Jump to content
Caius Filimon

RAM in Demanding Games/Future Games

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Hi there peeps,

 

I was hoping I could get some of your opinions on how much you think RAM will matter in gaming in the coming few years, as well as what you think of the links I will provide below.

 

Most gamers seem to be ardent believers that 16GB nowadays is the new 8GB of a few years ago and is as such a must.

 

However, it would seem that even games such as Battlefield One, that recommend 16GB of RAM, have its FPS unaffected in any way (at least in the 60-90 fps range). I will link below two well documented videos on the topic that shows that Battlefield One can manage with merely FOUR Gigs of RAM without any FPS loss as compared to 8GB, or 16GB.

 

Timestamp: 2:12

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2677-bf1-ram-benchmark-frequency-8gb-enough/page-2

(video within article)

-This one shows that 8GB is more than enough and as long as FPS does not go past a certain point, 16GB is simply useless.

 

So, I believe that as long as there are no considerable CPU/GPU bottlenecks and the RAM isn't some crappy DDR2 type and is at least 1666 DDR3, AND there are TWO sticks, not just one, 8GB of RAM is plenty more than enough nowadays (given NO BACKGROUND apps) and should be just enough to not lead to performance loss within 2/3 years for 60-70fps gameplay. If you disagree or agree, please say so.

 

Thanks for your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But people sometimes want music playing or record their footage or do other things at the same time as gaming and 4Gb is way too little for that. Even 8gbs as GTA V uses 6+gbs. 


PC Specs: i7 6EiGht00K (4.4ghz), Asus DeLuxe X99A II, GTX1080 Zotac Amp ExTrEme),64Gb DOminator PlatinUm, EVGA G2 seven5zeroWatt, Phanteks Enthoo Primo, 3TB WD Black, 500gb 850 Evo, H100iGTX, Windows 10, K70 RGB, G502, HyperX Cloud 2s, Asus MX34. SAMSUNG 960 EVO

Just keeping this here as a backup 980tiZotacStockBIOS.zip☻♥■∞{╚§XÅD{┘Æ╩mYÄÜXτ╕○\╚Θº£¥ΘBM@Q05♠{{↨↨▬§¶‼↕◄►☼1♦  wumbo

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

But people sometimes want music playing or record their footage or do other things at the same time as gaming and 4Gb is way too little for that. Even 8gbs as GTA V uses 6+gbs. 

When I play GTA. My RAM usally goes into the 10GB range out of my 16GB. More RAM is always better. And in the case of either 8GB or 16GB, more RAM is noticeable imo.


 OnePlus 3 (Late 2017 - present) | Lenovo Thinkpad T480 i7-8550U with UHD 620 Graphics (Mid 2018 - present)

Samaritan (Early 2018 - present) - AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (8C/16T) , MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon, Corsair 16GB DDR4-3200MHz , Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 480 8GB, Corsair RM850i PSU, Corsair H100i v2 CPU Cooler, Samsung 860 EVO 500GB SSD, Seagate BarraCuda 2TB HDD (2018), Seagate BarraCuda 1TB HDD (2014), NZXT S340 Elite, Corsair ML 120 Pro, Corsair ML 140 Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just BF1, try something much more harsh on the CPU and RAM like Watch Dogs 2, Ashes, new Assassin Creed games, Mafia 3 etc. Even Minceraft with its Amplified world option (not a mod) will chew through a LOT of RAM.

 

Besides, who doesnt want to run more apps at a time? Game here and tutorial/wiki site on the browser is normal, and overclockers (or just hardware madheads) will run other things like Afterburner and RTSS. I myself have 7 of these, not counting Nvidia's control panel.


Studying abroad, using a laptop I don't like and recently starts to lock at 1.5GHz, as if it isnt slow enough. At least Throttlestop does what the name suggests and I get to use my keyboard and mouse.

