32GB vs 64GB: Do you REALLY need 64GB in MSFS 2024?

[@vrj0]

To understand memory performance: When you have 32GB of RAM, Windows starts managing memory well before it's full - unlike a wine barrel that needs to overflow first. This process begins at around 70% usage (22GB), when Windows moves data to the disk, causing performance drops. Many incorrectly believe this only happens near maximum capacity but the impact starts much earlier. (Page Thrashing, Memory Paging)

[@Belfran]

Thanks! That's what I see when running the sim IRL 😊, for a 2 hrs flight, I will run also, swift (showing Vatsim traffic), lnm, Virtual Airline's ACARS, Jeppessen charts/Foreflight (just to confirm LIDO) and Onenote for note taking, Outlook for work and YT to write this comments😊. 32GB ehhhh NO!

[@TheGodfatherUk]

Finally someone who understands ram a little how it works 😅 Whilst these videos are nice and I do agree with the statement that it's not a golden bullet but I think David hasn't fully understood how ram paging in windows in general works. Msfs ultimately is still an x86/x64 program and is bound by the logic of how Windows and DX works. The crutch for me with ms2024 is the heavy reliance on the Azure platform. You can have all the CDNs in the world but you'll still have a little bit of latency even on a 2.5gb connection because lots of systems have to process data. I feel there needs to be an option where you can cache up to say 5-10 potential routes you will do and it's rolling. Bottom line, if Airbus and Boeing simulators operate at 24fps, I'm sure we can all put up with a high 20's low 30's right

[@BenBensen293]

And if you have more Ram, your system will use more Ram. Then you can think about it like a messy room. It’s far easier to find things in a 10m^2 room then in a 20m^2 room.

[@Silicone2Software]

​@@BenBensen293 I guess if all your junk has a address you can find everything at While I understand your analogy, there is no replacement for displacement (Another analogy about the size of car engines) your memory is neatly organized. everything that goes in has an address and everything that needs to read the memory will know the address of that. it is true that the more RAM you have the more windows will use but it's not exponential. if you are using 8 GB at idle when you first start up your computer you may end up using 10 at idle The biggest issue people with 32 GB are having right now is the computer starting to manage memory once it goes over a 60% threshold. there is no way to adjust this. so to take your analogy of a room that's bigger and messy imagine if you were trying to retrieve items from that room but two people were also trying to do it at the same time. if you were running in and out of the room and the other people were crawling in and out of the room every time you guys bumped into each other in the doorway you would have to wait. once they get out of the way then you can go in and get what you want. This can be negated by the rams bandwidth (a larger door) and speed (they are forced to run in and out) The game will probably never use more than 32 gigs in its vanilla state but as soon as you have programs running in the background or have a really complex add-on the computer is going to push everything unrelated back onto the drive and when something else needs that information it'll have to swap more stuff out to put that information it previously swapped out back in. I know I'm repeating myself here but I like your room explanation. but I'm also hoping to educate anyone else who comes along

[@pilotstiles]

I believe all these issues is from the fact it’s streaming. I have a fiber connection with a gig connection. When I load into an airport at 4K it takes forever to load. I have 32gb of ddr4, 5800X, and a 4080. I can’t stand cloud gaming and hope they allow us to install what we choose I think most simmers would not mind a 1.5TB install if the game worked well.

[@ParallaxEffect]

it's only streaming assets, not code. but I agree, that can contribute to stutters. That said, I think the streaming stutters are minimal vs the crappy game engine they've not improved since 2020. All they've done is heap more assets into it and bloated it.

[@ParallaxEffect]

the sim is 99% optimized for xbox and game pass sales, and 1% for high end sim setups. Sorry. the 'fact' asobo will never admit.

[@Mikinct]

​@ParallaxEffect what? How so? Many sacrifices are made to allow a complex sim to work on xboxes S & X. You seldom get ultra graphics. LOD is worse on xbox. Buildings pop in later and don't see city skylines from a distance. There are no options for manual cache nor adjustments for turning plane graphics down & terrain up.

[@merts.5815]

bro click market place after that my library and disable continents that you dont use, maybe it helps.

