32 or 64 gb memory?

[Quasimodo 505]

45 minutes ago, sillyflyer said:

People who buy, in example, DDR4 3600-4000 C19-19-20

 

45 minutes ago, sillyflyer said:

actually bought DDR4 2800-3200 C18-19

Seems to me that the timing on the low:

1/((3600/2)/1000) x 19 = 10.55ns

1/((2800/2)/1000) x 18 =  12.88ns

and higher end of your ranges

1/((4000/2)/1000) x 19 =  9.5ns

1/((3200/2)/1000) x 18 =  11.25ns

nearly 2ns difference.

My DDR4 is 4400 C18

1/((4400/2)/1000) x 18=  8.18ns

That's over 3ns better than 3200 C18 and 1200mhz faster

[sillyflyer 11]

Thanks for making the point...  now, if your memory latency in a real time test benchmark is 43ns or less at that speed, then you are in the 'zone' for well considered memory hardware.

 

I know those others I listed are not... not even close

Edited January 30, 2020 by sillyflyer
spelling

[Quasimodo 505]

Well on Aida64 I am looking at 39.8ns.

I'm satisfied with that. I suppose I could try to tweak it but I doubt there is a point.

Bottom line though at time I built the system in the spring last year, that was the best memory

I could get for it and I don't feel like I was suckered paying CAD$420 for it.

No point in having a stable overclocked system at 5.3ghz and 5.2ghz NB and a 2080ti and NVMe drives

and then skimping on system memory.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Avidean

[sillyflyer 11]

Quote

Aida64 I am looking at 39.8ns.

I would say that you should be -very satisfied- with that result as long as the system is stable in torture tests. Money aside, you are getting what you paid for. Its hard to swallow the cost but you are correct, we pay for top end procs, SSD and NVME drives and clock the CPU. Not matching that with high speed low timing memory that makes solid use of that clocked CPU is silly.

 

Unfortunately the 'bling' and lights comes with the products today. The memory manufactures do significantly overcharge for memory they know is very fast and will be sought after by those who are in the know. That makes it easier for them to charge more for memory that looks faster in speed, but actually isn't, they rake in the profit both ways. Unfortunately the person who bought into the marketing end instead of paying for the 'real-deal' does not nor will ever know what they are missing and simply assume they would pay far too much for nothing and tell everybody else the same thing.

 

Tuning memory from its rated specifications may or may not be possible. The secondary and tertiary timing can also be tuned with DDR4 but is not something most folks can do.

EDIT: We cant 'tune' memory on CL/CAS alone, TRUE, but we can purchase memory on timing/speed specifications that by default will obtain 90-95% of the result out of the box. 'Tuning' memory is reserved for those who are trained experts, or, those who are savvy enough being around the overclock hobby to know how to do it right, securing a stable system end result. Therefore PURCHASING the right memory out of the gate and spending the money on it,.. is the right move to make.

I would also caution about lights and the disco look in towers. The windows software to run those bling items can and usually does place a very large footprint on the system and can be the source of sim stutters and pauses. I would not install or use such software at all.

Edited January 30, 2020 by sillyflyer
Additional Information

[ryanbatc 12,833]

I wouldn't say no to 64 if you're planning on getting the new sim.

[G-RFRY 1,710]

Have you noticed when testers like 8pack, Roman ,Kingpin , go for a OC record they only use I stick of ram less load on the CPU.

[sillyflyer 11]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 8:49 AM, ryanbatcund said:

I wouldn't say no to 64 if you're planning on getting the new sim.

Then you may need some schooling.

 

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 12:05 PM, G-RFRY said:

Have you noticed when testers like 8pack, Roman ,Kingpin , go for a OC record they only use I stick of ram less load on the CPU.

Absolutely..  you see very well

 

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 10:55 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

But I'll probably be able to improve the timings a little at a lower frequency ... goal is 4400Mhz CL17-21-21-40.

I would not waste the money or the time with that overpriced memory. Average 400+ bucks per 16GB? I honestly hope you did not spec that for a client to 'attempt' a 'probably' tweak.

Although you are correct in the thought that dropping the speed and the timing (in the right way) will significantly increase its performance,.. however this memory model option will match, or, smoke it out of the box without the monetary corn-H job, or the hours of tech work for 100 bucks less per 16...  F4-4000C15D-16GTRG 15-16-16-36

Of course in how this works with the memory manufactures, what you received could be the same or very similar memory, they simply sold 4800MHz 18-23-22-42 thinking not many can calculate their game past the DDR speed and the 1st CL timing value but folks are willing to spend the money on that awesome looking DDR speed, or bang their heads trying to get it to work, on a lower CPU speed if necessary...   they got the money, they don't care!

