Does anyone actually notice a difference with 32GB memory?

So... If 32 GB of ´normal' latency RAM cost the same as 16 GB of low-latency RAM (both at, say, 3200 MHz), what should I buy ?

So... If 32 GB of ´normal' latency RAM cost the same as 16 GB of low-latency RAM (both at, say, 3200 MHz), what should I buy ?

I would pick 32GB for sure.

Only exception, if you only fly offline, no VR, no channel map and want every last FPS, than 16GB of fast ram may give you slightly better FPS. And the advantage that you can add another 16GB later.

But the latency difference between normal and ultra low latency ram really isnt that great, and I dont think we have even established cas latency matters to DCS. I just suspect it does, but it may just care about bandwidth instead.

So if the choice had been between 32GB @2666 MHz ram and 16GB @3866.. Id have a harder time answering that. Probably "neither", 32 GB @3200 :).

I upgraded from 32GB to 64GB recently for reasons unrelated to gaming and found overall performance improved. One thing that helps is that Windows is able to use more RAM for the file cache, which improves load times across the board.

64 Gb systems are not a luxury anymore so, if ED wants to use that for improving FPS on heavy maps thinking on 2021 timeframe I´ll be OK.

Damn!, if they can duplicate FPS with 128 Gb, just do it and recomend that. (DDR memory is cheaper than GPUs).

My personal experience with 16Gb doesn't include playing DCS, I can't even launch a mission without crashing right now.

The specs given in my signature are those of my upgrade, not yet mounted since I'm still waiting for the RAM to be delivered to me.

But one thing I know for a fact: Memory management with Windows 10 is p*** poor, mediocre at best, in idle it will use a quarter of what I have as RAM just to do nothing.

To make things into a more precise perspective; this is with 32 Windows applications disabled, so not starting and/or running in the background, just imagine with stock Windows 10 setting.

For this upgrade, I went for 32 Gb of DDR4/3200, first because my new processor supports this RAM, second because in 2 X 16 Gb, it provides me with the headroom needed for further upgrade.

But right now, you might think I have enough RAM because the raw number says 16 Gb, but in reality, I don't have 16 Gb, Windows takes a good chunk of it.

It doesn't have to be hyper-expensive either, 2x16GB DDR4-3200 UDIMM 1.35V cost me £155.99, it's simply not the top-notch gaming memory you might dream of but it's fast and affordable.

This was my pick:

https://uk.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g32c16u4b?wgu=2600_64827_15927338902115_5f51e02a88&wgexpiry=1595325890&cm_mmc=affiliation-_-null-_-null-_-null

16 GB no crashes at all. Your crashes are probably related to the 5500 XT. AMD GPU drivers are not up to par yet. (I am on Ryzen myself and love AMD. But there are lots of software that does not play well with the AMD GPU drivers. (Games, AI software, ...). Perhaps you can test a used Nvidia card from a friend.

16 GB no crashes at all. Your crashes are probably related to the 5500 XT. AMD GPU drivers are not up to par yet. (I am on Ryzen myself and love AMD. But there are lots of software that does not play well with the AMD GPU drivers. (Games, AI software, ...). Perhaps you can test a used Nvidia card from a friend.

Nope, the 500 XT will do just fine, at the moment I run a patched up (FX-4300 fan screwed on the heatsink after the card fans failure) GTX 1060.

:D

What I am saying is clear, minimum required for the game is 8 Gb, Windows will use half of it in idle with all its apps running in the background, if you have 16 Gb it will never be fully allocated to the game, so you can forget about running at high settings, minimum for it is 16 Gb and you won't have them.

But right now, you might think I have enough RAM because the raw number says 16 Gb, but in reality, I don't have 16 Gb, Windows takes a good chunk of it.

Windows uses it, mostly as drive cache. Thats a good thing. Why would you have 32 GB and not use any of it to buffer data from drives that are orders of magnitude slower (even NVME drives), when no other apps request that ram? As you start apps that request more ram, windows will reduce the size of its cache. It does a fine job at that, no different than any other OS. So next time you look at task manager and see 20GB used when running only windows calculator, look a little more closely:

The cached amount is available to apps that request more ram. But it is used for something useful when no apps request it.

It does a fine job at that, no useful when no apps request it.

Right...

Windows NT = 12 Mb required.

Windows 2000 = 64 Mb RAM required.

