RAM question for heavy Gamers with computer build knowledge.

[Win2000Fan]

Old gamer here from way in the past. Ninety eight percent of the games I play are old and do not require lots of RAM so I am out of this knowledge loop. However my grandson does game a lot, on line and off with these new powerful games like, Cyber Punk, Rust, etc. RAM size, now and in the future is important for him as he doses desire new releases when they come out now and in the future.

I am looking to buy and upgrade my grandson's computer with new and more RAM than he has now. Right now he has 16 gigs and he wants 32 gigs of RAM. I am more than willing to upgrade him to 64 gigs but I have been reading that, that is to much for most people. However the tech stories I have been reading uses statements like, "average gamer and computer user" and quotes, 32 gigs as being enough. Like I said my grandson is a "heavy" gamer who wants to upgrade to more demanding games well into the future.

Will the 32 Gigs of RAM give him the breathing room he needs for his future gaming or should I go with the 64 Gigs?

This is what he asked for: 32GB ddr4, 3200mhz. His motherboard is maybe three years old at the most and he will be calling me for more MB information. Thanks for your help.

[[☥] - CJ -]

16GB is good for the majority of things, 32GB is good for everything else.
64GB is overkill and Not needed at all.

32GB is plenty
-

However, knowing the specs of his PC would be helpful to make sure he's trying to upgrade something that would actually benefit his PC in case more RAM isnt the upgrade he actually needs.

[Apollo702]

Originally posted by nullable:

Originally posted by Apollo702:

Keep something else in mind:

This is highly subject to the individual game designs...

But many games should first use the poorly named video memory from the graphics card- much less from it's not as efficiently used system memory.

Why is video memory poorly named? The graphics card rarely is handling video! It is a graphics card. They need to name it "graphics memory" for crying out loud!

I think you're a little confused, and maybe don't understand the history and use of colloquialisms. Video and graphics are often synonyms and interchangeable terms.

Video card, graphics card, video memory, VRAM, graphics memory are all acceptable terms. I think you make a mistake by trying to treat them like strict technical terms that everyone is misusing. Coming in quibbling about "video" vs "graphics" really reads like pseudo-expertise.

Case in point. Video games don't have a lot of video in them, it's mostly graphics, right? So we should call poorly named video games "graphics games" instead. However that ship sailed like 50 years ago. Well it sailed with graphics cards decades ago too.

Either way good luck ice skating uphill on this one.

The point was valid. There are differences in performance based on what is running and yes, to many people obstacles such as poor naming do trip them up.

However, it seems like you are one of those people who has to argue at all costs. I putting you on block.

Buh-bye.

[[☥] - CJ -]

Originally posted by Apollo702:

Originally posted by nullable:

I think you're a little confused, and maybe don't understand the history and use of colloquialisms. Video and graphics are often synonyms and interchangeable terms.

Video card, graphics card, video memory, VRAM, graphics memory are all acceptable terms. I think you make a mistake by trying to treat them like strict technical terms that everyone is misusing. Coming in quibbling about "video" vs "graphics" really reads like pseudo-expertise.

Case in point. Video games don't have a lot of video in them, it's mostly graphics, right? So we should call poorly named video games "graphics games" instead. However that ship sailed like 50 years ago. Well it sailed with graphics cards decades ago too.

Either way good luck ice skating uphill on this one.

The point was valid. There are differences in performance based on what is running and yes, to many people obstacles such as poor naming do trip them up.

However, it seems like you are one of those people who has to argue at all costs. I putting you on block.

Buh-bye.

Except you are not correct.

First of all, VRAM, aka Video RAM or Video Memory, the Memory on Dedicated GPUs, is FASTER than System/Physical RAM

Secondly, when all or Most VRAM is used up by a game the system starts using SHARED MEMORY to help increase the amount of VRAM it has, that SHARED MEMORY just so happens to be a portion of System/Physical RAM, Up to HALF of your System RAM can be used as extra Video Memory if needed, if you have 16GB of RAM for example up to 8GB of it can be used for extra Video Memory, etc so on. The downside to this happening though is that performance of the game can SOMETIMES be affected since Physical RAM is slower than VRAM.

With that said
You're being unreasonable and petty.

[ZeekAncient]

Originally posted by Apollo702:

The point was valid. There are differences in performance based on what is running and yes, to many people obstacles such as poor naming do trip them up.

However, it seems like you are one of those people who has to argue at all costs. I putting you on block.

Buh-bye.

First, what is wrong with people? They threaten someone with a block like it makes them all powerful or something. Like blocking them is going to seriously harm them or that it is a fatal blow or something. No one cares. You want to block someone? Fine, block them. But you don't have to brag about it like it actually matters, and that it makes you all powerful. Trust me, no one cares. And I am sure he doesn't either. Keyboard warriors at their finest I guess.