[@JovansAviation]

you can mate! change the rolling cache in the online section of settings and put it to as many gbs as you want. it does help quite a bit, afterwards you can limit the network bandwidth to 100 mbps as well if you want to. i believe the rolling cache is set to 16gb as default

[@aboriani]

I swear, I clicked not once, but twice on the START button during the intro

[@Michealschatbox]

Habit lol

[@rakon8496]

That nears the "main thread issue" down to 2 options: A. They spent all that extra CPU power gained by the new system "3 times more (fps)" on increasing visual assets or B. The recommendation for 4K/Ultra optimal settings is stated as 12 core CPU, on an airport it could just need the extra threads. I am running a similar system and i tend to believe i will try the +4 extra cores option, despite the reports of loosing some performance due to the double CCD interconnect. If the load is spread out over more then 16 threads it should help. Thank you! 💙

[@micsunday14]

At 1440 p. I havent seen the game ask for more than 22gb of my 32. Why wpuld i need 64?

[@49537480]

I upgraded my ram from 32gb to 64gb for msfs2020 and it certainly made a difference to my fps and smoothness when flying out of London City Airport. Using the developer monitor it showed the peak ram needed was over 32gb that's why I was experiencing stutters and frame freezes.

[@ItsRobert1]

It might also matter what Nvidia driver you’re on I was on 566.14 it’s not a good one. I rolled back to 565.90 butter smooth.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

I see 34gb to 36gb over London, and I have seen as high as 38.12gb over NYC. Not running anything else, only MSFS 2024.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

Today, I peaked out RAM use to *38.12gb*. I am running a high end system at 4K at Ultra. I hit 34 gb to 36gb quite often over big metro areas.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

New peak. 40.556gb. IFR in broken low clouds over LA for landing at Santa Monica. 4K resolution.

[@klasdillon]

@@shenmisheshou7002 Interesting. I also run pretty high settings at 4K. I'm on 32GB of RAM. Never thought RAM could be an issue until now.... Just bought 64GB of RAM, lol....

[@shenmisheshou7002]

@@klasdillon I don't know how much difference it would make because I bought the 64gb ram when the first specs were published so I had it before I installed 2024. Since writing the above, I did hit over 40gb flying an F-18 at night over the NY City Metro on a cloudy night. I also have fast ram 6000mhz with 30CL timing but if you are not aware, one has to enable EXP on Intel systems for the memory to run at faster than 4800mhz. Turning on XMP and using one of the provided overclock profiles gave me the biggest improvement in smoothness that I have ever gotten. (EXPO is used in AMD systems).

[@GreggRoberts]

The only time you need more ram is when you run out. I have been hitting a total of 36GB when running the sim. If you upgrade to 64GB make sure you get 2x32 and not 4x16. Not to change the subject, but I still have sometimes extreme difficulties with rudder sensitivity.

[@H001_Gaming]

Finally the video we need. Thanks alot.

[@stormbirdweather7047]

I have 32 and run a default sim with Fenix 320 in VC (TrackIR). It runs butter smooth, better than any sims I have used earlier. I have not checked my FPS, I have learned a long time ago not to stare at a FPS counter if the sim works well. I will just annoy me.

[@pengwin_tech]

What I found was that if you had MSI Afterburner graphic on the screen and were running any popout panels (weather, view, etc) it greatly affected the FPS.

[@ahowlettuk]

My rig had 16gb. 2 days ago I put in 64gb and it's a total game changer. No stutters. On task manager I was using 30.7gb over London. I thought 64gb may be overkill.. ...but apparently not. Well worth the investment in my rig and Vengeance Pro LED looks really cool too!

[@FJano12]

How about ram speed? 8000 mhz vs 6000? Higher 1 percent lows?

[@tedtedsen269]

6000/8000 and all ram is labeled in mhz which is not THE true SPEED that 6000 or 8000 or all ram modules transfer rate is 6000/8000 and transferrate is not measured in MHZ but megabits per sec THEY ARE REAL GENUINE 6000 RAM BUT NOT IN MHZ BUT TRANSFERRATE and transferrate is not messured in mhz

[@stacyhill5978]

Yes my 32gb gets used up many times on fs2024 as does my rtx 4070 super 12gb. I run 4k and mostly high settings lod at 100 so yes if you play 4k you need 64gb and 16gb card.

[@eracer1111]

If anyone asks me I always tell them 64GB (2x32GB kit) if they can afford it. As with so many things, having it and not needing it is always better than needing it and not having it.

