Why I Won’t Use Less than 32GB of RAM

[bignastyid]

As long as it's the same make/model 2x8 runs fine paired with 2x16.

Not always. Hence the maybe. Just because it happened to work for you doesn't mean someone else won't have issues trying to mix ram.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I have been considering buying another identical ram kit to whay I have for 4x4gb, but I really don't think I need it.

Even with a few tabs of chrome open including youtube, GTAV running, and amazon music my games don't stutter as if they are hitting the page file.
MSI Afterburner shows ram usage is very high, but not max.

 

[InvalidError]

This is also a bit misleading for 'general' users. People here at Tom's should have more RAM, but that doesn't mean the average user needs more than 4GB or 8GB of RAM.

With modern APUs in prebuilt reserving 2GB of RAM, I'd say 8GB is the minimum viable configuration even for grandmothers who only use their laptop for FB and FB games these days.

 

[nofanneeded]

Mixing ram is not a suggested practice. Best to buy in a kit/set and there hasn't been 24gb kits since triple channel made it's short appearance.

Not really , I have been using mixed size RAM for like 30 years without any problems at all. and I dont overclock so it works fine. the only thing to look after is to keep the dual channel working , that is upgrade in pairs.

IFyou overclock yes most of the time 4 dimms wont work together overclocked if different size.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I have seen plenty of issues with mixed ram here.

Anything from no boot untill only 1 stick is inserted, to performance issues.

 

[Ful4n1t0c0sme]

Windows? Really? I understand why now...

 

[Crashman]

Well, looks like I'm late to the party. Another bad article posted on Tom's that was written by someone who isn't so smart at all about how to manage their software. If all you do is game, 16GB is plenty of RAM for your needs. If you are a power user, the recommendation is more system memory, but only if the software you are using demands that more than 16GB is necessary in order to fully optimize the functionality. Not all software requires more system memory, but rather that your video card meet certain minimum specifications such as a specific GPU architecture (e.g,, Pascal, Turing, etc.) in order to be better optimized for CUDA processing, and more VRAM may be necessary in order to buffer larger amounts of imagery or video data. Bottom line, this article was badly written.

Posting your guesses as facts, perhaps?
You see, I used to do the "smart" thing of managing my software to keep my memory profile realistic. But then two years ago memory got cheap enough that such workaround became pointless. Worse still, those methods are encomberances. In other words, the "smart thing" that I was doing to avoid a big expense became the "not so smart" thing when memory prices dropped. At today's prices, workaround that help you avoid spending $60 aren't worth $60 of your time.

But perhaps you could lecture my wife on tearing the mold off of bread rather than throwing away the moldy bread?

 

[InvalidError]

Worse still, those methods are encomberances. In other words, the "smart thing" that I was doing to avoid a big expense became the "not so smart" thing when memory prices dropped. At today's prices, workaround that help you avoid spending $60 aren't worth $60 of your time.

Welcome to the mile-high-RAM club! I've been a member since 2000 when I put my P3 together and included 256MB of PC133 SDR-DRAM for the "low-low price" of $400. I didn't have to think twice about spending $180 to max out my i5 with 32MB of DDR3-1600 back in 2012, least amount I have ever spent on RAM over a system's useful life.

 

[Crashman]

Instead of saying "you need more than 16GB of RAM" it's more fair to say "modern programs (especially browsers) are really bad at RAM consumption and almost no one cares".

I like that explanation.

I don't think I've ever seen my ram usage go above 60%, most of the time its way below that, and I'm on 16GB. I'd say for gaming and typical usage 16gb is still the sweet spot. It would be only if sing your pc for a lot of multitasking VM's, high res content editing etc that 32gb may be worth while.

Load 32GB and watch it be the same amount, 50-60%, after you've been doing things for a while. Windows is great at moving things from DRAM to the page file, so you'll probably never see how much you're actually using. And some browsers will reduce the number of images/videos/etc cached just to minimize page file use, but doing so typically causes tabs to resume rather slowly.

Upgraded from 8 to 24GB when I got my Oculus Rift 2 years ago (It's a capable 5 year old OC build).

I was shocked to see my memory use immediately go above 10 GB at startup.

