How much RAM do you have?

[scifi6546]

I have 16 gigs of ram a 750ti and an amd fx 9-something thousand. I run world machine a very cpu intensive program on my computer and I thought it was time to upgrade to a better CPU.

[Renegrade]

128GB ought to be enough for anyone...

Hehe

Probably people who are interested in space physics or aerodynamics are also more interested in computers and other technology than average people and have better computers.

Well, some of us are actually home computer users/hobbyists; enthusiasts and programmers and such. We haven't died off or any crap, we're just lost in the background of the people who would have cried "nerd stuff!" at the sight of a computer ten to thirty years ago. Heck, in some ways, there's more today than there were in 1982.

8 GB here; maxed out my laptop. I do lots of RAM-intensive stuff besides KSP, so my next computer will probably have RAM as a priority.

It's worth noting (I'm not sure if someone's sad this already), but it's not just about the RAM that KSP uses. Having more RAM frees up RAM that the OS can use while KSP is running, so your computer is more responsive. Upgrading from 4 GB to 6 GB and then to 8 GB made a huge difference in that regard.

Yeah, hitting swap is NOT recommended ever, if performance is anywhere on the list of goals. Plus, modern OSes use any unused RAM for disk caching (as I've said before) as an added bonus.

I have to say that the lack of RAM scalability in systems is incredibly disturbing to me. Strikes me that planned obsolescence is getting more obnoxious and Apple/Microsoft-y with every passing year. I have an old 386 board that was actually designed to handle upwards of a gigabyte of memory - what happened to that forward looking spirit? Did some stuffed-suit pointy-haired boss decide it wasn't worth the extra half cent per board?

[xebx]

8 GB and Win7-64Pro, it works fine. I try to add only low memory low bug Mods so the game (32bits) can run a few hours before crashing/needing a restart.

Edited September 2, 2015 by xebx

[pxi]

Recently replaced my system, so 16GB here.

To anyone wondering why 16GB seems such a popular amount, I'll explain my reasoning - futureproofing.

Many games need 4GB these days, and a significant number are coming out that require 8GB. So I now look at 8GB as being a reasonable 'minimum' for the next year or two. Of course, I'd like this new system to be halfway viable for a bit longer than that (I got about 6 years out of the old one, which had 4GB), so I applied the old maxim of "think of a number and double it", and arrive at 16GB.

RAM is cheap when you're speccing a system. You will pay slightly over the odds for older types of RAM if you choose to upgrade down the line. In the long run it pays to overspec the amount of RAM in a system in my opinion.

Edited September 2, 2015 by pxi

[Renegrade]

Many games need 4GB these days, and a significant number are coming out that require 8GB. So I now look at 8GB as being a reasonable 'minimum' for the next year or two. Of course, I'd like this new system to be halfway viable for a bit longer than that (I got about 6 years out of the old one, which had 4GB), so I applied the old maxim of "think of a number and double it", and arrive at 16GB.

Solid reasoning. I approve!

As someone pointed out earlier, the "next gen" (which I think of as 'obsolescent, three generations ago e-waste') consoles all feature 8GB (plus one embarrassing one that has four generations old specs), so 16 is a good minimum, as desktop OSes aren't as efficient (alternate interpretation: not quite as useless) as console OSes, and will have more RAM overhead. Also, since the consoles are now the main target of the so-called 'AAA studios', most ports will be in the console->PC direction, which implies even more inefficiencies.. So it's not inconceivable that a semi-decent port may involve 10-12 gigs of memory usage (more for a less-decent port), making having a 16-gig minimum quite sensible.

You can't have too much memory (up to the limit of your board's capacity, or up to the limit of your board's maximum caching capabilities in the bad old 430VX/TX etc days), but you can certainly have not enough memory.

[Korizan]

Here is a link about the windows page file. http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it

Everyone really should read it and you will understand why people choose to add more RAM to their system.

A whole lot of computer Issues and crashes revolve around lack of RAM.

But Microsoft and computer retailers continue to sell computers with only 4 gig of RAM and it is complete nonsense.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Korizan

[cantab]

But Microsoft and computer retailers continue to sell computers with only 4 gig of RAM and it is complete nonsense.

I raised an eyebrow here, but a quick check confirms you're right - there are thousand pound laptops going with a miserly 4 GB. Talk about a rip off.

[NecroBones]

Swapping to disk is always a performance killer. These days I consider 16GB to be "standard" since that's really the minimum you need to be doing more than one thing at a time without any significant swapping, which can include leaving a browser open with a bunch of active tabs.

I know I'm not necessarily a typical user, but for example, I usually have about 10 to 20 tabs open in Firefox, and possibly a couple of applications (such as Photoshop), and will run a game as well. Memory goes quickly if you keep several things open.

4GB is ridiculous at this point for a new computer. 8GB works well enough for most typical users. But 16GB is probably the sweet spot right now, especially if you're a power-user. Which is why I have 32.

[Korizan]

I raised an eyebrow here, but a quick check confirms you're right - there are thousand pound laptops going with a miserly 4 GB. Talk about a rip off.

Want a laugh try this. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883281629

A 64 Bit machine with 4 gig of RAM, WHY ?????

8 gig should be the minimum specs on any 64 bit machine.

[cantab]

Actually I would lean towards using a 64-bit OS on a PC with 4 GB. When using desktop Windows a 32-bit version can't even use all of 4GB because of other things hogging address space and the lack of PAE support. Even on Linux where that's not an issue I currently have 4 GB of RAM, run 64-bit Ubuntu, and run and benefit from running 64-bit KSP rather than 32-bit.

Not that that PC's hardware spec is any less silly mind you.

