# 16 gb vs 32 gb RAM  8600kvs8700kfor Gaming PC



## zanatos (Nov 9, 2017)

Hi,

since RAM now is becoming expensive I would like to know whether 16gb is enough for gaming or Not!

Last but not least is the lack of HT a big miss over the i7 8600k?


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 9, 2017)

If you're asking about 16GB why do you have 26 vs 42 in the title? 16GB is most definitely enough for now, even the next couple of years, what you have to worry about more is the VRAM & the resolution you play at.

8700k will only matter in the most demanding of titles, six real cores is more than enough for the vast majority, alternatively you could choose 8700 non K.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 9, 2017)

i chose 8700k that way i probably won't have to upgrade for a very long time just like how my 2600k lasted very long. 16GB for me because Ram prices are too high AND it's more than enough right now. But I'll fill up the 2 extra slots though and go 32GB in the near future.


----------



## metalfiber (Nov 10, 2017)

I went ahead and bit the bullet and got 4 matched sticks of 3333GHz 32GBs of memory to go with my 8700k. Manly because i didn't with my 4770k. With it i got 2 sticks of matched 2400GHz 4GB and then later i got the same brand, speed, timing and so on.
In the end they really wasn't the same, in saying that, everything seemed to work fine with the XMP profiles. I've read cases where it didn't go so well with other people. To cut the cost i just went down the middle of the road with 3333GHz and timing of 16-16-16-36 G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series.


----------



## Komshija (Nov 10, 2017)

For gaming 16 GB is more than enough.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Nov 13, 2017)

Unless you play planetary annihilation at max you'll be fine with 16. I got two pcs with 32gb and never use that much even when rendering videos


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 13, 2017)

zanatos said:


> since RAM now is becoming expensive I would like to know whether 16gb is enough for gaming or Not!



It's enough.



zanatos said:


> Last but not least is the lack of HT a big miss over the i7 8600k?



I would say so.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 13, 2017)

You can get by on 8gb honestly, 16gb is fine.


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Nov 13, 2017)

You could check your ram usage while you gaming  and then you would know


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 13, 2017)

16gb is plenty.

 I wouldnt worry about HT on a six core processor personally. A 6c/6t cpu will last years.


----------



## quimby999 (Feb 23, 2018)

Since it States 6 cores and 12 threads it does support HT I've never seen it written anywhere but here that it doesn't support HT


----------



## Jetster (Feb 23, 2018)

quimby999 said:


> Since it States 6 cores and 12 threads it does support HT I've never seen it written anywhere but here that it doesn't support HT



Which one?   The i5 does not support HT so 6 Core 6 thread
https://ark.intel.com/products/126685/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

The i7 does 6 core 12 thread
https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_70-GHz

Honestly you wont be able to tell the difference with gaming alone


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 23, 2018)

If you're still on 980Ti SLI, it'd be a better idea to get a 6850K with 40 pci-e lanes. 










In other case, 8600K with 6c/6t and 16GB of 3000/3200 RAM should have no problem handling 1080Ti or even faster.


----------



## las (Feb 23, 2018)

16GB is more than enough. Even 8GB is enough for 99% of the games (and in the last 1% you'll loose a little fps, not much.)

Forget about X299 for gaming. And forget about SLI. Keep what you have till next gen hit. Nvidia should release consumer gaming cards later this year. AMD will probably follow suit with Navi or Vega refresh.

HT often lowers performance in games. I have tested this myself too. Only very few benefits from HT (BF1 is one of them):


----------



## Rehmanpa (Feb 23, 2018)

las said:


> 16GB is more than enough. Even 8GB is enough for 99% of the games (and in the last 1% you'll loose a little fps, not much.)



Just wait till you play planetary annihilation, the only game which has managed to use more than 16gb of ram and peaked my 4790k and gtx 1080. My ryzen 1700 does better since it has more cores/threads imo


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2018)

las said:


> 16GB is more than enough. Even 8GB is enough for 99% of the games (and in the last 1% you'll loose a little fps, not much.)


