would a 16gb of ram be overkill?

[o730b]

i'm looking forward to upgrading my weak laptop ryzen 3 3250u warmachine, but i'm having a dilemma on what ram size do i choose because i want it to be cost efficient.

8gb is enough i think for my specs and games it's capable to run, but i might need some wiggle room cus the integrated gpu (or apu idk) will use 2gb of the ram as it's vram, that decreases my ram size down to 6gb (more like 5. gb).

then again i don't think i would need a 16gb of ram because the games that my cpu i think would be capable to run and be playable is indie games and ps3 era games.

what do you guys think?

thanks in advance.

[Birds]

many games will have performance improved significantly by adding more ram.

i didn't go over 32xddr3 but there were already diminishing returns there. although in many games the hitching stopped entirely going from 16 to 32.

[EASY PETE]

Just download more ram

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SMIFFY:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von De Hollandse Ezel:

1999-2001 : you could do with 2gb, you wanted 4gb
2002-2006 : you cpuld do with 4gb, you wanted 8gb
2007-2016 : you could do with 8gb, you wanted 16gb
2017-2021 : you could do with 16gb, you wanted 32gb
2022+ : you can do with 32gb, you want 64gb

i say 16gb ram in a system has not longer acceptable for at leadt a year.
and 8gb in a system has not neen acceptable for at least 8 years..

if you buy a laptop todan even a basic one.
it should start defailt with 1tb hd and 32gb ram.. less should really no longer been mafe and sold.

with the better models having 4tb m.2 and 64gb ram.

In the 1999-2001 period the typical amount RAM would range from 64MB to 256MB

2002-2006 would be 512MB to 2GB. Nothing was using 8GB because most people were using 32bit XP.

I may have exhaggerated the early dates a bit.
windows 98 could only handle 1gb ram.
I got windows whisler (the pre-release version of windows xp-32 bit) in 2000.

in 1996 I used to have windows 95 and 32mb

in 1998 I got win 98, and a new pc with 128mb ram
in 1999 I updated this, to 512mb ram (4x128gb)

-I installed windows whisler on this system in 2000

in 2000 I got another new pc, now with DDR1, 2gb (4x512mb)

-I installed win xp on this pc in 2001
-I swapped the ram for 4gb (4x1gb) in 2003 even though I only could use 3.2gb of that under 32 bit.

in 2006 I bought a new system again now with 8gb ram (4x2) dd2
I also installed winxp 64 bit for the first time.

In 2009 I bought new pc,with 24GB (6x4gb) ddr3
-I kept using windows xp 64 bit, not wanted win 7 at this time.

-I swapped the ram on this system for 48gb (6x8gb) ddr in 2011

I kept using this system, and windows xp 64 bit until early 2016

in summer 2016 I got my current pc.
with 128GB ram ddr4 this time
-and for the first time I installed windows 7, I not wanted 10, even though 10 was already out

I have updated many parts in this system since, but I kept the 128GB as it is sufficient for now.

***
I am somewhat pissed that I used winxp for 16!!! years.. 2000-2016.. but that I am forced to drop win 7.. just after 7 years.. (2016-2023)

[Xero_Daxter]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von kilésengati:

If you strictly want to play games from the PS3 era, 8 gigs should be fine. Most games back then didn't even utilised multi-threading properly and were written as 32-bit executable still, so they couldn't use more 4 gigs of RAM anyway. With 8 gigs, you can already run most games from back then, plus record them and still have a bunch of other stuff open in the background.
But it's the other specs I'd be more worried about anyway.

I’m gonna go a bit off topic but didn’t PS3 have 256 mb of RAM?

[De Hollandse Ezel]

so basicly

1996-1998 : 32mb ram
1998-1999 : 128mb ram
1999-2000 : 512mb ram
2000-2003 : 2gb ram
2003-2006 : 3.2gb ram (4 but only 3.2 could be used)
2006-2009 : 8gb ram
2009-2011 : 24gb ram
2011-2016 : 48gb ram
2016-now : 128gb ram

[De Hollandse Ezel]

but I degress... to OP

most people now building a new budgetpc stick 32gb ram in it.
people with a bit more money for a midrange to high end pc stick 64gb in it.

16gb is unadvisable in new system in this day and age.
-it is not overkill.. it is the bare minimum spec for many new titles.

[Stellar Remnant]

If you ever play modded Minecraft, you'll want 16GB. Many of the bigger packs recommend 8GB just for the game.

