In a PC Gamer test, 96GB of DDR5 RAM resulted in higher FPS than 64GB, especially with better 1% lows. So, does 96GB provide a generally smoother experience in MSFS 2024? Has anyone installed 96GB or tested it themselves?
I recently upgraded my PC from 32Gb RAM to 64. Can’t say I have noticed much of an improvement really. But then again if I am honest I do have a meaty PC (RTX 4090, i9-12900KS).
One thing I have noticed though when playing FS24 is that the game uses more RAM if it is available. It performed well on 32GB but it’s almost as if the program sees the extra RAM and decides to use some of it.
Going from 64 to 96 is pointless in my opinion, unless you like to stream live your FS flights whilst also carrying out editing.
Other than that, do what you want, make your own mind up as to whether you want to spend more on RAM. You don’t mention which GPU you have (which is a big factor in performance) and you don’t say how much RAM you now have, but I am assuming it’s 64 seeing as you ask if 96 is better than 64. If you have 64 and have good performance then why add more? Unless it is for the same reason I upgraded to 64 from 32: because I had the opportunity and was curious as to whether it would make much more of a performance boost.
3 Likes
I suspect that MSFS uses a percentage of the RAM that is available, rather than a fixed amount.
This would explain why it uses around 25GB ish of the 64 in my system, yet it will work well on a system with 16GB of RAM.
I also have seen no noticeable improvement in performance after going from 32GB to 64GB, but as it only cost 50 of my GBP, it seemed a worthwhile thing to do.
I am stuck in what some would regard as the dark ages of DDR 4, which once again does not seem to affect the performance of MSFS.
What does appear to have greatly enhanced performance in MSFS 2024 is the use of all the CPU cores, instead of only one.
3 Likes
I currently have an old PC, and I’m waiting for the release of the 9950x3d in March, after which I will build a new one. I also plan to buy an RTX 5090 if it becomes available at the regular retail price. I’m also considering which other components I will use.
The tester also writes that no more than 30 GB of RAM will be used, but that the FPS still increase with more RAM: " further testing has shown that while Flight Simulator 2024 is running, the total system RAM usage doesn’t exceed 30 GB, regardless of the amount installed. So the use of 96 GB doesn’t fully explain the performance gains over 64 GB; however, the frame rates were checked again and found to be the same."
Thanks, but … for me, this test has no value. Author didn’t provide links to the memory modules he tested, nor did he include their exact model.
There are also no BIOS screenshots showing the timings for each set of modules. It’s possible that RAM in the 96GB kit had better timings, which could have resulted in higher FPS.
I mentioned on a forum a while ago that after changing timings of my G.Skill RAM, FPS increased by 5/10.
1 Like
It’s an interesting test. I’m sceptical that 96GB is really needed, especially as MSFS gets nowhere near fully utilising 32 or even 64, but if it really does use 30-40% of whatever is available, then it makes sense that more could help.
I changed from 32 to 64GB, deliberately using exactly the same brand, speed and timings of DDR5 (Kingston Renegade Fury 6,400mhz, 32-39-39-77, twin module kits), and I definitely noticed improvements in both MSFS 2020 and 2024. I wouldn’t say there was a huge increase in FPS, but both sims were definitely a lot smoother with stuttering and micro stutters being eliminated.
1 Like
Exactly my thoughts.
1 Like
96GB comparing 64GB just reduces slightly some micro stutters.
A very bad and misleading test/article that displays the lack of competence of the author.
“So if you want to dive into Microsoft’s new version of Flight Simulator, then you may want to consider adding as much RAM to your gaming PC as possible.”
This general statement is so misleading that it should be removed from the article.
Also the statement regarding RAM usage never exceeding 30 GBs is just plain wrong as it heavily depends on the system/settings.
Using 64 GB RAM myself with MSFS2024 I can assure you that RAM usage on my system/settings BEGINS at around 30-32 GB and (until now) peaks at 38/39 GB without any 3rd party add-ons installed.
Furthermore I think that the small fps differences might have been caused by RAM configurations and not so much the amount of RAM used.
That said, there IS a benfit of using more than 32 GB RAM with this game and that is smoothness mostly noticeable when panning/zooming. But that won’t save you from stutters/fps drops caused by the VRAM bug that is currently being fixed by Asobo.
1 Like
I upgraded from 32GB to 64GB RAM because i saw that the RAM usage would usually be around 28-30GB in an airliner in a big airport and on occation would go over 32GB and cause terrible FPS as you would expect.
Also some games like star citizen demand a lot of RAM. But honestly i cant see that 96GB woul have any benefit. My RAM is now hardly ever more then 30-35 at the very worst in FS2024.
My assumption is that demanding live sevice games such as fs2024 will only continue to use more ram in the future.
1 Like
As it should! Of course the problem is that Xbox doesn’t have 96GB. But if it did, and they could write the code to take advantage of that much RAM (or more) you can bet I’d be upgrading my 64GB (which is working fine for now.)
I have no issues with 64GB.