How much RAM do you have for P3D v4

[djbully 210]

Hi Ray, you should be fine with 16gb, I have32 myself, but i do run triple monitors. I use 7840x1440 resolution. My monitors will do 4k, but I have to tame it back. If I do run 3x 4k (11656x2160) resolution, then yes it will be using 16gb+ of RAM. 

So unless you are going to be running massive triple screen resolutions you should be fine! 

Cheers,

          Bully.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,030]

@djbully, Bully, I'm sure for v4 I will. But this PC has got to last several years. So I'm trying to plan ahead for v5 and maybe even v6 of P3D. That's why I think 32Gb is now sensible. v4 can cope fine with 16 but because I'll have to bin my existing RAM and buy 32Gb when that time comes getting it now is the more pragmatic line.

 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,030]

On 10/25/2018 at 8:10 PM, w6kd said:

If the choice is between 32GB of average RAM and 16GB of high-performance RAM, I'd go with the 16GB config.

Also, a lot of the conventional wisdom on RAM has its roots in CPUs and chipsets several generations old.  I don't think the oft-held notion that RAM speed doesn't make a difference still holds true with processor speeds now approaching the mid-5GHz range.  It just doesn't make sense to me that increasing CPU throughput 35-50% (speed and IPC) while using RAM still running at the same approximate latencies wouldn't waste that additional CPU throughput with alot of empty clock ticks spent waiting for data.

The real measure of RAM performance is true latency, roughly computed (in ns) as (2000 x CAS level)/Speed (MHz).  Lower is better.  RAM with true latency of ~10 ns is average consumer-grade stuff, 9-10 is good, and <9 is high performance.  As an example, 3000 MHz CAS 15 RAM has a true latency of 2000*15/3000 = 10 ns (average).  And supposedly faster 3600 MHz CAS 18 memory has a true latency of 2000*18/3600 = 10ns.  Yup, no faster at all, in fact if you take the heat spreader off, don't be surprised to find the same memory ICs on the DIMM.

The chip configuration can make a difference in how much load is placed on the CPU's IMC (integrated memory controller).  That's why, usually, 2 DIMMs are better than 4, although 2 double-sided DIMMs versus 4 single-sided might be close to the same.  Bottom line, there's more detail worth considering than just price and clock speed.  You can get better-grade stuff without hitting the pricey top end if you know what to look for.  And you can get stuck with low-performance skunky RAM dolled-up like a pig wearing lipstick if you're not asking the right questions.

Regards

 

Bob,

I've been re-reading the posts and used that formula you provided to work out the fastest RAM. I've decided to go with 32Gb (16Gb*2) mainly for future-proofing as this PC will have to last a couple of generations of P3D and I'd kick myself if I bought 16Gb but the next gen worked best with 32Gb.

Using your formula the module that comes out best with a True Latency of 8.75 is the G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ.

Next is the F4-3000C14D-32GTZ at 9.33 and F4-3400C16D-32GTZ at 9.41.

Worst is the F4-2800C14D-32GTZ at 10.0

The F4-3000C14D-32GTZ is £130 cheaper than the F4-3200C14D-32GTZ and only 0.57 slower.

Unless you feel the fastest is worth the extra the 3000 seems the best choice for speed & cost.

[WarpD 824]

My system: i7-6800K Broadwell, 16gb DDR4 quad channel 3100 DRAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1070, 43" 4K monitor.

I can tell you that I can make it drive system memory usage to the 16gb limit with Prepar3D v4.  I can tell you it involves settings in Prepar3D, both UI sliders/checks as well as one or two .cfg settings that aren't in the UI.  I can tell you it involves 3rd-party addons (scenery, aircraft), nothing default.  I can tell you when system memory is all used up... performance is horrible... despite SSDs.

[FalconAF 213]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 8:13 AM, w6kd said:

Because AA is needed any time the size of individual pixels becomes big enough to be resolved with the naked eye at the chosen viewing distance.  So that means a big (e.g. 50-inch+) 4K monitor up-close at ~1m viewing distance will still need AA, where a 30-inch display at that same distance probably won't, because the pixels on the smaller monitor are small and dense enough to where your eye can't make out the very small jaggies.

Regards

Who in their right mind would be sitting only 3 feet away from a 50" monitor?  While your "science" may be technically accurate, if the user is displaying 4K resolution on that 50" monitor, from even 3 feet away they wouldn't be able to see "individual pixels".  C'mon.

I'm only about 5 feet away from my 65" monitor running at 4K resolution.  And I couldn't see an individual pixel if I tried.

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by FalconAF

[FalconAF 213]

What too many people here are doing is giving advice based on their OWN setups.

What will determine if you need more than 16gb of RAM for YOUR P3D computer?  Some people have already explained it, but too many people keep missing the point of it.