Laptop name: Lenovo G40-80 CPU: i3-5010U 2.1GHz (allegedly) RAM: 16GB 1600MHz DDR3 GPU: Intel xD graphics Storage: 500GB 5.4k RPM HDD (as if 7.2k RPM ones arent slow enough) Monitor: A crappy 1366x768 60Hz TN

 

The best thing to do is reading the clock speed that doesnt end in a pair of zeros. Software voltage readings are wrong if your motherboard's not a high end model

CPU: i7-2600K 4493MHz (multiplier: 43x) 1.35V (software) --> 1.4V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 104.5MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 10-11-11-30 2T 2133MHz, custom: 10-11-10-30 1T 2229MHz) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 2 exhausts Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (OC'd 150Hz) TN Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Results: Cinebench R15 Single thread:159 Multi-thread: 770 (thx Meltdown Spectre patch) Super Pi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.11s 1M: 8.4s 32M: 7m 45.9s

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Caius Filimon said:

Hi there peeps,

I was hoping I could get some of your opinions on how much you think RAM will matter in gaming in the coming few years, as well as what you think of the links I will provide below.

Thanks for your time.

16GB is becoming the new 8GB. Don't look at 1 game with crappy average FPS metric by LTT. 
 

Min FPS suffers with 4GB RAM shown by HardwareUnboxed and he tested it with a clean system. Average user system is more bloated with other softwares and that will increase the performance impact. 


| Intel Xeon E3-1230v2 | MSI B75A-G43 | Zotac 980 Ti Amp! Omega | RipjawsX F3 4GB x2 | 300GB Intel DC S3500 SSD| 512GB Plextor M5 Pro | 2TB WD Blue HDD |
 | Enermax NAXN82+ 650W 80Plus Bronze | Fiio E07K | Grado SR80i | Cooler Master XB HAF EVO | Logitech G27 | Logitech G600 | CM Storm Quickfire TK | Razer Onza |

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

16GB is becoming the new 8GB. Don't look at 1 game with crappy average FPS metric by LTT. 
 

Min FPS suffers with 4GB RAM shown by HardwareUnboxed and he tested it with a clean system. Average user system is more bloated with other softwares and that will increase the performance impact. 

If RAM pricing wasn't such a big issue, I'd be inclined to agree. As it stands now, I'd rather encourage trying to squeeze 8 GB for all it's worth, unless money is no object.


The pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Forever in search of my reason to exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm usually in the mantra of figure out the minimum amount of RAM you need, then double it for future growth. If you don't cap out that amount, then you still don't need more. And I also run with the mantra of "unused RAM is a waste." The other problem I see is that lots of people tend to leave unnecessary things open and they don't take the time to figure out what they really need running. This inflates their RAM requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

I see; thanks a lot for your replies.

 

I expected Battlefield One to be the game to require the most RAM of most of the newest games nowadays.

 

3 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

16GB is becoming the new 8GB. Don't look at 1 game with crappy average FPS metric by LTT. 
 

Min FPS suffers with 4GB RAM shown by HardwareUnboxed and he tested it with a clean system. Average user system is more bloated with other softwares and that will increase the performance impact. 

 

Do you think it might have to do with the fact that the GPUs used are not exactly top of the line? Namely, the research that shows RAM has no performance impact in Battlefield One exclusively used 1070s and higher. As it can be seen, the less VRAM, the more stuttering.

 

So, perhaps the load on the RAM is reduced whenever there's a crap ton of VRAM available. I think I've read something about that somewhere.

 

Just to make my bias clear, I have a soldered RAM laptop with 8 gigs, and I'm just hoping very very strongly that 8gigs of RAM given all background apps are closed (such as with RazerCortex) will be enough to maintain modern-day AC Origins graphics at 60fps today and in 3 years.