[Warzouz]

Even I built my computer myself few years ago, I don't even remember how much RAM I have.

My answer would be : enough for playing any game I have ad doing everything I'm doing.

I think it's 8GB (Win 7 64bits)

[qromodynmc]

I have 8 gb.

Windows 10 uses around %30, which seems too much. I have tons of programs in my system, I bought this laptop 3-3.5 years ago and never had a problem, never formatted it. Sometimes I want to make a clean install but at this point Im scared to do.

[peachoftree]

Windows 10 uses around %30, which seems too much

linux fanboy rant incoming.

[rant]

And there lies the problem. Windows simply uses too much ram. In this case > 2GB. it basically turns 4GB into 2Gb, 8GB into 6GB, and so on. Of course having a windows system with only 4GB is silly, you would have <2GB of effective RAM! On my linux install on by laptop (which has 4GB) The system uses around 500-600 MB of RAM, however on the mac side of the laptop, I can't run more than one or two programs at a time without suffering significant downsides. (The laptop is from 2011 however). The problem is that Windows and OSX use too much of the system resources. An OS should be out of the way, and use minimal resources. Those should be the number 1 concerns when building an OS. People use computers for the applications, the operating system should not be using precious resources that do not help the user and only get in the way of the applications.

[/rant]

[linuxgurugamer]

I recently upgraded to 32 gig:

8 gig for a ramdisk

Chrome windows typically take up 16 gig (I keep a lot of tabs open)

Leaves me 8 gig for everything else.

I usually load the game to ramdisk and run from there.

[Laie]

128GB ought to be enough for anyone...

"At one time, someone said that 640KB of memory should be enough, Packard said, but now he is wrestling with the limits of the 48-bit addresses used by the 64-bit ARM and Intel CPUs. That only allows addressing up to 256TB, [...]"

source

- - - Updated - - -

I was using a Core i7 950 up until the start of the summer last year, [...] I switched to a Core i7 4770k, which I could clock up to 4GHz. The speed increase for KSP was pretty consistent with the difference of clock speeds. That is, I could put about a quarter to a third more parts into a ship before I'd see the same framerate drop.

Yup, there's not much improvement anymore. I went from 486/33 to Pentium/200 to Athlon 800MHz, those systems were each about three years apart and the performance increase was like tenfold. That Athlon then was good for six years, and it's follow-up lasted me for eight. My current box will probably break down from old age before something even twice as fast becomes available affordable.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to say that the lack of RAM scalability in systems is incredibly disturbing to me. Strikes me that planned obsolescence is getting more obnoxious and Apple/Microsoft-y with every passing year. I have an old 386 board that was actually designed to handle upwards of a gigabyte of memory - what happened to that forward looking spirit? Did some stuffed-suit pointy-haired boss decide it wasn't worth the extra half cent per board?

In part it was that. I recall running into an issue where caching more than 64MB required a tiny "tag ram" chip to be installed. I also recall that Intel somehow limited their later Socket-7 chipsets to 64MB, apparently in an attempt to promote the new Pentium-II processors. Currently, i5 and i7 processors have a 32GB limit of sorts -- if you need more, you need to pay out of you nose for Xeon types. As a mainboard vendor, I'd probably not put much effort into a board that supports more than the current line of CPUs. Chances are that the new-and-improved CPU won't fit the current socket anyway.

[davidy12]

I'd say that if you want to run mods (>50) and with high textures, 8gigs in the middle. However, I've got 16 gigs on my desktop at home, but now that I have a macbook pro with 8gigs and 64bit workaround it runs fine.

[Mat2ch]

I know this is a rethorical question, but is there something as too much ram?

[peachoftree]

I know this is a rethorical question, but is there something as too much ram?

Yes. If you never utilize most of your ram then you have wasted your money on ram you don't need and therefore have too much.

[NecroBones]

I know this is a rethorical question, but is there something as too much ram?

Heh, cost-wise it's possible. But your system will always make use of extra RAM for caching and the like, so it's never "wasted".

[322997am]

I say squad reduces the ram needed and not increase it. That will make the people that want to build bigger craft can and people with big desktops can build megacruisers. But I will say this if squad makes it use more that 4gb:

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[qromodynmc]

linux fanboy rant incoming.

[rant]

And there lies the problem. Windows simply uses too much ram. In this case > 2GB. it basically turns 4GB into 2Gb, 8GB into 6GB, and so on. Of course having a windows system with only 4GB is silly, you would have <2GB of effective RAM! On my linux install on by laptop (which has 4GB) The system uses around 500-600 MB of RAM, however on the mac side of the laptop, I can't run more than one or two programs at a time without suffering significant downsides. (The laptop is from 2011 however). The problem is that Windows and OSX use too much of the system resources. An OS should be out of the way, and use minimal resources. Those should be the number 1 concerns when building an OS. People use computers for the applications, the operating system should not be using precious resources that do not help the user and only get in the way of the applications.

[/rant]

I think its just my pc. Tons of applications from asus, Hotkey apps, touchpad apps, keyboard light apps, power management apps etc.. Probably clean windows 10 wouldnt use more than 1gb.

[TheMoonRover]

4GB is plenty. I did use quite a lot of mods at one stage and I've never crashed from the RAM limit. I never used big visual mods or high graphics settings though. I never understood the point. Mods adding little details like clouds and light from distant planets I can understand, but improving parts and ground textures? Forget it. Then again, I do still play on my PS2. Sometimes I even play PS1 games. They would make even KSP's minimum graphics settings look good. Heck, there's even a (functioning) Nintendo Gameboy in a drawer somewhere. That makes even Minecraft look good - colour makes a huge difference.

EDIT: Yes, that is an odd opinion for someone who's technically still a teenager.