15 minutes ago, jmdriskell said:

What feature do you use to display the system usage?

 

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I've never seen anything use much more than 32GB.  It's annoying that this likely won't be fixed and we have to resort to throwing money at the problem.  Thankfully RAM isn't too bad.  It's cheaper than when I bought in/after covid.  2x32 GB ddr5 6000mhz with 30-36-36-76 goes for 215 off amazon right now.  Otherwise if I go cheaper I can get 2x32GB at 5600mhz cas 40 for like 160.  Do we have any stats on MSFS and RAM timings?  

I am currently changing over from an Intel system and I asked the same question. I finally settled on the 6000 with CL30 because the small amount of data that I have seen both point to Lower CL and higher MHZ are the way to go. "Buy once Cry once" My new system will use my current RTX 3080 but it is a 9800x3D with a MSI X670E MOBO and the GSKILL NEO 2x32gb 6000 MHZ CL30 Ram. 

This post on Redit explains the Speed Vs CL 

 

This article was interesting as far as the amount of Ram https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/microsoft-says-64-gb-is-the-ideal-spec-for-flight-simulator-2024-but-ive-tested-it-with-96-gb-and-it-makes-a-big-difference/

9 minutes ago, jjeffreys said:

This article was interesting as far as the amount of Ram https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/microsoft-says-64-gb-is-the-ideal-spec-for-flight-simulator-2024-but-ive-tested-it-with-96-gb-and-it-makes-a-big-difference/

It's very interesting, especially because the lows are so much better:

Quote

At face value, there's nothing wrong with the 32 GB performance results and with 96 GB, the average frame rate is only 10% higher. However, the 1% Low figures are 31% better, and it's a marked difference while you're flying around. Compared to 64 GB, the uplift with using 96 GB is smaller but still quite impressive: 6% higher average fps, 17% better lows.

 

Edited December 19, 20241 yr by Cpt_Piett

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

It's very interesting, especially because the lows are so much better:

 

The difference between the highs and lows is why we get stutters right?

8 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

The difference between the highs and lows is why we get stutters right?

I guess the lower the lows are, the worse the stutters get. 

4 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

It's very interesting, especially because the lows are so much better:

 

The guy seems to have used a sample of exactly ... one flight per RAM configuration 😐

Everyone who has used MSFS over the years knows that the experience can change from flight to flight even with the same settings. Even in an otherwise perfectly constant system, the sim is far too intricate and with far too many variables to yield exactly comparable results each time. Plus, the sim never gets the chance to work in a perfectly constant system: Windows is a master unto itself, with its own intricate processes triggered by events or times of the day that we have no detailed insight into. The sheer number of moving parts means that just some subtle system process rearing its head for a few fractions of a second can throw off the "low 1%" figure. 

So: if 96Gb makes a difference then it hasn't been demonstrated by this guy imo. If he had done the same flight for say, 10 or even 5 times with each configuration, then I would be interested in the averages. But without that, it's not a valid exercise imo. 

Edited December 19, 20241 yr by tfm

If you're running 4k you need 64 but I'm smooth at 120fps on 1440p with 32GB.

New personal "best": 46GB total system RAM in use. Flying the Fenix A319 over a remote area of Australia (between Armidale and Coffs Harbour). Apps: FSHud ATC (but only 6 active and 2 parked AI), Active Sky live weather, RealTurb, Bijan Seasons, MobiFlight connector. It's puzzling why the sim uses this much RAM in such a situation. 

Edited December 22, 20241 yr by Cpt_Piett