8gb is closer to a minimum these days. Id say closer to 90% of titles are ok with 8gb - less and less being ok every month. If the budget allows, id certainly go 16gb now. 

Running out of ram can lose FPS (they arent loose ), correct, but it can cause hitching when its paging out as well.


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2018)

Rehmanpa said:


> Just wait till you play planetary annihilation, the only game which has managed to use more than 16gb of ram and peaked my 4790k and gtx 1080. My ryzen 1700 does better since it has more cores/threads imo



Never going to play that game. Sounds like terrible code/optimization..



EarthDog said:


> 8gb is closer to a minimum these days. Id say closer to 90% of titles are ok with 8gb - less and less being ok every month. If the budget allows, id certainly go 16gb now.
> 
> Running out of ram can lose FPS (they arent loose ), correct, but it can cause hitching when its paging out as well.



Yep, but in games that benefit from more than 8GB RAM, you don't see huge fps gains anyway, only slightly higher min and avg. max is pretty much identical. Obviously you should get 2x8GB for a new rig, no doubt. But people with 8GB will still be fine in the majority of demanding/AAA games.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2018)

Again, its not really an FPS issue, running out system RAM...once you cross that threshold, it pages out and can cause hitching in games. With several titles out already eclipsing 8gb ram use, 16gb is prudent. Id honestly only go 8gb if i absolutely couldnt afford more.

I dont consider it enough if there are aready titles.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 25, 2018)

zanatos said:


> Hi,
> 
> since RAM now is becoming expensive I would like to know whether 16gb is enough for gaming or Not!
> 
> Last but not least is the lack of HT a big miss over the i7 8600k?


To sum up what others said, and a crusade I have championed here for two years, it is nice to see the majority on board.  16gb of RAM is the new norm for gaming. 8gb was it for about 6 years, but is becoming less and less acceptable.  

Don’t worry about 32gb for gaming. If you are a heavy photo editor, then yes, get 32, but unless you are running a HEDT with the dedicated lanes, that extra RAM is overkill, even for photo editing.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Again, its not really an FPS issue, running out system RAM...once you cross that threshold, it pages out and can cause hitching in games. With several titles out already eclipsing 8gb ram use, 16gb is prudent. Id honestly only go 8gb if i absolutely couldnt afford more.
> 
> I dont consider it enough if there are aready titles.



In which games do you run out of system ram with 8GB?! A few games RUN BETTER with more than 8GB, but it's not like when you're running out of VRAM and fps drops like crazy because of flushing. There is tons of tests on youtube with 8 vs 16 (and more) RAM, and the 8GB system sometimes has SLIGHTLY less min and avg, not much.

Often 8GB fast memory / low cl offers better gaming perf than 16GB slower memory / higher cl.

I have 32GB, it's not like im trying to justify anything. I simply know that 8GB is more than enough in pretty much any game today, unless you run alot of programs in the background (browser with many tabs is not a good idea).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 26, 2018)

las said:


> In which games do you run out of system ram with 8GB?! A few games RUN BETTER with more than 8GB, but it's not like when you're running out of VRAM and fps drops like crazy because of flushing. There is tons of tests on youtube with 8 vs 16 (and more) RAM, and the 8GB system sometimes has SLIGHTLY less min and avg, not much.
> 
> Often 8GB fast memory / low cl offers better gaming perf than 16GB slower memory / higher cl.
> 
> I have 32GB, it's not like im trying to justify anything. I simply know that 8GB is more than enough in pretty much any game today, unless you run alot of programs in the background (browser with many tabs is not a good idea).


You are simply out of touch with your 32gb.  With just normal windows processes and a couple things like drivers and antivirus (which majority find essential), RAM total will regularly go over 8gb.  Last night playing GTA 5 single player, my RAM use was 8978.  Other recent games I recall off top of my head Dishonored 2, Batman Arkham Knight and Elex find system RAM between 8 and 9 and a 1/2.  

