Long story short, my new build won’t support all 64 GB of DDR5 at 6000, I have to disable XMP and go at 4800.
With two sticks (32GB), I can run at 6000.
I flew around NYC with everything on ultra and didn’t get over 17GB of usage so I am wondering if I am better off just going with 32 and returning these extra 2 sticks for the $500 I spent:)
Opinions?
Moved to Community Support-Hardware and peripherals for community help.
I don’t think you need the extra 32GB capacity for Flight Simulator.
Did you do a benchmark with both configurations though? On my machine running DDR4, there’s a performance gain from running 4 DIMMs instead of 2. It’s a modest few FPS, but stuff like that adds up. That could easily be countered by the memory speed though, so it would be interesting to see a benchmark comparison.
The more the RAM, the better, specially if you are going to run other application while using the sim..like recording, third-party plugins and etc.
That’s my question, if I run more Ram I have to run it slower (6000 vs 4800 mhz), so I am trying to see if it is worth the 500 bucks I’d get back by returning these sticks and running with 32. Seems like 32 is more than enough even in VR on Mac settings. With the 13900KF and 4090 I don’t think I will lose much performance by going down to 32 and increasing Ram speed
IMO, 32 GB should be enough for just FS2020, but as @Raptor4400 says,
So, assuming you are not seeing your 32 GB memory capacity maxed out while flying (with / without having other apps or processes consuming significant memory in the background, as appropriate), are you seeing memory bandwidth issues?
The answer to your question also depends on what motherboard you have (does it support Quad-Channel?)
Perhaps this article will help in your decision:
2 vs 4 RAM Modules – Are There Any Differences?
quote:
" With a motherboard that actually supports Quad Channel configurations, you’ll see a considerable bump in memory bandwidth. However, memory speed isn’t boosted by moving up to Quad Channel from Dual Channel, and if you’re looking to push memory overclocks, you may find it’s actually more difficult to achieve higher memory speeds and lower latencies."
Hope this helps,
Jon
I think you’re missing the point of this post. There’s no tangable benefit in having more memory beyond 32GB. If you can quanitfy what you’ve stated in a practical terms then perhaps your post might have more credence but even recording is not going to significantly break the 32GB barrier.
check the “commited” memory count 
The effect of the performance you can easy try out by your self, simple uninstall the 32GIG again and increase frequency.. not understand the question 
Committed memory is just what’s earmarked for potential usage by running applications, no? Doesn’t mean it actually gets used for anything.
For example in my case, when I’m running MSFS with 16GB my system commits more RAM total than is on my sticks, but monitoring page file usage shows it to be at idle, so it doesn’t actually use the memory it commits.
yep.. the app request that and its kind of virtual memory. Often windows reserve space in pagefile for that and if its needed , it shifts other memory areas back-and-forth and then we come into range where things can ( not must, and I think that is what you mean ) slow down ( and all the other trouble we seen in forum, eg. if pagefle size can not grow because of low disc space , etc ). I never did tests whether now there is more beneffit to have bit less but faster RAM , instead bit slower but more RAM. At first it would be necessary to compare 4800 vs 6000 ( may be , just as as allways , there are only 5-10fps diff ) and then how oftern the pagefile is used, how much of it, etc ( therefore I meantion that OP can test that itself , he have the sticks so far I understand ).
I go with the strategy like for cars ( " There is no substitute for displacement (ccm) other than more displacement (ccm). " 
). I set as example my pagefile to min/max 1/4Gig and it will never increased above the minimum 1g. So I have no additional disc access.
Of course I do also video editing etc, where I need to hold much more data in RAM and so I get also a beneffit.
And also other flightsims, like DCS, eats easy much more RAM ( and that in not really fancy situations )
So, I’am with my 64GIG allways on the “save side” in many other situations.
64GB if you want to fly with liners and all the extra software you need.
I have 8 different software running under FS 
In my experience, my system doesn’t give any additional fps at 6400Cl32 compared to 4800CL39. In game performance is basically identical. However, 32gb is probably plenty anyway, even with a bunch of other software running.
I always have air manager, auto pop out manager, little navmap, plugin for logitech hardware, razer software for the tartarus keypad, tobii eye tracker software, as well as running a 4k main display and 3 x 1080p touch monitors, logitech yoke+2 throttle, rudder pedals, radio panel, switch panel, multi panel and gear falcon trim wheel. Also other software that i just can’t be bothered to turn off, like discord, afterburner, lg hub etc.
32gb has been plenty.
So it’s swings and roundabouts, you don’t really need the extra capacity, but also don’t really need the extra speed.
Only thing that would swing it for me, might be that running at jedec speed 4800, it is probably less stress on the cpu, and only requires 1.1V so potentially less heat (unless you have a fan on your ram, in which case probably little difference)… and if you’re running it at 4800, may as well have all 64gb?
I think the issue is running 4 sticks of 16GB at 6000. I am going to try 2x32 at 6400 and see if it is stable. I will report back.
your mainboard manual mention what you can plugin and then with which speed. In special DDR5 is very sensitive here.
That’s probably the main cause as most motherboards have memory topology geared towards two sticks. In addition, the extra memory ranks you are throwing at it could be stressing the CPUs memory controller.