Does 32GB consume too much space?
Does 32GB consume too much space?
Conversely, if OP possesses funds, now is a favorable moment to purchase memory since prices are reduced. I’m uncertain whether the coronavirus will cause a shortage and raise costs.
Running dual channel often boosts performance by around 20%, but the effect varies by game. A recent test showed that even with a limited benchmark set, a single 16GB drive matched the FPS of an 8GB drive. It seems the system hits its limits at the same frame rate regardless. Most games benefit more from dual channel, though some like Doom (2016) perform well without it.
32 GB isn't excessive, but at this stage I wouldn't recommend a 16 GB setup for a brand new machine unless you still have room to upgrade later. Some games suggest 16 GB (like F1 2019), and it's wise to surpass the minimum requirements. While that works for many titles, if you enjoy running multiple programs during gameplay on newer releases, you'll likely run into problems. On a budget, sticking to a low-cost option might be necessary, but with more funds available, always leave some extra capacity. I still recall the old debates about 8 GB RAM being pointless—people who ignored that advice and chose 16 GB years back are still doing well. This applies especially to dual-channel motherboards; buying two 8 GB sticks would require swapping them out for two 16 GB units if you ever need more, rather than just adding later. Always opt for dual-channel configuration for better performance.
In OP's scenario F1 could be using HDD while GPU would have half the recommended VRAM. Likely other issues would appear before 32GB was necessary, and the DIMM slot would likely be available. The argument for adding RAM still applies to SSDs too; same factors influence prices for both. A second SSD might be a better choice before the second DIMM slot, unless the games OP actually needs would benefit from it. FPS improvements would be more apparent when refresh rates exceed display speed compared to using HDD instead of SSD. I believe the second option would stand out noticeably, while the first would only show in benchmarks or in very competitive situations—about half a millisecond faster reaction times over two weeks. Other titles might see differences, with frame rates dropping from 56 to 62 being more obvious than jumping from 200 to 220.
This approach can be useful for gamers since it keeps more game information in RAM, reducing the need to pull data from the disk during play.