 

And as an extra question, would an M.2 SSD reduce the stuttering seen in that video by any amount? Namely, the 0.1% FPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Caius Filimon said:

Just to make my bias clear, I have a soldered RAM laptop with 8 gigs, and I'm just hoping very very strongly that 8gigs of RAM given all background apps are closed (such as with RazerCortex) will be enough to maintain modern-day AC Origins graphics at 60fps today and in 3 years.

As long as all of the performance sensitive components in the game are in RAM, then the performance won't be affected. It's only when the game needs to access the page file that things start to get ugly.

 

And then there's the question of if the game is smart enough to make adjustments about how to use RAM depending on how much there is. Though I don't think that may actually be a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

As long as all of the performance sensitive components in the game are in RAM, then the performance won't be affected. It's only when the game needs to access the page file that things start to get ugly.

 

And then there's the question of if the game is smart enough to make adjustments about how to use RAM depending on how much there is. Though I don't think that may actually be a thing.

I think games are indeed smart enough for that, or at least most games. In terms of RAM usage, the pagefile on the videos I've seen of Battlefield One with 4GB RAM was smaller, when combined with the RAM in use, to the total RAM usage of 16GB systems. Namely, 16GB systems would see about 10/12 Gigs of RAM being used, while 4GB RAM systems would see page files of about 2/3Gigs together with almost all of the 4 gigs of RAM being used.

 

As such, I can only assume that the more RAM one has, the more lax most apps are with using a crap ton of RAM.

 

And yeah, that's what I mean when I am curious about whether 8 Gigs of RAM will be enough in the future, so that pagefiling won't be large enough for the game to microstutter every few seconds. I just hope that with an ultra fast M.2 SSD, possible page filing of about 3/4 gigs with 8GB RAM will lead to microstutters only every one or a few minutes so that it doesn't wreck the experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Caius Filimon said:

As such, I can only assume that the more RAM one has, the more lax most apps are with using a crap ton of RAM.

I think it's the opposite, in that the app may request the OS to reserve even more RAM. Reserving RAM is effectively using it as far as the OS is concerned.

 

There's also the problem that the page table size increases with more available memory, which seems to be implemented in a way to use up appreciably more RAM in Windows.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I think it's the opposite, in that the app may request the OS to reserve even more RAM. Reserving RAM is effectively using it as far as the OS is concerned.

 

There's also the problem that the page table size increases with more available memory, which seems to be implemented in a way to use up appreciably more RAM in Windows.

 

So if there is more spare RAM, the OS will be more lax with allocating increasing amounts to the app? So the app will always try to eat up more RAM; it just depends if the OS deems it appropriate to allocate more of it to apps?

 

 

It can be seen how the 16GB System uses about half a gig more RAM at most times. It would also seem that the fps is the exact same (no idea about the low 0.1%s though) but importantly, that not more than about 6 Gigs are being used on the 8gig system, or 6.5 on the 16gig system. Why's that?

 

It just seems to me that I keep hearing of very highly contrasting stories. Some people say that their highest end modern games end up using 12 gigs of RAM, while there are many tests that show no FPS drop (or at least no average FPS drop) and far less RAM usage. How?

 

Is it because, as I asked before, if one has more VRAM there is less stress placed on RAM?

 

Edit: Ah, as in the comments section of the video: 

 

'Wolfgang, this was not a great test. You should have done this on a weaker graphics card, as stated already by someone in the comments. With a weaker GPU (and with that, less vRAM), it would start to use the RAM once it runs out of GDDR5 memory. Since you used a powerful graphics card, it will have more vRAM, so it won't rely on the system RAM at all.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caius Filimon said:

So if there is more spare RAM, the OS will be more lax with allocating increasing amounts to the app? So the app will always try to eat up more RAM; it just depends if the OS deems it appropriate to allocate more of it to apps?

I don't know the answer to that question since I'm not privvy with how Windows likes to allocate memory to apps or what apps do when the ask for memory, other than the higher level mechanisms (if you can call it that) in play. It might be more lax, but there's no definite thing that says yes or no.