I have 16gb RAM so I’m ok.  I can however relate one of my systems a year ago had only 8.  It was not unusual for gameplay to hit 8.  At that point the game would hitch or pause as it tried to fix the situation by swapping out from RAM.  

8gb is certainly not “more than enough” anymore.  2010 to 2017 is gone.  8gb is an absolute bare minimum if cost is an issue.  Or if not gaming, of course.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> You are simply out of touch with your 32gb.  With just normal windows processes and a couple things like drivers and antivirus (which majority find essential), RAM total will regularly go over 8gb.  Last night playing GTA 5 single player, my RAM use was 8978.  Other recent games I recall off top of my head Dishonored 2, Batman Arkham Knight and Elex find system RAM between 8 and 9 and a 1/2.
> 
> I have 16gb RAM so I’m ok.  I can however relate one of my systems a year ago had only 8.  It was not unusual for gameplay to hit 8.  At that point the game would hitch or pause as it tried to fix the situation by swapping out from RAM.
> 
> 8gb is certainly not “more than enough” anymore.  2010 to 2017 is gone.  8gb is an absolute bare minimum if cost is an issue.  Or if not gaming, of course.



The more memory you have, the more is allocated. Just like with VRAM. A Titan V with 12GB is going to have much higher usage than 1080 with 8GB, on exact same settings/res. It does not mean that amount is required.

This is pretty much common knowledge. As I already said, there is tons of tests with 8GB vs 16GB in gaming. 8GB is enough in pretty much all games, and in the games where 16GB had better performance, it was not by much.

Just normal windows processes and antivirus? That would run just fine on 4GB. I never said 8GB was MORE than enough, I said it was enough for 99% of games. And the last 1% would also run "fine", altho slightly worse perf.

GTA V 8 vs 16 GB; Same performance.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 26, 2018)

Lol, you are SO out of touch. The loading of extra RAM just because is what happens with VRAM.  This is not regular RAM behavior.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Lol, you are SO out of touch. The loading of extra RAM just because I’d what happens with VRAM.  This is not regular RAM behavior.



Read up on RAM allocation. Watch the video btw. I only have 32GB because of VM's + CC.
Gaming does not require much memory.

Even 4GB holds up very well... Arkham Knight is a memory hog. And 4GB delivers 4 fps less than 16GB...
https://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html

"With 16GB of memory available we found that Chrome plus GTA V used 9GB of memory but there was absolutely no difference between the 16GB and 8GB configurations. Moreover, just a single frame was dropped when moving down to 4GB of memory in a single-channel configuration."

"Batman: Arkham Knight might not seem like a wise choice here but it's a memory hog, using almost 10GB of memory with Chrome running in the background. Despite this, the 16GB configuration was just 1fps faster than the 8GB config and 4fps faster than the 4GB config. To put it another way, 16GB was 4% faster than 4GB."

"Of the now 20 plus games we actively benchmark with, the only other game to exceed 6GB of memory usage was F1 2015 and all three memory configurations delivered the exact same 109fps."

*"In gaming scenarios we were surprised to see 4GB will help you extract most out of your system (actual gameplay frame rates versus say, loading levels) but 8GB remains ideal. Those of you focused solely on gaming who don't have the extra cash to splurge on 16GB of memory, fear not, you aren't missing out on any hidden performance."*

I'm not saying 16GB is useless. I'm saying that 99% of games will run just fine with 8GB and the last 1% are still highly playable. You will lose 5-10% perf, at worst.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2018)

las said:


> Read up on RAM allocation. Watch the video btw. I only have 32GB because of VM's + CC.
> Gaming does not require much memory.
> 
> Even 4GB holds up very well... Arkham Knight is a memory hog. And 4GB delivers 4 fps less than 16GB...
> ...



