56 minutes ago, DaveCT2003 said:

Why is 32GB of RAM an issue for you?  I have basically the same system as you do and my motherboard supports up to 32GB of DRAM3.  Not to mention the cost of adding RAM is a fraction of building a whole new system, and even if you had a motherboard for the i7-4770K that only supported up to 16GB (which I don't think exist) changing out a motherboard and adding more RAM is still a fraction of building a new system.

 

 

Because where I live there are no good 32 Gb option for sale. Se this

https://www.dustinhome.se/group/hardvara/datorkomponenter/ram-minnen/dimm-ddr-3/?totalramcapacity=32

either they are lower speed than I have now and or there are four modules which I understand is a bad thing. Or they get very expensive. Also I have fairly recently invested money for 16 Gb for my current mobo.

For hardware there seem to be three main choices for now
1) Get a 2070 and then it may be a problem to wait since these cards seem to soon be out and not sold anymor
2) A 2070 Super
3) Wait to see if a future 3070 is an option. But I suspect they will be significantly more expensive

1 hour ago, Gazzareth said:

New video card for p3d4 ?? If that's his opinion then he's nowhere near as knowledgeable as you give him credit for - runs on my achingly old machine with a GTX970 absolutely fine - and the rest of your system is much than mine......

I suppose it depends on which settings and add on you use. I use ORBX scenery and my GTX 970 struggles a bit here. But I must admit I have decent performance with my current system that is with FSX SE and P3D 2.5 Xplane 11 and DCS. And I understand that P3D V4 requires more of the hardware than 2.5

10 minutes ago, jfri said:

I suppose it depends on which settings and add on you use. I use ORBX scenery and my GTX 970 struggles a bit here. But I must admit I have decent performance with my current system that is with FSX SE and P3D 2.5 Xplane 11 and DCS. And I understand that P3D V4 requires more of the hardware than 2.5

I use worldwide mesh and Orbx Global products, obviously massively improved the default scenery. Since I don't stick to one region I've never really purchased airport or area scenery packages. The 970 manages those, but rest of the PC creaks a bit.....

G

Why are four RAM sticks "bad"?

Edited February 23, 20206 yr by Christopher Low

I just noticed that one of my posts vanished. It was an important one. Maybe I should have taken my own advice and stopped at 5K posts. So long my friends.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Why are four RAM sticks "bad"?

I have always heard that it should be avoided to fill all RAM slots

1 hour ago, DJJose said:

I just noticed that one of my posts vanished. It was an important one. Maybe I should have taken my own advice and stopped at 5K posts. So long my friends.

Yes looks like my’s and a few others disappeared also..Wow Avsim! 

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Why are four RAM sticks "bad"?

It is not "bad", but two sticks typically give you better performance..

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Why are four RAM sticks "bad"?

I'm sure you probably know that one of the ways CPUs were made faster over the years, was by making them ever-smaller. The reason that works, is the electrons whizzing about on the chip have a shorter distance to go when the thing is smaller overall (obviously). It might not seem like that would make a big difference when those electrons are basically doing 186,000 miles per second as they zip down those miniscule circuits, but when you consider that your CPU is making literally millions of calculations every minute, having the electrons travel a shorter distance soon adds up to a time saving in terms of data processing speeds. 

Once we understand this, common PC construction wisdom therefore says you are advised to put your RAM stick in the slot which is physically nearest to the CPU so that the electrons whizzing back and forth between the RAM and the CPU have a shorter distance to travel down the motherboard's circuits. This means (assuming there is no throughput bottleneck from bus speeds) having one 16GB stick of RAM in the nearest slot to the CPU, is faster than having two 8GB sticks of RAM in the two slots nearest to the CPU, because the further away of the two has a bit more distance to cover electrically.

