# How much Ram is best for Gaming?



## vonalka

I have 32GB of Ram in four 8GB Kingston PC1333 dimms, but my system wasn't as stable compared to when I was running four 2GB Kingston Hyper-X dimms.

I don't really noticed any performance difference between 8GB or 32GB. Is it really worth having more than 8GB of Ram - I most use my computer for gaming and as a HTPC.


----------



## Schmuckley

8 gb


----------



## TehStone

For gaming and HTPC 8GB is more than enough. 4GB is the minimum for a gaming system with 8GB being the new standard.


----------



## djsi38t

Check your task manager.When you see it rarely goes over 2gb in use,you will have your answer.


----------



## dajposkakac

8GB

it used to be 4GB but then I tried Battlefield 3...


----------



## The_chemist21

8gb 1600 vs the 1333 that you are using. Unless you are video editing/3d rendering you shouldn't need more than 8gb


----------



## VW_TDI_02

I've heard of people using a lot of RAM in BF3 but that's about it. I use 4gb in mine and the only RAM issues I've encountered have been while using ArcGIS which i know can be very RAM intensive. Right now since RAM prices have dropped dramatically it is better to just get a 8gb set which can be had for $40. Since you have 8gb sticks you can easily just throw in a single stick and be fine. That way you will be able to overclock a bit better and you still have plenty of RAM.


----------



## vonalka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VW_TDI_02*
> 
> I've heard of people using a lot of RAM in BF3 but that's about it. I use 4gb in mine and the only RAM issues I've encountered have been while using ArcGIS which i know can be very RAM intensive. Right now since RAM prices have dropped dramatically it is better to just get a 8gb set which can be had for $40. Since you have 8gb sticks you can easily just throw in a single stick and be fine. That way you will be able to overclock a bit better and you still have plenty of RAM.


Based on the reviews I have read about the X79 chipset, it looks like there is a pretty big performance gain by running ram in quad channel, so I thought it would be better to run four 2GB chips, vs. a single 8gb chip


----------



## vonalka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The_chemist21*
> 
> 8gb 1600 vs the 1333 that you are using. Unless you are video editing/3d rendering you shouldn't need more than 8gb


The four 2's are 1600 and the performance is awesome when playing BF3 at max settings @ 1080p.


----------



## The_chemist21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vonalka*
> 
> The four 2's are 1600 and the performance is awesome when playing BF3 at max settings @ 1080p.


Keep the 2 1600 stick = 8gbs,I never went over ~3.5gb in any game yet


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vonalka*
> 
> Based on the reviews I have read about the X79 chipset, it looks like there is a pretty big performance gain by running ram in quad channel, so I thought it would be better to run four 2GB chips, vs. a single 8gb chip


I'm not really familiar with quad channel and hadn't factored that in. Running it in quad versus single will give you a performance boost. My original response was regarding whether it would be better to put in an 8gb stick or four 8gb sticks. In regards the the 1x8gb or 4x8gb situation it depends on how much of a boost the quad channel memory gives you as opposed to how much it will hurt your overclock as a result of having all four DIMMs full. Regardless the total amount of RAM in gbs doesn't matter past 8gb since you won't actually use more then 8gb.


----------



## vonalka

I will be getting four 4gb 1600's next week, so I will try those as well.

Do you have any experience creating a ramdisk? Considering I have 8 dimm slots on my board and access to a lot of ram, I was thinking of trying it.


----------



## narmour

I have 32gb of ram and I use 4gb after boot and loading up Firefox.

8gb is the standard though I think. 16gb being a sort of 'future-proof' but I think we'll all be on DDR4 before we start hitting 16gb.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vonalka*
> 
> I will be getting four 4gb 1600's next week, so I will try those as well.
> Do you have any experience creating a ramdisk? Considering I have 8 dimm slots on my board and access to a lot of ram, I was thinking of trying it.