It only goes above 16 with VR or games running, but that's without optimization.

Having the extra headroom means you don't have to think about it so much, but CPU usage may become an issue at that point anyway.

Yours is a similar scenario. If you were running more CPU than you really needed all along, you'd have no additional concerns.

 

[Crashman]

Welcome to the mile-high-RAM club! I've been a member since 2000 when I put my P3 together and included 256MB of PC133 SDR-DRAM for the "low-low price" of $400. I didn't have to think twice about spending $180 to max out my i5 with 32MB of DDR3-1600 back in 2012, least amount I have ever spent on RAM over a system's useful life.

This is actually a rewrite: The first article showed screenshots of the same system with 16GB using only around 60% and had a brief discussion about fewer files being cached, but our EIC noticed that it was really just 2/3 of a deep dive, suggested addtional data that I could add to make it a satisfactory deep-dive, and then suggested that a beginner-friendly short version would likely reach a larger audience. Of course he was right.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I notice less that software is a ram hog, and more Windows.

I have caught 4gb idle ram usage, which is pathetic. I understand it uses this for caching programs and crap to make them open faster, but unacceptable.

 

[InvalidError]

I understand it uses this for caching programs and crap to make them open faster, but unacceptable.

Having unused RAM is even less helpful than having that RAM used to preload stuff you are likely to use anyway. Worst case, it just get evicted from RAM just like cached files from the file system cache that already expands to fill nearly all otherwise unallocated memory.

 

[USAFRet]

I notice less that software is a ram hog, and more Windows.

I have caught 4gb idle ram usage, which is pathetic. I understand it uses this for caching programs and crap to make them open faster, but unacceptable.

It expands to fill the available space.

I have several Win 10 systems here, ranging from 2GB to 32GB.
Having the 16 or 32GB systems use more of the available RAM for caching or whatever is beneficial. Rather than just limiting everything down to that 2GB level.

When some application needs RAM, the OS adjusts and frees up RAM as needed.

 

[bignastyid]

Not really , I have been using mixed size RAM for like 30 years without any problems at all. and I dont overclock so it works fine. the only thing to look after is to keep the dual channel working , that is upgrade in pairs.

IFyou overclock yes most of the time 4 dimms wont work together overclocked if different size.

Using jedec settings and matching those does usually work, but when trying use faster advertised speeds is usually where the issues start and not everybody is happy losing some performance by using the slower jedec settings.

 

[cryoburner]

Exactly. With RAM more is ALWAYS better no matter what you do

I disagree. The problem is that people buying a new system typically have a budget, and excess RAM may end up doing little more than taking away from money that could be better spent on other components. Using a gaming system as an example, the difference between 16 and 32GB of RAM is unlikely to make any noticeable performance impact in today's games, and probably for almost any game coming within the next few years. And even if four memory ranks might result in slightly better CPU performance, most modern games will tend to be limited by graphics performance more than anything. From a performance standpoint, that $70+ might be better put toward the graphics hardware instead. Or maybe for a larger SSD to keep one's whole game library loading fast, without having to continually micro-manage what's installed. Or a better monitor.

Of course, if one plans to keep their system running new game releases for a number of years, 32GB might be worth considering for what it might have to offer a few years down the line, when we may start to see games benefiting from having more than 16GB. It could always be upgraded later, probably at a lower price, but memory compatibility isn't always guaranteed, and I'm not sure you would be saving a huge amount of money by buying it later.

I notice less that software is a ram hog, and more Windows.

I have caught 4gb idle ram usage, which is pathetic. I understand it uses this for caching programs and crap to make them open faster, but unacceptable.

Why is that unacceptable? If the RAM is not being used for anything else, the fact that Windows is using it to cache things shouldn't matter. In fact, that should likely improve performance when those files get accessed again. And if the RAM ends up being needed for something else, Windows should release it for that task right away. It's not like Windows has locked that RAM away from other programs and will hold onto it.

It's like needing a truck so you can take your wardrobe and fridge with you when you go to buy groceries. But of course, just in case.

