How much RAM you got?

How much RAM is installed on your rig?

  • 4GB or less

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4GB+

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 8GB+

    Votes: 13 2.4%

  • 12GB+

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • 16GB+

    Votes: 116 21.2%

  • 32GB+

    Votes: 280 51.3%

  • 64GB+

    Votes: 123 22.5%

  • 128GB+

    Votes: 10 1.8%

  • 256GB+

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Total voters
    546
I doubt i'll upgrade past 64GB anytime soon.

However, because I pretty much never go backwards when it comes to system upgrades, there's a damn good chance that my future DDR5 system is gonna be using 128GB just because. Ask again in 2 years. ;)
 
TheSlySyl said:
I doubt i'll upgrade past 64GB anytime soon.

However, because I pretty much never go backwards when it comes to system upgrades, there's a damn good chance that my future DDR5 system is gonna be using 128GB just because. Ask again in 2 years. ;)
Click to expand...
I stalled out at 64GB. Can't go backwards to save a couple hundred bucks, but I haven't needed more. I was mucking around with some programming stuff on a 32GB machine back in early 2014 and ran out of ram, so I grabbed a second 4x8GB kit for my X79 machine. I'm still at 64GB. There's a good chance I might go backwards on vram next time I upgrade my vid card though. I bought a 3090 last December since I was able to get it into my cart and check out. I'm usually more of an xx80 vid card buyer, so I could easily see my next vid card having 16GB. That said, 2021 made me glad I splurged.
 
Went up a lot in memory this year. First the shitbox got upgraded from 12GB -> 16GB, then I got a laptop with 32GB, now I'm putting the finishing touches on a new Ryzen build with 64GB. I thought about 128 for even bigger RAMdisks but that's a lot of $$$ for memory.
 
TheSlySyl said:
I doubt i'll upgrade past 64GB anytime soon.

However, because I pretty much never go backwards when it comes to system upgrades, there's a damn good chance that my future DDR5 system is gonna be using 128GB just because. Ask again in 2 years. ;)
Click to expand...
I take the max sane memory for a platform, cut it in half and put that in (since that's generally the level where it takes some tweaking to get happy, but is still possible to get high performance out of). So for Threadripper, it's 128G, for Ryzen/Intel consumer, it's 64G. The one exception to that rule is my TR1 system, because it was so finicky on ram - it only has 64G, because that's all it'll take and do ANY memory overclocking.

Gaming system has 32G, but that's because it's just a gaming box. Does nothing else. And it'll get upgraded to 64G probably next spring.
 
32GB in all of my systems.

NAS because I was playing with dedup at the time.
VM boxes because... Well, VM boxes. It's the max the mobos will take.
Gaming box because it's the smallest amount I could buy the system with. Never seen a game push it over about 10GB, so most of it's wasted.
Laptop because that's what work wanted to give me.
Old desktop/remote access jumpserver because I had leftovers after upgrading all my VM servers.

No, wait. I take it back. My Raspberry Pi doesn't have 32GB... It has 4GB. (Used to display graphs on a web page, nothing else.)
 
After a month. Finally got it dialed in.
 

Attachments

  • ram.PNG
    ram.PNG
    32.5 KB · Views: 0
Battlefield: 2042 could be the first mainstream game where 32 GB may help out certain systems.

That game eats up alot of vram as shown at Tom's and TPU.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/battlefield-2042-open-beta-benchmark-test-performance/4.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/battlefield-2042-pc-performance-benchmarks-settings
Screenshot_20220104-105819-176.png

Things are particularly rough for AMD and this chart accurately reflects what is required not just allocated.
From Tom's:
"I'm not sure why AMD's GPUs often seem to need more memory for equivalent settings than Nvidia's GPUs, but it's probably internal delta color compression among other things. In Battlefield 2042, at least with the game ready AMD 21.11.2 and Nvidia 496.76 drivers we used for testing, it seems like AMD's 8GB cards behave like Nvidia's 6GB cards, and its 12GB cards more or less match the behavior of Nvidia's 8GB cards. There's probably more room for driver optimizations, in other words. That or AMD's Infinity Cache is playing a big role."

I thought this game was just a vram hog and was the end of it, but results were very different at Techspot.
https://www.techspot.com/article/2364-battlefield-2042-benchmarks/

Big difference here as even the 6 GB AMD cards were holding up at 4k. So there are of course no two tests the same, but what stood out between Techspot vs Tom's and TPU is that Techspot used 32 GB of ram whereas the others used 16 GB (to the best I could find info on).

Techspot did a test a few years ago where the 4 GB RX 570 was taking a hit going from 16 GB to 8 GB of system ram when the higher vram Rx580 didn't seem to mind.

So anyone able to test this? It does seem that the game uses an large mount of system Ram and possibly even more if it has to "make up" a lack of vram.