I personally do not have experience with a RAM disk but with that many slots and that much RAM it is definitely something you should look into.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *narmour*
> 
> I have 32gb of ram and I use 4gb after boot and loading up Firefox.
> 8gb is the standard though I think. 16gb being a sort of 'future-proof' but I think we'll all be on DDR4 before we start hitting 16gb.


Honestly 8gb can be considered "future proof". The reason most people have 8gb of RAM is simply because RAM is dirt cheap right now. Any more then that in a gaming computer is unnecessary since 8gb is more then enough. I personally use 4gb of RAM and the majority of the time I am under 3gb of RAM while running firefox, gaming, etc.. Hopefully soon I'll be moving up to 8gb but that's simply because of ArcGIS which has maxed out my RAM a few times using well over a gig for itself.


----------



## vonalka

From a guru3d article on the Sandybridge-e platform:
At launch quad-channel 1600 MHz low-voltage DDR3 is supported out of the box, and that means an increase from 25.6 GB/s to 51.2 GB/s of available memory bandwidth. That's fast enough to drive a mid-range graphics card ported through system memory fairly well, well if we exclude latency of course.

Quad-channel is going to be crazy stuff, crazy numbers is what you'll see. What the effect will be on real-world performance, well yes... that's trivial at best.

Full article here:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/sandy-bridge-e-and-x79-preview/3


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vonalka*
> 
> From a guru3d article on the Sandybridge-e platform:
> At launch quad-channel 1600 MHz low-voltage DDR3 is supported out of the box, and that means an increase from 25.6 GB/s to 51.2 GB/s of available memory bandwidth. That's fast enough to drive a mid-range graphics card ported through system memory fairly well, well if we exclude latency of course.
> Quad-channel is going to be crazy stuff, crazy numbers is what you'll see. What the effect will be on real-world performance, well yes... that's trivial at best.
> Full article here:
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/sandy-bridge-e-and-x79-preview/3


Like I said I'm not completely up to date when it comes to quad channel memory. From what I've seen so far it is giving people some nice performance boost so if you are already getting those four 4gb sticks then go for it and it should run rather nicely.


----------



## Mercyflush64

You would really only need that much ram if you were running in a server environment and with that you would use a completely different hardware setup. I really don't see why motherboards even include the options for so much ram other than for those people that think more is better.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mercyflush64*
> 
> You would really only need that much ram if you were running in a server environment and with that you would use a completely different hardware setup. I really don't see why motherboards even include the options for so much ram other than for those people that think more is better.


There are some programs that can actually use that much RAM. Especially when it comes to rendering, CAD, and GIS which can all use large amounts of RAM. I currently am looking to up my RAM because I keep maxing out my current 4gb.


----------



## xXwhygodwhyXx

6 max never need any more than that.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xXwhygodwhyXx*
> 
> 6 max never need any more than that.


Well he isn't running a triple channel motherboard and apparently quad channel is giving rigs a nice boost.


----------



## vonalka

I remember reading somewhere that smaller ram chips are better for overclocking, so essentially it may be better to fill my board with 8 x 2GB 1600's to get 16GB total in Quad channel mode with good overclock potential.


----------



## Lxcivic2k1

8GB would be the minimum I recommend to people since 2x4GB DDR1600 is $30 now. I got my 4x4GB kit for $100 and thought that was a steal, but I bought 2x1GB DDR2 800 for more then that back in the day.

Also you have to consider that 4 sticks causes more load on the system so it's going to be a little less stable then 2 sticks, though I haven't noticed a difference yet.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vonalka*
> 
> I remember reading somewhere that smaller ram chips are better for overclocking, so essentially it may be better to fill my board with 8 x 2GB 1600's to get 16GB total in Quad channel mode with good overclock potential.


