Some Reddit thread said each unit, each tank in the game uses its own RAM and how you can't have enough especially if you're playing a big battle with lots of onscreen units. I tested it on my PC with 8gb and 16gb RAM, RAM usage was the same in game but it lagged a lot less on 16gb during intense scenes. What gives? I'll get another 16gb if it'll help, CoH is the only game I play apart from the old Splinter Cells and Yakuza.
Do RTS games need a ton of RAM?
Bump
Jesus man I need to know
kys zoomers
REEEEEE
>each tank in the game uses its own RAM
How fucking stupid are you? Fuck off until you learn how computer work, kid.
THIS RAM IS MINE, THERE ARE ONLY 16 OF THEM. GET YOUR OWN!
So, a simple way to think about memory on windows is like so: windows sets aside space on your hard drive as memory ("virtual memory"). The system will put the least-used stuff from physical memory into virtual memory, and swap stuff between physical memory/virtual memory as needed. But since your hard drive is (compared to your RAM) extremely slow, if stuff needs to be swapped back in from the virtual memory to be used, your system slows down as the copy happens.
tl;dr: more ram can help, and its pretty fuckin cheap, but I'd still stick with 16gb. more than that is overkill
I'm not some sperg who gives a shit about how my gaymes work
grazie user, would an SSD help? Thought they were memes for gaming unless you account for loading times only.
>I'm not some sperg who gives a shit about how my gaymes work
Just consume product without thinking!
Fuck off back to faceberg, goy.
An SSD wouldn't help - even if they're significantly faster than a platter hard drive, they're still at least 10 times slower than RAM, which is what matters in the swapping case.
So more RAM?
I'd stick with 16GB. There's diminishing returns on RAM, and with that much RAM, any bottlenecks you have should be elsewhere.
Fuck, guess I'll live with it.
RAM has other considerations than just "how much." Consider asking /g/ how to narrow down what's bottlenecking you.
Nothing bottlenecks it, it's just the programming of the game. I have an 8700, a 1070ti, 16gb ram and I play at 1440p. It runs perfectly smooth until there's a couple dozen tanks, infantry and action going on. That's the only part where it starts to stutter, but then I just focus the camera in a different way so there's less going on directly.
CPU bottleneck is more common than anything else when dealing with RTS games.
This. Supreme Commander multiplayer still rates players CPU speed and many people who host games will kick players with slower CPU because it will slow down the simulation for all players.
An 8700 is ample for any RTS on the market though. It's no big deal, only happens in a few matches with hundreds of units at the same time. No fix for it, I'm sure.
The more stuff going on ingame, the more information it has to process, which is stored in the memory. Less memory = less information = lag
I have the game in OP's pic.
It is pretty kino, totally recommendable. It's called "Company of Heroes". Rts, WW2, totally fun
Only game that I've been playing almost daily, nonstop, since it came out. Still haven't gotten bored
I was shit at it and now I can own the AI at Expert difficulty in most matches
That's not the ram m, that's the proc. Or maybe the internal code of the game can't keep up anymore.
100+ of units could be running at a time in old RTS like AoE, RoN, etc. and none of them required 8GB RAM
So no, it's just grafix dude
>sprites vs highly detailed tank models
No
>highly detailed
Yes, didn't I say it's because of the graphics? The title in the OP says
>do RTS games need a ton of RAM
And the answer is no, because RTS games don't need shittily optimized muh grafix like CoH2
Rise of Nations uses models btw, not sprites
>I'm not some sperg who gives a shit about how my gaymes work
go back, you genuinely dont belong here
How the fuck did RTS fall this low?
>the days of putting every MLRS in your deck in W:ALB and watching half the server get kicked out due to lag will never return