Hardware & Technical 8Gb vs 16Gb debate...

[Darren Grey]

I've got 4GB and Elite: Dangerous works a charm. I've monitored its RAM usage and it has been very low so far. Of course, the full game could be much more intense...

Mind you, if I was building a new computer I would probably stick in 16, as it helps future proof things. When I built my current computer a lot of people had 1 or 2 GB, but I went with 4GB so it would last me longer - it has certainly worked well.

 

[Stormprooter]

I've got 16GB, but I also use my machine for software development, and I have loads of things (incl SQL Server) running in the background which just chew up memory.

Next machine I am getting (this August/September) will have 32GB ram

 

[Hellhawk666]

I have 16g in the desktop, but not specifically for games. I work part time from home doing graphics and audio crunching.

 

[Phobos]

With all that stuff going on in ED, i thought they use the 64bit tech. Maybe it's because they think about porting to consoles?

 

[Flak]

I don't think there is any real reason to build a 64-bit version of ED unless the memory requirements for the game approach the 2GB mark. You don't really gain anything by running in 64-bit unless you need more RAM. If ED uses less than 2GB RAM, there is no need to go 64-bit.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

I've got 16Gb. Realistically, 8GB of it is dead weight and is probably just drawing power from the mains and costing me money. If you're doing a lot of video editing, I can imagine it might be useful, but for gaming purposes not really. The Star Citizen hangar requirements are 8GB, but I seem to remember mine used well under 2GB.

 

[X2Eliah]

I don't think there is any real reason to build a 64-bit version of ED unless the memory requirements for the game approach the 2GB mark. You don't really gain anything by running in 64-bit unless you need more RAM. If ED uses less than 2GB RAM, there is no need to go 64-bit.

True, but so far we only have tiny instances with less than 20 active ships, no background tasks and no universe to speak of; the final game with all systems and stuff working might very well have a much larger memory footprint than currently.

 

[cadmonkey33]

8gb is more that enough for gaming at the moment, but memory requirements are rising rapidly.
I've got 16gb, and voted that I want more, but thats because I use 3D and video editing software. My board goes allows up to 64gb, but that may be overkill even for me
Having said that, DDR3 is CHEAP at the moment, and prices will go UP when DDR3 is superceded, so buy it while it's cheap.

 

[cadmonkey33]

I don't think there is any real reason to build a 64-bit version of ED unless the memory requirements for the game approach the 2GB mark. You don't really gain anything by running in 64-bit unless you need more RAM. If ED uses less than 2GB RAM, there is no need to go 64-bit.

You actually lose performance in a 64bit app.
However, it's a bit much to expect large games to use <2gb these days.

 

[trekman]

I selected the second option in the poll. However when I thought about it I came to the conclusion that 8gb is plenty and the only thing I would probably upgrade is the graphics card since my current card is only a radeon 6670. I wouldn't change the processor though because I think that my current processor (an core i5) is plenty powerful enough and an i7 would just be overkill.

 

[Kroy]

I got 16gb, and use it for work (online related stuff) RAM disk, MYSQL server, minecraft LAN server, video editing (not necessarily all at the same time). I probably don't use all of it, but when it was only the price of a packet of cigarettes more expensive than 8gb, I didn't see any reason not to.

 

[kilvenny]

I have 8GB and will go higher if needed, but don't expect to need to.

 

[Flak]

True, but so far we only have tiny instances with less than 20 active ships, no background tasks and no universe to speak of; the final game with all systems and stuff working might very well have a much larger memory footprint than currently.

Very true

 

[FoxTwo]

I've got 8GB and I have yet to come across a game that uses more than 4GB. Never seen my physical memory usage edge any higher than the "middle" of the graph (suggesting 4GB, or something close to 4GB, was the max ever needed).

But, if ED needs more, IT SHALL HAVE MOAR~~!!!

 

[Richard Voorhees]

16gb @ 2400mhz. Decided to chuck 16 into my new rig and the fact that it's 2400mhz is down to OCUK ballsing up my order and then making me a 'goodwill' gesture.

 

[Bikky]

here we go again. I'd say they're going to release 32 and 64bit. If they're using GFX cards with 2gb GRAM, then unless you want to run a system accessing only 1.6GB RAM (don't forget, mouse, keyboard, bios, audio all have accessible memory space. And 32 bit can only addres 4GB MEMORY, not just RAM)

 

[NeilF]

I had 4GB of memory, and I never generally saw my memory usage on my machine (Vista 64bit) exceed 75-80% usage.

I've since upgraded to 6GB just for the sake of it, and rarely see much over about 65% usage

 

[Memnoch]

I've got 12GB. Can I take part in this poll please?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Go for 16Gb, make a 4Gb ramdisk and plop your favourite game on it with NTFS links

You won't gain any fps, but load times drop. It's especially useful for MMO's where random items/textures can appear any time. Or, if you have enough space, install the whole thing on Ramdisk 19gb for Lotro works nicely.

 

[TheOohChild]

I have open slots on my MOBO available for whenever upgrading from 8GB will be necessary