Theoretically I do believe you're correct but my only questions is how much of a difference is it?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lxcivic2k1*
> 
> 8GB would be the minimum I recommend to people since 2x4GB DDR1600 is $30 now. I got my 4x4GB kit for $100 and thought that was a steal, but I bought 2x1GB DDR2 800 for more then that back in the day.
> Also you have to consider that 4 sticks causes more load on the system so it's going to be a little less stable then 2 sticks, though I haven't noticed a difference yet.


You are going to be less stable with 2 sticks as opposed to four. i had this issue because I originally had a 4x2gb set up and sold one of the sets. After that I was able to attain a higher stable overclock. I wouldn't say that 8gb is a "minimum" but rather the best buy because of how cheap RAM prices are right now.


----------



## TwiggLe

I just upgraded from 2x4GB PC1333 to 4x4GB PC1600.

Once I got the timing's set correctly I did notice a decent response in my every day stuff I did. Somethings came up a little quicker and loaded a little faster.

I'm not going to say it was out of this world difference. But it was a nice bump. Plus I paid $75 for the 8gigs when I had just paid $75 for the 4 gigs earlier in the year... :-/


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwiggLe*
> 
> I just upgraded from 2x4GB PC1333 to 4x4GB PC1600.
> Once I got the timing's set correctly I did notice a decent response in my every day stuff I did. Somethings came up a little quicker and loaded a little faster.
> I'm not going to say it was out of this world difference. But it was a nice bump. Plus I paid $75 for the 8gigs when I had just paid $75 for the 4 gigs earlier in the year... :-/


Have you noticed your RAM usage going above 4gb? Regardless I would assume that RAM works similar to an SSD in that when it is nearly full it starts to slow down which if that translates the same way to RAM it could explain your boost in performance.


----------



## 2thAche

4GB is plenty, but it's so cheap that there's really no reason not to have 8.

As far as speed goes, low latency 1600 is the sweet spot, google any gaming test of DDR3 and you'll see the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned, get 8GB of 1600 but don't cheap out on the latency. I'd rather have 4GB of low latency than 8GB of high latency if it comes down to money.


----------



## r3d33m3r

with the prices nowadays, and 64-bit being everywhere and games slowly supporting more than 2GB of RAM, 8GB is the deal


----------



## Zero4549

There is no "best" amount of RAM. More is ALWAYS better, but better doesn't actually mean you will see the results.

As far as games go, if you aren't running a whole lot in the background to consume copious amounts of RAM, 8GB is almost always more than enough (although that will almost certainly change in the future).

Since less RAM usually means saving money and/or faster RAM, and almost ALWAYS means less chance of failure and less stress on your motherboard chipsets, it's somewhat advantageous not to buy excessive RAM that you won't make use of.

At the same time, having more than you need can also be a good idea, as it allows for future applications or heavier multitasking workloads than you may have initially expected.

So as it stands, if you're just concerned about about gaming, and only for today and the somewhat near future, 8GB is the perfect amount, although 16GB would be perfectly acceptable as well, albeit more expensive. Since you *already have* 32GB however, Id just see about making it more stable rather than replacing it. You aren't likely to see a huge advantage in games moving to faster ram and as long as it's stable, it'll be beneficial in the long run.


----------



## Carniflex

As much as you can put in there but without going nuts with it. 8+ Gb the more the merrier - as excess RAM is used by windows (and also most Linux distributions) for buffering the HD's. The more you have it the more "stuff" will be sitting in RAM and the less you need to access relatively slow HD's. Or even SSD's as RAM is still aqbout 10x faster than SSD although in there the difference would not be as visibale as with an HD where speed difference is in the order of 1000x with RAM.


----------



## Cape Cod

Look into something like these. Great ram good timings.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231353
or these there a little cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231515


----------



## Blizlake

I apologize if I say something that's obviously wrong, but just a few thoughts.