Windows 10 = RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) for 32-bit or 2 GB for 64-bit.

I think we have a fairly different idea of what memory management and progress means.

I dont call that memory management. Memory management is about allocating memory to processes, deciding what to keep in ram and what to compress or swap to disk, managing swap and cache and I do think windows 10 does a decent job there. XP was totally hopeless and people ended up using ram drives and putting the swap file on there, which is completely insane, but worked better than XPs own memory management..

As for system requirements; MacOS also requires 2GB. Ubuntu linux even requires 4GB. Even mobile phone operating systems like Android realistically need at least 1 or 2 GB.

The comparison with ancient OSs is flawed. Modern OSs provide so much more functionality. Maybe you should actually try running that windows 2000 with 64Mb, and after adding a full (IPv6 compliant of course) networking stack, bluetooth and wifi, a firewall, anti virus, HTML5 browser, cloud storage, modern security practices isolating processes from each other and separating user and administrator tasks from each other, and using two trillion drivers for anything from 3d printers to modern graphics cards, support for 16, 32 and 64 bit APIs, plug and play support for all modern devices and IO, including things like raid and nvme and USB-C, multi core CPUs with variable clockspeed and understanding and correctly assigning threads to logical and physical cores and being aware of local and remote CPU cache architecture, support for modern (and ancient) file systems, modern graphic APIs, modern audio APIs, support for VR,.. Oh and also support for the ancient versions too! Maybe you should try it on XP and see how well it runs with 1GB.

If you dont need all of those things, Windows 10 IOT core will run with 256Mb ram. And it will run a heck of a lot better than XP embedded did with 256Mb.

Im not a big fan of microsoft or windows, I avoid it whenever I can, but memory requirements and management is not windows 10 problem. On the contrary, MS actually do a fairly remarkable job there. You can do all the things I just mentioned, but opening a google chrome browser instantly doubles or triples your ram usage. But I guess netscape was better right?

The comparison with ancient OSs is flawed. Modern OSs provide so much more functionality. Maybe you should actually try running that windows 2000 with 64Mb, and after adding a full (IPv6 compliant of course) networking stack, bluetooth and wifi, a firewall, anti virus, HTML5 browser, cloud storage, modern security practices...

Frankly, I wonder if you're not on Microsoft payroll reading this:

"More functionality"? You're a gamer or a secretary?

The reason why I compared these O.S was precisely that, I used them professionally since Pentium II and the more "functionality" were added, the crapier they became, the more RAM was wasted from our PoV, we dont need our darn machines to do our coffee, we take a pause.

First, we needed far more RAM than what we needed to run even the most advanced packages, 3D Studio Max, CAD, CATIA etc.

Then the systems were more and more unstable, Windows 10 is garbage at this level compared to NT for those precise reasons.

Now, the ICING on the cake:

Last night, Microsoft literally forced a bot in my PC which unlocked all settings I've done in the directory editor, downloaded more than 100 Mb of crapy update, rebooted my PC without control, threatened me to get my release out of their support if I didn't install it, and finally, once I gave up to the bot shutting it down every hour, I realized that their new update foacked up my graphic settings because there is no support for proper drivers but their own for my graphic card. In short, I have no resolution option for a circle to look circular, what progress.

So if I hadn't got a new one, still in the box because my RAM hasn't arrived yet, I'd be forced into an upgrade as well.

And don't tell me that 30 Apps disabled instead of running in the background doesn't make a difference, it does, I'm ready to bet my X-Mass turkey that you have more RAM than I do and/or faster too.

So you guys keep advertising for Microsoft on how good Windows is without having to experience the aggravation they give to low budget players because your system can manage.

In short, 16 GB of RAM to do gaming with Windows 10 when a game setting requires it is simply not enough, keep the lame excuse for those who haven't got a clue and experience of how bad this O.S really is.

Windows 10 uses <1GB for itself. And Im being very generous here, because much of what is actually used when you boot, is used by nvidia/amd/intel drivers, audio drivers, joystick drivers, bluetooth, wifi, or whatever else you may be running. If you install logitech bloatware for your mouse and keyboard, it will use almost a full gigabyte. About as much as all of windows.

Given that, if windows uses <1 GB and 16GB RAM still isnt enough to run DCS, should we really blame microsoft for it, or maybe ED? Because an extra gigabyte memory isnt going to solve your problem. And IL2 will run with as little as 4GB and frankly, looks a lot better than DCS these days.