[@BeaumaraisFranz]

Fully agree in that.its like horsepower the more the better.i made my New pcbuild directly with 64gigs and 2tb nvme gen4. It runs so smooth.

[@LightsAcapella]

Regardless of what the game demands, you will always have systemwide benefits from increasing memory capacity just in RAM caching alone.

[@MSFerrari248F1]

Asobo had 4 years to optimize this game and it’s a shame that the game is still very CPU bound.

[@Simonmall719]

Just so you guys know how high ram can go, I can get over 52Gb of ram usage and 22Gb of vram on my system, however i do push my graphics to max possible, 5120x1440 ultra widescreen (11% less pixels than full 4K), all setting maxed out and LOD of 400 terrain and 300 objects, using an RTX 4090, 7900x cpu 64GB of DDR5 at 6000Mhz. so 64GB is a must for max graphics at high res, but even on slighter lower setting 64GB does seem to make it smoother, it did in 2020 too

[@johnboy8846]

I'm more worried about bandwidth, I've only got 50mb download so worried the sim will stutter because of that. I see on the built in counter bandwidth is included. It would be good to see a flight over demanding terrain showing the bandwidth counter to see whether my connection would be good enough

[@707liner8]

Totally agree - I only have 38-39 mbps max and am holding off buying 2024 until I'm confident it's going to be playable. You see so many videos talking about FPS but I haven't seen any where FPS relative to bandwidth is investigated.

[@rakon8496]

@@johnboy8846 over high quality cities my 94mbit are often limiting... Workaround is for me to use 500 GB of cache and do the first fly over in a very slow aircraft e.g. the "flying ventilator". 💚

[@ChrisM541]

So much for the promise that MSFS 2024 would be significantly rewritten to much, much better take advantage of multiple threads. Clearly, that is NOT the case. 99% of the crucial CPU work in preparing each frame for pass-over to the GPU is STILL handled by that same 'single core'. Yes, not every workload is parallelizable, but it is blatantly obvious MS/Asobo have done nothing with this to improve on MSFS 2020.

[@Patrick_AV]

What a bs. 2024 runs much smoother then 2020.

[@OldGold-v9v]

@@Patrick_AV look at the Main thread at JFK with the Inibuilds A330 and not even with a 3rd party airport.

[@OldGold-v9v]

it was just a gimmick for a possible "upgrade" Same old Issues but on a new sim.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

I think you are mistaken. If you look at performance metrics for some mid level setups, you will see that the CPU latency is not much different from 2020, but the CPU is handling far more advanced object and terrain level detail at about the same CPU latency as 2020 had. Meanwhile, where the CPU main thread was almost always the limit, now we see cases where a well balanced system can have GPU latenccy that is similar or higher (GPU limits framerate) than with 2020. It is significanly better at managing the processor core workload.

[@ChrisM541]

@@shenmisheshou7002 The CPU limits framerate far more than the GPU for a game as CPU bound as MSFS. Ad a dev myself, I should remind you that most of the time/work spent generating any frame takes place within the CPU. The more calculations/processing a CPU has to do to build each frame then the more that frame/game becomes CPU bound...as we see with MSFS. MSFS 2024 is still very significantly multithread un-optimised, unfortunately. That's not to say what MS/Asobo have achieved with v2024's improvements isn't remarkable. It is.

[@mulishamccoy]

Turn off the data sampling for cpu power. watch your lows not dip as much. i did it in amd and msi afterburner and my 1% lows are much better i still get stutters but I'm guessing it's from streaming and it's only in the 373 airliner.

[@mulishamccoy]

I turned off all data sampling and background recording noticeably better fps from 40 to 60-90 in the 737 on high-end settings. But the stutters just won't go away no matter what in the 737.

[@rondeldebbio9219]

It appears that msfs 2024 doesn't utilize the code in the graphics card that it should. You can tell by looking at the frame rate and the % of the GPU. If msfs utilized the graphics code to its max then a 4090 card should give 60-70 frames in 4k ultra high settings. Modern games are designed around this as well as gaming monitors with their refresh rates and response times. Flight Sims in general, for whatever reason can't utilize NVIDEA'S 4090 code the way it should. Some day maybe.

