I was able to load all my addons for streaming (so over 2000) with 64 Gig. The bootup time takes quite a few minute of that. And the irony of it is, what is taking so long is “Loading unusually long: log save to Report-loading.tml”. So in other words, it got past everything it needed to do fine. It was the writing of the report about that it was a long load that made the loading time unusually long…
Correction: I now get stuck at the infamous 96%. That may be one bad package in the last batch I added.
If you’re going to upgrade just go with 64GB. Some users report that 32 is plenty but that not the case for me. I’m always using between 31 and 34GB. Everyone’s settings and system’s are different, so it varies. I upgraded to 64 GB recently and my VRAM issue went away along with other changes I made. Sadly I still struggle to finish flight, because for me 2024 is still broken.
I attempted to send you a private message to take this discussion off-line, but your profile wouldn’t allow it to go through. Short version of what I wrote–that MAY be true if you’re running a single 1080p monitor, but not if you’re running multiple 1440p monitors or even a single 4K monitor. The number of pixels being driven by the GPU correlates directly to its workload. Transporting the raw data (what the CPU does) doesn’t require much effort. Processing that data (what the GPU does) does. Increase the number of pixels (resolultion or number of monitors) or up the in-game settings, the workload on the CPU doesn’t change, but the workload on the GPU changes substantially.
How much ram has bearing on CPU and GPU performance. If you have a high power cpu and GPU and run ultra/high settings in MSFS, you will benefit with 64GB of RAM. The 64GB give the sim better 1% and 0.1% lows for smoother flight. 32GB works for many, but it you desire to run on the ragged edge, more ram smooths things out. If you fly VR, where every frame matters, more ram helps. Yes, there are plenty of people who will say 32gb works, and frankly Faster lower latency RAM is more effective, Enough ram with DX12 helps.
In DDR5 always use 2x modules and not 4x slots. 2X16 2X32 or 2X24 stable ram at FCLK 1:3 ratio, typically 6000MT/s will work with AMD 7-9 series, and Intel has good results at 6400MT/s up to 7K+ depending on silicon lottery.
Lastly, don’t go in debt to buy PC parts so work within your budget. That said a better GPU always brings more than better/more ram. Spend your money on GPU>CPU>RAM>Storage>Motherboard in decreasing importance.
I have 32 gb, and use vr on high, or ultra on 4k with a 4090 never passes of 26 gb of use of all system…so i have 6 gb free all the time… maybe some users have background process taking ram…
We’ve done the experiment with 32, 64, and 96GB, in 2X config, in VR, all improved 1% and 0.1% lows. None of it matters if you crush the hardware you have. We ran this experiment on 7900X3D 4090 and 16gb 32gb to 64GB on 5800X3D and 4090 on HP G2, Pico 4, Quest 3 and Pimax Crystal. Is 96GB worth it. No. Only if you have the budget, and we also fly in Motion rigs, that calculate positions via CPU etc Add-ons etc. where more ram helps.
I have to say my system is heavily tweaked for max performance while running stable. I spend a lot of time tweaking with undervolting, overclocking, BIOS configs, different DLSS and driver versions, etc.
All combined it really does make a difference. But trust me, you don’t want to do that unless you know what you are doing and you are crazy for optimization in general like me
Ah ah ! If MSFS does not teach us how to flight safe, it teaches us at least how to tweak our PC configurations ! It should be called : “tweak simulator 2024 - The VRAM is calling”
I guess I could be bored of MSFS if i had super performance at each flight !! (not really joking!)
I don’t care what stats and data say, 64 runs better than 32 on both sims. FS doesn’t run in some game ‘bubble’ like most games and has ties to windows. I think 32 still gets maxed out at times mostly because of windows, not FS when playing MSFS. In a normal AAA like Avatar or CoD, 32 is perfectly fine at 4K. Even if its showing 22gb in use, the 64 helps things like pre-cached scenery dramatically for head tracking or sweeping outside views. It’s so much smoother. From a cockpit straight and forward you can’t see it so much. I bought 64gb in anticipation of 24 on a 7800/4080s and it made a huge difference in pop in at long LOD and particularly quick viewing sides/rear scenery with tracking. Even though it still may say I’m not even close to 32gb in ‘use’.
Hard to say what 24 will actually end up ‘needing’ as it’s such a wet hot mess in some temporary ‘stable’ holiday mode not utilizing all it’s features and obviously not in an optimized nor full texture resolution state. Going 32 makes your ram $300 as eventually you’ll go 64. I still have my 4 month old 32gb like new back in the package just sitting around on my hobby desk.
I think your post sums it up pretty well.
For 95% of all games, 32 GB RAM is plenty enough, but in same edge cases, like MSFS24 where it can smooth out things (especially with some third party stuff added), you can actually benefit from 64 GB RAM. I takes quite some dedication to go 64 for a broken SIM though
That having said, i am thinking about upgrading to 64 daily…
I can’t tell you why, but it does with 64. 2024 is just a mess of memory leaks and countless issues that need to be addressed(probably over the next 2 years+ is what I’m guessing best-case scenario) we don’t really even have MSFS2024 yet. But 2020 is essentially ‘set in stone’ and it does. Even low in a bush plane, lean and look down at the ground left, then right, then back up and with 64 it’s just butter. In 2020 in the metro DC area where you can see landmarks 30+ miles out, switch in/out views, look around, again like butter over 32, even though the counter says 18-22gb in use.
48 seems like some sort of ideal compromise to save ~$40-50, but choices and availability are limited, and there’s just so much more time-tested utilization of 16/32/64 it’s not worth the bother.
At MicroCenter you’ll see the 4’ section packed with 32, then the same with 64, then the two peg hooks with a couple packs of 48 swinging around.
If they hold to their promises they never needed nor were asked to make, like cloud aircraft, small file size, and the horrid UI, 2 years’ we’d be lucky.
We just wanted better weather/traffic and streamlined WU’s with a favorite aircraft hanger and modern graphics engine utilization. Then they set out to change everything for the sake of changing it. And instead of ‘better’, they went with the mantra of ‘different’ from every other tried and true UI and setup, including their own.
Meanwhile, this small client-side system was a huge onus on them when the newer XB’s are going to simply come with even more storage. And THEY decided this is what we were looking for. Meanwhile, still no favorite hangar-even when they’re all in a ‘cloud’…
(not really joking!)
