32 vs 64 GB

Hello I need the help of someone that runs a 4k monitor or VR AND has 64gb a ram. I'm debating upgrading to 32g/4133mhz (adding 16) or dropping the big bucks on a set of 64g/3733mhz ram. I prefer the faster cheaper ram option but need some info before I make the decision.

OK,..I need someone to get me the values circled in red on the screenshot I uploaded. (To keep as close to my test conditions as possible), load in to the "through the inferno Persain Gulf" MP server and load into the F14B on the ground, while sitting in the cockpit grab the info or take a screenshot. Thanks in advance!

I don't know how much RAM you think DCS uses but you won't need more than 32GB right now.

But if it makes you feel better...

I have 64GB, and right now, it offers no benefits.

My reason for buying it was to ensure future proofing and compatibility of ram whilst system building.

Thanks guys but I'm specifically curious about the values with somebody that has 64GB of ram and 4k/or VR in the scenario stated in OP. I already had the 32gb values, wanted to compare the 2.

Thanks guys but I'm specifically curious about the values with somebody that has 64GB of ram and 4k/or VR in the scenario stated in OP. I already had the 32gb values, wanted to compare the 2.

It won't look any different than 32, other than having almost twice as much free and more allocated to cache.

DCS isn't using more than 8-9GB of RAM in VR.

I had the

Ocolus VR

PImax 4k

and now i have the pimax 5k+ vr ( widescreen vr )

I have 16gb of ram and i never had any issues with dcs while using VR. ( maybe i dident notise it ).

be aware that some missions run badly due to some scripts and this can effect performance both in vr and non vr dcs gaming.

So if a mission runs slow or have problems then it could be a defectie script that show down the game and create issues rather than its a hardware problem.

Thanks for the info guys, still looking forward to a 64gb screenshot. :)

Ask around on the overclock.net website, if you don't get an answer here. The proportion of gamers using more than 16GB is low, more than 32GB is exceptionally low. However on overclock.net a significant minority of people are running >32GB as they do stuff like rendering, large databases, software development

I am using 32GB with a 5k monitor (5120x2880) and I need more than 16GB, but I am not maxed out at 32GB. As you don't need the screen shot, I will not bother.

By the way, is there any reason you are using 4133MHz memory... what memory timings are you using with this memory?

Ask around on the overclock.net website, if you don't get an answer here. The proportion of gamers using more than 16GB is low, more than 32GB is exceptionally low. However on overclock.net a significant minority of people are running >32GB as they do stuff like rendering, large databases, software development

 

I am using 32GB with a 5k monitor (5120x2880) and I need more than 16GB, but I am not maxed out at 32GB. As you don't need the screen shot, I will not bother.

 

By the way, is there any reason you are using 4133MHz memory... what memory timings are you using with this memory?

Copy that, I didn't realize there was a big DCS following on OCN. I think they are c18, when I built it I was wanting to squeeze the most performance out of the rig I could, I know it makes not much difference especially at high res, just an enthusiast thing..

If only someone would do a comprehensive performance review of DCS (like guru3d or G nexus) testing various cards, CPUs , and mem! That's probably too much to ask for.

 

By the way, is there any reason you are using 4133MHz memory... what memory timings are you using with this memory?

I'm thinking about putting a new 9900k build together myself and am also having a had time selecting the right memory (16gb vs 32gb).

I'd selected a 16gb Corsair set at 4133MHz but after seeing your post, it makes me feel I should save ~£100 and go with some 3800MHz instead.

Do you think its a wrong choice to go for RAM with a speed of 4133MHz?

...

Do you think its a wrong choice to go for RAM with a speed of 4133MHz?

In my opinion reliable answer from Tiborr (DCS 1.5 2016 benchmark) :

[ATTACH]210088[/ATTACH]

In my opinion reliable answer from Tiborr (DCS 1.5 2016 benchmark) :

 

[ATTACH]210088[/ATTACH]

So, the faster the better?

I don't think you went wrong with the speed but I do think you would be better off with a equally priced lower speed 32gb kit. That all depends on if you are in a scenario where you are maxing out the 16gb kit which can happen in DCS.

So, the faster the better?

Just seen your question; in answer:

You need to optimise four things:

1) RAM capacity: you need as much as you need, but buying 2x what you need will not help you. Might even make the memory controller work harder and limit your memory OC.

2) Cost: up to you.

3) Memory speed: faster the better, ceteris paribus. But...

4) Memory timings. And here is the problem. Usually the faster the memory is rated to run, the "looser" the memory timings. Meaning that it takes more clock cycles to safely perform a memory operation. So while the clock cycles are faster, it takes more cycles to get the job done.

True memory speed is determined by

Reaction time (in ns) = Latency * 2000 / Memory speed in MHz

So for example CL 14 3200 MHz memory has a CL time of 14*2000/3200 = 8.75ns.

Meanwhile CL19 4133 MHz memory has a CL time of 19*2000/4133 = 9.19ns. So it is actually SLOWER. CL18 4133MHz is <1% faster than CL14 3200 MHz memory. Hopefully you see my point.

To make like even more complex there are different memory timings for different operations. But for more you will need to do your own reading on the subject.

One other downside of faster memory is that it places the memory controller of your CPU under more strain and also requires stable voltages from your motherboard and PSU. Otherwise while the memory has been tested to run at high speeds, your CPU, motherboard or PSU might not be up to it. Hence motherboards targeted at memory overclockers. (Boards like Asus's Apex, ASRock's OC Formula and EVGA's Dark series.)

 

So for example CL 14 3200 MHz memory has a CL time of 14*2000/3200 = 8.75ns.

Meanwhile CL19 4133 MHz memory has a CL time of 19*2000/4133 = 9.19ns. So it is actually SLOWER. CL18 4133MHz is <1% faster than CL14 3200 MHz memory.

 

I see the logic but I wonder if there is more at play. If you take a look at this review you will see 4200 c19 outperforming 3200 c14 in numerous tests. I don't think I saw one test where the 3200 c14 was on top. It becomes most evident in the cpu bound gaming tests. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ram-speed,5951.html

PS as I right this I cant help but think all I wanted was someone with 64gb to post a screen and here we are discussing latency and speeds! LOL

4133MHz doesnt really add anything to your experience anywhere. You do see a fair boost till 3000~3200MHz and some slight benefit up to 3600~3833 if those are low latency. Beyond that point, from what I have read and seen, it returns to the opposite as latency penalty outweights the speed increase.

It also costs significantly more than say a nice 3000~3600 kit.

In addition, you aim for high capacity, high speed and low latency, that is tough to get to work, the board matters a lot. So dont be surprised if they just wont XMP as expected. 4 modules are also harder to master than 2 modules, the denser ( more GB per module ) the more difficult as well. Imho a 2x8GB kit likely works as expected, any denser or more of them narrows your path of luck.

In my own believe, I think 32GB is already over the sweetspot of bandwidth/volume. If I'd really need that much memory and need it fast I would opt for a 4-channel or even wider system.

You need roughly about 1 sec to shuffle all your 64GB....Ithink that is too slow