Riiiight. Now let's go back to reality, or actual user experience like mine: I ran an 8 GB rig not too long ago with an i5 3570k + GTX 1080 (ie sufficient CPU/GPU power) and it was the 8GB RAM that caused stutter. Did it lower my average FPS? No - that's where the CPU came in. But it did kill my frame times and is one of the main reasons I upgraded to a new rig with 16 GB. Every stutter I used to have is gone, same GPU, same games, same situations.

Fact remains: if you increase framerate, the chance of a frame not getting rendered in time increases too. Building a rig today with a faster quad core than what I had is a 100% guarantee for stutter @ 8GB RAM. And no, you don't need to be CPU/GPU limited for it either.

Can you get by with 8GB? Of course, in a similar way as you can get by on 4GB these days: *the applications will function, just don't ask how.*

I guess your post is a great example of why Youtube is a crappy source for PC enthusiasts.

Also, RAM is not allocated in the same way as VRAM. Its in fact a completely different world you're talking about here. On top of that, RAM Is also permanently allocated at least in part to everything else you run: Windows, services, literally everything that runs on your rig resides in RAM or Pagefile. Most notably a Chrome browser, which is known to take upwards of 1GB.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Riiiight. Now let's go back to reality, or actual user experience like mine: I ran an 8 GB rig not too long ago with an i5 3570k + GTX 1080 (ie sufficient CPU/GPU power) and it was the 8GB RAM that caused stutter. Did it lower my average FPS? No - that's where the CPU came in. But it did kill my frame times and is one of the main reasons I upgraded to a new rig with 16 GB. Every stutter I used to have is gone, same GPU, same games, same situations.
> 
> Fact remains: if you increase framerate, the chance of a frame not getting rendered in time increases too. Building a rig today with a faster quad core than what I had is a 100% guarantee for stutter @ 8GB RAM. And no, you don't need to be CPU/GPU limited for it either.
> 
> ...



Facts remain? You didn't provide any facts at all. I provided several, that shows 8GB is enough.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2018)

las said:


> Facts remain? You didn't provide any facts at all. I provided several, that shows 8GB is enough.



Don't mistake facts with uneducated Youtubers' (wrong) guesses and your own wrong assumptions based on that. One can lead a horse to water... go read some real documentation and come back.

I did provide a fact, and the fact is that you're unable to realize it, again underlining that you are out of touch here. What I didn't provide, is a source - but you're capable enough to Google that yourself.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Don't mistake facts with uneducated Youtubers' (wrong) guesses and your own wrong assumptions based on that. One can lead a horse to water... go read some real documentation and come back.
> 
> I did provide a fact, and the fact is that you're unable to realize it, again underlining that you are out of touch here. What I didn't provide, is a source - but you're capable enough to Google that yourself.



I don't need to read anything. I've build hundreds of gaming PC's over the years. You know, first hand experience.

Techspot's test showed the same.

You sound mad. Don't be mad because you lack basic soft and hardwareknowledge. Educate yourself instead.

Pretty much all new and demanding games has 8GB as recommended and 4-6 minimum. even AC Origins will run perfect with 8GB, which is probably the most demanding PC game right now.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2018)

las said:


> I don't need to read anything. I've build hundreds of gaming PC's over the years.
> 
> Techspot's test showed the same.
> 
> You sound mad. Don't be mad because you lack basic soft and hardwareknowledge. Educate yourself instead.



Not mad at all, I just get a bit cringy when I see posts like yours in a topic that never even considered 8GB in the first place (one wonders why...). Its wrong advice, in the wrong place, and supported by the wrong arguments. And you insist on it too... Not sure which is worse...

Gauging average FPS metrics and % performance gaps between different types of RAM is *fundamentally not testing the RAM*. You're testing the overall system performance. When RAM falls short, it shows in the 97-99th percentiles, not in averages.