[@alanwright4575]

I was only watching the bandwidth used. Apart from one spike to 140 the sim seems to be under reporting bandwidth usage. I can fly over London city airport jammed to my maximum 56-60 mbps for most of the hop to London Heathrow yet still have poor visuals the fps counter can bounce between 15 and 90. I have tried from lowest settings to highest settings and just cannot find a happy medium. Sometimes before this update(11/12/24) it was improving yet now it’s very unstable. During this video you were taking off from an airport with zero bandwidth usage which I find strange

[@AirNOTT]

Was that Edinburgh? If so it’s a third party airport that’s installed locally

[@alanwright4575]

@ I had orbx southwest and London for MSFS2020 it won’t let me download it for MSFS2024 do you need to pay again for all the ORBX CENTRAL STUFF

[@jay-rus4437]

I jumped up to 64, bit likely didnt think it would make any significant difference

[@nielsdelange3602]

I have a 14700k with 64gb of ram and my system runs like butter I think you just need more cores.

[@Silicone2Software]

idk I have a second PC that I upgraded to 64GB DDR5 6400 and 7700x and it really smoothed everything out and did give a 15 FPS boost to the 99% and 20ish over all. The GPU is a rx6800 at 1440p what I think happens to a lot of people is they go over 65% memory utilization and the computer starts swapping stuff out. and since everything is streamed to the memory here when you start moving anything out of the memory even if it's not game related onto the hard drive / SSD it's a pretty big performance penalty and that's why you get those micro stutters. as your OS installation ages and you download more programs and use your computer more it will slowly creep up in its idle usage. so even somebody with 64 gigs can end up in the situation where they're PC is swapping tons of stuff out despite having 64 gigs everything is growing after all. I'd still recommend at least 8 cores and 64GB ram. Even if you have to get a slightly older a core processor over something like a 7600 ryzen. This game does not care about SMT/Hyper threading and will saturate a 6 core. It will use up to 12 threads my buddy with a 7950X3D gets slightly better performance than my 9800x3d system both have a 7900XTX.

[@Silicone2Software]

you also have a major point with add-ons. once they start becoming plentiful on 2024 you're going to need more than 32 GB or you're going to be doing tons of swapping in and out of the page file.

[@ParallaxEffect]

This video is quite misleading - the significant resolution / graphics setting impact on FPS has very little to do with RAM pressure, and a lot to do with an extremely poorly optimized, stutter fest of a game engine that has not improved, or perhaps, has gone backwards vs 2020. Perfect example - go to a forested area and fly over it on trees with medium vs high. First of all, it looks pretty bad, worse than 2020, on medium, because trees are too thin, but notice the 20% FPS boost you get vs high. This has zero to do with RAM. Resolution has a massive impact too. This is a very, very GPU hungry 'game' with the same or worse asset loading stutters as 2020, and it has very little to with memory pressure.

[@ParallaxEffect]

the only exception is if you were very CPU bound before, there are some optimizations to improve multi threading. That, and the default settings for the sim are very very low, so people think 'it runs great' or 'is smoother than 2020' but its ONLY because of those two things (they had a sh*t CPU, or their settings are way lower than 2020 equivalent), it has nothing to do with Asobo successfully improving the overall performance of the game engine. They haven't. It's worse.

[@AirNOTT]

I think the extra ram is important, as discussed at Edinburgh when we were using close to 41GB. It’s too bad the sim is a stuttery mess right now, I was having the same issues on takeoff from jfk at 1080p with DLSS. Best I can do right now is run at medium to have a semi decent experience. Hopefully once things settle down and the sim starts to behave a bit more, the benefit of the extra will be more noticeable.

[@michelcoogan]

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec cette affirmation, les defis de courses sont un bon exemple, avec FS2020 je ne les faisais pas, trop de begaiement, ici j'ai presque l'impression d'un jeu d'arcade (trop d'ailleurs....), fluide, rapide, pas de bégaiement, par contre au préalable j'ai opté dans les parametres pour un cache de 32 go, ca aide grandement pour ma part. (config : ryzen 7 5800x, 32 Go, 2080 8Go, fibre a 1gb/s, dlss sur qualité, réglage sur haut, je pousse a ultra dans les campagnes, et je tourne a 35 à 50 fps sur mes 3 écrans 5840*1080, ou 60 a 70 fps quand je n'utilise qu'un écran, 1920*1080.)

