is 8GB ram still good for recent games at ultra?

[whiteknights]

i have i5-3470 CPU, GTX 1060, 8GB Ram DDR3

i was wondering if 8GB won't stutter and give me problems while gaming modern games at 1080P?

i've noticed that some 2018-2019 games requires 12GB-16GB Ram for ultra settings.. is that means that i'll have problems playing this games?

[Feanturi_IV]

I'd say go 16gb for safety if you can afford it, but if not I think you will be fine if the gpu and cpu can handle the workload 

 

[mxk]

8gb is ok for running a game and really only having that program open. It's hard to use more than a game and discord for me with 8gb.

 

Also, your CPU probably isn't the most ideal for ultra. Consider going for Ryzen stuff if you can.

[Jurrunio]

you wont be going ultra with a 1060 at 1080p unless your games are really easy to run

[pstarlord]

For your build, I'd say 8GB is fine honestly.  Of course, more is always better, but the other components in your system will prevent you from gaming on 1080p highest settings anyway, so you don't have to worry.  

 

 

[XR6]

16GB is a much better option if it's in budget.

8GB won't do much nowadays. While running a game you won't have much RAM left (maybe 1-2GB at most?) to have an internet browser or Discord open.

8GB isn't a bad choice but I would recommend 16GB to anyone unless they're not playing demanding games.

[whiteknights]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

you wont be going ultra with a 1060 at 1080p unless your games are really easy to run

 

Just now, pstarlord said:

For your build, I'd say 8GB is fine honestly.  Of course, more is always better, but the other components in your system will prevent you from gaming on 1080p highest settings anyway, so you don't have to worry.  

 

 

that's strange.. i used to play most games at high-ultra with my old sapphire HD 7870 XT 2GB.. game like the Witcher 3 used to run it with the 7870XT at tweaked ultra with a playable FPS. so i thought that 1060 is a lot better than 7870XT.

[Jurrunio]

14 minutes ago, whiteknights said:

 

that's strange.. i used to play most games at high-ultra with my old sapphire HD 7870 XT 2GB.. game like the Witcher 3 used to run it with the 7870XT at tweaked ultra with a playable FPS. so i thought that 1060 is a lot better than 7870XT.

games also got more demanding, and tweaked ultra isnt ultra anymore.

[191x7]

Hardware Unboxed did a few good videos on the topic.

 

If your GTX 1060 is a 6GB card you can probably run Ok with 8GB of system RAM, but if it's 3GB you definitely need more than 8GB.

[whiteknights]

i have a 60HZ refresh rate 24inch monitor.. i was thinking of upgrading to 120HZ refresh rate monitor after i got the 1060 so i can make use of the extra 60+FPS in games if there will be any.. so you don't think its worth getting 120HZ monitor with the 1060? since i won't be getting above 60FPS in most modern games.

[whiteknights]

Just now, 191x7 said:

Hardware Unboxed did a few good videos on the topic.

 

If your GTX 1060 is a 6GB card you can probably run Ok with 8GB of system RAM, but if it's 3GB you definitely need more than 8GB.

its the 3GB.. so you mean i definitely need more than 8GB in the future or immediately?.. will it stutter that badly at demanding games with the 8GB Ram?

[191x7]

The one from 2017

 

The one from last month:

 

[Jurrunio]

Just now, WikiForce said:

wut? it can. yesterday i saw a video where in 1080p ultra settings even 1050 ti was getting around 50fps in Battlefield 1. 1060 should be more than enough for that resolution and i would say it can easily do above 100fps in most games considering how powerful it is compared to a 1050 ti.

Gone through my game library, Sniper Elite at DX11 1080p ultra barely does 60fps in the shooting range map, which is smaller and easier to run than the maps in the campaign mode. Shadow of the Tomb Raider, at DX11 floated around 50-60fps. I think I can skip Assassin's Creed and Final Fantasy 15?

[JoostinOnline]

A 1060 3GB and a third gen i5 aren't going to run more demanding games at Ultra. That being said you aren't missing out by turning down the settings. Games these days are designed with medium and high settings in mind.

 

8GB of RAM is okay as long as you don't have other stuff running in the background (especially a browser).

[cluelessgenius]

i think you cant generalize that. 8GB might be fine for some and not for others. see my rig in the signature and i still cant run wildlands "at ultra" vs borderlands will run on a potato it seems to me . "modern titles" really cant be generalized like that anymore also "ultra" is also becoming harder to define. like sure theres ingame settings but agian ultra AA for example on one game might be medium AA on another. and theres resolution and back in the day it didnt matter but nowadays theres also Hz / FPS number goal people want to achive that might differ.

"i want a pc that runs modern games at ultra 1080p" is just not that specific imo. i might be the only dick that thinks this though

[whiteknights]

thanks for responding.. i didn't mean by (Ultra) that I'm going to max out everything.. i lower few settings like AA, and there are some other settings that doesn't make a graphical difference. used to do that with my old 7870XT and was just fine.

