I'm another who didn't notice any difference going from 16 gb to 32 gb and my system rately uses any more than 16 gb anyway.  Money may be better soent on 32 gb of faster RAM rather than 64 gb.  You can always add more later should you ever need it.

I would also say that RAM speed has a pretty minimal effect from a value for money perspective and spending a bit extra on other components such as CPUs, CPUs and SSDs gives you a lot more bang for your buck 

28 minutes ago, cianpars said:

I'm another who didn't notice any difference going from 16 gb to 32 gb and my system rately uses any more than 16 gb anyway.  Money may be better soent on 32 gb of faster RAM rather than 64 gb.  You can always add more later should you ever need it.

I would also say that RAM speed has a pretty minimal effect from a value for money perspective and spending a bit extra on other components such as CPUs, CPUs and SSDs gives you a lot more bang for your buck 

I play in 1080p and when I had 16 GB of RAM, I didn't notice MSFS using more than 12 GB of RAM either on my old computer.  However, I did upgrade to 24 GB of RAM on my old computer. What I like to do is keep my browsers open (Edge, Chrome, Firefox), and keep all my other apps open, when I play games.  My other apps, including browsers, will take up multiple GB of RAM.  For whatever reason, if you keep like 10 tabs open in Chrome or Firefox, it will eat up between 2 GB to 4 GB of RAM for those 10 tabs (I have no idea why 1 tab in a browser takes up 200 to 400 MB of RAM these days).  So when I upgraded to 24 GB of RAM, I could play MSFS and keep all my apps open, which is very convenient.

But if I was willing to close all my apps, 16 GB of RAM was enough for MSFS at 1080p.  For my new computer, I got 32 GB of RAM, and no game I have played yet, MSFS included, will really push that amount of RAM that I need to start shutting down my apps to play the game.

2 hours ago, cianpars said:

would also say that RAM speed has a pretty minimal effect from a value for money perspective and spending a bit extra on other components such as CPUs, CPUs and SSDs gives you a lot more bang for your buck

I remember back in the day getting better performance than most people thanks to having a PC that supported triple-channel RAM tuned to within an inch of its life and with a GPU that supported 512 bits bandwidth (or was it 384bits?) rather the 256 bits that has become the norm.

I remember going through the ins and outs of it in minute detail with the late-lamented Nick Needham and (iirc) even one of the FS9/FSX guys from Microsoft.

At the time, turns out, FS9/FSX is/was "hard-limited" by RAM bandwidth and speed, and GPU bandwidth. The third channel on the RAM (plus low latencies / high speeds) and the extra width of the GPU bus were definitely making a difference in those days.

It might be over-conservatism on my part, but I've stuck with the theory that MSFS still benefits from these things, even if it's less obvious today than before 🤓

11 minutes ago, tfm said:

I remember back in the day getting better performance than most people thanks to having a PC that supported triple-channel RAM tuned to within an inch of its life and with a GPU that supported 512 bits bandwidth (or was it 384bits?) rather the 256 bits that has become the norm.

I remember going through the ins and outs of it in minute detail with the late-lamented Nick Needham and (iirc) even one of the FS9/FSX guys from Microsoft.

At the time, turns out, FS9/FSX is/was "hard-limited" by RAM bandwidth and speed, and GPU bandwidth. The third channel on the RAM (plus low latencies / high speeds) and the extra width of the GPU bus were definitely making a difference in those days.

It might be over-conservatism on my part, but I've stuck with the theory that MSFS still benefits from these things, even if it's less obvious today than before 🤓

Not sure about that with modern architecture.  It would be interesting to see some benchmarks, though I do agree that there used to be an advantage a few years back with previous systems and sims.

i have changed to 48gb from 32gb , in a msfs session i had a ram usage at 28gb max and vram of 18gb, get a nice G-Skill ES 2x24gb kit to test.

not going back to 32gb it dont hurt to have the extra headrom from the 48gb kit they have the same specs as the fast32gb kit.

 

It might be a good idea to use both modules, to utilize dual-channel mode (higher memory bandwidth and improved performance compared to single-channel mode).

