1 hour ago, shamrockflyer said:

I think 32GB of RAM should be standard in every build aimed towards simulation or gaming. I ran with 16GB for a few years, but 32GB has allowed me more leverage and given me more room when choosing settings etc. SU9 has ruined performance for me in most cases, hopefully a hotfix will bring back the performance I have lost. I am surprised your 3090 isn't giving you a better experience in terms of performance around scenery.

The card is giving a good experience but if you think about flying in London Heathrow or Frankfurt, ORBX or Inbuilds sceneries, plus PMDG or another complex aircraft, plus hundreds of AIs taking off and landing, plus clouds like overcast and thunderstorm and with all settings to ultra... that will be probably too much. That's why I asked about RAM to load lots of things at the same time.

Edited May 8, 20224 yr by harpsi

.

Edited May 8, 20224 yr by harpsi

8 minutes ago, harpsi said:

The card is giving a good experience but if you think about flying in London Heathrow or Frankfurt, ORBX or Inbuilds sceneries, plus PMDG or another complex aircraft, plus hundreds of AIs taking off and landing, plus clouds like overcast and thunderstorm and with all settings to ultra... that will be probably too much. That's why I asked about RAM to load lots of things at the same time.

I have 32GB ram, i7-7700K and 3080 12GB and fly at 2k. I think the main factor is not more ram, but CPU now days. Everything is maxed in my graphics (including Renderscale at 200) except for TLOD. Moving TLOD up over 100 for me causes FPS to start falling. Ram is not the issue and has pretty of headroom, but CPU seems to be the limiting factor.

Just now, Phantoms said:

I have 32GB ram, i7-7700K and 3080 12GB and fly at 2k. I think the main factor is not more ram, but CPU now days. Everything is maxed in my graphics (including Renderscale at 200) except for TLOD. Moving TLOD up over 100 for me causes FPS to start falling. Ram is not the issue and has pretty of headroom, but CPU seems to be the limiting factor.

OK. So, still no news about this. CPU and GPU, that's it. 

14 minutes ago, harpsi said:

I have 32 GB at the moment. But I am just with cessna, not with complexed addons at the moment. Is it enough?

Test it with complex add ons.  That’s the best way to know for sure.

I would only buy more RAM if your RAM usage is over 90%.

I upgraded from 16GB to 32GB about 18 months ago.  It made a noticeable difference in MSFS but not a massive one. It mainly reduced stutters in "busy" areas.   

Was it worth it ? Yeah it was, as an extra 16GB of RAM was pocket money compared to my graphics card and CPU upgrades.

TLDR - the 32GB gave me a reduction in stutters in some really intensive areas like major airports but made little difference on a bush trip. It is still worth it if the rest of your PC is up to scratch just because RAM is cheap, but it is not the first "go to" when trying to improve performance.

32 will shorten load times and things like that. Sim usage for me is around 8-10Gb so 16 is comfortable in flight. I went to 32 to future proof a bit more and 300-400 bucks is still good value.

My VRAM is pushed right up to the 8Gb I have so that's my next bottleneck. 

I have 32gbs of 4000mhz CL15 DDR5 and 24gb of VRAM on a 3090.

The 3090 is a rip off. I never see more than 12GB VRAM used in RTSS

and I never really see the system Mem go over about 16gb.

I doubt in real term there is any significant difference between running

MSFS on 16gb system with a 3080ti or a 32gb system with 3090

despite the later costing probably at $1000 more.

52 minutes ago, FBW737 said:

 

and I never really see the system Mem go over about 16gb.

 

System memory on my system sits around 18 to 22 GB in busier areas most of the time peaking at about 28GB occasionally. But that is "committed" memory it does not mean the system actually uses it. It also depends what you are flying and what scenery addons you use. Generic airports with default aircraft tend to be pretty light on RAM usage.

Apparently VR needs a lot more RAM - but for old school flat displays 16GB seems enough and 24GB is probably optimal but a silly amount to install. Meanwhile 32GB, for me at least, made some difference but only to stutters not FPS and even with the stutters the improvement was not huge.

Edited May 9, 20224 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Whilst on the subject of memory, has anyone upgraded to faster RAM and noticed any benefit?

8 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I have 32gbs of 4000mhz CL15 DDR5 and 24gb of VRAM on a 3090.

The 3090 is a rip off. I never see more than 12GB VRAM used in RTSS

and I never really see the system Mem go over about 16gb.

I doubt in real term there is any significant difference between running

MSFS on 16gb system with a 3080ti or a 32gb system with 3090

despite the later costing probably at $1000 more.

My max CPU Mem was close to 18 GB. According GPU Mem, sitting in FBW 320Neo at Chicago Midway 31C, with KORD (FSDT) and Chicago (Drz.D.) both active my GPU Mem went up to 21 GB with ULTRA settings.

I tried to load Glasgow city and airport. It is a heavy scenery. Memory jumped to more than 90 % and the simulator always closes.

22 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I have 32gbs of 4000mhz CL15 DDR5 and 24gb of VRAM on a 3090.

The 3090 is a rip off. I never see more than 12GB VRAM used in RTSS

and I never really see the system Mem go over about 16gb.

I doubt in real term there is any significant difference between running

MSFS on 16gb system with a 3080ti or a 32gb system with 3090

despite the later costing probably at $1000 more.

I don't think the 3090 was made for improving games. It was instead aimed at heavy duty graphics intensive work. In games you won't see much difference between it or a 3080ti.

The only way I could see the 3090 being beneficial is if you buy for the long haul (like me, held on to my 980ti until finally replaced with 3080 12GB). Then the extra memory of it may come in handy in a few years.

Edited May 9, 20224 yr by Phantoms

16 minutes ago, Phantoms said:

In games you won't see much difference between it or a 3080ti.

As you would expect.  The 3080ti is not really a 3080 at all, different die altogether.  It is the 3090 GA-102 die with only 12gb VRAM - all the other specs are so close they may as well be identical.  For all intents and purpose the 3080ti actually is a "3090 lite" not a beefed up 3080 .

Nvidia RTX 3080 Ti vs. RTX 3090 Specs

	RTX 3080 Ti	RTX 3090
GPU	GA102-225	GA102-300
Interface	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
CUDA cores	10,240	10,496
Tensor cores	320	328
RT cores	80	82
Base clock	1,365MHz	1,395MHz
Boost clock	1,665MHz	1,695MHz
Memory	12GB GDDR6X	24GB GDDR6X
Memory speed	19Gbps	19.5Gbps
Bandwidth	912GBps	936GBps
Memory bus	384-bit	384-bit
TDP	320W	350W

Edited May 9, 20224 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

As you would expect.  The 3080ti is not really a 3080 at all, different die altogether.  It is the 3090 GA-102 die with only 12gb VRAM - all the other specs are so close they may as well be identical.  For all intents and purpose the 3080ti actually is a "3090 lite" not a beefed up 3080 .

Nvidia RTX 3080 Ti vs. RTX 3090 Specs

	RTX 3080 Ti	RTX 3090
GPU	GA102-225	GA102-300
Interface	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
CUDA cores	10,240	10,496
Tensor cores	320	328
RT cores	80	82
Base clock	1,365MHz	1,395MHz
Boost clock	1,665MHz	1,695MHz
Memory	12GB GDDR6X	24GB GDDR6X
Memory speed	19Gbps	19.5Gbps
Bandwidth	912GBps	936GBps
Memory bus	384-bit	384-bit
TDP	320W	350W

Well that was my point exactly and here is a screen from my system with all the graphics setting up full at in the FBW at FSDT KORD and AIG traffic at 100%:

Sure its 14.5gb of VRAM but at 22fps I'm turning something down anyway plus the System Memory is only at 14.5 too.

The extra you pay for a 3090 and 32gb over a 3080ti and 16gb IMO is definitely not value for money.

The BS we where feed about 32gb and 24gb VRAM at the brginning of all of this was exactly that, BS.

 

Edited May 10, 20224 yr by FBW737