should I buy more RAM? Will it make a difference?

>>301915
A difference to what?

>Most likely no

>1600mhz @ cl11
if you want to touch your ram you might want to replace the current sticks instead of adding to it

>>301915
It depends of for what you use the PC.

You want the RAM for video games right?

As I see, you have two graphics card right??

>>301939
for gaming, yes. Just one video card. The other is the on board video.

>>301915
No, you should get an i7.

Don't bother replacing the motherboard: i7s have only got like 10% better since Sandy Bridge.

only if you need extra ram for VM's and such. Most games will only use 2-5GB at most. I do heavy duty photomanipulation/graphics work and even that only uses a few GB at most

>>301971
Games use 8 because consoles have 8.

Expect this to change to 12 when the new Xbox comes out.

>>301981
what fucking game uses 8? Name one. I'm waiting.
Rust is literally the worst optimized fucking thing imagineable, and it uses 6 at the very worst.

>>301996
Battlefield 1

>>301998
boyfriends online stopped being good after bad company 2

>>301996
you literally cannot play that shit with less than 9gb. the game allocates that much on the lowest of settings, and if you have lets say 8gb of physical ram without a pagefile you wont play for more than a few minutes till it crashes (sometimes during the loading). and if you have pagefile active it is still a mess with all the data shifting to/from disk becoming unresponsive as you play.
you are right on one thing though, the game is a complete piece of un-optimized shit. i find it weird people pay money for it, but then again masochism is a thing, so...

>>302008
my friend plays it every day on 8GB with no issues, with the graphics pretty high. I used to play it on 8GB with no issues, but i always played on like medium

>>302008
>without a pagefile
No modern OS can operate properly without a pagefile, because they need a pagefile to overcommit, and they need to overcommit to do copy-on-write pages, and they need CoW to fork()* efficiently.

With no overcommit you can't deduplicate identical pages between processes, because when you change a value in a deduplicated page, the OS needs to make a copy of it, which means that processes that aren't (from their point of view) allocating memory are still allocating memory just by changing it.

There's no mechanism for a process to be told that changing memory it's already allocated has failed (only for one to be told that it can't allocate because there's no memory), so the only solution if you're out of memory because of writing to a CoW page is to kill the process. The only way to avoid randomly killing processes is to not deduplicate and store many copies of identical pages, one for every process.

Because massive waste of memory is not acceptable, and killing processes randomly for no apparent reason is not acceptable, modern OSes need to have a swapfile. With a swapfile, deduplicated pages can never cause out-of-memory, because the OS can just grow the swapfile. For this reason, swap is absolutely necessary on every modern OS.

>>302008
* windows can exec() without fork()ing, so it avoids the problem of an 8GB process that wants to exec() a 4kb process having to first fork() a duplicate 8GB process (both of which need to be backed by real physical memory) but that doesn't make it immune to any of the other problems of not having swap.

>>302019
You can disable swap or not even have it at all with no ill effects if you're on GNU/Linux, if you have enough ram.

>>302023
Linux uses the "randomly crash applications for writing to their own, already-allocated memory" option.

(iOS and Android do too, but apps are designed to put up with that kind of thing.)

>>302023
Allow me to interject: you're talking specifically about features of the Linux kernel and its memory management, so it's properly called "Linux" not "GNU/Linux".

>>302019
>modern OSes need to have a swapfile
the pagefile/swap is only used on memory pressure, regardless of os
>buzzwords
are you really implying that every memory allocation (system) touches the pagefile/swap? do you even know the performance implication that would have? what you are rambling about?

>>302019
wait a second, i think you might be mistaking virtual memory with the page/swap area, which is not the same thing

>>302003
>it doesn't count because I don't like it

don't buy any. you can get it for free at downloadmoreram.com

>>302091
Of course it does. The swapfile is a fundamental component of the memory manager. But just because an allocation interacts with the memory manager does doesn't mean it results in actual IO.

Trivial example, a processes mallocs 3GB then does nothing with it for ages. In Windows, all memory needs to be backed by a page somewhere, so the allocation needs to be backed by something right now. Windows can't break its contract with the process and fail a later write to the allocation, because it just said the allocation was good to use.

If there's a swapfile, all Windows does is go "3GB of the swapfile is now this malloc; there's no need to read it it's not been written to yet", and as the process dirties individual pages it can take blank pages, write to them, and now the process's page has magically gone from being a swapped-out anonymous page to a dirty swap-backed anonymous pages, without the swap ever having been read.

With no swapfile, this entire 3GB needs to be found a home in physical memory at the time of allocation; depending on the system this might not even be possible.

Swap is necessary for reliable overcommit; without swap your options are unreliable overcommit (Linux in default settings), or no overcommit (Windows).

>>302286
but that only happens on memory pressure, allocated memory still resides on virtual memory (read physical), and is only backed to/by paging area if absolutely needed. doing otherwise would be catastrophic on systems with a slow or in use hdd
paging is needed if you are going to bypass your total physical ram amount in allocations (like rust that allocates 9gb and then only ends up using about 3 or 4). but if you are not using programs filled with memory leaks and over (read greedy) allocations its much faster to ditch the swap area altogether (i would take a system with 128gb of ram and a 16gb sdd and no swap area over a system with 2gb of ram and a 3tb hdd and system defined pagefile size anytime)