Do you run P3D and ALL your other addons with it from ONE computer?  Then you MIGHT need to consider getting more than 16gb of RAM.  Yes...P3D ALONE will never use that much all by itself, but I routinely exceed 17gb of RAM usage running P3D and all the OTHER addons at the same time on my 32gb single computer I'm using since my accident.

Ray never indicated that he was using a NETWORKED configuration with more than one computer in his original post.  Based on how he has many of his OTHER addons running on a second computer, he can easily get by with only 16gb on his "primary" P3D computer.  But 16gb may NOT be enough for someone running everything from ONE computer.   

Edited October 29, 2018 by FalconAF

[Ray Proudfoot 9,030]

3 hours ago, FalconAF said:

Ray never indicated that he was using a NETWORKED configuration with more than one computer in his original post.  Based on how he has many of his OTHER addons running on a second computer, he can easily get by with only 16gb on his "primary" P3D computer.  But 16gb may NOT be enough for someone running everything from ONE computer.   

I thought I did but no matter. I do have a networked PC that runs EFB Client, LittleNavmap Client, WideFS and sometimes SuperTrafficBoard. On my FS PC I run P3D, AS16/ASCA, EFB Server, LittleNavmap Server and SimStarterNG.

But whilst 16Gb is fine for v4 this computer has to last many years so I'm trying to future proof as much as possible. Much like I chose a 1Tb SSD over a 500Gb one as a secondary drive because whilst I might only need a fraction of that now things could change.

The other reason is because should I eventually need 32Gb the existing 16Gb would have to be dumped.

[Paul Golding 92]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 3:03 AM, WarpD said:

If I am not offering details, it is because I can not.  Simple as that.

Probably the biggest reason to get 32GB?

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I thought I did but no matter. I do have a networked PC that runs EFB Client, LittleNavmap Client, WideFS and sometimes SuperTrafficBoard. On my FS PC I run P3D, AS16/ASCA, EFB Server, LittleNavmap Server and SimStarterNG.

But whilst 16Gb is fine for v4 this computer has to last many years so I'm trying to future proof as much as possible. Much like I chose a 1Tb SSD over a 500Gb one as a secondary drive because whilst I might only need a fraction of that now things could change.

The other reason is because should I eventually need 32Gb the existing 16Gb would have to be dumped.

A very reasonable decision I think.

[Bob Scott 7,742]

On 10/28/2018 at 10:43 PM, FalconAF said:

Who in their right mind would be sitting only 3 feet away from a 50" monitor?  While your "science" may be technically accurate, if the user is displaying 4K resolution on that 50" monitor, from even 3 feet away they wouldn't be able to see "individual pixels".  C'mon.

I'm only about 5 feet away from my 65" monitor running at 4K resolution.  And I couldn't see an individual pixel if I tried.

My 55" monitor is positioned 39 inches from my face, and I am quite in my right mind, thank you.  The closer distance gives a wider field of view...the same effect that many people try to get with complicated and hard-to-manage multiple monitor setups.  Now if you're also using it to watch TV, you wouldn't be able to do that.  Truth is, you could get the same field of view and pixel density for a lot less with a smaller monitor positioned closer.  Buying a 65 incher and then looking at it from halfway across the room defeats the benefits of getting a wider FOV, not just on the screen as a whole, but also on the individual instruments.  With the monitor up-close, the MFDs on the PMDG 737 are about 85% of life-size.

At 39 inches, I can indeed make out the pixel grid on a 55-inch TV...just barely, but it's definitely visible if I look for it.  The reason I went with 55" rather than 65" was just that--at my viewing distance the pixellation on the 65" monitor was no longer subtle, but readily visible and distracting.

Regards

[SteveW 1,792]

Folk talk about losing the need for AA with bigger monitors or more dense pixels. We already have dense pixels at 1920x1200 @ 24" - yet still need AA not only because for one we can lean forward a bit and study it closer.

But AA in the sim is done on the objects as they are rendered into the scene. For example, we can zoom the eyepoint up close to the instruments and they are big in the view, the pixels of these images are projected into the scene with AA, and for even better appearance the edge pixels can be merged with (what will become) their background pixels (transparency AA). So pixels are rendered at any size in the scene and at any angle.

Making images bigger than the original pixels is usually better looking because the GPU does not have a hard time working out what the colour will be.  Going smaller, the pixels merge to become the average colour value from that area since there are less pixels available to represent the image. This is done irrespective of screen size or resolution.

Obviously I get it that smaller pixels in the same size display look better but AA is still required no matter what.

With some aircraft models we don't see such good AA on the instruments unless we zoom in very close -  the scaling of the plane is from D3D9 models. Simply look at FSX models and see for example the B58 Baron instruments are better AA'd than some P3D planes even when viewing from a distance - a D3D10+ model.

Edited November 1, 2018 by SteveW