Second, why are you blocking them? Because you didn't like what they said, or didn't agree with it? Come on. He wasn't rude or anything. Not that much anyway. Sounds to me like they made the fatal blow. Enough that they are living rent free in your head.

[Raoul]

I'd go with what your grandson wanted 32GB 2 x 16 kit is more than sufficient and he'd likely know his system best if bottlenecked in this way. That said I've met people who think that more RAM = More FPS which is not how it works so probably needs something else upgraded if that was his expectation.
64GB is a bit wasteful if never going to be utilised as most modern ram heavy games still only utilise around ~12GB and keep in mind that game devs do have to account for this to avoid limiting there market. Also there's a lot of optimisations that help with this, it's a balancing act really for devs and the question of when in the future will 64GB necessary for purely gaming can really be a long way off and you'll be on a new setup by then unless you plan to never upgrade his setup :P

[nohuman]

Well there were some issue's with ram configurations, specifically, having too much could be bad just like not having enough.

32gb is the current sweet spot though. Can't go wrong with 2x16 as long as you put them in the correct slots. That said, on this 13th gen rig I was going to go 64gb just because, but the store I get my parts from was sold out, so I went 32gb. No regrets. I guarantee he doesn't play anything heavier than me. lol.

Go for speed instead. Quality. Fastest Mhz and lowest CL you can afford, after that, nice RGB. ;)
edit: also checking the QVL list for his motherboards compatibility is probably a good idea.
edit2: he mentioned 3200mhz, but his board might support upto 4000mhz....so there's that.

[Haruspex]

RAM is just one factor in the overall gaming performance of a PC, and more RAM doesn't really equate out to better performance. You want enough RAM, but if he already has enough then more won't really do him any good.

16 GB is seen as the standard right now. It's enough for playing the most recent games. Moving to 32 GB can give some breathing room, particularly if he's doing a lot all at once. By that I mean more than just playing the game. 64 GB is excessive for a typical gaming setup.

Far more important for gaming performance and ensuring he's ready for more demanding games is the graphics card, aka GPU. This is a very expensive component, but is the chief and primary component for gaming performance. It's not a cheap component though, with the newest and highest performing models selling for well north of $1000. Don't let him convince you that he needs the best of the best to play the newest games. While it's nice to have, the less expensive mid-range or even entry level models are plenty for modern gaming. Even mid-range cards from a couple generations back still hold their own against brand-new, modern titles.

Slightly less important, though still important is the CPU. The important thing is to match up the performance capabilities of the CPU with that of the GPU. If you CPU is too fast for your GPU, or vice versa, a thing called "bottlenecking" will happen, in which one component has to wait around for the other one to catch up. If they're evenly matched, then they can both perform at their peak.

[Zefar]

Originally posted by Bukov:

32gb is the current sweet spot though. Can't go wrong with 2x16 as long as you put them in the correct slots. That said, on this 13th gen rig I was going to go 64gb just because, but the store I get my parts from was sold out, so I went 32gb. No regrets. I guarantee he doesn't play anything heavier than me. lol.

32 GB is not the sweet spot. It's excessive for most cases for an average gamer. There might only be a few situations where 32 GB might provide a tiny bit of boost compared to 16 GB RAM.

16 GB is the sweet spot. It handles all games and has plenty to spare for other tasks.
This includes alt tabbing to do other stuff. The PC won't have any issues with it.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

16GB is bare minimum. As 8GB just won't cut it anymore, except maybe for your Grandma's Laptop or ChromeBook. So yea, 32GB IS the sweet spot. What you consider above minimum without being overkill.

Again weigh your usage and see if you really need it. 16GB is still good enough, especially if you aren't doing heavy multi-tasking while gaming, or gaming + live-streaming. If you doing more then just running the game, then get 32GB. Its really cheap if going DDR4 so why not.

[emoticorpse]

I think the 16 GB vs 32 GB as a standard/minimum/sweet spot or whatever is creating confusion because of the timing and hardware available right now.

Where up to now 16 GB as a recommended spec was rational and even advisable, the need for more has been creeping up slowly and I think it's fair to go with either one at this point. If you still feel 16 GB is enough, you can say it's enough and if you think 32 GB is enough you can say that and also be right.

Because very soon 32 GB will without a doubt be the standard and those of us who typically like to stay away from "low end" specs would choose that 32 GB hands down for the money. But since a lot of people have not upgraded to that yet it can't really be said at the same time that 32 GB is the standard, since everybody still has 16 GB and is fine.