First of all, I believe that smaller sticks are better for overclocking because smaller sticks have better overclocking capabilities themselves. However, having all your slots full (4 slots on 1155, 8 slots on 2011) is going to hurt your overclocking. Don't ask me for technical explanation but it's just something that I've seen many times, for example people adding ram to the empty slots and suddenly their old overclocks werent stable anymore. So I'd rather have 4x4gb on 2011 than 8x2gb. Also, ram prices are comparable on sand prices in sahara right now so I see no reason why you couldn't/shouldn't have 4x4gb quad-channel running. And it's generally advisable to have amount of sticks on your mobo comparable to its channel (2/4 for dual, 3/6 for triple, 4/8 for quad).


----------



## HardheadedMurphy

I would have to agree, for gaming 8 gigs is more than enough. More than that is a waste unless you are video editing, or 3d rendering.... Or a hand full of VM's


----------



## Cape Cod

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blizlake*
> 
> I apologize if I say something that's obviously wrong, but just a few thoughts.
> First of all, I believe that smaller sticks are better for overclocking because smaller sticks have better overclocking capabilities themselves. However, having all your slots full (4 slots on 1155, 8 slots on 2011) is going to hurt your overclocking. Don't ask me for technical explanation but it's just something that I've seen many times, for example people adding ram to the empty slots and suddenly their old overclocks werent stable anymore. So I'd rather have 4x4gb on 2011 than 8x2gb. Also, ram prices are comparable on sand prices in sahara right now so I see no reason why you couldn't/shouldn't have 4x4gb quad-channel running. And it's generally advisable to have amount of sticks on your mobo comparable to its channel (2/4 for dual, 3/6 for triple, 4/8 for quad).


I believe you are right but I also think it plays more of a role when you are running much higher memory like 1866-2000 Mhz and up. 1600 and lower as less of and affect on what your talking about.


----------



## narmour

I have had no problems overclocking my CPU with quad channel on 2011. I did fail at overclocking my ram - but I know it was because I didn't up the voltage on the ram. As it goes I don't really need to overclock my ram anyway - the performance I'm getting is superb and overclocking would only effect benchmarking which I haven't got into yet.

On my AMD system having 2x4gb sticks was much more suitable for overclocking my CPU but I was told that's because of the memory controller AMD has implemented into their chips. I think it varies between platforms. I could very well be wrong though.


----------



## vonalka

I just got some new ram and now have the following:
4 x 2GB
4 x 4GB
4 x 8GB

Considering my board has eight slots, would it make sense to run all four 4's and all four 2's to get the best from a performance perspective - having both sets running quad channel and using smaller chips for performance/stability?

I was originally thinking of running the four 8's with the four 4's, even though it is overkill, just because I had the chips.


----------



## Blizlake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vonalka*
> 
> I just got some new ram and now have the following:
> 4 x 2GB
> 4 x 4GB
> 4 x 8GB
> 
> Considering my board has eight slots, would it make sense to run all four 4's and all four 2's to get the best from a performance perspective - having both sets running quad channel and using smaller chips for performance/stability?
> 
> I was originally thinking of running the four 8's with the four 4's, even though it is overkill, just because I had the chips.


I'd run the maximum amount if it's not entirely intolerable. You could make a pretty sweet ramdisk from 32 gigs of ram.


----------



## mad0314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HardheadedMurphy*
> 
> I would have to agree, for gaming 8 gigs is more than enough. More than that is a waste unless you are video editing, or 3d rendering.... Or a hand full of VM's


I agree, sort of.

To one person, gaming means having everything closed and just the game open. In that case, 4GB should be enough, as 32 bit applications cannot use more than 2GB, even on a 64 bit OS.

Then theres the person that has 5 games open, 20+ web browser tabs, doing CAD work while Photoshopping and converting a video.

It really depends. The absolute minimum, IMO (meaning for a gaming build on a super tight budget), would be 4GB, but at the price of RAM modules these days, its silly not to get at least 8GB. Its somewhat of a luxury for a strictly gaming build, but its a cheap luxury.

TLDR: Anywhere from 4GB-64GB+ depending on _*your personal*_ use


----------

