16GB Vs 32GB Ram Video Comparison

[Mr_LoL 10]

 

 

 

Hi An interesting video on Ram comparison. 

Minimums are higher with 32 than 16.

 

[Claudius_ 323]

No view from the cockpit?

[SeanMo 140]

When I loaded up my Orbx London Landmarks 1.01 update and took off down the Thames I noticed my RAM go to the limit for the first time. I'm definitely going from 16 to 32 this week. I've meant to since I bought this PC, but I can upgrade for the same price as the Standard edition of MSFS, so why not?

Edited August 24, 2020 by SeanMo

[Aaron555 52]

This video proves 32 GB is totally unneeded for the base game, performance are pretty much the same. 

32 GB is only useful if you plan on adding a lot of high quality addon sceneries.  

Edited August 24, 2020 by Aaron555

[Ricardo41 5,936]

I see no significant performance difference between the two set-ups.

[snglecoil 1,828]

28 minutes ago, Aaron555 said:

This video proves 32 GB is totally unneeded for the base game, performance are pretty much the same. 

 

11 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I see no significant performance difference between the two set-ups.

16 GB performs pretty well (that all I currently have), but I do see significantly fewer long frame spikes (aka micro stutters) with 32 GB in that video. 

[Gomoto 31]

I stay with 16GB and a page file on each of my two NVME drives for sure after seeing this video.

[EmaRacing 302]

Was flying the 208 in the swamps in Florida and had 20+gb Ram used all the time, I wouldn't say it's useless.

[W2DR 1,859]

1 hour ago, SeanMo said:

When I loaded up my Orbx London Landmarks 1.01 update and took off down the Thames I noticed my RAM go to the limit for the first time. I'm definitely going from 16 to 32 this week. I've meant to since I bought this PC, but I can upgrade for the same price as the Standard edition of MSFS, so why not?

Funny things these computers. I just flew up the Thames at 2000 AGL from EGLC. RAM utilization on the runway was 11.8GB. At Tower Bridge it was 12.2GB. At The Milleneum Wheel it read 12.6GB and then increased to it's maximum at Battersea of 12.9GB. Cessna 172, same scenery, and graphics on Ultra. My take? 16GB is just fine.

P.S: On an earlier flight over the full length of Manhattan Island the max was 11.2GB.

[Mace 1,902]

What are L. 1% and L. 0.1%?

[hanhamreds 592]

32GB is not useless - I've seen a peak usage of 27GB, that was over JFK using the drone cam - real world traffic and MP.

I've also experienced about 17-20GB usage more often than not 

[Litmoose 90]

I currently have 16gb and I've just this second finished a flight to JFK(default version, not the prem deluxe version) in the A320. Bare in mind we're all useing default aircraft etc, according to my on screen display i was useing 15.5gb and was getting 25fps which could have been limited by hitting my RAM limit. So i wouldnt say more than 16gb is useless, especially going when more addons get released. Luckly i already ordered another 16gb which should arrive tomorrow.

 

 

[captain420 3,099]

I would say 32GB is the sweet spot. I average between 16-23GB of RAM depending on where I'm flying. So it's definitely not useless at all. Especially when you fly at 4K with Ultra settings.

[Skywolf 992]

MSFS works decent with 16gb.  Obviously more is always better

Edited August 24, 2020 by Skywolf

[kaosfere 3,115]

1 hour ago, Mace said:

What are L. 1% and L. 0.1%?

I don't know for certain (and I'd love to know what they're using for monitoring, that's pretty neat), but from context I would guess that's 99th percentile and 99.9th percentile slowest frames.

 

Edit:  Looks like that's MSI Afterburner, which looks a lot better than I remember it.    And yes, that seems to be those two percentile lowest framerates.

Edited August 24, 2020 by kaosfere