If you add a generator in there, you can keep the food cold while shopping for clothes to fill the wardrobe. : D

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Why is that unacceptable? If the RAM is not being used for anything else, the fact that Windows is using it to cache things shouldn't matter. In fact, that should likely improve performance when those files get accessed again. And if the RAM ends up being needed for something else, Windows should release it for that task right away. It's not like Windows has locked that RAM away from other programs and will hold onto it.

Because I dont know a way to easily disable it.

 

[Crashman]

So what I'm hearing is that a bunch of you want an article about how to reduce your memory use to make the most out of a system with LESS DRAM.

I could probably write something, but since I quit caring almost immediately after installing 32GB two years ago, I think someone who's still doing it would probably do a better job

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Pretty much. I exclusively own crappy systems with a small amount of ram, so it would be nice.

View: https://youtu.be/IU5F01oOzQQ

 

[USAFRet]

So what I'm hearing is that a bunch of you want an article about how to reduce your memory use to make the most out of a system with LESS DRAM.

I could probably write something, but since I quit caring almost immediately after installing 32GB two years ago, I think someone who's still doing it would probably do a better job

Simple.
Don't have so much gunk running in the background. Applications, services, whatever.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Simple.
Don't have so much gunk running in the background. Applications, services, whatever.

Maybe some people at Microsoft should listen and have an option to get rid of the junk not needed with Windows.

Telemetry, Cortana, gamebar, ms store, onedrive, pre-installed games, ms edge, Windows defender should all be able to be completely removed.

While some of the above are useful sometimes, many users don't want or need them eating up storage space, ram, cpu cycles, or even invading privacy.

I have disabled defender completely and still observed "anti malware service executable" eating a noticeable amount of ram and CPU usage even when i don't want them to. The only solution was to use regedit.

I also saw cortana eating resources in the background. Powershell command later, gone. I may have been able to just disable it, but i removed it.
I shouldn't have to do that.

 

[USAFRet]

Maybe some people at Microsoft should listen and have an option to get rid of the junk not needed with Windows.

Telemetry, Cortana, gamebar, ms store, onedrive, pre-installed games, ms edge, Windows defender should all be able to be completely removed.

While some of the above are useful sometimes, many users don't want or need them eating up storage space, ram, cpu cycles, or even invading privacy.

I have disabled defender completely and still observed "anti malware service executable" eating a noticeable amount of ram and CPU usage even when i don't want them to. The only solution was to use regedit.

I also saw cortana eating resources in the background. Powershell command later, gone. I may have been able to just disable it, but i removed it.
I shouldn't have to do that.

And the reverse of that is, most people these days are not resource constrained.
Either RAM or drive space.

Software increases to use the available resources.

My tiny Asus Transformer, 2GB RAM and 32GB eMMC drive, runs Win 10.
Slowly, but that's because it is a slow system. Sort of good for web browsing.

I would not want my 16GB HTPC or 32GB main system to be constrained as to only what the 2GB Asus can use.

If you have the need to turn some of that off, you generally have that option.

"Invading privacy" is a whole other discussion.

 

[nofanneeded]

Using jedec settings and matching those does usually work, but when trying use faster advertised speeds is usually where the issues start and not everybody is happy losing some performance by using the slower jedec settings.

well if you just buy the standard CPU RAM clock speed , it will work and you wont lose anything.

as I said if you dont overclock it is okay .. no one buys higher speed RAM if he does not want to overclock.

This article is only for overclocker.

 

[InvalidError]

OR THIS IS IT NOBODY THINKING ABOUT THIS ANYMORE !!!????

Most developers won't bother with optimization work beyond what is necessary to achieve decent performance on the minimum target system requirements, so it would make sense that we'd see worse optimization as baseline systems become more powerful. As games move towards more heavy multi-threading, there will likely be additional efficiency losses from increased inter-process communications and related overheads too.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

An then there is ubisoft which opts to massively increase the minimum requirements instead of optimizing their games.

 

[captaincharisma]

After all, this is a mostly a "power user" forum.

Although I can get by with a minimal amount of ram just fine.

Exactly. With RAM more is ALWAYS better no matter what you do

Exactly. With RAM more is ALWAYS better no matter what you do

riight................................. cause spending loads of cash on 32-64GB of ram then later find out your needs only needed 8 or 16 is a wise investment