[@ParallaxEffect]

​@@AirNOTT It's honestly been so disappointing for me, I really hope you're right. I'm 4090 / i9 13900k / 32GB (no interest in increasing that as it will only be a waste of $$).

[@ParallaxEffect]

@@michelcoogan ​ It's simple - you were CPU limited before and now you aren't. Your situation is the only one they optimized for as, guess what, it's most similar to the xbox they're really focussed on. And by the way, 1080p DLSS quality is actually 712p, did you know that? you're only rendering 712x1267pixels, or 712*3801pixels on your 3 screens. Thats 2,705,600 pixels or 1/4 the resolution of 4k! That's devastatingly low resolution, sorry to say, for a 2080. I'd damn well hope you get 60 fps! I'm not sure what was wrong with your 2020 setup - could have been CPU limited, could have been something else, but your new setup might feel good, but that's it. In reality asobo should be ashamed, really.

[@Daveodaddeo101]

I’m using the AMD 7800X3D with a Radeon RX 7900XT and 32GB DDR5 RAM running at 6000hz. Even at inbuilds LHR I’m getting low 40s and setting are at their highest. Perhaps DDR5 is the key?

[@andybrockbank3027]

Perhaps lowering expectations is the key.

[@HarleyDson]

I have 32gb ddr5 and don't stream. The problem is using too many programs while playing. I play and use simdashboard and have stream opened because that's how I launch the game and I'm right around 28 out of 32 no issues. Ryzen 9 7900x 3090ti 32gb ddr5 4k hangs around 40 to 60 fps

[@ernieworks8932]

Conclusion, you need a 10.000 dollar PC to be able to use MSFS 2024.

[@fafaaaaf-t3o]

what landing addon you use in the video??

[@sonic2000]

Yea could be the network connection I have 1gig and so far so good with ultrawide dlss on at high

[@AirNOTT]

I have 900 down 400 up, don’t think it’s that. Sim seems much better these days vs when I recorded this

[@sonic2000]

@ they probably squashed a lot of bugs between the time you recorded and today

[@Sean_Coyne]

If you think the sim is hard at 4K, try VR with a Pimax Crystal at 4312 x 5102 "native resolution" per eye. With a 5800x3D and a 4090, I'm never CPU bound. I upped my RAM to 64GB, and it did give a somewhat smoother performance, but like you, no magic bullet. I tested FS2020 vs FS2024 yesterday; on the same settings I could get 63fps on the old sim in VR and was lucky to get 40-45fps on FS2024. FS2020 also looked sharper with better ground textures and less glare on the windscreen. Sadly, despite all new the eye candy, a work in progress atm.

[@Ajvella31]

How are you getting msi afterburner and reva tuner overlay working in the game? Mine crashes on start up until i turn it off

[@vutti2893]

I find the whole ‘hardware’ issue totally confusing!! Still flying 2020 and have absolutely NO plans to install 2024. What are the advantages?? My Ryzen/Nvidia (top end spec for both) will still occasionally result in minor stutters……so what’s the answer?? The question was rhetorical

[@CyberSystemOverload]

The only two arguments for 2024 are the vastly improved terrain & vegetation and that very nice flight planner (with airport charts from Lufthansa).

[@alicurran1743]

DLLA and Frame generation worked for me (32Gb, 5800x and 4080 super so broadly comparable to your rig) at 1440p getting a steady 50+ FPS, buttery smooth and dials etc all readable. Getting a solid 35 fps in VR (Quest 3)

[@ParallaxEffect]

so you're actually getting 25fps at 1440p on a 4080. Honestly that's abysmal. What did you get in 2020? let me guess, much, much higher. Nice, well done asobo for relying on frame gen so you dont need to make your game engine work well.

[@alicurran1743]

@ParallaxEffect true but in fairness, I find VR a LOT smoother in 2024, I always struggled in 2020 (no frame gen in VR) I also find 2024 looks a LOT better, but that's subjective I guess.

[@ParallaxEffect]

@@alicurran1743 its because they apply copious amounts of sharpening to the image. And you were likely CPU limited before. So its the appearance of improvement vs real improvement. But happy for you nonetheless!

[@chrisrm18]

You get the exact same performance I get with a 5700x (not x3d) and a 7900xt with 32gb ram. The game's performance is just capped I believe.