[metamec]

16GB is not overkill. 32GB will future proof you a bit... although I think it's becoming the norm. More than that is useful if you want to run some of the larger local language models (AI) on your computer. If your PC is just for gaming though, I'd say more than 64GB is about as useful as having a one bedroom apartment with ten bathrooms.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von metamec:

16GB is not overkill. 32GB will future proof you a bit... although I think it's becoming the norm. More than that is useful if you want to run some of the larger local language models (AI) on your computer. If your PC is just for gaming though, I'd say more than 64GB is about as useful as having a one bedroom apartment with ten bathrooms.

I must say.. having played games.. from a ramdrive (having 128GB in 2016)
was fun and fast;)

also.. some games are badly programmed and will yeet up ram use over time.. (until you close and reload them)

having 128gb.. made that never was an issue for me.. as I never ran out even if some game ate 50gb of ram...

[metamec]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von De Hollandse Ezel:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von metamec:

16GB is not overkill. 32GB will future proof you a bit... although I think it's becoming the norm. More than that is useful if you want to run some of the larger local language models (AI) on your computer. If your PC is just for gaming though, I'd say more than 64GB is about as useful as having a one bedroom apartment with ten bathrooms.

I must say.. having played games.. from a ramdrive (having 128GB in 2016)
was fun and fast;)

also.. some games are badly programmed and will yeet up ram use over time.. (until you close and reload them)

having 128gb.. made that never was an issue for me.. as I never ran out even if some game ate 50gb of ram...

If it benefits you, that's great. It's going to be a false economy for a lot of people though. By the time minimum requirements are demanding the additional RAM they invested in, they will be upgrading their entire systems and desiring the next generation of RAM chips.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von metamec:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von De Hollandse Ezel:

I must say.. having played games.. from a ramdrive (having 128GB in 2016)
was fun and fast;)

also.. some games are badly programmed and will yeet up ram use over time.. (until you close and reload them)

having 128gb.. made that never was an issue for me.. as I never ran out even if some game ate 50gb of ram...

If it benefits you, that's great. It's going to be a false economy for a lot of people though. By the time minimum requirements are demanding the additional RAM they invested in, they will be upgrading their entire systems and desiring the next generation of RAM chips.

I like a bit of madness;)
lets say on an 7000 euro pc.. the 700 euro spend on 128gb ram.. was the part that made most people go WTF

so for the WOW factor.. ram is by far the most bang for buck,
buying a 700 euro motherboard or 1600 euro cpu.. and people hardly lift an eyebrow..
spend 2000 on custom waterloop.. and people only nod
buy a 1600 gpu.. and people only nod
but tell them you have 128hb ram.. and they freaking loose their mind;))

but when one would build a sane pc.. I would indeed say...anything above 64gb is not neccecairy.
though ram is not as expensive as it once were..

if I look for 128gb (4x32gb) with a true latency of 10 or less

ddr4 can be had for 280 euro.
but a set of ddr5 will still set you down 790 euro...
**if you take 2 kits of 2 sticks instead.. you can have 128gb ddr tl10 for 450 euro.

[Xero_Daxter]

Fun fact but games aren't getting graphically better. It kinda stagnated around 2019.

[Silverlight]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Xero_Daxter:

Fun fact but games aren't getting graphically better. It kinda stagnated around 2019.

Don't worry though theyve invented ray tracing to keep selling you graphics cards

[hypercybermegatron]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von o730b:

i'm looking forward to upgrading my weak laptop ryzen 3 3250u warmachine, but i'm having a dilemma on what ram size do i choose because i want it to be cost efficient.

8gb is enough i think for my specs and games it's capable to run, but i might need some wiggle room cus the integrated gpu (or apu idk) will use 2gb of the ram as it's vram, that decreases my ram size down to 6gb (more like 5. gb).

then again i don't think i would need a 16gb of ram because the games that my cpu i think would be capable to run and be playable is indie games and ps3 era games.

what do you guys think?

thanks in advance.

Underkill.

Apple is evil. They have normalised 8GB of ram for Macbook "Pro" nowadays, so that people pay through the nose for 16GB and 32GB RAM for their products.

32GB no brainer these days, but anything less than 16 GB is totally unacceptable for a machine going into 2024 what ever it is. Even my phone has 16GB, 8 seem like a joke now.

[kilésengati]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Xero_Daxter:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von kilésengati:

If you strictly want to play games from the PS3 era, 8 gigs should be fine. Most games back then didn't even utilised multi-threading properly and were written as 32-bit executable still, so they couldn't use more 4 gigs of RAM anyway. With 8 gigs, you can already run most games from back then, plus record them and still have a bunch of other stuff open in the background.
But it's the other specs I'd be more worried about anyway.

I’m gonna go a bit off topic but didn’t PS3 have 256 mb of RAM?

Not sure, but it didn't had an awful lot. However, the processor was really good at juggling that few RAM and VRAM it had. True tech wizardry.

Crysis on PC recommended 2 gigs. And that was pretty much the norm for a while.