Is 16 GB RAM worth it?

Hey guy, I recently threw a budget build together so I could upgrade some time next year if need be. My original plan was to get 1 stick of 8GB RAM and grab another stick when I upgrade my CPU, but now I'm wondering if I would see any benefits from having 16 GB's? Not sure if you need my specs or not to draw a conclusion, but I'll leave them here to be safe.

i3 4170

MSI H81M-P33 mother board

8 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport

GTX 960 SuperSC ACX 2.0

Cooler Master N200

EVGA 500w PSU

There is no benefit of having 16GB of RAM for gaming. Just stick with 8GB until you need more. I have 8GB and I run all games on max settings. Believe me, if there was a benefit of having 16GB or more, I would have it. That being said, if you are using your PC for content creation (editing large videos, music production, rendering, etc.), there is a benefit to having more RAM.

You'd get approximately a 6 FPS improvement with 16GB over 8GB in newer games like Witcher 3 and GTX V.. depending on your OS, anyway

Proof?

@BassMan: tbh, I didn't even bother to check anywhere else, but this is the video I got it from..

http://youtu.be/vDkKDqThyBo

Those tests are flawed as they are not set benchmarks that replicate the exact same simulations. Also, there are other factors... was it the same RAM used? timings the same? how many channels were used in each configuration? I would like to see some comparisons from a more reputable source and more details. I did notice in the video that there was more RAM usage with 16 GB, but neither exceeded 8 GB.

Unless you have alot of background stuff running and running poorly coded games that have a memory leak would be the only reason to go from 8gb to 16gb. I have seen with what I have in the background running with say BF4 MP seen 7gb+ usage. Now you really wont increase fps, but you will remove the need for more things to be swapped out from memory and harddrive, which can cause hitching or fps hiccups.

I'd have to check again, but running Just Cause 3 (which has a lot of crap going on on-screen) and listening to music, and having like three browser pages open, I was around using 40% of my memory (I have 16GB)

But, if you're building now, why not get 16GB? Memory is cheap.

I agree with this. Memory is so cheap, why not get 16GB if you're building? If you just want to upgrade I would say dont since it wont make a noticeable difference.

You should since ddr3 is at its lowest it's probably ever going to be. 16 gigs of ram is nice, you can have quite a few tabs open and play games without worrying.

Are there any gaming benefits to dual channel memory? I only have the one stick. I may just go for it. Some of you bring up a good point about the price. I remember it being more expensive a few months back. Also, my mobo can only take 16 gbs. It would be one thing less to worry about when I upgrade the CPU and such next year.

@intotheminx: Moved to Hardware forum.

I've used over 8Gb RAM in a few games, it's definitely worth getting 16Gb.

No games need more than 8GB.

If you already have 8GB then you are good.

If you are starting from scratch get 16GB because 2 8GB sticks of RAM only cost around 60 dollars.

I was temped to buy another 8GB of RAM when I saw 2x4GB of Ares 2400mhz was selling for 35USD when I originally payed 60USD for mine last year.

I didn't go through with it because I don't need it and didn't want to have to take off my huge Noctua NH-D14 heatsink to install the RAM.

+1. Same here. I sometimes have passed the 8GB limit.

Guys, remember that you don't have to play a game that uses 16GB in order to get benefit from 16GB RAM.

Even a game that uses 8,5GB RAM still benefits from 16GB...

But I think this option is budget related. I wouldn't put 16GB in a less than $1000 system.

I would place 16GB in a system with at least an i5 and a GTX970, so if I had to place that money in CPU/GPU wouldn't matter so much.

So @intotheminx, since you have an i3 and GTX960, I would probably go for a better CPU or GPU rather than grabbing 8 more GB...

worth it.

I get a few frame drops in Just Cause 3, nothing major but when a lot is on screen it can dip to 40ish frames, I always thought it was my 8350, but its never near 100% useage so its not a bottleneck, and my GTX 970 isnt the issue either.

Wonder if its using just over 8GB of ram ?

Probably the best course of action. Honestly I don't see myself needing to upgrade my cpu or gpu for a little while. I'm pleasantly surprised at the performance.

It will use up to 7.3 gb when you have 8gb. When you have 16gb 8.4 can be used.

@04dcarraher: another 8gb of ram might help me be a good idea for my rig then

it help the hitching or stutter not much else

@04dcarraher: thats enough, I'll be getting the extra ram :D

Show me a game that uses more than 8GB of RAM and is not just a game that caches as much data as you have RAM.

Most of you people are not looking at the actual RAM usage of the game itself but total RAM usage of the OS and game.

Windows is made to use as much RAM as it sees fit in a given situation so if a game needs more RAM then Windows will free up some space for it.

I myself have never seen a game cause stuttering by maxing out 8GB of RAM.

And I have played hogs like Call of Duty and Arkham Knight.

It can help here and there with stuttering issues in unoptimized games. With the newer Call of Duty releases and Arkham Knight, some people have reported the extra RAM helping reduce their frame hitch and stutter issues. Memory leaks are easier to brush off. Also, if you have a Samsung SSD, you can use that extra RAM for caching for crazy read/write speeds. Often more than half of my available memory is in use by Chrome so certainly gives me the headroom I want. It's certainly not necessary but it feels luxurious to have.

on your next build, i'd say go for 16gb. But i wouldn't bother with what you have right now. Most games only need 6 or so. I think the witcher 3 takes up almost that much. most other games i have use less than 4 gbs, while windows probably uses around 2-4 gbs at maximum. 16gb is the safe amount for a future pc you put together, i wouldn't go with 8gb down the road.