[bowrilla]

3 hours ago, WikiForce said:

wut? it can. yesterday i saw a video where in 1080p ultra settings even 1050 ti was getting around 50fps in Battlefield 1. 1060 should be more than enough for that resolution and i would say it can easily do above 100fps in most games considering how powerful it is compared to a 1050 ti.

Well, Battlefield 1 is almost 2 1/2 years old. This isn't modern anymore. "getting around 50fps" means exactly nothing. Your average fps are more or less irrelevant if you have massive dips. You want consistent fps with little to no bigger dips. Neither a 1060 (I had one) nor a 1050 Ti can deliver this today. They're decent cards for medium settings but you will run into stutters. 

 

3 hours ago, whiteknights said:

i have a 60HZ refresh rate 24inch monitor.. i was thinking of upgrading to 120HZ refresh rate monitor after i got the 1060 so i can make use of the extra 60+FPS in games if there will be any.. so you don't think its worth getting 120HZ monitor with the 1060? since i won't be getting above 60FPS in most modern games.

Sorry, no point in investing into a 120Hz panel. Your 1060 can't deliver these kind of fps. 

 

3 hours ago, whiteknights said:

its the 3GB.. so you mean i definitely need more than 8GB in the future or immediately?.. will it stutter that badly at demanding games with the 8GB Ram?

Well, the 3GB version will quickly run out of VRAM and make use of your system memory. 8GB is tight in the first place (depending on the game you choose) and this way it will just run out of system memory forcing your system into using your swap memory on your hard drive - which is horribly slow. 

 

Your system should be good for medium settings in modern games but you'll ultimately be limited by VRAM and RAM.

[Tech Wizard]

Just to give you an idea - Was playing Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) at Ultra settings + twitch stream on 2nd monitor --> Was using 12GB RAM

[bowrilla]

2 minutes ago, Tech Wizard said:

Just to give you an idea - Was playing Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) at Ultra settings + twitch stream on 2nd monitor --> Was using 12GB RAM

Cities Skylines with quite a few mods and Assets: 28GB memory usage.

[Princess Luna]

3 hours ago, whiteknights said:

.

When you say "ultra" what settings do you really mean? because no way The Witcher 3 at 1080p max out/ultra is playable on a 7870

[Stormseeker9]

8 minutes ago, bowrilla said:

Cities Skylines with quite a few mods and Assets: 28GB memory usage.

oh C:S love that game. first eats 8/8gb Vram then another 10-12GB RAM 

[whiteknights]

Just now, bowrilla said:

Well, the 3GB version will quickly run out of VRAM and make use of your system memory. 8GB is tight in the first place (depending on the game you choose) and this way it will just run out of system memory forcing your system into using your swap memory on your hard drive - which is horribly slow.  

 

Your system should be good for medium settings in modern games but you'll ultimately be limited by VRAM and RAM.

I'm not aiming for a solid 60FPS. as i mentioned before i used to play The Witcher 3 with my old HD 7870XT 2GB at high-ultra settings and i was getting a playable FPS. most of others modern games was similar to that as well.. so after upgrading to 1060 I'm good for medium settings? thats a set back.

[bowrilla]

7 minutes ago, whiteknights said:

I'm not aiming for a solid 60FPS. as i mentioned before i used to play The Witcher 3 with my old HD 7870XT 2GB at high-ultra settings and i was getting a playable FPS. most of others modern games was similar to that as well.. so after upgrading to 1060 I'm good for medium settings? thats a set back.

You're obviously defining "playable" differently than most people. Still: hardware requirements rise over time. Witcher 3 is from 2015 and therefore not a modern title anymore. You're also specifying high-ultra settings but then say you dialed some stuff back. With these kind of information nobody can give you an answer anymore because nobody knows what you're actually talking about. Nobody knows which games you're going to play. Assassins Creed Origins for example will run on a 1060 6GB with high-ish settings but you will encounter quite a lot of dips and stutters. 

[whiteknights]

Just now, bowrilla said:

You're obviously defining "playable" differently than most people. Still: hardware requirements rise over time. Witcher 3 is from 2015 and therefore not a modern title anymore. You're also specifying high-ultra settings but then say you dialed some stuff back. With these kind of information nobody can give you an answer anymore because nobody knows what you're actually talking about. Nobody knows which games you're going to play. Assassins Creed Origins for example will run on a 1060 6GB with high-ish settings but you will encounter quite a lot of dips and stutters. 

thanks.. i meant by "playable" playing the game with no stutters and dips, as far as i remember the frame rates was rarely going below 40FPS in witcher 3.
i tweaked some stuff back from ultra to high, so it was a combination between both.. anyway i was referring to The Witcher 3 cause i thought it still a very demanding game even more demanding than some newer games in 2017,2018.

[THraShArD]

8 hours ago, 191x7 said:

The one from 2017

 

The one from last month:

 

 

Those videos are a bit misleading.  He's saying 32GB is overkill ?   That's not true.  Majority of systems the last few years only have 2 channel memory and memory is currently very expensive.

 

If your system only has 16GB of Memory, Windows will assign less memory to programs , as compared to having 32 or 64GB. 

 

To make things even more confusing, if you want that Memory to run at a certain speed , you have to leave Memory Slots empty and not used.