New PC build 32 gig or 64 gig ram

[Rubber Biscuit]

I am building a new PC for VR with RTX-4090, not sure on CPU yet still waiting on upcoming reviews for Intel & AMD along with pricing.

I guess it’s smart to get all the ram you will need in 2 sticks vs 4 sticks for performance and compatibility.

is 32 gigs enough for DCS, have you seen the demand go higher than 32 gigs and will 64 make a difference.

Most likely I will go with DDR5.

64 gigs will add a bit more on a already costly build.

maybe getting better quality 32 gigs would be money better spent then going for 64 gigs.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Rubber Biscuit

[chroma_aus]

Go for 32 gigs in 16x2, you can always upgrade later if needed. Right now, DCS's major memory-related bottleneck is VRAM, and while it'll allocate everything you give it memory-wise, not all of it actually gets utilised and so the performance improvement with more memory will be minimal.

[Mr_sukebe]

I regularly see usage above 32GB.  Most I've seen was just over 50GB, though that was not just DCS.  Was also running:

 - DCS server for a multiplayer game

- Oculus

 - Simshaker

 - Voiceattack

 - Discord

 

[Exorcet]

My 32 GB machine did fine on RAM, but I haven't used it to play DCS in years. I'm currently at 64 GB and RAM is a non issue for me, not just with DCS but also having browser tabs, or video editing going on in the background at the same time. It's nice having essentially infinite RAM, even if it might be overkill. Whether that is worth paying for is up to you. My 16GB laptop does not have this luxury, so I know for sure that the sweep spot is somewhere between 24 and 64 GB.

[chroma_aus]

23 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

I regularly see usage above 32GB.  Most I've seen was just over 50GB, though that was not just DCS.

Allocation =/= usage. DCS is designed to allocate as much memory as it can to itself, which can appear as usage in Task Manager. It doesn't necessarily mean it's using all of it, just that it's holding it reserved - this is why lots of people can have good performance with <64GB, and still see enormous memory usage the moment they upgrade. 

Even when you do have usage higher than 32 gigs (possible in the case of users like yourself), a lot of the data DCS stores is not high priority, like unloaded terrain, and you won't see performance suffer even if it's streamed occasionally from an SSD pagefile. With that and the price of DDR5 in mind, 64 gigs just doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

[LucShep]

14 hours ago, chroma_aus said:

Allocation =/= usage. DCS is designed to allocate as much memory as it can to itself, which can appear as usage in Task Manager. It doesn't necessarily mean it's using all of it, just that it's holding it reserved - this is why lots of people can have good performance with <64GB, and still see enormous memory usage the moment they upgrade. 

Even when you do have usage higher than 32 gigs (possible in the case of users like yourself), a lot of the data DCS stores is not high priority, like unloaded terrain, and you won't see performance suffer even if it's streamed occasionally from an SSD pagefile. With that and the price of DDR5 in mind, 64 gigs just doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

I have to disagree. And that is from personal experience, along with many others in these forums.

I used to have 32GB of RAM and 32GB set in pagefile (virtual memory), thinking -like you do- that it must be more than enough, that everyone else advocating for 64GB of RAM must be wrong, as that is generally considered an exaggerated ammount.

The problem is, DCS is an anomaly. It can and will use (not allocate, use) more than 32GB.
Same thing for the VRAM usage. It can and will easily surpass 8GB of VRAM usage (not allocated, usage) with almost any module and maps combination.
With high settings and 4K or VR, one may even see upwards of 14GB of VRAM used (again, not allocated, used). Quite problematic, as most people are still using GPUs with 8GB.
Now, once all VRAM is used, what happens next is that the system will have instead to feed more RAM (already highly used) to this hungry game, and you can imagine the rest...

Pick the latest and/or highest detailed modules and maps (f.ex, F-14 in Syria) and get in a busy online MP server with a complex mission. 
My own experience then was like this... the 8GB VRAM of my GPU were almost imediately used, the 32GB of RAM that I had would eventually be totally used, and of course, the pagefile (virtual memory, much much slower, even on NVME) would have a large chunk increasingly used as well. 
...I prefer not to remember the st-t-t-t-ttuttering back then!

I'm still lusting for a stronger GPU with more VRAM (can't do it atm) but, once I upgraded to 64GB RAM (and with only 1GB-2GB set on pagefile) I never had the same problem, with no other changes, with same missions and on same servers.

64GB of RAM for DCS?
Maybe not necessary if you just do very simple SP missions on Caucasus map.
But, looking at the price of RAM these days (just compare it to GPU prices!), and knowing how much it benefits experience with DCS, I'd say... "just do it!" (ASAP)

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by LucShep

[okletsgo]

Definitely 64GB. I regretted getting 32GB on my last build. Upgrading is not as easy as some say, higher speed RAM and timings does not play well with four sticks. Get 2x32GB now and be done with it.

[Rubber Biscuit]

This is a very interesting discussion, unfortunately there is little real world testing. Just seeing how much ram is being used doesn’t tell how that captured ram is actually used or how it effects the performance ( fps ).

There are lots of game testing videos in regards to hardware  but almost none cover the unique demands of DCS.

the best way to tell is to run a system with 32 gig then switch to 64 gig and record the difference on a server load or Syria map.