So it follows this would be (generally speaking) even worse if you had four sticks of RAM spread out in four slots rather than one larger equivalent stick in the slot nearest the CPU. The caveat here is throughput of data and cooling; so long as the throughput of data from one slot is acceptable and it can be kept suitably cool, this is generally a good rule to follow.

 

Edited February 24, 20206 yr by Chock

3 hours ago, Chock said:

I'm sure you probably know that one of the ways CPUs were made faster over the years, was by making them ever-smaller. The reason that works, is the electrons whizzing about on the chip have a shorter distance to go when the thing is smaller overall (obviously). It might not seem like that would make a big difference when those electrons are basically doing 186,000 miles per second as they zip down those miniscule circuits, but when you consider that your CPU is making literally millions of calculations every minute, having the electrons travel a shorter distance soon adds up to a time saving in terms of data processing speeds. 

Once we understand this, common PC construction wisdom therefore says you are advised to put your RAM stick in the slot which is physically nearest to the CPU so that the electrons whizzing back and forth between the RAM and the CPU have a shorter distance to travel down the motherboard's circuits. This means (assuming there is no throughput bottleneck from bus speeds) having one 16GB stick of RAM in the nearest slot to the CPU, is faster than having two 8GB sticks of RAM in the two slots nearest to the CPU, because the further away of the two has a bit more distance to cover electrically.

So it follows this would be (generally speaking) even worse if you had four sticks of RAM spread out in four slots rather than one larger equivalent stick in the slot nearest the CPU. The caveat here is throughput of data and cooling; so long as the throughput of data from one slot is acceptable and it can be kept suitably cool, this is generally a good rule to follow.

 

And how does this translate into FPS difference?

It is so minimal that you won’t see the difference in P3D.

Here I am running 4x 8Gb in my main pc. And I choose for that to spread the load onto more slots. According to an article I read years ago that generated less heat per stick which resulted in “better” performance.

Bottomline : use 2 or 4 sticks and don’t worry about it, as long as you have enough ( at lest 16 Gb .. )

5 hours ago, Chock said:

So it follows this would be (generally speaking) even worse if you had four sticks of RAM spread out in four slots rather than one larger equivalent stick in the slot nearest the CPU. The caveat here is throughput of data and cooling; so long as the throughput of data from one slot is acceptable and it can be kept suitably cool, this is generally a good rule to follow.

 

Well.. kind of..

Today's CPUs actually make use of the dual channel capability that two sticks offer, so two are better than one, performance wise

Presumably this is a mistimed April fool?

32 GB must be better than 16 GB or even 8 GB and any matched pair of RAM modules will run at twice the speed of a single module. I doubt that the benchmark has been invented that could measure the time difference between slots. I wonder at the received wisdom that second guesses the reason that manufacturers fit four RAM slots.

Edited February 24, 20206 yr by Reader

It is a moot point for me, as I was kindly offered 4x8GB sticks of RAM for my new PC. I am pleased with the performance of my PC, and even more pleased that I could get all four sticks installed with the cooling fan of my Noctua NH-U14S right next to them.

If MSFS needs 32GB of ram then the XBOX version will fail and that's where the numbers are. gamers that use consoles don't want the hassle of PC`s or the room it takes they are not PC gamers.

Edited February 24, 20206 yr by G-RFRY

"If MSFS needs 32GB of ram then the XBOX version will fail and that's where the numbers"

here are few specs of X Box Series X - released/dribbled to the media

yes that's the name - because it is MS intention to create a series of "X" hardware and games.

"Microsoft Flight Simulator "X" -- ?????

Max resolution - 8K x 60FPS and 4K x 120FPS

CPU will be AMD - 8 core - 12 Terraflops - (2 X current X Box)

RAM will be 28GB DDR6 - and will use spare on a propriety SSD

Sound will Dolby 5.1  - 3D

Full Ray Tracing

No VR

Price is not yet announced - but the word is that it will be the same as PS5 at approx. $us 450

Al above is given in good faith - and summarises all the Utube videos of the past week