🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:59:12 -0000, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>With Windows 7 & (just starting to use) Windows 10 .
>My i7 has 16GB RAM in Dual Channel -
>The Pagefile is set to fixed 512MB
>
>Question; Is that 16GB in fact of any use re. 8GB ?
>
>My system monitor rarely shows any usage greater than around 5.5 GB
>
>I loaded COD Advanced Warfare which uses 6 GB , started a game save
>then ALT Tab'ed out & started Fallout 4  game running , TABBED out
>& started a Deadfall Adventures game (a silly but fun modern FPS)
>I could have started up another 1 or 2.
>
>ALT TAB'd out to desktop with these 3 running.
>I can TAB switch between them with each appearing instantly.
>Monitor showed 11.5 GB RAM in use .
>I haven't compared Win 7 to Win 10 with this - I suspect same result.
>I copied a 6 GB game folder to another disc & RAM usage went from 2 GB to 
>4.5 GB.
>
>Running multiple games is not something I need.
>Is there any use for that 16 RAM in normal usage ?

I don't think there is really such a thing as "normal" usage, there is
only how each individual uses their computer.  For someone that
regularly uses Photoshop, does video editing, etc. then 16GB might be
the bare minimum.  

If by normal usage, do you mean does a single game benefit from it?
Highly unlikely, except that many gamers (myself included) tend to not
shut down every app or process before they launch a game.  If your
system is truly only a dedicated gaming system then your mileage may
vary with regard to how many apps you typically have open at once.

The main benefit of lots of RAM usually involves caching or just
prevention of disk I/O in general.  If the OS has to resort to disk
rather than RAM for any reason, slowdowns occur, obviously.  If you
don't run lots of various apps, are the type that reboots frequently
(I sometimes go weeks without a reboot or shutdown), then you might
not benefit as much from having those apps already in memory.

I've always found that most folks' perspective of the value of RAM is
simplistic and flawed, i.e. "I haven't gotten any out of memory
messages, therefore I don't benefit from more than _GB".  Running out
of memory is one thing and enjoying performance benefits is another.
Alt-tabbing between running applications as you mentioned in your
experiment is one example (though as you said, running multiple games
at once may not be particularly useful to most unless someone has some
game running as a point-farming exercise).

In terms of my own usage, the gaming PC I bought in 2008 had 8GB
initially.  A couple of years in, I started noticing that under
certain conditions, particularly after the move to Win7 64bit
(remember 64 bit gobbles more RAM), the system would start to get
sluggish.  Task Mgr showed I wasn't fully depleting RAM but reguarly
using a good portion of it at peak.  The slowdown would only occur
after some period of time, and would go away after a reboot.  So I
dropped another 4GB in just to see what would happen, problem solved.
For the life of the machine I never needed more than 12GB total.  I
still have that machine that I use as an experimental dual boot Server
and Win10 machine, it still runs great for general use even if its a
bit outdated for my current gaming standards.  

So, beyond 12GB is probably just future proofing for me, but less than
12GB is not enough for how I use my system without feeling some
occasional pain.  There are times when I probably make use of the
additional RAM, as I routinely run virtual machines with a minimum of
4GB allocated to them each (running one at a time).  I recently added
a new Mac to the endless computer collection and would not have
settled for less than 16GB.  I run VMs on that one too.

Could a gamer get by with 8GB?  I'm sure many can and do.  But, the
more RAM you have, the better your OS will treat you (up to a point)
and right now that sweetspot is probably 16GB for the average gamer
that's doing more with their machine than just gaming.  

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 02:59:12 +0300, Trimble Bracegirdle <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

> Running multiple games is not something I need.
> Is there any use for that 16 RAM in normal usage ?

Start rendering things for a hobby with, say, Poser or Daz3D Studio or Bryce,
and you will want 128GB of RAM :))

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

> Running multiple games is not something I need.
> Is there any use for that 16 RAM in normal usage ?

I find that usually 4 MB of EMS memory and 4 MB of XMS memory is enough 
to make all the worthwhile games to run. 

There's still QEMM386 if you've got issues with the first 640 KBs.

-Moa Dragon

Am 16.01.16 um 16:57 schrieb taxalot:
>> Running multiple games is not something I need.
>> Is there any use for that 16 RAM in normal usage ?
>
> I find that usually 4 MB of EMS memory and 4 MB of XMS memory is enough
> to make all the worthwhile games to run.
>
> There's still QEMM386 if you've got issues with the first 640 KBs.
>
> -Moa Dragon
>
640 Kbyte are enough

Trimble Bracegirdle <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>With Windows 7 & (just starting to use) Windows 10 .
>My i7 has 16GB RAM in Dual Channel -
>The Pagefile is set to fixed 512MB
>
>Question; Is that 16GB in fact of any use re. 8GB ?

Probably not now, but because the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have 8GB of
memory and relatively leaner operating systems, we should start seeing
PC games in the next couple of years with 8 GB minimum requirements and
12 GB recommended.  Having more than 8 GB won't be a strict necesity,
but should be nice to have.

Also having more memory than necessary is always useful as Windows will
use it as disk cache.  If nothing else it help with things like speeding
loading levels that have already been loaded once before.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

I recently got 16gb (from 8) ddr3 on mine, and notice no difference.  I have 
read articles that suggest higher speed ram can be beneficial in game 
framerates in certain situations, so if you are buying look for faster ram 
also.

rms 

The RAM hungriest game I know of is COD Advanced Warfare.
Its official spec say 6 GB RAM min. 
In fact it needs more as they don't seem to have included the system needs.
I see it just touching 8 GB total.