Building a DCS VR system it getting expensive and deciding where to spend to maximize performance is challenging, to get the most out of your investment and not creating a bottleneck holding back overall performance.

It’s also easy to over spend building a system for little performance gain.

as a side note:     i am beginning to think that the computing power needed to run DCS is one reason holding back DCS from becoming more main stream.

 

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Rubber Biscuit said:

It’s also easy to over spend building a system for little performance gain.

as a side note:     i am beginning to think that the computing power needed to run DCS is one reason holding back DCS from becoming more main stream.

Yep. Absolutely agree on both accounts.

Regarding the demanding requirements of DCS, it's been always like that (increasingly so), and I suspect the devs are aware that it is another thing holding back more popularity of DCS. More so than the complexity and steep learning curve. It is extremely demanding on hardware resources, even compared to closest competitors.

One of the issues is the inconsistency of performance.
If you just use FC3 aircraft on Caucasus, and in SP, it can be demanding on resources but it's manageable, it's not outrageous.
It's once you pick the higher detailed modules and maps (and when combined), and especially in MP, that things become really complicated with resources. 
The point is, most people into DCS are (or will eventually be) using those higher detailed modules and maps, so...... 

For example, the usage of overkill size textures and formats on everything (which highly increases VRAM usage, and much bigger files in disk, packed and constantly processed from inside the ZIP packages in the game), has been one of the things that, for a long time, the community has asked to have it revised.
However, the response has been none to vague, and things seem to remain as is.
 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by LucShep

[C3PO]

Just go 128GB. Because in a few weeks everyone will be recommending that!

[BitMaster]

Thing is, if you buy 2x 16GB now, DDR5-First_Releases, chances are high you won't find a matching pair in a relatively short time when they have moved forward with DDR5 production.

2nd, right now, with 670 and maybe also the B-chipset, at this moment, they do not run with 4 modules across the board. There are ZERO 4-module kits on sale, among other promised features still not available.

If you buy 32GB now, you might end up buying a 2nd kit, 2x32GB whenever you realise 32GB dont cut it anymore. You wouldnt be the first one to learn it this hard way tbh.

Edited October 6, 2022 by BitMaster

[okletsgo]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:42 PM, C3PO said:

Just go 128GB. Because in a few weeks everyone will be recommending that!

No, I don't think that's a good suggestion.

 

[Ganesh]

May I just jump in here with a similar question that fits the topic?

I'm building a used rig right now and the only thing missing is RAM.
Have two used to choose from:

32GB (2x16) 3200 CL14 (should be B-die) 150€
or for 20€ more
64GB (4x16) 3600 CL18 (something worse) 170€

Which one should I take for VR ONLY?

Rest of the system:
Asus ROG z490 gaming / 10900k / 3090ti

Thanks in advance
Ganesh

Update: I took the 64 GB for 165€. That will be enough until the next upgrade to something with ...X3D
Thanks for the help

Edited October 9, 2022 by Ganesh
Update

[LucShep]

46 minutes ago, Ganesh said:

May I just jump in here with a similar question that fits the topic?

I'm building a used rig right now and the only thing missing is RAM.
Have two used to choose from:

32GB (2x16) 3200 CL14 (should be B-die) 150€
or for 20€ more
64GB (4x16) 3600 CL18 (something worse) 170€

Which one should I take for VR ONLY?

Rest of the system:
Asus ROG z490 gaming / 10900k / 3090ti

Thanks in advance
Ganesh

3200 CL14 is great, but 3600 CL18 is also very good for Intel 10th gen "Comet Lake".
Speed/Latency wise, and in practice, you won't really notice any performance difference between the two (I know this myself because as I tested that thorougly with mine).
So, go for the 64GB kit. 

PS: with 4 sticks of RAM in the motherboard, and after loading the XMP profile of RAM in BIOS, you may find necessary (for rock solid stability) to slightly increase (+0.05v) the DRAM voltage to 1.40v (instead of the default 1.35v of XMP profile). Totally safe, no downsides.

Edited October 8, 2022 by LucShep

[Ganesh]

Am 8.10.2022 um 21:01 schrieb LucShep:

For Intel 10th gen, you won't really notice any performance difference between the two (I know because I tested that throrougly with mine).
So, go for the 64GB kit. 

PS: with 4 sticks of RAM in the motherboard, you may find that, after loading the XMP profile of RAM in BIOS, that it's better to slightly increase (+0.05v) in DRAM voltage, to 1,40v (instead of the default 1.35v of XMP profile). Totally safe, no downsides.

 

Oh that's great that you've already gained experience there and thanks for the tip increasing the voltage.
Where the CL 18 is really poor in comparison, since the "new" MB could squeeze a lot out of the 3200.
But doubling the amount... might be wiser, especially for VR.


Update: I took the 64 GB for 165€. That will be enough until the next upgrade to something with ...X3D
Thanks for the help

Edited October 9, 2022 by Ganesh
Update

[Steel Jaw]

64 no question 

[Rubber Biscuit]

Ok

DDR4 3600 10ns cas 16 64gig @ 190.00 or 

DDR5 6000 12ns cas 36 32gig @ 229.00

[BitMaster]

DDR4 64GB was my answer