[@ThisCrazyLifeOfFive]

What PC would you buy off the shelf if you just wanted to play with your kids and have fun. For this game.

[@remycroese8843]

In my opinion it depends largely on your internet speed. In my case I am runnig a PC with following specs: i7 7700, 32GB RAM, RTX 3060, 2TB SSD drive and... 1GB internet connection. And guess what, even with most settings on high and ultra the sim runs remarkebly smooth. And with MSFS2020 it is slightly the opposite. There I have most settings on high and some on medium. It runs relatively smooth (fps between 30 and 40), but is coud be better.

[@williammcdonald5325]

MSFS 2024 multicore threading seems no better than 2020 single core threading despite hype/hope so far, disappointed. I'm curious to see if win 24H2 is going to be what it's supposed to be & do what it's supposed to do. I also have not retired msfs 2020 yet. My 32gbs of overclocked ram seems sufficient & more vram is the most needed upgrade but not till they get msfs 2024 where it should be according to their claims so I'm paying attention.

[@GreatYTShark]

For the price difference 64gb vs 32gb is a no brainer. Especially for all the background apps that a lot of people having running...Vatsim, OBS, Navigraph, BeyondATC, Fenix, Minicockpit etc. GPU's are the main bottleneck. Unless you have a 4090 everything else will be a compromise.

[@garrethshaw9305]

Afterburner, as you state is reporting all system memory in use - game + windows. MSFS metrics is application specific

[@vincebagadonis8016]

I'm running 128.The truth is, it doesn't do Sh@t

[@beastblood2five]

Ok so I have i9-14900HX RAM: 64.0 GB RTX 4070 Laptop GPU Do I have any luck of getting at least 40 fps at 2k? I just bought the sim

[@driveri1435]

2K should be more than fine.

[@adegreen2731]

Really odd. I have a lot lower spec machine than yours: AMD 570x AM4 motherboard 5600x CPU 16GB RAM ASUS 4070 Super 12GB VRAM Fast M.2 Sandisk Drive 1Gbs Internet connection I set the default quality settings on Ultra and don’t customise Resolution set on 1080p Take off from Edinburgh airport using same plane. I get around 50fps. 23GB out of 16GB RAM used (so paging). Neither CPU or GPU report 100% utilisation (check all cores) and its main thread that’s that’s reported as restricting. Whats your Internet speed? I did notice my download peaked at just over 400Mbs during take off! I have my suspicions it’s an issue to do with multi threading. The more cores you have the more the load is split across them. However, there is still only one instance that needs to deal with the multiple threads, I wonder if the main thread limitation is caused or becomes worse with more cores….

[@alanplayford]

How do you get those metrics displays on top left and top right of the screen, please?

[@Petercrossed]

In the options menu click on developer mode and you will see a menu display on top to choose.

[@AirNOTT]

Left hand side is MSI afterburner. Right hand side is the fps counter built into the sim

[@rideict2874]

Which FPM calculator do you use?

[@zuldo8577]

I was using 32,3 gb RAM out of 32 gb when i arrived at shiphol. Not ideal lol.

[@swagger897]

I’ve got a 5800x3d running stock with a 4080 super and 64gb 2x32 3200 16 running 1440p at ultra settings with common sense LOD settings and get 80-100 on the ground in the fenix Something has to be wrong on your end because we are not getting the same figures.

[@AirNOTT]

What LOD settings? And what do you get taking off on 31L at JFK in the a330? Genuinely curious! I do wonder if the sim is just janky right now leading to inconsistent results

[@swagger897]

@@AirNOTT Damn I had a good reply typed out till youtube refreshed, but LOD's are both at 140, with most all settings at ultra. DoF and motion blur are off, and air and ground traffic are off. In the default A330 on 31L looking at NYC I'm getting 80-90 fps, and at 5000' circling lower Manhattan I'm getting 80-90 in the cockpit looking down to the ground, and 100-120 outside. There are occasional dips to the 60's inside however, but no stutters, everything is smooth. The fenix is about -10 FPS on the same fronts. My biggest suggestion for those running into issues for MSFS24, is if you were a day 1 downloader and had issues downloading or logging in, to do a clean reinstall as some of the packages are mostly corrupt by restarting the downloads. I've seen almost all issues fixed with this being done.