I honestly don't care how many rigs you built, if you build them in 2018 with 8GB RAM for gaming, I really hope you lose your customers fast or find another job.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Not mad at all, I just get a bit cringy when I see posts like yours in a topic that never even considered 8GB in the first place (one wonders why...). Its wrong advice, in the wrong place, and supported by the wrong arguments. And you insist on it too... Not sure which is worse...
> 
> Gauging average FPS metrics and % performance gaps between different types of RAM is *fundamentally not testing the RAM*. You're testing the overall system performance. When RAM falls short, it shows in the 97-99th percentiles, not in averages.
> 
> I honestly don't care how many rigs you built, if you build them in 2018 with 8GB RAM for gaming, I really hope you lose your customers fast or find another job.



Maybe you should read the thread from start to finish. Where do I recommend 8GB for a new system? Nowhere. I'm saying that 8GB is still enough for pretty much all games, which is true.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2018)

las said:


> Maybe you should read the thread from start to finish. Where do I recommend 8GB for a new system? Nowhere. I'm saying that 8GB is still enough for pretty much all games, which is true.



I did, including the more than half a page of you trying to somehow defend the wrong statements you make with Youtube side-by-sides, average and min FPS numbers. Meanwhile if you look carefully even at the side-by-side videos on Youtube for example on TW3 or GTA V, even with mid-range GPUs, you can clearly notice the (micro)stutter at 60 fps, that does not exist in the 16GB variant.

Any game that streams assets in the game world will tax system RAM heavily and it will stutter on 8GB. There are _no exceptions_ and this has been going on ever since the PS4 launched and game engines and devs adjusted towards it. Whether it is The Division, GTA, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, I could give you a dozen more open world titles, and this applies with no exception whatsoever. All of this from first hand experience, too, and on several rigs with 8GB.

8GB is simply not enough for recent games, and, again, if you had first hand experience with this recently, you would agree. Its the difference between watching youtube and experiencing the hardware at work. None of the sources you linked really does go in-depth on the RAM usage, all they do is run the same bench and monitor stats. That is not analysis, that is watching TV.

And you're right, you didn't say 8GB should be in a new rig, but then it begs the question why you even posted in the first place about 8GB.

But hey, don't take my word for it, take it from other actuall user experiences, on friggin' Youtube itself? Its not even a discussion really.

For you the takeaway here needs to be: 'I need to learn something'. I've been surprised by developments in the PC space more than once, old statements I thought were true were debunked by time on multiple occasions. Look at my sig - and take it on board.









For more:


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> I did, including the more than half a page of you trying to somehow defend the wrong statements you make with Youtube side-by-sides, average and min FPS numbers. Meanwhile if you look carefully even at the side-by-side videos on Youtube for example on TW3 or GTA V, even with mid-range GPUs, you can clearly notice the (micro)stutter at 60 fps, that does not exist in the 16GB variant.
> 
> Any game that streams assets in the game world will tax system RAM heavily and it will stutter on 8GB. There are _no exceptions_ and this has been going on ever since the PS4 launched and game engines and devs adjusted towards it. Whether it is The Division, GTA, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, I could give you a dozen more open world titles, and this applies with no exception whatsoever. All of this from first hand experience, too, and on several rigs with 8GB.
> 
> ...



Funny that the minimum fps in your own link is higher on 8GB during GTA V.

The video I linked earlier:

8GB = 0.1% low: 64fps   1%low: 81fps      Average:117fps
16GB = 0.1% low: 66fps    1%low: 76fps   Average: 114fps

Nice eh?

I said 8GB was enough, to convince him that 16GB is more than enough. And it is. 32GB for gaming is waste of money and could even lower the performance. Often 4 sticks perform worse than 2 sticks. Subtimings are lowered if XMP is used. OC is harder, CPU and RAM.