I would recommend 32 GB at this point, and it's reasonable to do so since we see so many people talking about "upgrading" ram from 16 GB and have a hard time because of the headaches that mixing sticks or what to do with old ones creates I would suggest anyone with the extra money to just go 32 GB as an investment and that will take care of for the next 5-10 years.

Also Recommended specs confuse people too I think. The recommended specs always seem to be like "mediocre" specs where the minimum specs listed are like "cripplingly slow" specs. And recommended specs for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2022 says 16 GB ram, so a lot of people would probably think 16 is perfectly fine.

[Tiberius]

You dont need 32gb of ram.

Very very very few games need more than 16gb. Out of 2k games that i own, only heavily modded msfs and cities skyline need more than 16gb of ram. The whole majority of pc games only require 4~8gb.

Heck... even mw2 only needs 8gb of ram

[UserNotFound]

I agree, that in general, 16GB of RAM would suffice, even newer games like the Calisto Protocol require 16GB of system RAM. Heck, while there may be others, I can only think of Portal RTX needing 32GB of RAM for 'Ultra' setting. So, IF your planning on gaming with 2x 8GB of system RAM, it's just fine for now.

Recently, I went with 2x 16GB for each of my two rigs as the upgrades I have for them will be my last hurrah, gonna retired from the hardware chase and just grow old with them (previously, running an i7 3960X gaming system, which lasted me from 2012 to 2019, so I'm hoping my two gaming rigs would last me 5 - 10 years.

[HALO_run]

i always use 32gb of ram as most games like rust open world like need it, it really helps with crash's and lag spikes.

don't worry about 64gb nothing uses that much that i know of, and you can see the list if games i have played.

so not to worry just get 32gb that's last a fair bit,
besides the way tech is going you'll be needing an upgrade in 3 years

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

Originally posted by 10Transistor:

Old gamer here from way in the past. Ninety eight percent of the games I play are old and do not require lots of RAM so I am out of this knowledge loop. However my grandson does game a lot, on line and off with these new powerful games like, Cyber Punk, Rust, etc. RAM size, now and in the future is important for him as he doses desire new releases when they come out now and in the future.

I am looking to buy and upgrade my grandson's computer with new and more RAM than he has now. Right now he has 16 gigs and he wants 32 gigs of RAM. I am more than willing to upgrade him to 64 gigs but I have been reading that, that is to much for most people. However the tech stories I have been reading uses statements like, "average gamer and computer user" and quotes, 32 gigs as being enough. Like I said my grandson is a "heavy" gamer who wants to upgrade to more demanding games well into the future.

Will the 32 Gigs of RAM give him the breathing room he needs for his future gaming or should I go with the 64 Gigs?

This is what he asked for: 32GB ddr4, 3200mhz. His motherboard is maybe three years old at the most and he will be calling me for more MB information. Thanks for your help.

Get 32 not 64. With 64 you'll be running quad ranks in each channel stressing the PC. With 32g you can configure your RAM for dual ranks in each memory channel, which will be the most optimal for gaming.

It also depends on your motherboard. If you have four dimms slots then be sure to populate them all with single ranks so you can have dual ranks in each memory channel.

If you have two dimms then get dual rank. This will also achieve dual ranks in each channel.

Make sure you get ram that is designed to run together in a complete kit and be sure not to mix vendors.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Zefar:

32 GB is not the sweet spot. It's excessive for most cases for an average gamer. There might only be a few situations where 32 GB might provide a tiny bit of boost compared to 16 GB RAM.

16 GB is the sweet spot. It handles all games and has plenty to spare for other tasks.
This includes alt tabbing to do other stuff. The PC won't have any issues with it.

Eh... it's working that way though. I'm not going to call 16 GB incapable. It's capable for the vast majority of games. But there's a LOT of times where I am basically just running Minecraft and will check resource use and see my RAM use close to or a bit above 16 GB (and my actual commit limit well above that). It was like five to seven years ago I actually had 16 GB and had the page file was almost disabled (it was set to like a static 1 GB maybe, foolish choice) and had Windows tell me I WAS out with basically JUST Minecraft running. And modern versions are more demanding than they were back then.

I do allocate 6 GB to it these days (was doing 3 GB to 4 GB back then) but I'm not doing anything crazy like using a high render distance or even using mods, both of which could require more. Pair in background tasks and you can easily exceed 16 GB. This isn't to say Minecraft NEEDS over 16 GB (even 8 GB or less CAN suffice for the game), but 16 GB isn't the "enough for everything" that it used to be. The sweet spot isn't anywhere near 32 GB either but most often people go with values to the power of two, which means the next step above 16 GB is 32 GB. So even if it's excessive for now, saying it's the sweet spot isn't too far off from becoming true. It is the new go-to amount for people building/upgrading now, unless they are on more of a budget.