16 gb vs 32 gb RAM 8600kvs8700kfor Gaming PC

[las]

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.

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

 

[Vayra86]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

View attachment 97700

View attachment 97701
For more:

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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_Two]

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]

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]

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]

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

think of me as re-inforcing your teachings!

 

[Vario]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.