I'd go with 2x8GB 3200/CL14 for a gaming rig. Decent speed. Low latency. Best for gaming overall.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2018)

las said:


> Funny that the minimum fps in your own link is higher on 8GB during GTA V.
> 
> The video I linked earlier:
> 
> ...



We can keep going all day?

Sadly the rabbit hole goes deeper than, I keep repeating myself: watching the OSD and making a nice graph out of it. You need FRAPS _and_ FCAT and you need aggregated data to make any kind of frametime conclusions.

Back in 2014 this was hot

https://techreport.com/blog/28679/is-fcat-more-accurate-than-fraps-for-frame-time-measurements
https://developer.nvidia.com/content/analysing-stutter-–-mining-more-percentiles-0

And it has never left our heads
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/817700-is-frame-time-analysis-flawed/
https://techreport.com/review/31546/where-minimum-fps-figures-mislead-frame-time-analysis-shines

Most 'quick' reviews on Youtube do not cover these subtleties at all, hell I doubt half of them even knows about the above, they just know 'frame times need to be in the data because stutter'.

Either way: 16GB or bust


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> We can keep going all day?
> 
> Sadly the rabbit hole goes deeper than, I keep repeating myself: watching the OSD and making a nice graph out of it. You need FRAPS or FCAT and you need aggregated data to make any kind of frametime conclusions.
> 
> ...



It's funny you are trying to act like you're a hardware GURU, yet uses 3200/CL16 memory. Can't even hit 5 GHz on a 8700K (is it even delidded?) and uses 1080p on 23.5 inch VA panel that often hits ~50ms in response time. Are you part of the PC masterrace?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2018)

As i said earlier, its not all about FPS. More RAM typically doesnt increase performance in that manner. A lot of the time, it manifests itself as hitching or stutter in games when it pages out. Most titles are ok, however, why wouldnt i start with more where all games work flawlessly? Again, id only go 8gb if the budget forced me to.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 26, 2018)

Let's see if we can get away from the personal chat room scenario and move on in a more constructive way, clean-up complete.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 26, 2018)

I am going to toss my two cents in;

first penny - I agree with the techspot article that has been mentioned many times but I will post the ending statement as I find that very relevant.

_"For GTX 1060 or RX 580 owners who've spent $200-$250 on their graphics card, dumping another $200 on DDR4 memory is something they're probably umming and ahhing about. If you're playing games such as Battlefield 1 or in particular Call of Duty WWII and you care about being competitive, then 16GB really is a must.
Alternatively, if you have a relatively high-end GPU such as the GTX 1070 or Vega 56 but play older, less memory-intensive games, then 8GB will no doubt be fine. But again, for these newer titles you'll ideally want 16GB.
We found it somewhat ironic that owners of the 3GB GTX 1060, a graphics card we've recommended for budget shoppers, will require 16GB of system memory to get the most out of today's games. So by saving around $50 on the GPU, you need to spend $90 more on system memory. That changes my perspective on things a little.
That said, we're probably being a bit unrealistic as 3GB GTX 1060 owners will be playing at 1080p with lower quality settings which are likely going to play nicely with an 8GB buffer.
In a nutshell, if you plan to play the latest PC games on good quality settings, 4GB of RAM is out, 8GB is the bare minimum, 16GB is the sweet spot and 32GB is overkill.*"*_

second penny - I went from 8GB to 16GB over the holiday sales season. With a GTX 1060 and to the naked eye I saw no visible performance increase.  I did see a lot of games that ran fine with 8GB, using around 6.5GB, all the sudden jump to 10gb of use when I moved to 16GB.  While I'm sure it improved my 99% time, I really saw no visible stuttering in either scenario.  If I was building a PC today I would look at the cost of 8GB vs 16GB.  If I found I good deal on a 16GB I would snatch it otherwise I would just get 8GB and use it to hold me over until I saw a sale for another 8GB.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2018)

dirtyferret said:


> _*In a nutshell, if you plan to play the latest PC games on good quality settings, 4GB of RAM is out, 8GB is the bare minimum, 16GB is the sweet spot and 32GB is overkill.*_


Weird... feel like I have said exactly that before. In this thread, and others.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Weird... feel like I have said exactly that before. In this thread, and others.


think of me as re-inforcing your teachings!


