16GB to 32GB, is it worth it?

So, steam says its about 12gb out of 16gb.
I've also looked into the CL spec for that RAM and it looks pants so I'm going to opt for the upgrade.

Out of Corsair, Crucial and Kingston it would seem that Kingston Fury offers the best performance with their KF556S40IBK2-32 kit being just over £100
 
If I'm to be honest I always thought that the key parts to RAM after the size was the mhz and the CL numbers as i thought that represented the timings
 
gash2024 said:
If I'm to be honest I always thought that the key parts to RAM after the size was the mhz and the CL numbers as i thought that represented the timings
Click to expand...
Sure, I just meant, that they're not slow, as such. It is just the standard widely available speed that is used for most OEM kits (in the likes of Dell).
 
I see, so if I was to add this kit to the laptop (KF556S40IBK2-32) then it should be compatible based on it being 2x16 5600mhz?
Of course I may not get the same performance (timing or speed) because as far as I know Lenovo don't use or enable XMP in their laptops.
 
Depends entirely on the game. I’ve had Hogwarts Legacy show as much as 24GB of system RAM usage. It reduced stuttering dramatically, so it improved the 1% lows but didn’t improve average performance. It made everything feel smoother though. I’ve not noticed much of a change in other games I play. If you’re already dual channel and you’re at 14GB+ of usage, it may be worth considering, but RAM is expensive as **** right now.
 
I'm still yet to find a game that uses more than 15.4-16.2GB, I do feel that buying 32GB was wasted in the nearly 3 years that I've had it.

I've played all of the main AAA games, bar Hogwarts, BG3, and anything sport related (excluding THPS1+2/3+4) and I've monitored my usage.
I rarely use mods, unless they're quality of life improvements, and when I have, again nothing seems to warrant the extra I have on tap :(

The same can be said for VRAM, 11.2/4GB on my 4070 - I play everything maxed out at 4K DLSS Quality, with FG/Reflex enabled, I only aim for 60FPS, as I'd rather have maximum eye candy where possible, and only play SP games, bar COD MW3 MP online daily; which can run on a potato.
Having had 16GB AMD cards before it, I feel the VRAM assumption has been blown well out of proportion real world wise, and at this point the 4070 has done me proud, so when it can't keep up, I'll be well into 4-5 year ownership, so wont care :P
 
deviation said:
I'm still yet to find a game that uses more than 15.4-16.2GB, I do feel that buying 32GB was wasted in the nearly 3 years that I've had it.

I've played all of the main AAA games, bar Hogwarts, BG3, and anything sport related (excluding THPS1+2/3+4) and I've monitored my usage.
I rarely use mods, unless they're quality of life improvements, and when I have, again nothing seems to warrant the extra I have on tap :(

The same can be said for VRAM, 11.2/4GB on my 4070 - I play everything maxed out at 4K DLSS Quality, with FG/Reflex enabled, I only aim for 60FPS, as I'd rather have maximum eye candy where possible, and only play SP games, bar COD MW3 MP online daily; which can run on a potato.
Having had 16GB AMD cards before it, I feel the VRAM assumption has been blown well out of proportion real world wise, and at this point the 4070 has done me proud, so when it can't keep up, I'll be well into 4-5 year ownership, so wont care :P
Click to expand...

Stalker was around 19GB memory usage
 
hornetstinger said:
Stalker was around 19GB memory usage
Click to expand...
Nope ;) not for me, I've told you this before :P
Must be a DLSS/FSR/FG thing, the same thing happened with my mate on AMD @ 1440P using FSR and FG...

I've even half replayed it recently and got bored again, and monitored it since the latest patch, and yep not gone over 16.2GB :)
 
Last edited:
deviation said:
Nope ;) not for me, I've told you this before :P
Must be a DLSS/FSR thing, the same thing happened with my mate on AMD @ 1440P using FSR and FG...

I've even half replayed it recently and got bored again, and monitored it since the latest patch, and yep not gone over 16.2GB :)
Click to expand...

Nope not running FSR or FG. Although I have to use XESS for AA (the game looks awful without any AA) but use I native mode.
 
hornetstinger said:
Nope not running FSR or FG. Although I have to use XESS for AA (the game looks awful without any AA) but use I native mode.
Click to expand...
Sorry? Did you mean you're not using DLSS/FSR/FG? If so that may explain it versus my experience?
Both me and my friend use the quality setting and FG.
 
Last edited:
deviation said:
Sorry? Did you mean you're not using FSR/FG? If so that may explain it versus my experience?
Both me and my friend use the quality setting and FG.
Click to expand...

Correct I don't use frame generation, nor do I use scaling.

I use native resolution for windows desktop, in the game, disable frame gen. I tried different AA , but Xess works the best (for stalker)
 
hornetstinger said:
Correct I don't use frame generation, nor do I use scaling.

I use native resolution for windows desktop, in the game, disable frame gen. I tried different AA , but Xess works the best (for stalker)
Click to expand...
That'd explain the RAM usage difference then :)
I might have to mess about trying stuff at native and see what it says now :cry:
 
CaptainRAVE said:
I’ve played a few games now that need more than 16GB. It’s worth having the overhead imo if you can budget for it.
Click to expand...
For sure, in this day and age I'd say 16GB is minimum RAM requirements; on my NUC plugged into my TV with just Firefox and a good few tabs I'm hitting 12GB. Could certainly close tabs or use resource saving measures if I needed to.
 
I wouldn't bother unless your doing actual work on the laptop that requires more than 16gb, for gaming you'll still be limited by the 8gb VRAM buffer on the 4070 so will need to run lower settings which will also reduce ram usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom