A very long time ago I read increasing system ram can make achieving the same overclock more difficult, perhaps also when the number of modules involved goes up from say 2 to 4.  Right now I have 32Gb, and often in complex areas I will see 25+ Gb in use.  The specific modules I have will very likely go out of production, and I can still pick up 2x16Gb of the exact modules right now.  Plus, I'm blessed with a very o/c friendly CPU which sits at 5.0Ghz on all 8 cores at only 1.21v rock solid, and I'm a little loath to give that up.

If you've gone to 64Gb from 32, what happened w/ your overclock?  Did you need to up the vCore?

Also, if you have more VRAM than I do (8Gb), does having more VRAM reduce the amount of system ram in use, or perhaps increase it?

Thanks

I know this belongs in the hardware forum but was afraid it might not get seen there are I'm guessing the number of people w/ 64Gb may be rather small.

Edited July 9, 20214 yr by Noel

AFAIK it should only affect RAM overclocking. You should still be able to achieve the same clocks on the cpu. 
 

of course I could always be wrong, but really I don’t see it significantly affecting cpu. Maybe have up the voltage a notch or 2.

3 hours ago, Noel said:

Right now I have 32Gb, and often in complex areas I will see 25+ Gb in use.

Some pretty significant memory optimization is coming with SU5 on the 27th, so I would hold off and reevaluate then before taking the plunge.

In general, fewer modules is better in terms of achieving tight, stable timings, if you are needing to adjust your memory clock to get that CPU overclock.

-Matt | Working Title

OC ram is more trouble than its worth and for not much gain imo 

I tried that a few months ago. I bought another couple of identical DDR4 (2 x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3200 MHz CL16) and, no matter what settings, timings, overvolt, I could not keep the 64 GB at 3200 MHz: the limit seemed to be 2933 MHz CL14.

Not much difference in the end, but definitely impossible to achieve the same conditions as with 32 GB only. The MB is an Asus TUF Z490 Plus.

Well, doesn't sound real favorable from these few testimonies.  I am lucky I guess rock solid plus just kept the default XMP settings.  I guess best wait thanks!

5 hours ago, Noel said:

A very long time ago I read increasing system ram can make achieving the same overclock more difficult, perhaps also when the number of modules involved goes up from say 2 to 4.  Right now I have 32Gb, and often in complex areas I will see 25+ Gb in use.  The specific modules I have will very likely go out of production, and I can still pick up 2x16Gb of the exact modules right now.  Plus, I'm blessed with a very o/c friendly CPU which sits at 5.0Ghz on all 8 cores at only 1.21v rock solid, and I'm a little loath to give that up.

If you've gone to 64Gb from 32, what happened w/ your overclock?  Did you need to up the vCore?

Also, if you have more VRAM than I do (8Gb), does having more VRAM reduce the amount of system ram in use, or perhaps increase it?

Thanks

I know this belongs in the hardware forum but was afraid it might not get seen there are I'm guessing the number of people w/ 64Gb may be rather small.

I've just only enabled XMP profile in bios, which tunes the memory to "sync" with the CPU clock. On my AMD system I've set FClock to 1:1. Meaning 1800 MHz (3600 MHz in dual).
 
That worked fine with (4x16) 64 GB 3600 MHz CL16, no issues.

Adding memory shouldn't mess up your CPU overclock, but it might make it more difficult to get a stable overclock on the RAM. 

Having more VRAM doesn't reduce the amount of system RAM in use, at least not on my system. I get up to 27-28 GB RAM usage when running MSFS, Plan-G and a couple of browser tabs. I've seen VRAM usage at around 9-11 GB, but very rarely.

Like MattNischan said, World Update 5 is bringing very nice performance updates. 32 GB RAM should be plenty after the update.

 

I was in the same situation, so I've upgraded to 64G very recently. XMP was a bit hard for my MB/CPU but reducing the frequency a bit from 3600 MHz to 3467, I got a stable o/c of my CPU running @ 4.8 to 5.0 GHz. 5.0 is a bit hard in temperature so i keep it at 4.8 for now. In summary, I have the same o/c as before.

Edited July 9, 20214 yr by Nemo

XMP here also and stable  -  without XMP had a hard time getting pc to boot which is strange one would think it would be the other way around 

If you have oc’ed your CPU a lot then you will have to go down in frequency on it when adding extra memory.

The more hardware there is to control the lower the maximum OC.

Trying to run the RAM ( with the extra RAM) at a lower frequency might also be enough.

 

I've just "achieved" my personal record with 16-17 GB VRAM and 35-37 GB RAM usage. CYPK T/O with the Daher 930 towards Vancouver. I must add that there are 3 add-ons active in this area, CYVR (ORBX), Vancouver City + Vancouver Harbour, the LOD was set to 4.0 as well ... But even with Terrain LOD on 2.0 (200) I got 15/31 (VRAM/RAM).

Even when the next sim update will reduce RAM usage significantly, I doubt that 32 GB will be enough in a long-term view. Off course, this depends on hardware, configuration and personal preferred in-sim settings. But if you have a 3080Ti or a 3090 more RAM seems to be appropriate. If I remember correctly this was already discussed in other threads some time ago, and I can only confirm.

19 hours ago, Nemo said:

But if you have a 3080Ti or a 3090 more RAM seems to be appropriate.

I can see that logic applying to 3090 w/ prior testimony, but much less so w/ 3080Ti, after all it has half the VRAM.

6 hours ago, Noel said:

I can see that logic applying to 3090 w/ prior testimony, but much less so w/ 3080Ti, after all it has half the VRAM.

Honestly I used the RTX 3090 with 64 GB of RAM and the Reverb G2 but even at full resolution (4320 x 2160) I have never seen more than 15-16 GB of VRAM occupied and 20-22 GB of RAM allocated (above London and Paris).

A few months ago there was a rumor regarding higher performance in VR with the 3090 and 64 GB because according to someone the system had to mirror the allocated VRAM in the system RAM, but honestly I didn't notice any difference after the RAM upgrade. The performance benefit has never been documented by anyone as far as I know.

I sold the 2 excess sticks of RAM shortly after the G2 and now I live happy with 32 GB. 

I really think that 64 GB are overkill right now, unless you want to experiment with those crazy scenery addons taken from Google Maps at full resolution. The default game does NOT need more than 32 GB of RAM and 8-10 GB of VRAM.

Yes, and when I think about what 32bit FSX could do w less than 4gb of RAM...!