----------



## Vario (Feb 26, 2018)

I made this decision recently myself, I got 16GB (2x8GB) 3200 CL14 and an 8600K.  I doubt the extra 6 threads really matter for gaming, which is what I use the machine for.  It is a really fast processor.

From what Cadaveca has shown here, 3200 CL14 is the sweet spot. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews..._Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 26, 2018)

So many right things being said and then argued about...
For the most part what matters most is "How" games are played.
Obviously for most games 8gb is enough especially if you're playing at 1080p or lower.... But what's the point of doing that now unless it's completely a budget limitation???
32gb however is a waste for just gaming.... Maybe in another few years... Not today.


----------



## Vario (Feb 26, 2018)

jmcslob said:


> So many right things being said and then argued about...
> For the most part what matters most is "How" games are played.
> Obviously for most games 8gb is enough especially if you're playing at 1080p or lower.... But what's the point of doing that now unless it's completely a budget limitation???
> 32gb however is a waste for just gaming.... Maybe in another few years... Not today.


With the graphics card market continues to be inaccessible due to cryptocurrency, and the incredibly powerful processors we have now both from Intel and AMD, will computer games in the near future leverage the CPU and ram power more over the next few years?  Either way, 6 core and 16GB should be adequate.  In my opinion, when games start requiring more than 6 cores, that will be the time to upgrade once more.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2018)

I think what makes it hard to gauge is also the gradual way things progress, with some big jumps in between. RAM requirements just don't 'double' overnight - the usage gradually goes up as a PC is in use over longer periods of time. Not only because applications use more, but also because more applications, more intensive use, etc. That said, if you encounter even the slightest issue in terms of RAM, the reality is that the bottom was already reached some time ago. You either have enough, or you don't, and it will impact smoothness.

A reality check is needed: I feel the only reason we are still going on about 8GB is because of small budgets and high DDR prices. Not because its a sensible thing to do...


----------



## Deleted member 171912 (Feb 26, 2018)

zanatos said:


> Hi, since RAM now is becoming expensive I would like to know whether 16gb is enough for gaming or Not! Last but not least is the lack of HT a big miss over the i7 8600k?



Gaming PC
CPU - OC i7-8600K is good choice. 6 cores is enough so HT is not needed.
RAM - 16 GB RAM is enough, 2x 8GB 3200 MHz CL14 will be ok.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 26, 2018)

Ok 8GB is minimum spec, 10+GB recommended.

The way my system reads out is I have 2-3GB used by Win 7 64bit and 14-13GB Free for everything else. I bought my Ram 4 years ago.

PS my board unofficially supports 64GB but that's probably ram at 1866 or lower.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 26, 2018)

I have 4x 8 gig sticks of ddr4 3200 cas 14.  for some reason i thought there were a few games that used more than 16gb of ram. i know not many but a few and that it was the future. hmm... i haven't opened it up yet as this build is still new. think i will refund one pair of them and just stick with 16gb.  $183 I think it cost me for 2x8gb. ill refund that and put it towards the new monitor i just bought, victory!


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 28, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> I have 4x 8 gig sticks of ddr4 3200 cas 14.  for some reason i thought there were a few games that used more than 16gb of ram. i know not many but a few and that it was the future. hmm... i haven't opened it up yet as this build is still new. think i will refund one pair of them and just stick with 16gb.  $183 I think it cost me for 2x8gb. ill refund that and put it towards the new monitor i just bought, victory!



That's a quick win and definitely worth doing, especially so now as prices are still high. 2 sticks will be beneficial for performance in some ways as well.


----------

