DDR3 How much is too much?

I've got 4GB and I'm getting 8GB when I can be arsed. Mainly because of Crysis 1's epic memory leaks at this point, but meh. :P Am sure Skyrim, BF3 and the like will like a bit more.
 
Not if you keep other applications open in the background. I currently have Chrome open with around 50 tabs and this alone is using 2.7GB RAM.

Surely I can't be the only person who doesn't close things down when I play games?

sorry but what the hell? who the hell has Chrome and fifty tabs open during gaming, for one what is the point? and two no offence but it seems a little silly to leave such an obvious drain on performance open during demanding applications such as gaming.

quite akin to running a full system scan for viruses, or de-fragmenting your hard disk whilst gaming, you just don't do it?! in no way shape or form is 16GB of RAM the new 'minimum', not unless you are a serious user doing lots of modelling, rendering or something like that, but not for gaming, 8GB is more than enough for the near future and it won't go up for the majority of games since the majority these days are cross-platform games that have to run on consoles with seriously restricted amounts of RAM. :)
 
I've got 4GB and I'm getting 8GB when I can be arsed. Mainly because of Crysis 1's epic memory leaks at this point, but meh. :P Am sure Skyrim, BF3 and the like will like a bit more.

Battlefield 3 is a cross-platform game, it MUST work on Xbox 360 and PS3 with there severely limited amounts of memory, so through logical deduction I would assume that it can't be that memory hungry. the thing is that developers should stop wasting resources and take more time and effort to make use of the resources available rather than demand more resources.

you get some games that run terribly with however much memory you throw at them, then you get other games that run perfectly well with small amounts of memory. a game like X3: Terran Conflict runs perfect with a 'mere' 4GB of memory yet it is massive, diverse and graphically stunning, just goes to show what you can do if you can be bothered. ;)
 
Battlefield 3 is a cross-platform game, it MUST work on Xbox 360 and PS3 with there severely limited amounts of memory, so through logical deduction I would assume that it can't be that memory hungry. the thing is that developers should stop wasting resources and take more time and effort to make use of the resources available rather than demand more resources.

BF3....isnt exactly going to run in the same settings on the consoles as it will in max on PC's will it now. The textures are improved by using less compressed versions of them, which mean you need that memory. Unless someone invents a new type of compression etc.
A lot of the system memory and VRAM that is used on high end systems is just caching, to avoid micro stutter and fps drops that you would get on systems with lower amounts of RAM sometime
 
Battlefield 3 is a cross-platform game, it MUST work on Xbox 360 and PS3 with there severely limited amounts of memory, so through logical deduction I would assume that it can't be that memory hungry. the thing is that developers should stop wasting resources and take more time and effort to make use of the resources available rather than demand more resources.

you get some games that run terribly with however much memory you throw at them, then you get other games that run perfectly well with small amounts of memory. a game like X3: Terran Conflict runs perfect with a 'mere' 4GB of memory yet it is massive, diverse and graphically stunning, just goes to show what you can do if you can be bothered. ;)

Battlefield 3 is for once being developed for the PC and the power a PC provides and THEN is being ported to consoles. Makes a change really, I get sick of crappy console ports. It's nice to see a game being developed on the PC for a change.
 
4gb minimum for smooth running

2gb is enough but runs abit slower

i have 8gb only because it dirt cheap.
i only game and surf web, its not really using all 8gb.
 
I have 8gb in my desktop and find that even when running lots of applications at the same time, it barely uses it! Having 8gb will, however mean that I should be able to run for a long time before needing to upgrade.
 
I bought 24 Gb when it went down to £70 per 8 Gb.

Recently prices have dropped as low as £50 per 8 Gb, which made me sad, I didnt think they would ever get that low :O

Ram prices fluctuate like this all the time, if you can grab it when its low, you should, even if you dont need it (after prices go up again, you can sell it if you want to).
 
I'm running a 2500k @ stock with 4gb of RAM. Would I be better off spending £25 on an after-market cooler (and overclocking the CPU) or buying another 4gb of RAM? What would provide the biggest performance boost?
 
Back
Top Bottom