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

It might be a good idea to use both modules, to utilize dual-channel mode (higher memory bandwidth and improved performance compared to single-channel mode).

I'd like to see someone test 4 sticks vs. 2 sticks with MSFS, but I haven't come across any test like that.

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

It might be a good idea to use both modules, to utilize dual-channel mode (higher memory bandwidth and improved performance compared to single-channel mode).

That's what I was hinting at 😉 ... I'm curious, but too old / cba to try it out on my own kit 👴

Deleted

Edited August 25, 20241 yr by Maxis

8 hours ago, tfm said:

How is this working for you? Is it true that we no longer need two sticks of RAM to get best performance? In your shoes, I would want to test it carefully before "sacrificing" the use of a second DIMM

The new system gets built this week.  Had to wait on the NZXT 360 cooler. &^%^%*&%*  Ordered last Tuesday from Amazon with 2-day delivery indicated at time of order. Turns out to be coming from a vendor who did not ship it until early Friday.

Interesting.  You sent me to do some research.  Here is a good video that tests single-stick. It is performed at 1080.  I am running at true 4K.  It proves your point overall, but interestingly the test includes MSFS2020 specifically.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-xirKsAp4#ddg-play

This is with MSFS.  102.0 single-stick vs 104.2 dual stick.  Pretty negligible difference, but I have no ideal what the difference would be with my AMD 7800X3D and RTX 480 Super and 4K. I originally ordered and received a two-stick DDR5 6000 32gb set and had processed but not dropped off an Amazon return.  So here "at the end of the day" I am switching gears back to 32gb and returning the 64gb instead.
 

However using Tomb Raider as their gold standard there was a significant difference. The DDR5 6000mhz dual-stick is at the far right.
MSFS is the only gaming so-to-speak that I do. 

Again, thank you for pointing me in this direction.

Edited August 25, 20241 yr by fppilot

13 minutes ago, Maxis said:

at some point you let them do what they want and mind your own business

...and even though OP asked for the thread to be closed, I think it's still relevant as it sheds some light on RAM requirements for MSFS. As well as the relevance of RAM speed and timings. I'm currently flying the PMDG 737-600: MSFS RAM use is 8GB, total system RAM use is 18GB.

1 minute ago, Cpt_Piett said:

even though OP asked for the thread to be closed, I think it's still relevant as it sheds some light on RAM requirements for MSFS.

I agree.  See my new post from a couple of minutes ago.

13 hours ago, fppilot said:

Did you read the my most previous post?

No, I read this, "Specifically MSFS any reason for 64GB Ram in new system?"

If you're planning on doing 8K video editing while you fly well sure 🙃

19 minutes ago, fppilot said:

The new system gets built this week.  Had to wait on the NZXT 360 cooler. &^%^%*&%*  Ordered last Tuesday from Amazon with 2-day delivery indicated at time of order. Turns out to be coming from a vendor who did not ship it until early Friday.

Interesting.  You sent me to do some research.  Here is a good video that tests single-stick. It is performed at 1080.  I am running at true 4K.  It proves your point overall, but interestingly the test includes MSFS2020 specifically.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-xirKsAp4#ddg-play

This is with MSFS.  102.0 single-stick vs 104.2 dual stick.  Pretty negligible difference, but I have no ideal what the difference would be with my AMD 7800X3D and RTX 480 Super and 4K. I originally ordered and received a two-stick DDR5 6000 32gb set and had processed but not dropped off an Amazon return.  So here "at the end of the day" I am switching gears back to 32gb and returning the 64gb instead.
 

However using Tomb Raider as their gold standard there was a significant difference. The DDR5 6000mhz dual-stick is at the far right.
MSFS is the only gaming so-to-speak that I do. 

Again, thank you for pointing me in this direction.

You cant use intel 12th gen based benchmarks and extrapolate the data to apply to AMD based systems especially X3D based systems

Edited August 25, 20241 yr by Maxis

Just now, Maxis said:

You cant use intel based benchmarks and extrapolate the data to AMD based systems

And you can't even use it within the same platform, if you aren't comparing the same architecture. How RAM impacts performance and the CPU varies wildly.