As for windows; like I said, there is plenty to complain about. Im all with you on forced updates (which I worked around), the bloat on disk usage is ridiculous. I run linux most of the time for a ton of good reasons. But I cant fault windows for its memory management OR requirements. Not since windows 10. Its actually become more frugal than my ubuntu install.

Windows 10 uses <1GB for itself. And Im being very generous here, because much of what is actually used when you boot, is used by nvidia/amd/intel drivers, audio drivers, joystick drivers, bluetooth, wifi, or whatever else you may be running. If you install logitech bloatware for your mouse and keyboard, it will use almost a full gigabyte. About as much as all of windows.

 

Given that, if windows uses <1 GB and 16GB RAM still isnt enough to run DCS, should we really blame microsoft for it, or maybe ED? Because an extra gigabyte memory isnt going to solve your problem. And IL2 will run with as little as 4GB and frankly, looks a lot better than DCS these days.

 

As for windows; like I said, there is plenty to complain about. Im all with you on forced updates (which I worked around), the bloat on disk usage is ridiculous. I run linux most of the time for a ton of good reasons. But I cant fault windows for its memory management OR requirements. Not since windows 10. Its actually become more frugal than my ubuntu install.

That's plain wrong. The number of apps running in the background uses way more than only 1 Gb, with mine system in idle and 32 of those apps disabled it reaches more than 2 Gb.

Then there is the little matter of what Windows 10 can do without your knowledge, in a permanent basis, using scheduled task you're not even aware of.

The latest dirty trick to force people to update when they managed to disable auto-update and else is to plant an AM_delta_patch.exe file through Windows Defender, it triggers the whole process but I noticed watching an AVI movie even before downloading started.

People complain about their PC slowing down for various reasons as early as they don't have more than 16 Gb of fast RAM and it's not because they run demanding apps or games, in normal use as well.

Here is the result of the complete Microsoft heresy, 78.73 Gb downloaded in several increments (cleaned then downloaded again until I did find the .exe file and deleted it) since yesterday, I ran antiviruses and had zero result due to the fact that all of those were signed Microsoft.

Right now I use 13% just with Edge opened not even typing to reply, so good memory management no, for the rest it's mediocre as hell with updates that don't even support some graphic drivers, I had to uninstall the latest update because audio was also affected and many of it came from NVidia updates via Microsoft, I reverted to the previous configuration to recover.

That's plain wrong. The number of apps running in the background uses way more than only 1 Gb, with mine system in idle and 32 of those apps disabled it reaches more than 2 Gb.

I dont know what background apps you run, if you are running bloatware like McAfee or some other shit, dont blame MS for that, but the simple reality is you can boot windows with 2GB ram installed and still run apps.

If you have (lots more) installed and as long as apps dont request more ram, windows will use more as disk cache and to buffer and preload stuff, but it will make that memory available again to apps when they demand it. Thats not a sign of poor memory management, its a sign of good memory management. Ive regularly seen DCS using 15GB of ram on my 16GB machine with no real problems. The only problem is that DCS actually needs that much.

Right now I use 13% just with Edge opened

So without edge you would be well below 2GB. Besides. "use". Ive tried explaining this to you. Using memory you dont need for anything else is a good thing. Why would you want your OS to ignore 95% of the ram you have installed when you dont need it for anything else and it could be used to cache, buffer and preload data from disk? When running light or few apps, why would you want your 16GB machine to be no faster than a 2GB machine and keep hammering your disk for no reason? This is basically what XP did, and which led people to install ram drives and put their swap file and temp folder on there. That is horrible memory management

And yes, browsers are memory hogs. I didnt know anyone still used edge these days, but go ahead and try google Chrome, or Mozilla firefox, or the one I use, Brave browser. They all quickly use more than windows. Probably more than Edge. Brave right now is using 1.4GB with just a few tabs open. I dont blame windows for that, it does the exact same thing on linux or mac or android.

Similarly if you think a DCS port to linux or mac would make a difference, expect to be disappointed. You are barking up the wrong tree.

LOL honestly I was regretting not getting 32GB when I opened this thread, now Im just confused.

If you play online or in VR: get 32 Gb.

If not: you can be fairly good with 16 untill you note sttuterings on heavy maps like Channel map or similar.

32 Gb is the way to go for the future if you can.