So, given the same price, performance, would it be better to have a system with 16 GB system Ram and 12-16 GB vram or a system with 32 GB system Ram and 6-8 GB of vram? It seems the former would be a bit more flexible with technologies such as AMD SAM.
 
dinklyjames said:
Yeah seems like overkill right now
Click to expand...
When I was shopping for my new build I was playing RDR2 on my old machine and I was riding to town. My computer crashed right before I unloaded 20+ skins. I went to event viewer and I had ran out of ram.
This was my fault, because I had limited my virtual RAM (remember when 16gb was over kill? ya I had this machine that long).
edit. For 30 extra bucks I got 32 over 16 with 2 empty slots for 64 if I ever want to go there, kind of a no brainer. I had seen memory usage over 16 a few times.
 
I'd like to see a 128GB and 256GB option.

I have 128GB for blender use. I bought it right in time to then move most my artwork onto digital painting on my iPad, so rarely use more than 10%


But I have it.
 
KazeoHin said:
I'd like to see a 128GB and 256GB option.

I have 128GB for blender use. I bought it right in time to then move most my artwork onto digital painting on my iPad, so rarely use more than 10%


But I have it.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think 128GB is more common now that 32GB modules are more available. And 256 is easy if you have an 8 slot workstation board, so that should be an option too imo.
 
I have 32 GB (2x16GB) in my 2022 Shuttle. It should be enough for now but I do a lot of multitasking and so I probably will need to upgrade down the road. A bit dissapointed that the Shuttle only has 2 DIMMs though as it will make upgrading to 64GB difficult. 2x32GB sticks will probably have horrible latencies.
 
Right now 32GB - apparently having six instances of the same 5,000+ page pdf file simultaneously open in six different pdf viewers (including three browsers) eats up a bit RAM.

Might be making the jump to 64GB per a recently started thread... hint.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Right now 32GB - apparently having six instances of the same 5,000+ page pdf file simultaneously open in six different pdf viewers (including three browsers) eats up a bit RAM.

Might be making the jump to 64GB per a recently started thread... hint.
Click to expand...
I do this all the time, but with high res pdfs vs large page ones--ram and a gpu helps a lot. (y) Also, using some older depreciated pdf view that's lightweight like foxreader 1.0 is a tremendous boost since the pdf format hasn't changed in over a decade (and shouldn't if pdfs are to remain readable).
 
SamirD said:
Wait until you have to upgrade browsers--those things eat ram like candy and never get enough. :dead:
Click to expand...
I initially got vetoed on purchasing Best Buy's $1,100 deal on an Asus laptop with a 5980HX because it did not have a built in web-cam and "only" had 16GB of Ram. Just because the senior partner was pegging ram well north of 80% from mismanaging her computer doesn't mean 16GB is insufficient for most people to use Firefox for basic web browsing, MS Office Word, and Acrobat Reader. How she manages to bloat reader to north of 4GB used with a handful of regular sized pdfs simultaneously open and Firefox to over 6GB through a mix of four or five windows and a mere dozen-ish tabs is beyond me.

SamirD said:
I do this all the time, but with high res pdfs vs large page ones--ram and a gpu helps a lot. (y) Also, using some older depreciated pdf view that's lightweight like foxreader 1.0 is a tremendous boost since the pdf format hasn't changed in over a decade (and shouldn't if pdfs are to remain readable).
Click to expand...
Foxit viewer is one of my main pdf display programs.
 
At work I’m always around 17gb used. And that is mostly just browsers, office apps, etc. At home just gaming and surfing I’m rarely over 14gb even while gaming. But there are some games that will push you over 16gb. Anyway, I run 32gb in everything.
 
Changed my vote again, all three of my main machines are at 32GB.

I really wasn't using the whole 64GB in my main machine, so I took 2x16 for another build. I'm losing a couple FPS going from dual-rank to single but whatever, it saved me buying another mem kit.

When I eventually upgrade to a DDR5 platform I'll probably stick with 32GB tbh since that seems like plenty for gaming.
 
I'm on 4 sticks of Single Rank on AMD, which is just as good as 2 sticks of dual rank. 32GB is plenty for gaming... my next build (who knows when) will likely be DDR5 and maybe 64GB by then.... maybe...
 
KazeoHin said:
I'd like to see a 128GB and 256GB option.

I have 128GB for blender use. I bought it right in time to then move most my artwork onto digital painting on my iPad, so rarely use more than 10%


But I have it.
Click to expand...
'tis done, good sir :)
 
32gig sems to be the modern day sweet spot although 16 seems to be perfectly fine. All 4 of my computers have 32 gigs.
 
I'm still at 32 GB @ DDR4, but wouldn't mind downloading another 32.

The reason was moving to Mint from Win, I'm one of the lucky people who can mostly get by with the ecosystem.
The 'memory' widget shows my RAM constantly maxed out, with a VM running for Office 24/7 and other daily things. Maxed out - yea - but silky smooth. Linux in my case seems to be a bit better at dedicating wam to buffers and caches and stuff.
 
I am not sure, but is it possible for somebody to reset the poll for 2023? I am sure that these results are no longer all that representative of people's current builds. I am sure a lot of the 16GB respondents were posting that number back in 2020. I am getting the feeling that 64GB is going to be the common RAM configuration for users here in 2023.
 
I just upgraded from 32GB to 64GB on my main rig a couple of weeks ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top