Oh yes, we can chill (if we weren't chill before, I suppose). I've already said what I came here to say. It's a question of feature creep - people like to optimize (both to keep costs down and as a challenge), and yet in enthusiast communities there's always a trend toward "bigger and better" setting the new standard. Probably the most egregious example of this is the new trend toward 4K - this is being deliberately pushed on the consumer market in order to generate more revenue - it is the manufacture of demand. And there's nothing wrong with manufacturing demand, except when the perpetual stakes raising gets so out of touch with reality that people who really are cost-constrained come to believe that getting something even barely "standard" is out of their reach, even though the real system requirements might be far below that "standard."
So, in this chill discussion, I've just been pointing out for the sake of other, perhaps newer readers, that the idea 16gb should be included just to match the expense of the rest of the build doesn't really have any justification other than "why not?"
Don't get me started on 4k, lol. Especially as a film major! Ugh....
As far as the RAM goes, it doesn't really matter, I was just curious. Wasn't looking to start a debate, even though I see the point you're trying to make that it's just another "new standard" gimmick - like 1080P was a few years ago. Now you see TV's in the upper 20's in size only using 720p, when before it used to be even an 18" had to be Full-HD.
Like the OP said, he's not using over 60%. That's perfectly logical that you would save money and not get the 16gb then, and really was the only answer I needed. I'll leave the rest of the debate for another day so I can clock out and go home :P
[Eschaton, you can PM me if you really would like to continue the discussion.]
Good day, all :)