Witcher 3 uses no more than 3.4GB of RAM and that is with settings pushed beyond ultra.

8GB isn't enough for me. I've crossed the 8GB mark and 10GB mark before when I played Unity. But well, Unity is super weird. See for yourself after you seen my specs

http://i.imgur.com/4XM6vXj.png

+1

For example: These past few years CoD series alone has been using more than 8GB. CoD BOIII uses more than 8GB. I randomly checked once and I was well over 9GB.

@kitty: :P

@Coseniath said:

@kitty: :P

xD

Somethings in life can't be explained.

The RAM reported is total and not the amount of RAM the game uses itself.

So you wouldn't need more than 8GB.

Windows can adapt and decide where it lets system memory be used.

I believe Unity itself used around 3GB of RAM, maybe slightly more.

Call of Duty is made to cache as much data as it can to RAM.

You don't need more than 8GB of RAM to play CoD BOIII.

Seems like most people here are ignorant about RAM and much more.

Clearly you need more than 8GB to play smoothly. I was just playing BOIII and once again well over 9GB is being used. I remember even back in 2013 Ghosts used over 8GB.

Klunt_Bumskrint uses over 8GB as well playing CoD games.

Yes... we're all so damn ignorant...

Your post just shows how ignorant you are.

You even failed to read my post so I am guessing you lack that as well.

CoD likes to cache as much data as it can before hand so the more RAM you have then the more it will cache until it meets it's maximum.

This does not mean that it needs to cache this extra data just that it will if it can and it will not effect performance.

I've played BOIII smoothly with 8GB of RAM and adding more does not increase performance.

Also are you looking at your task manager to see how much RAM BOIII is using on it's own and not the whole system memory usage of your PC?

If anything what will hinder performance is a lack of vRAM on your video card.

Aside from CoD most games do not do this unless they have memory leak issues.

The Witcher 3 for example usually uses less than 3GB of RAM and even when I force settings past ultra I cannot get it to go over 3.4GB of RAM.

@RyviusARC: You can keep assuming then...

Explain to me why in 2013 when I played Ghosts my game was stuttering bad (I was using 2X4GB kit). I replaced it for 4X4GB kit and stuttering problem immediately disappeared.

Whenever I monitored my game it was always above 8GB (even after patches, months and months later).

Not using task manager, looking at actual game memory usage.

I know about memory leak issues. I'd rather have more RAM and play games that I wanna play even with memory leaks... rather then not have enough RAM.

Well seems like it might be an issue you only had.

I run ghosts smoothly with 8GB of RAM.

Also are CoD games the only ones that you can use as examples?

And before you add the disastrous Arkham Knight don't. It runs fine with 8GB of RAM.

The point is that games don't need that much RAM.

It's easy to see how much a game uses just look at the task manager and the game.exe file under memory usage.

Most of the high end games use around 3GB of RAM with some below that.

I just checked what Assassin's Creed Syndicate uses maxed out and it was still a little lower than 3GB of RAM.

Maybe long into the future that will change when we get a new gen of consoles but for now it will not.

I'll just leave this here

Edit: I don't think I'm running out of VRAM

You're wrong. My friends that I played Ghosts with also monitored over 8GB (both of them). I think it was nearly 9GB, I believe.

CoD are the only games I can think of that I remember myself personally using over 8GB.

Believe it or not but once in a while games come out that use more than 8GB. It's not often but it happens and recently it's been happening more and more.

@klunt_bumskrint said:

I'll just leave this here

Good example.

@insane_metalist said:

@RyviusARC said:

Well seems like it might be an issue you only had.

I run ghosts smoothly with 8GB of RAM.

Also are CoD games the only ones that you can use as examples?

And before you add the disastrous Arkham Knight don't. It runs fine with 8GB of RAM.

The point is that games don't need that much RAM.

You're wrong. My friends that I played Ghosts with also monitored over 8GB (both of them). I think it was nearly 9GB, I believe.

CoD are the only games I can think of that I remember myself personally using over 8GB.

Believe it or not but once in a while games come out that use more than 8GB. It's not often but it happens and recently it's been happening more and more.

@klunt_bumskrint said:

I'll just leave this here

Good example.

You seem to forget when I said CoD games will cache as much RAM as it needs.

People with Titan X's were using most of their vRAM but my 970s were doing fine at the same settings.

And that is because it will use as much vRAM and RAM as it wants but can do fine with less.

Just Cause 3 has been reported to have huge memory leak issues.

Also many people with 8GB of RAM said the game runs smoothly so apparently you don't need more than 8GB.

Name a game without huge memory leak issues or a game that doesn't just cache as much RAM as it wants.

Also show actual benchmarks of performance issues caused directly from not having over 8GB of RAM.

@BassMan: thank you for the information

Well, I have 1 stick of 8 GB RAM. Would I see a benefit from dual channel?

Wouldn't hurt, at most you will see a frame or two more.

Also, aren't the recommended requirements for the new Battlefront game 16GB of RAM? Newer titles should benefit most...