As was posted above by Avidean:

My DDR4 is 4400 C18

1/((4400/2)/1000) x 18=  8.18ns

This formula ONLY works for outlining performance on paper if tRCD and tRP are the same as CL, OR, no more than one, perhaps 2 values HIGHER for each than CL. Past that requires a lot more formula than what is shown above and such an increase in timing values will never equal the performance of consistent FAB-4  i.e.; C18-18-18, C17-17-17, C16-16-16

 

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2020 at 11:59 AM, sillyflyer said:

 Therefore PURCHASING the right memory out of the gate and spending the money on it,.. is the right move to make.

Of course that also requires years of documented successful experience.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by sillyflyer
spelling and clarifications

[vortex681 806]

52 minutes ago, sillyflyer said:

Of course that also requires years of documented successful experience.

Or a little research to use the experience of others!

As to amounts of RAM, the latest Steam Hardware survey shows that the majority of gamers (by a long way) use 16GB or less. Surprisingly, well over a third of them still use 8GB or less. Could you afford to exclude over 90% of potential customers by making 32GB a requirement?

Edited February 27, 2020 by vortex681

[sillyflyer 11]

33 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Or a little research to use the experience of others!

As long as you know how research to choose the right experience to follow ….  if not then you may be blindly following into a pit because they read really good..   absolutely!

 

EDIT: ...and that would include anyone who may follow my advice. Until they run the numbers. If they can.

Edited February 27, 2020 by sillyflyer
Additional Information

[G-RFRY 1,710]

The all new XBOX only has 12GB of ram will not meet the requirements of MSFS if the forum post are to be believed in the MSFS forum 32GB 😁.   

[ILSFREAK 56]

Hi to all the people that talk with so much knowledge about things i dont understand. Trying to learn, but if you dont know how 2 + 2 works. forget it.

I must buy a second hand computer for MSFS

My Q is this. Suppose you need i5 4770 GTX 1080 and 16 G ddr4 ram for the sim, right

If i have the CPU and GPU the same , but instead of 16 ddr4 ram, i have 32 DDR3  ram, will it be Ok

Hope you understand what i mean

[Christopher Low 5,352]

As far as I am aware, the i7 4770 is not compatible with DDR4 RAM.

[ILSFREAK 56]

Just shows how much I know

My Q really is in the same set up of CPU and GPU, is 16 G DDR4 better than 32 G DDR3 

[Noel 4,493]

I'm ordering parts in the next day or two for my new build, coming from a system that is over 6y/o.  I'll be temporarily transferring my old GTX Titan into it until RTX 3080Ti or whatever it will be called arrives.  Most important to me is stability and durability as I try to keep new builds ALAP.  So bleeding edge memory and storage won't matter to me, I won't benchmark it, and I know it will have zero impact on how I'm using and enjoying flight simming.  I'll keep P3D and likely add MSFS2 sometime down the road on this new system.  CPU will be 9900K, and I'll be aiming for a stable overclock with very little overvolting, on Noctua air, so if we can get 4.6 or 4.7 we'll be very happy coming from my current build.

1.  What do the new M.2 drives offer over SATA 3?  (I don't know what they plug into, but the MB I'm looking at has these specs:

Expansion Slots

        PCI Express 3.0 x16

        3 x PCIe 3.0 x16 slots (support x16/x0/x4, x8/x8/x4 modes)

       PCI Express x1

       3 x PCIe 3.0 x1 slots

Storage Devices

       SATA 6Gb/s

       6 x SATA 6Gb/s ports*
     * M.2 slots and SATA ports share the bandwidth.

      M.2

      2 x M.2 slot (Key M)*
      Support up to PCIe 3.0 x4 and SATA 6Gb/s, 2242/2260/2280/22110 storage devices

     M.2 slots and SATA ports share the bandwidth.

2.  Would DDR4 3200, 16-18-18-36, CAS 16 be good enough to meet my needs?  I'm looking at 2x16Gb of a low profile dimm from Corsair.   Again, stability matters most but if there is little cost for something better that's fine too.   

Thanks all!

 

[G-RFRY 1,710]

At the end of the day spend your money on things that will have the biggest effect on performance and sadly 64GB of ram is not one of them, CPU + GPU + FASTER STORAGE SSD, I would place above another 32GB ram.