16 vs 32 GB Ram.

Last night I made a comment that some testing indicates that generally you don't use more than 16 GB Ram so there is no added value to spending money on more Ram. These are questions that people will always disagree with but here is an interesting video that presents a head to head match ups under various conditions with no commentary. You watch, you decide. I watched it though several times looking at more subtle indicators than just fps.

 

I meant to post that this assumes you are only running MSFS. If you have other tabs open or are playing some other game you are more likely to use more ram.

 

I also wanted to point out that these are not simultaneous simulations. They are back to back done on the same computer which introduces it's own randomness. Most of the runs are within a margin of error. On another site they demonstrated that voltage draw fluctuates more or less randomly as the computer does things in the background. As the sim is running you wouldn't get those spikes,minor as they are, at exactly the same time from test to test.

 

Also notice that the 16 GB setup runs hotter which means it's using more power to stay up with or close to the 32 GB rig.

I read that someone who tested 32 gb found that his msfs was regularly using 24 gb of ram and he found 32 gb smoother and had less stutters. I intend to upgrade my ram in the near future.

I think the larger ram usage is linked to folks running 4K and 1440. I am running an odd size, 1920x1200, and my usage is around 11-14 MB. One more thing to look for, the sim apparently likes low latency ram. I bought this computer about a year and a half ago, and MSFS had not been announced. I bought it to run Open Rails and X-Plane 11. I did specifically choose the ram based on low latency. Several tests have mentioned that low latency results in a smoother MSFS.

Almost all RAM has a latency figure of 16. Here's a link to a Corsair 16 GB latency 14 for $190 which is pretty high. It's the only one I could find.

 

https://www.newegg.com/corsair-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820236563?Description=16gb%20ram&cm_re=16gb_ram-_-20-236-563-_-Product

While a lot of ram has a latency of 16, there is a wide variation available. On the AVA Direct site where i ordered my computer about a year and a half ago, there are almost 300 memory configuration options. At a quick glance, i found these two examples both better than (CL14) and worse than (CL22) the typical of CL16.

This was interesting and relevant. RAM speeds compared.

This guys conclusion seems disputed by some reputable test sites like Tom's Hardware, at least as it applies to the new MSFS. They found significant difference in performance in the new sim as ram speed increased to 3200, but no benefit beyond that, particularly if XMP is activated. Some test sites also noted a significant decrease in stutter with lower latency.

I think the larger ram usage is linked to folks running 4K and 1440. I am running an odd size, 1920x1200, and my usage is around 11-14 MB. One more thing to look for, the sim apparently likes low latency ram. I bought this computer about a year and a half ago, and MSFS had not been announced. I bought it to run Open Rails and X-Plane 11. I did specifically choose the ram based on low latency. Several tests have mentioned that low latency results in a smoother MSFS.

 

I'm also running 1920x100 and see the same thing. In all the testing I've done in varying conditions and locations with all the sliders maxxed in FSX, P3Dv5.1, and MSFS2020 I've never exceeded 13GB.