489

[MOD] SteamDeck upgrade to 32gb of ram (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by MazonnaCara89@lemmy.ml to c/steamdeck@lemmy.ml

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] phx@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Uh, actually RAM amount is the difference between some games being playable or not at all, and there are plenty of game issues related to insufficient/low memory

[-] kbity@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On the Steam Deck? I've never heard anyone mention the amount of memory being the bottleneck on there.

[-] phx@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

How many people would actually be able to or take time to diagnose that versus "it started stuttering/crashed so I had to restart the game" ?

[+] kadu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

[deleted]

[-] DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not the OP, but it's decently well documented that there are games out there that are having a tough time with the memory constraints of the Steam Deck's 16 GB: https://youtu.be/z94TcihZxME?t=145

Now I'll grant that maybe it's a memory leak in TLoU that would cause you to still run into issues regardless of maximum memory but 16 GB is the recommended minimum and is starting to be the minimum recommended for other newer games and that's without having a chunk set aside for VRAM, so I'd bet that you'd see decent performance gains just by increasing the available RAM without it running at higher clocks.

The list of games that want combined RAM/VRAM in excess of 16GB is steadily increasing*, if there were an easy means of getting my Steam Deck to 32 GB, I'd jump on it. I haven't had less than 32 GB in my desktop daily driver since 2017 and honestly the 64 GB I have now starts to feel anemic once you've got a VM or two running with Chrome and a game all having to contend for the same resources. Honestly, I've never felt like I had too much memory, but I have definitely felt it performance wise when I don't have enough, where things start to stutter and the frame pacing goes all to hell while things are shuffled in and out of memory. Speed isn't nothing, but there is definitely an increasing argument to be made for quantity as well.

[-] just_browsing@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago

Not even sure why you guys are arguing. All of this can boil down to:

More RAM is beneficial, especially when it's shared by the CPU and GPU.
The biggest bottleneck for most games on the Steam Deck is probably not RAM/VRAM, though.
Faster memory will probably improve performance more than more memory.
All of this is entirely dependent on the game or application you're running.

But the biggest point should be:

Good fucking luck desoldering and soldering BGA memory chips by hand.

[-] MattyXarope@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's not that the RAM hungry ones don't run, it's that they fill up the RAM and create stuttering - sometimes even with a big page file. Emulators can do this, for example.

And more RAM is particularly good because the CPU and GPU pull from the same pool of RAM in the device.

[-] phx@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I'm supposed to prove a negative? Do you want me to show a video of games crashing

Games that scale up with play (more players, growing environments, etc) tend to use more RAM over time, and especially such games with mods benefit from more RAM.

Anno, various building/construction games like Cities, Arm, DCS, Warzone whatever. Plenty of games will run with 8-16GB but run better with more. Yes, you can play the game with the "required" specs but that doesn't mean they run great, and CPU/GPU isn't always the bottleneck in larger environments.

I played through GoW on Deck but it definitely had a memory leak that would cause crashing after a bit. More RAM would have extended the play time despite that issue, and I've a couple other titles where the odd crash is likely for similar reasons.

[-] Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

a well modded cities skylines can take 64gb or more of ram.

[-] Strykker@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Your being asked to prove a positive.

Your claim is games crash due to ram.

So give an example of a game that crashes due to ram and you are complete.

Proving a negative would be saying no games crash due to ram, and being asked to prove that.

The amount of bad logic in use by everyone in this post has me wondering how people even get to work in the mornings

[-] phx@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I literally did give an example, so now you're just being dickish.

GoW (God of War) had - possibly still has, I haven't checked recently - a memory leak condition. Over time, it will start to stutter out and eventually freeze. TLOU apparently also has/had this issue, though I haven't picked that one up yet myself.

More RAM extends the time one can play but in some cases may also get one past a "hump" to the point where it can do collection and reclaim RAM.

In the case of GoW it seems to be a VRAM issue, but since the Deck uses an APU both system and video memory are allocated from the same pool. That also means that one needs to consider VRAM usage overall in terms of performance, as a game that works well with 16GB on a desktop system with a dedicated GPU (that has dedicated memory) won't actually have 16GB available on the Deck as some of that is allocated to the VRAM pool.

And no, your ask originally was that I prove a game "not running" (which is proving a negative, as the positive version would be "show that game X runs") and then tying it back to RAM. To quote: