New build, strictly for flight sim. I am willing to shell out for 64 gigs, but is it worth it? Needed? 

No and no.

No such thing as computer hardware overkill when talking about simming PCs 🤣

47 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

No such thing as computer hardware overkill when talking about simming PCs 🤣

Could you please explain this in a certain context? When you fly for example KJFK with all 4 or 5 addon airports activated? Sure!
For normal flying? 32GB is more than enough is my estimate.

But, if you have AIG + 3rd Party Scenery + LOD full max = sure 64GB is way to go IF!!!!!!!! If you also have for example Simtoolkitpro running besides and more apps (like AI Companion or other stuff like PFPX)! I am also looking into 64GB RAM expansion.
 

Better CPU means more possibilities for apps, more apps is more RAM usage. Go for it!

Thinking budget? Normal usage? Then 32GB is the way to go.

Edited September 23, 20223 yr by Piotr007

25 minutes ago, Piotr007 said:

Could you please explain this in a certain context? When you fly for example KJFK with all 4 or 5 addon airports activated? Sure!
For normal flying? 32GB is more than enough is my estimate.

But, if you have AIG + 3rd Party Scenery + LOD full max = sure 64GB is way to go IF!!!!!!!! If you also have for example Simtoolkitpro running besides and more apps (like AI Companion or other stuff like PFPX)! I am also looking into 64GB RAM expansion.
 

Better CPU means more possibilities for apps, more apps is more RAM usage. Go for it!

Thinking budget? Normal usage? Then 32GB is the way to go.

Well my response was made in jest but yes I pretty much agree with everything you've said above.  I run MSFS basically maxed out in 4k with Simtoolkitpro and other apps open on a second screen and rarely have I gotten close to 20GB of ram usage.  I have 32GB currently installed.

4 hours ago, Drumcode said:

New build, strictly for flight sim. I am willing to shell out for 64 gigs, but is it worth it? Needed? 

Sure. Get 4 sticks of 16GB so you can sell off 32GB when you realize you don't really need 64GB. Seriously!

I run pretty high settings and many other programs and tabs etc.  Usually I'll be 20-22 max.  64 I would say is not needed.  I have not seen evidence of somebody exceeding 32 with a flight simulator.  

Remember one eye is still on Xbox Series X for MSFS which only has a total of 16GB system memory - that includes both RAM and VRAM. Even with additional background apps related to the sim, I can't see there ever being a need for more than 32GB in the next few years. Worst case, it if turns our you did need more, you can always add to what you have and it will likely be cheaper by then.

On 9/23/2022 at 11:54 AM, Drumcode said:

New build, strictly for flight sim. I am willing to shell out for 64 gigs, but is it worth it? Needed? 

Not needed.  However if I was building a new super rig I'd probably do it haha.  I did a build in Feb but it wasn't a super rig - it is just a high quality rig.

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Not needed.  However if I was building a new super rig I'd probably do it haha.  I did a build in Feb but it wasn't a super rig - it is just a high quality rig.

I did it anyway. Now waiting for the 4090 to come out and I’ll be to fly to the moon. 😀

5 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

I did it anyway. Now waiting for the 4090 to come out and I’ll be to fly to the moon. 😀

That's awesome!  YOLO!  What PSU did you get?  I'm still contemplating the 4080 16gb.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

That's awesome!  YOLO!  What PSU did you get?  I'm still contemplating the 4080 16gb.

Corsair HX1000. I’ll see how people like the 4090 in the sim first and then I’ll decide. If this thing will lay down some serious law and delivers big time, I will not wait for the 4080.

I did some testing today on memory use as I'm also about to get a new AM4 rig. Same issue - 32 or 64? So I just ran with your basic task manager to view RAM usage on my current system (64gb) and with my MSFS set up on basic ultra (nothing modded from "ultra") at 4k and only a couple of addons loaded (EGLL, NYC) I was seeing 36 gb memory use at startup, dropping to around 26 gb once up and on a flight. So I'll stick with my original plan and go for 64 with the new machine too, on the basis that it gives me plenty of headroom if things change.

I was actually testing to see if a RAM cache provided any MSFS benefits, the thought having just occurred to me, but to my surprise it didn't make any difference. Not sure that I understand why not, as a 96mb L3 cache on the 3XD chip seems to work wonders I would have thought than a multi GB RAM cache ought to do something. But I'm probably misunderstanding something basic. If it were that simple everyone would be doing it.

I'm going for an R9 7900 setup as I'd need to get a whole new outfit to go back to any Intel CPU at this point, and they've already said, I believe, that the 13th gen will be the last of the current architectures so any upgrade would need another new system again, whereas the AMD will need a new system now but will be good for a few upgrades yet. And anyway, I actually trust AMD more than Intel these days.

Just to correct myself and my comments about the RAM cache in my previous post. I was just reminded of how it all works by a colleague outside of here. Embarassing, but 20-30 years ago I used to teach that sort of thing for mainframe guys. Completely forgotten the whole business. Oh well, now where did I leave that other sock . .

asobo has made it so the sim doesnt use as much ram as it used to.  32 would be just fine.  i have 64 as i had to decide before msfs was even released.  i took the safe route.  but as i said, 32 is fine