I know re. super hungry Video editing apps.
But thinking of our sort of general Home Gaming use.
I can't see in system monitor much  disk caching type usage.
Looks like 8 GB is enough.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (Tickle My Sweet Toes Gently) 

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-8, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> The RAM hungriest game I know of is COD Advanced Warfare.
> Its official spec say 6 GB RAM min. 
> In fact it needs more as they don't seem to have included the system needs.
> I see it just touching 8 GB total.
> 
> I know re. super hungry Video editing apps.
> But thinking of our sort of general Home Gaming use.
> I can't see in system monitor much  disk caching type usage.
> Looks like 8 GB is enough.

I'm still running 4 and haven't had any problems.  I'd probably be better 
off with 8, but my mb is fairly old and on't take the newer faster ram, so 
I keep thinking it's not worth it to upgrade the ram unless I'm 
upgrading everything, which is a bit out of my range for value.

If you had 32, you could make a ram disk and run whatever game de jure off 
it and surely see at least load time improvements - although there'd be 
that big initial load for each game to put it on the ram disk, so depends
how long you stick with a game.  

- justisaur

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:03:10 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-8, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>> The RAM hungriest game I know of is COD Advanced Warfare.
>> Its official spec say 6 GB RAM min. 
>> In fact it needs more as they don't seem to have included the system needs.
>> I see it just touching 8 GB total.
>> 
>> I know re. super hungry Video editing apps.
>> But thinking of our sort of general Home Gaming use.
>> I can't see in system monitor much  disk caching type usage.
>> Looks like 8 GB is enough.
>
>I'm still running 4 and haven't had any problems.  I'd probably be better 
>off with 8, but my mb is fairly old and on't take the newer faster ram, so 
>I keep thinking it's not worth it to upgrade the ram unless I'm 
>upgrading everything, which is a bit out of my range for value.

Curious how many newer games you're running?  Most of the recent ones
(last couple of years) I've paid any attention to specify minimum 6GB,
recommended 8GB (minimum spec can usually be discarded for purposes of
a reasonable level of enjoyment).  Fallout 4 is one that comes to mind
that says 8 for both minimum and recommended.  Of course, a game never
knows what other apps or services might be running at the same time on
any given machine, so I would always interpret the minimum GB as a
"with nothing else running" number.

I would have thought the installer would block many of these from
installing if there's not enough RAM for minimum spec, but I have not
tested that theory.  Has your experience been different?

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:03:10 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
><just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'm still running 4 and haven't had any problems.  I'd probably be better 
>>off with 8, but my mb is fairly old and on't take the newer faster ram, so 
>>I keep thinking it's not worth it to upgrade the ram unless I'm 
>>upgrading everything, which is a bit out of my range for value.
>
>Curious how many newer games you're running?  Most of the recent ones
>(last couple of years) I've paid any attention to specify minimum 6GB,
>recommended 8GB (minimum spec can usually be discarded for purposes of
>a reasonable level of enjoyment).  Fallout 4 is one that comes to mind
>that says 8 for both minimum and recommended.  Of course, a game never
>knows what other apps or services might be running at the same time on
>any given machine, so I would always interpret the minimum GB as a
>"with nothing else running" number.

With the lack of knowledge on the part of the average computer user
these days, wouldn't that "minimum spec" not be with nothing else
running, but rather with nothing but the "essential" apps running - Anti
virus and so on that people have running all the time?
Especially so for games that have an online component that people would
be uncomfortable trying to run without their "protections" enabled.

Xocyll
-- 

I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 10:35:13 AM UTC-8, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:03:10 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
> <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-8, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> >> The RAM hungriest game I know of is COD Advanced Warfare.
> >> Its official spec say 6 GB RAM min. 
> >> In fact it needs more as they don't seem to have included the system needs.
> >> I see it just touching 8 GB total.
> >> 
> >> I know re. super hungry Video editing apps.
> >> But thinking of our sort of general Home Gaming use.
> >> I can't see in system monitor much  disk caching type usage.
> >> Looks like 8 GB is enough.
> >
> >I'm still running 4 and haven't had any problems.  I'd probably be better 
> >off with 8, but my mb is fairly old and on't take the newer faster ram, so 
> >I keep thinking it's not worth it to upgrade the ram unless I'm 
> >upgrading everything, which is a bit out of my range for value.
> 
> Curious how many newer games you're running?  Most of the recent ones
> (last couple of years) I've paid any attention to specify minimum 6GB,
> recommended 8GB (minimum spec can usually be discarded for purposes of
> a reasonable level of enjoyment).  Fallout 4 is one that comes to mind
> that says 8 for both minimum and recommended.  Of course, a game never
> knows what other apps or services might be running at the same time on
> any given machine, so I would always interpret the minimum GB as a
> "with nothing else running" number.
> 
> I would have thought the installer would block many of these from
> installing if there's not enough RAM for minimum spec, but I have not
> tested that theory.  Has your experience been different?

I'm playing Fallout 4 just fine.  Load times are a little long off and on, 
but from what I've read that seems to be a common problem no matter how 
much RAM.  Seems an SSD would help that more than more ram.  That's probably 
my next purchase.

The installer didn't block me from installing even when I had a VC 
that wouldn't handle the game, I did have to upgrade that as the game 
just crashed out before even getting the title video.  Was running an 
NVIDIA 270, now running a 950.  Running highest graphic quality.

- Justisaur

taxalot wrote:

>
> I find that usually 4 MB of EMS memory and 4 MB of XMS memory is enough 
> to make all the worthwhile games to run. 
>
> There's still QEMM386 if you've got issues with the first 640 KBs.
>
> -Moa Dragon

I had a Dell Dimension 486 DX/33 and something was making my mb bios unreadable, turned out it was caused by QEMM. 

Well,I own multiple PCs with 4GB,8 GB, 32GB RAM. An know what? No difference but if you render 3D stuff or videos.