 6950x and DDR4.  Oh well, maybe late in 2017 early 2018.  Besides, what I have [Intel machine] still has pretty decent specs for something that's almost 2 years old, so it's not like it's struggling to do what I ask of it.

on Oct 15, 2016

As a gamer only, 32GB is probably on the very, very high side. I'd certainly not go higher. And personally 16GB is where I would build a new gaming PC today.

 

As someone who uses CAD/CAM software and games, 32GB is pretty good spot, but 64 wouldn't be out of hand depending on assembly sizes.

on Oct 15, 2016

More is More PERIOD

on Oct 15, 2016

dang.. i saw psp and thought emulator (wtf?)

on Oct 15, 2016

Depends on how long you want to keep your system.

 

Five years from now, 16 could be insufficient for most AAA titles.  You can already gain performance on an extremely small number of titles by having more than 16.

 

Now that we've broken the 32 bit entry barrier and many applications are coming out as 64 bit only, games and other software are liable to go through an accelerated expansion of usage.  Just think, 15 years ago, you were playing games that used 200MB of ram, 10 years ago, they were using 2GB of ram, then they ran into that 32 bit wall and died horribly until just the last couple years when people finally started braving the 64 bit requirement after those fucking assholes at Microsoft released yet another crippled 32 bit version of their latest OS.

 

A bloody web browser uses a gig these days, it wouldn't be particularly surprising to me if five years from now, they're making 64GB video cards and pumping out titles that can soak through another 64 in RAM.  You can dump an obscene amount of memory into texture detail on a 4k HDR display and still have room to make it look better.  What even the prettiest games are doing today are sad, pathetic little things compared to what you can get out of even a decent panel, never mind a good one.

on Oct 15, 2016

psychoak pretty much said it all right there ^ . 64 bit systems demand a minimum of 4 gigs to start with, let alone the programs users install later.  More to the point, if you want to future-proof your machine, for higher-end games and graphics, etc, 32 gigs isn't a waste. 

As for graphics cards, it is not uncommon to see models with 4GB of GDDR5, but the other day I saw one with 8GB when I was glancing through a newsletter I subscribe to, so things are on the up as far as modern graphic cards go.  And what about those machines with say 3 GTX 1080s in SLI, and the graphics they are capable of processing?   16 gigs of RAM in such a machine would likely be considered most technophiles to be inadequate, me thinks.

For mine, I'd rather have more than 'enough' than too little.  A machine that is under-powered or has bottlenecks will struggle under load, whereas a machine with more than ample will cruise along and not skip a beat... and video editing/conversion, etc, does chew a bit of RAM.

on Oct 16, 2016

starkers

For mine, I'd rather have more than 'enough' than too little.  A machine that is under-powered or has bottlenecks will struggle under load, whereas a machine with more than ample will cruise along and not skip a beat... and video editing/conversion, etc, does chew a bit of RAM.

My philosophy entirely....headroom.  There are people out there that claim PSUs over 600 watt are a waste of time...bla...bla...bla...

God knows what they say about my "Corsair ASX 1200I Platinum Certified 1200w Modular PSU" [probably ...."wanker"] but my system is all fan...no water...and I only ever hear fans at boot....[part of their initializing process] ....rest of the time they are idle.  It's the first time I've managed to make a QUIET computer...and considering its size...and the need thus for it to be on the desk immediately behind the monitor...sideways ...it's both 'in your face' and 'in your ear' so silence is golden.

 

Re ram... load up a couple of VMs and you'll soon prefer to have had more...than less...

 

Meta
Views
» 10310
Comments
» 16
Sponsored Links