1 hour ago, Caius Filimon said:

It can be seen how the 16GB System uses about half a gig more RAM at most times. It would also seem that the fps is the exact same (no idea about the low 0.1%s though) but importantly, that not more than about 6 Gigs are being used on the 8gig system, or 6.5 on the 16gig system. Why's that?

It might have something to do with the fact that the page table increases in size if you install more physical RAM (there's a whole large article about Windows' memory system at https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-performance/physical-and-virtual-memory-in-windows-10/e36fb5bc-9ac8-49af-951c-e7d39b979938)

 

Page tables are also built it seems for each process that gets launched to facilitate in virtual memory management (https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2008/06/06/pages-and-page-tables-an-overview/)

 

1 hour ago, Caius Filimon said:

It just seems to me that I keep hearing of very highly contrasting stories. Some people say that their highest end modern games end up using 12 gigs of RAM, while there are many tests that show no FPS drop (or at least no average FPS drop) and far less RAM usage. How?

As long as everything the application needs is in RAM and everything else is the same, the application won't suffer any performance issues. The only reason why an application would suffer performance issues is that there is not enough RAM available and anything the application needs is being swapped in or out.

 

As far as less RAM usage is concerned, I'd be curious to know how they measured it. Measuring actual memory consumption of an application in Windows can be a bit tricky.

1 hour ago, Caius Filimon said:

Is it because, as I asked before, if one has more VRAM there is less stress placed on RAM?

 

Edit: Ah, as in the comments section of the video: 

 

'Wolfgang, this was not a great test. You should have done this on a weaker graphics card, as stated already by someone in the comments. With a weaker GPU (and with that, less vRAM), it would start to use the RAM once it runs out of GDDR5 memory. Since you used a powerful graphics card, it will have more vRAM, so it won't rely on the system RAM at all.'

In this case though, this can be resolved by lowering the resolution of various graphics settings, including screen size, textures, shadow quality, and if there's any MSAA or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
On 4/16/2018 at 8:51 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

I don't know the answer to that question since I'm not privvy with how Windows likes to allocate memory to apps or what apps do when the ask for memory, other than the higher level mechanisms (if you can call it that) in play. It might be more lax, but there's no definite thing that says yes or no.

It might have something to do with the fact that the page table increases in size if you install more physical RAM (there's a whole large article about Windows' memory system at https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-performance/physical-and-virtual-memory-in-windows-10/e36fb5bc-9ac8-49af-951c-e7d39b979938)

 

Page tables are also built it seems for each process that gets launched to facilitate in virtual memory management (https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2008/06/06/pages-and-page-tables-an-overview/)

 

As long as everything the application needs is in RAM and everything else is the same, the application won't suffer any performance issues. The only reason why an application would suffer performance issues is that there is not enough RAM available and anything the application needs is being swapped in or out.

 

As far as less RAM usage is concerned, I'd be curious to know how they measured it. Measuring actual memory consumption of an application in Windows can be a bit tricky.

In this case though, this can be resolved by lowering the resolution of various graphics settings, including screen size, textures, shadow quality, and if there's any MSAA or not.

From my meager documentation, it would seem that Windows 10 is very good with RAM management, and it tends to fill up as much of it as possible if there's much of it free. It tries to anticipate what you will be using and preloads it. The second an application that is being immediately used needs more RAM, it just dumps whatever anticipated action was on the RAM. I've read a Quora answer of a guy who claims he's had 1GB RAM, 2GB RAM and 4GB RAM Windows devices (tablets and stuff) who mentioned similar stuff.

 

And yes indeed, the issue is swapping in between storage and RAM. I also think an M.2 SSD helps greatly with that in games. And from the looks of it, even 4GB RAM is enough for the most demanding games today given no DDR5 constraints. So I suppose I should rest easy knowing that 8GB RAM should be enough for gaming (and no other applications running in tandem) within 2/3 more years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Buy VPN

×