Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Thresher
shalmon wrote:Unless someone can point me to a source out there that discusses this already, I'd suggest it as a potential article topic.
Voldenuit wrote:Would like to see a benchmark article with these games and varying memory capacities, to see if there is an impact, and how much.
drfish wrote:Basically, if a game needs over 8GB, you're going to need 16GB if we're talking about dual channel memory systems. Some games certainly need over 8GB. I can confirm that Ark does for one (just going by what it utilizes). Triple channel memory systems may be ok with 12GB though, I guess. Even if a game "just" needs 6GB, you'll be bumping up against 8GB real quick, and 16GB is just the next step to be at.
derfunkenstein wrote:Even if a game needs 6GB, you're going to see a bit of paging on a system with 8GB of memory.
Vhalidictes wrote:Well, assuming that you have ~200 mods loaded like I do. Interestingly, they'll also happily run on 4GB systems, they just start running from the page file.
Weirdly, performance doesn't seem to suffer at all from the crazy paging; It just seems like loading screens take a bit longer*.
*All the tested systems were SSD-based.
Glorious wrote:There's another complication, allocated memory isn't necessarily real memory. Not an expert/can't properly recall for windows, but overcommit is a huge issue on Linux and I definitely know there are more granular metrics available in MS land, which suggests the situation isn't wildly dissimilar.
So how real working set memory is actually being used at any given time? There are tools, I just don't have any idea.
drfish wrote:Basically, if a game needs over 8GB, you're going to need 16GB if we're talking about dual channel memory systems. Some games certainly need over 8GB. I can confirm that Ark does for one (just going by what it utilizes). Triple channel memory systems may be ok with 12GB though, I guess. Even if a game "just" needs 6GB, you'll be bumping up against 8GB real quick, and 16GB is just the next step to be at.
I.S.T. wrote:With regards to FO4, I can totally see that friggin' ridiculous new texture pack taking 16 gigs of RAM.
You don't download 58 Gigabytes of textures and expect the main system RAM requirements for good performance to stay the same.
Arvald wrote:I know a few people who run 12GB in dual channel 4 slots... 2x4 and 2x2. as long as the pairs matched you were fine.
there were times when 8GB was not enough and 16GB was too expensive.
Times have changed but many have not upgraded their systems since systems built 6 years ago are still good for todays games.
TheRazorsEdge wrote:RAM is cheap. I got 32 GB so I don't have to worry about stuff like this until it's time to upgrade again.
And I use Chrome.
Vhalidictes wrote:I.S.T. wrote:With regards to FO4, I can totally see that friggin' ridiculous new texture pack taking 16 gigs of RAM.
You don't download 58 Gigabytes of textures and expect the main system RAM requirements for good performance to stay the same.
I haven't yet seen it use more than 16GB (the main process, at least). It just seems to go directly to pagefile after that. The system I play it on has 24GB of RAM, so it could allocate more if it wanted to. Might be hardcoded?
Glorious wrote:Voldenuit wrote:Would like to see a benchmark article with these games and varying memory capacities, to see if there is an impact, and how much.
Ultimately, either the game is paging, or it isn't.
The only thing you'd be able to see is whether or not the game detects the amount of installed memory and automatically tones down some settings to avoid a potential problem.
Which almost certainly mean that a system with less memory would end up performing better, because it was made to look worse.
If a game needs more than 8GB (which is easily feasible nowadays) either you have that physical memory or you don't. If you don't, your hard-drive light goes on and your game becomes a slide-show. It's hard to miss.
TheRazorsEdge wrote:RAM is cheap. I got 32 GB so I don't have to worry about stuff like this until it's time to upgrade again.
And I use Chrome.
TravelMug wrote:TheRazorsEdge wrote:RAM is cheap. I got 32 GB so I don't have to worry about stuff like this until it's time to upgrade again.
And I use Chrome.
Small correction - RAM *was* cheap, up until last spring or early summer. Prices started to go up after that and now everything is at least double what it was. I also got a 32GB kit back then, now the 16GB kits are starting at that level and go higher in price.
Krogoth wrote:None of those games needs 16GiB of system memory to run. They only consume around ~8GiB at most unless you throw in a ton of mods and stuff that may push it into 10-12GiB land.
8GiB is going to the target ceiling for game developers for a while yet until next generation of gaming consoles comes out (Not the PS4 Pro and Xbox One Scorpion).
daspendejo wrote:I'm gonna set 16gb ram on a z270 motherboard. It does gets very expensive the faster you approach the 4000 plateau. Ultimately I think I will settle in around 2666MHz.
RECOMMENDED:
OS: 64-bit Windows 10
Processor: Intel Core i5 or Equivalent
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: 4 GB GDDR5 NVidia GTX 970 / AMD R9 390 or better
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 30 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible Sound Card
Additional Notes: 1920x1080 Display Resolution or Higher
shalmon wrote:i've noticed that there is a growing list of games that are BOLD enough to state system requirements that break the 8gb system memory barrier. [snip]
Titanfall 2
Deus ex mankind divided
Forza motorsport 6 apex
TwistedKestrel wrote:and Titanfall 2 was easily the best, with a very evenly distributed load across four threads.