I was given 2 sticks of DDR4 2400Mhz ram 16Gb per stick for a total of 32Gb.
My gaming desktop currently has has two sticks of ram for a total of 16Gb DDR4, but at 2666mhz.
Would I be better off leaving my PC with 16Gb at 2666mhz or would it be worth it to take them out and pop in the 32Gb - 2400mhz ?
Is the trade off between 16Gb @ 2666Mhz vs 32Gb @ 2400Mhz worth it ?
Hey there, @Minskie3211. IMHO, the performance degradation going from 2666Mhz down to 2400Mhz is negligible (10%) whereas the overall RAM headroom is doubled. These days most PC builders are dropping 32GB of RAM into their builds almost as the default. It isn’t absolutely necessary to have 32GB of RAM, but I would personally take that route over having the slightly slower RAM.
No doubt you’ll get a variety of opinions, so take them all in. Blue skies!
Interesting to see what difference it makes if you install the extra 16 GB. I run on 16 GB currently with 2x 8GB sticks in a drawer which I haven’t installed yet.
Going from 2666 to 2400 wouldn’t be noticeable in the vast majority of applications, but 2x the ram certainly will be. I would definitely go with 32 gigs if it were me.
Throw as much ram at it as you can. I see people saying they’ve got their startup times down to “only 210 seconds.” And they’re using an SSD.
No SSD here - instead 8 x 4TB Western Digital Red (5400 rpm but 256 mb disk cache) and 128 gb RAM - and with my folder showing a quarter-terrabyte of data, and a 1 tb rolling cache, my startup time (time from clicking the icon) is 133 seconds, on an i5-12400. No overclocking, but the RAM is Kingston Fury at 3600 mhz by default.
You can NEVER beat more RAM, especially with any Windows application as heavy as MSFS. 64 gb seems to be a realistic minimum if you don’t want to be swapping all the time.