will 8gb ram is enough?

[varghesewinny]

can an 8gb ram is enough to handle future games if i have gtx 760 and other good components

 

[BN91]

yea 8gbs will be just fine. 8 gb is usually whats recommended in gaming machines

 

[alienworkshop]

lol, are you sure? early benchmarks show that nothing more then 2 is adequate. and even that is iffy. what is with people and these extreme amounts of ram? i bought a laptop with 4 gigs with a 1.8 ghz processor and i was like "wtf is this? like come on, seriously..." my inspiron 9200 and one gig of ram for warcraft 3 is way more then enough. i don't see why people must jump on things that don't even matter, i really hate the economy ways and price cuts they are doing. cost less to manufacture memory, that's why they are doing it. i refuse to buy anything new cause of it. i tried a new recent system and it was a piece of trash.

are you sure that's reccomended? cause i read different in early benchmarks. it can't even utilize the extra cores properly and then they go making it a big thing? it's all hype with no returns. also, early benchmarks on dual cores and more didn't even utilize properly. intel and their ways. too bad they can't back track since they went too far.

 

[BN91]

honestly im currently running 4gb in my gaming machine and i still am able to multitask. i do know that when cod ghost dropped it was using about 6gb of ram. i dont know if they fixed that but those with 8gb benefited from having the extra memory

 

[djkillz]

Yep that would be the most I would put into a gaming machine. There is no reason to go higher than that unless you are into video editing in adobe after effects or sony vegas that would use more than 8gb of ram.

 

[alienworkshop]

i forgot to add something in my post. and then they went implementing the idea of more ram because that's the way the economy went, i just don't get why they would do such a thing intead of offsetting it to graphics. it was a matter of choice. it cost less to manufacture memory then it does to redo a graphics interface. i'm telling you, they got cheap ass chinese pockets, which is why i'm boycotting new computers. that's just my two cents and research for ya. i'm not lying either. and btw i was trying to say why would they do this.

yes implemented the idea so it might need more memory, so i'm not really saying it won't work but i refuse to buy into their ways. but i'm telling you they went down the wrong road with the memory idea and they are taking this way too far.

@bn91
i didn't say you couldn't multitask, but did you know that smaller memory modules are supposely faster for seek times, it was setup perfectly to scale properly on netburst and the memory wasn't suppose to be this big of a deal. say for instance in early benchmarks it was faster to have less modules in a system and smaller memory banks. so it's utilized properly. idk why they did this, it's stupid. why not scale it off to the cpu with ghz, it would have made more sense. plus the new windows can't even utilize memory properly, did you know that xp is blistering way faster then windows vista, 7 and 8?

just wanted to add that in since i forgot to.