Does anyone actually notice a difference with 32GB memory?

As per thread title. I'm on the fence about going up to 32GB. My system seems to pull nicely in DCS (and everything else) and I'm wondering if a RAM upgrade would actually give me any kind of noticeably improvement in load times, stuttering in accelerated time etc.

DCS is running well now, and just about the only thing left for me to do to my rig is jump on the 32GB bandwagon... Thing is, I'm using a 1080 Ti graphics card (11GB) and only ever notice about 8GB being used, and only about 10-12GB of my system RAM being used. So, is there really any need for 32GB?

Has anyone upgraded, and did it make much of any difference? I've also been considering an i5-10600K and new mobo, but my old i5-6600K works just fine and the extra 500-600 MHz (If I'm *very* lucky!!) is a heck of a lot of extra dough...

AD

Not sure now, but it made a huge difference in multiplayer when I upgraded a year and a half ago. I think DCS is better now so I can’t say for sure. I’ve had one tiny stutter in supercarrier recently with my 48Gb. ..... way back had stutters everywhere.... and 48 helped but didn’t completely fix back then

Not sure now, but it made a huge difference in multiplayer when I upgraded a year and a half ago. I think DCS is better now so I can’t say for sure. I’ve had one tiny stutter in supercarrier recently with my 48Gb. ..... way back had stutters everywhere.... and 48 helped but didn’t completely fix back then

Ps..the reason I have 48 is because I got a deal on 32 that matched the 16 I had originally bought a couple years before, but I was not sure it would be compatible, so It was kind of a bonus. I don’t really see any reason for more than 32 now.

I don't have any benchmark data but I would bet that there are more consistent frametimes and higher 1% lows especially on larger more complex missions, especially online. Would be an interesting test, curious myself.

Just as a general PSA, make sure you are turning on the XMP profile in BIOS. You can get 32 GB binned at 3200-3600 MHz for a decent price, at least before Covid. Just sure how supply chain issues are affecting prices right now. But you won't actually see those frequencies by default. You have to turn on the profile or manually overclock the memory to get those advertised speeds. After an overclocking session it never hurts to double check as you might have had to go back to a default BIOS profile. And that had a noticeable difference on my system versus going from 16 to 32GB.

People are reporting good results overclocking the 10600K. A good Noctua air cooler or a 240mm AIO should cool it nicely for OC to 5+ GHz.

Online with high density missions, absolutely I have a difference.

Just run task manager and find out if you need it. I find that 16GB is cutting it close online, but I still keep a little margin if I care to close any background apps I dont need. Offline 16GB should be enough.

But there are other effects which can be harder to predict and measure. Another 16GB gives you more ram for disk caching which may or may not make a difference in loading times or to avoid stutters.

Then there is the impact on memory performance, which I have found to be extraordinarily important in DCS, more so than in any gaming benchmark Ive ever seen. if your ram is single rank (so 2 rank for 2 dimms), adding more dimms will mean 4 ranks which can give a surprising performance boost just by itself:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-best-memory-timings,6310-2.html

Thats for Ryzen, but I think at least the same principle will apply to intel chips.

OTOH, when I look at my motherboard manual and list of approved memory modules, on 2 dimms I get officially supported 3200 speed and a little more with some modules, while with 4 dims about the fastest that is supported is 2400. Maybe it will work at higher speeds, maybe it wont.

Long post to say "I dont know". Im also considering it, but fear the reduced ram speed/bandwidth may cost too many FPS to warrant the possible improvements, and paying more to get less is not something I like doing.

32GB and I never have to think about memory. It just works.

Have not been limited to 16GB for a long time.

On 16 GB I had issues in MP with VR. With 64 GB it's History. :D

For me, once I exceeded 32 GB (I have more now, but when I rebuilt system last year I moved up to 32GB).

Windows does not purge memory at all for DCS, so If I load a mission, exit to editor, make changes, or even quit to desktop, re-launching DCS and that mission takes 80% less time to get back into cockpit of the aircraft. at times reloading a mission is practically Instant.

something that started w/ the upgrade to 32GB.

and I'm not talking about small missions either.

With 16GB I notice more money in my pocket.

Never notice missing RAM in SP or MP.

I just recently upgraded and have found a very large improvement on multiplayer. It seems to load faster and my frame rates are much, much higher, especially on busy servers.

In single player I haven't noticed a dramatic increase in frame rates but I have noticed I'm not getting the micro stutters I've had before.

Other programs like Photoshop and video editing software I have seen a most remarkable improvement.

Running an i9700 and 2070 Super.

I found it to be $200 CAD well spent.

I posted this in a different thread:

Channel map uses more than 16GB of RAM - at least on my system. This plot is taking off and running touch and goes at High Halden in the Spitfire, flying north to the Thames, Manston, Dover then landing at High Halden again.

 

 

 

 

Machine is i3770K OC @ 4.5GHz, 2070S, 1440p, msaa_x4, Ani_x16, high most things, OBS recording but using iGPU for encoding.

 

Pretty much stutter free, pagefile.sys removed, all the craptastic background programs like steam, logitech hub, etc., etc. disabled.

I’ve seen upto 30GB of ram use whilst in multiplayer and with the usual apps open, ie discord, SRS and voieceattack.

