Performance metrics for high-demand and upcoming titles
Performance metrics for high-demand and upcoming titles
Hello everyone, I’m looking for some thoughts on how important RAM will be in gaming over the next few years. I also want your feedback on the links I’ll share below. Most players seem convinced that 16GB is now more than enough, similar to a few years ago. Yet, it appears even titles like Battlefield One, which suggest 16GB, perform just as well with only four gigabytes without any noticeable drop in frames per second (FPS) – especially when keeping FPS between 60 and 90. I’ll attach two clear videos that demonstrate this. You can check the first one here: https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2...ugh/page-2. It shows Battlefield One running smoothly on just 8GB, compared to 16GB or even 32GB. Timestamp: 2:12. This suggests that 8GB is more than sufficient, and as long as FPS stays stable and there are no major bottlenecks, 16GB offers little extra benefit. I think 8GB should be all that’s needed for most games with solid performance, provided the CPU and GPU aren’t limiting and the RAM is decent (at least DDR3-1666 or better) and you have two sticks. If you have different opinions, let me know. Thanks for your time!
However, many individuals often seek audio playback or video capture while gaming, but 4Gb is insufficient for such tasks. Even 8Gb would be necessary for GTA V.
If memory costs weren’t so high, I’d support the idea. Right now, I’d prefer to aim for 8 GB if possible, unless budget constraints are a problem.
I generally focus on determining the smallest amount of RAM required, then double it for future expansion. If you exceed that limit, you likely won’t need additional space. I also follow the idea that unused RAM is wasted. Another issue I notice is many users leave unnecessary files open and don’t assess their actual needs beforehand, which increases their RAM demands.
I understand; thanks for your responses. I was hoping Battlefield One would be the one needing the most memory compared to other recent titles. Could it be related to the fact that the GPUs used are not top-tier? From what I’ve seen, research indicates RAM usage doesn’t affect performance in Battlefield One mainly when it uses 1070s or higher. It seems that fewer VRAM units lead to more stuttering. So maybe the system handles the load better when there’s plenty of memory available. I’ve heard something about this before. To be clear, I own a RAM laptop with 8 gigabytes and am confident that keeping it at 60fps in AC Origins today—and maintaining that performance in three years—would be possible if I had a solid setup. Also, would using an M.2 SSD help reduce the stuttering by even a small margin? Specifically, could it improve the frame rate by about 0.1%?
As long as all performance-critical parts stay in RAM, speed remains unaffected. Performance drops only when the game must reach the page file. The issue then becomes whether the game can adapt its RAM usage based on available space. I doubt it’s something the game is designed to handle.
I believe games are sufficiently intelligent for this, at least most of them. Regarding memory consumption, the pagefile in the videos I've seen of Battlefield One with 4GB RAM was smaller when combined with the active RAM, reaching a total system RAM usage of 16GB. Specifically, 16GB systems would utilize around 10 to 12 gigabytes of RAM, whereas 4GB systems would have about 2/3 gigabytes in the pagefile alongside nearly all of the 4 gigabytes being used. This suggests that the more RAM you have, the more flexible most applications become in terms of memory usage. That's what I mean when I ask whether 8 gigabytes of RAM will suffice in the future, preventing microstutters every few seconds. I just hope that with a very fast M.2 SSD, using about 3/4 gigabytes with 8GB RAM would cause only minor delays—just a few minutes at most—so it doesn't ruin the experience.