Besides possibly Star Citizen, which hasn’t been released yet, show me a game that requests more than 16 Gb of system memory.
The driver Nvidia released with this game increased the fps for my by around 20. I’m running the game with a mix of very high - ultra settings on 1440p with around 50-60 fps (~40 in Rattay) with a lot of user.cfg tweaks like higher view distance for vegetation, grass, the ground as well as messing with the shadows. What was absolutely necessary was the installation on a SSD. This makes a huge difference considering loading times and pop-ups.
With 1.3.1 (or was it 1.3.3?) I felt like I got a few more fps but that might also be because I was still playing around a little with the user.cfg and what works best for me.
Running on:
i7 5820K @ 3.8GHz
GTX 1080 @ 2050 MHz
32 GB RAM
I am on the same processor, and dropped the 4.2ghz overclock a couple of KCD patches ago.
They changed the loading of cores to much better distribution (30% utilised became 45%)
10Gb is an odd amount of RAM to have and I suggest you will better performace with this game either dropping to 8 or increasing to 12 (which also shouldnt cost much).
RAM benefits when run in ‘dual channel’ mode
Cpu-z (doesnt need to be installed) can confirm your motherboards available slots (and what is presently in them), and confirm whether you are running single or dual channel mode.
Generally you need to have paired memory banks to make it work that way.
You might have 2x4Gb and 2x1Gb, but Id highly doubt that and question whether 1Gb sticks are in the wild for present computing platforms…
Most likely you have 2x4Gb and 1x2Gb
(Maybe take out the 2Gb stick);, goes to dual channel mode…
And if ye comfy checking bios on startup- you might be able to tighten RAM performance a little by moving to1T (instead of 2T) CR (command rate).
Not everyone would be able to do this, but many systems can. Issues booting and data intergrity of PC might be skewwy if the PC cannot push it- so as always ‘do so at your own risk’.
Generally it is an easy one to implement and took .5 second convo load times to .3 second convo load times with that one easy fix (for me).
They did qualify with ‘for gaming’.
In fairness windows does some horrendous things with memory
My 16Gb RAM system with a top of the line graphics card at the time Forza 3 came out on PC- had an ingame message would keep flashing ‘low memory’ the whole time a user played…
Windows seems to like to do things like 2.5 times your video card ram being ‘block off’ for asset rotation…
If I have 4Gb of VRAM I shouldnt have to give up so much RAM reduntanly so.
M $ still apply RAM usage formulas that might have made sence for entry level PCs in the nineties- but is just wasting users money today…
Same with virtual mem etc… they like to take 2.5 times the system memory.
The theory is sound, double (space to rotate all the data) + half again (headroom)…
Jusy not practical for many modern PCs.
Gaming with integrated graphics maybe… but then those people arent on the cutting edge and shouldnt be the basis for these rules that are no longer practical.
Windows can use more memory even if the program doesnt ask for it.
I advocated 8Gb for gaming PCs for quite awhile (a few years ago now, when games didnt need more than 4GB), I noticed Windows was using some of its tricky memboost features (Vista onwards) to enhance my games.
In particular - running around in Oblivion… windows kept in RAM all the stores I was visiting… instead of having ‘no loading time’ on just the last store I entered- I could have heaps of shops all loaded in RAM.
The game was on 2Gb of RAM usage (32bit),… but Windows made way more use of the exyra memory available to the system.
Saying that - I have zero need to jump from 16Gb to 32Gb. For some games I cannot leave fifty webpages open in the background whilst I game.
Now if cost were no objection- sure you can just about never have too much RAM.
Eg if we had 64Gb of RAM we could make a’ RAM disc’ and install the game there… 
I said
You said
ANYTHING OVER. Jesus christ.