Be careful if you look at task manager to determine ram usage. Windows will use ram for things like disk caching. If you install 256GB ram, it will use most of that eventually (provided you do enough disk reads to actually fill that much), because its better to use ram as cache as not using it. And caching does help, its not wasted, but that doesnt mean the amount of ram windows uses is what you need.

Built my own PC for DCS a few weeks ago. Gone with 32GB. Worked with my working rig (Lenovo P50) and i can upgrade to 64GB if i want it.

i was recently getting out of virtual memory errors in my error log with DCS in multiplayer.

16gb of RAM and 16gb of page file.

upping it to 32gb of page file got rid of the errors.

but it does mean i will get better performance if I up it to 32gb of RAM.

I dont think I ever actually exceeded 16GB on my machine, even in MP, but I dont have SC module and dont do VR. Nor do I have the channel map. Considering how close to 16GB I do get (especially online), I have little doubt any of those things will push you over the 16GB edge and upgrading to 32GB is definitely worth it.

The only reason Im still on the fence, is my fear running 4 dimms, my DDR4 speeds might be knocked back to 2400 speeds, and I do know that makes an astonishing FPS difference (scales linearly with ram speed). So I may just buy 2x16GB dimms and then see if I can run 2 new and 2 old dimms together at 3200 speeds for 48GB or if Im better off donating my existing 16GB.

But for now, I just diligently close background apps.

Will DCS use 32 gb of RAM?

Will DCS use 32 gb of RAM?

@vertigo72: Have you ever heard about using quad channel memory Threadrippers or Intel-X machines?

If more bandwith is better than rising speeds on memory?

Because if memory is key, quad channel should have an impact too, no?

And, for the same price, if I can abuse a little: given the fact that most maps have near 70 GB: Have anyone tried 128 Gb of memory. (I don´t even know if the game would use those resources if you provide them. Maybe not).

The short answer is yes you will have an advantage. but don't expect a whole new experience.

My personal rig has 32 Gb and while playing DCS my pc very consistently uses about 24gb actively. A buddy of mine went from 16 Gb to 32 a few weeks ago and he noticed an improvement. particularly in the reduction of studders. page files can help but memory is far faster than storage. he had been having issues with crashes on large multiplayer servers like AO.

At this point for me personally, I would not build a computer that has less than 32gb. However, if you're on an older system 16 is still sufficient for a lot of things, and buying "new" DDR3 isn't something id recommend. Maybe find some second-hand sticks out there, a boost to 24 or 32 Gb will likely help. But again, don't expect a whole new experience.

@vertigo72: Have you ever heard about using quad channel memory Threadrippers or Intel-X machines?

Yes, not much use when our desktop cpu's have only dual channel memory controllers (and therefore typically 2 sticks)

If more bandwith is better than rising speeds on memory?

Increasing memory speed does two things: it increases bandwidth and it reduces absolute memory latency (for instance a 15 CAS latency stick means 15 clock cycles latency. 15 clock cycles takes more time if those clock cycles are slower, ie if your memory runs fewer cycles per seconds, ie, at a lower frequency. Usually you need to increase CAS latency settings to get higher clockspeeds, but if you do the math, absolute latency in nanoseconds still almost always goes down).

They may both matter, which is most important in DCS, I havent tested that. usually latency matters most, but DCS performance is unusual so who knows.

Because if memory is key, quad channel should have an impact too, no?

And, for the same price, if I can abuse a little: given the fact that most maps have near 70 GB:

You mean size on disk? Thats not how it works. Doesnt tell you anything about ram usage.

I´ve allways heard that: On Quad channel memory you gain bandwith but allways loose some Mhz on those CPUs, so not worth the investment. Thanks.

Thats yet another issue, cpu clock speed. I was talking about memory speed. And to make it even more confusing, there is yet another clock speed that may matter, that is the integrated memory controller. That latter is usually linked to the CPU clock speed, and I wouldnt be surprised that is actually the main reason why "high clock" cpu's are faster in DCS Because the IMC runs faster, which reduces memory latency. That may matter more than the actual cpu clock.

Either way Threadripper runs at almost the same (boost) frequency as its desktop counterparts. And it will boost to its max clock all day long if you run DCS and thus only stress 1 core. You're not really losing much there.

Where you may lose is memory latency, because threadripper cpu's have near and far memory. The near memory they can access directly, like a ryzen. The far memory requires a hop to another core complex. Easier shown than explained:

https://images.idgesg.net/images/article/2018/08/die_top_2950x_updated-100768695-orig.jpg

Then again, because you have 4 channels, and because you have a ****ton more L2 and L3 cache, aggregate latency might still go down compared to a dual channel desktop chip. And bandwidth will definitely go up.

How all of that relates to DCS performance; we're not gonna know unless someone tests it, but I wouldnt be surprised it actually does extremely well. It seems wasteful to pay for 24 cores when you only need one or two, but I wouldnt be one bit surprised if threadripper is the fastest cpu for DCS. Even if its for all the wrong reasons.

It seems the new Ryzen3 arquitecture could improve all that you have said.

But I want to wait to socket AM5 and DDR5, but the waiting is killing me.

Maybe i will end up with one of those Ryzen3 and change the system when DDR5 gets into full glory.

Maybe I can entertain me on the waiting with a new Tiger Lake ultrabook and kill the time a little.

Let´s see how it goes from here.

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.