[@DINCA21]

Hi mate a quick question are you using gra[hic preset without frame gen ? The thing is I’ve got 5900x and 4080 , 64gb, and average is 55-86 fps….with fg on and TAA 110%…..at 2k no dlss.

[@AirNOTT]

No frame gen in this video. Just raw numbers

[@DINCA21]

@ that’s make sense …thx for the reply …..but still I think this sim likes more cores on your cpu , just to avoid a bottleneck….is an personal opinion maybe I’m wrong 😑

[@micsunday14]

Are you using 4 x16gb sticks or 2 x 32gb ?

[@MikeWestBastion]

I uninstalled 2024 totally, in comparison I am more than happy with 2020 tbh. I’d rather a functional sim than just eye candy, plus the fact I have invested far too much cash in 2020 to bin it, but at least it works. The idea of streaming a sim of this size is ridiculous, no amount of hardware will correct internet reliability and demand on servers. This idea seems to be where we are at with EV cars yes the concept is good but in real practice, infrastructure isn’t quite there yet.

[@just.play1ng]

There is no way your system is using only 3 GB more than the SIM. This must be the Sim's ram usage

[@Mr.Thompson]

No, Afterburner show memory usage of the whole system. But yeah, windows + background apps use way more than 3 GiB RAM, of course. My explanation would be that the sim's memory usage is the memory the sim allocates regardless of whether its located in RAM or swapped onto the SSD.

[@707liner8]

Very interesting video, and somewhat disappointing that more RAM doesn't equate to better performance . . . Are you able to do some tests with various download speeds? I can only get 38-39 mbps and haven't seen anything comparing 'playability' at different bandwidths.

[@FlightsimGODD]

My guy I’m using 16 running perfectly fine

[@kennymilsom]

Would this be more GPU related ??? Other than Ram ?

[@AirNOTT]

I ran the same takeoff test from JFK 31L in the A330 at 1080p high with DLSS enabled, GPU was totally chilling out and I was getting poor fps and I was limited by my main thread according to the sims built in stats. So, CPU seems to be bottleneck as far as I can tell.

[@HSKproRanger]

Me laughing in the corner with 16 gb, will it work?

[@YTskypoint]

Ill just hope my 7800x3d will save me. Also i should have gone with 48gb ram

[@briank3754]

With a Pimax Crystal you definitely need more than 32.

[@KevinORoss]

Well i have 16gb ram on a 7 year old gaming laptop shit butter smooth on ultra everything

[@CCitis]

I added 2 more sticks of 32 gb ram... my PC started crashing. Any suggestions? Same ram, but years apart buying them.

[@jonathn7079]

Might be because CPU doesn’t support quad channel memory

[@lee4318]

Check the version numbers on the sticks not sure but that might be an issue.

[@CCitis]

@@jonathn7079 should... 5700X3D. Might have to dial down the speed though

[@jonathn7079]

you can try lower speeds but with 4 stick you run into stability issues better to get 2 stick of 32gb

[@AwesomePigeon]

good analysis, I use 32gb ddr5 and dont have to much issue using the sim the same as fs2020 (tabs etx, I am also reluctant to just throw extra sticks in as you cant run 4 sticks of ram at the overclocked speed you paid for yano 4x sticks 5600mhz ddr5 only being ran at base clock 3600mhz (could be wrong on this and would happily be as it would save me cash) so have to save for two new sticks at 64gb. Either way good video as per.

[@Silicone2Software]

I would say as add-ons start to come out and get bigger. DDR5 64GB running at stock speed will be superior to 32 GB at 6000. On my second PC I'm running 4 sticks at 5600 on a 7700x. It's the fastest speed you can officially run DDR5 on AMD. Everything else is not officially supported but works. a few people over on Reddit have had mild success with getting all sticks up to 6,000 megahertz on Crucial B die

[@TheGadgetbadger]

I have TLOD at 50 on the ground and 200 in the air with the auto fps tool. Means I get super fps.

[@TheGadgetbadger]

I don’t get those takeoff issues

[@Thuner67776]

runways and taxiways look bad at tlod 50 sadly

[@TheGadgetbadger]

@@Thuner67776 not for me, I do only use payware airports though

[@jamesm568]

You're wasting your time with 64 GB RAM as 96 GB is the sweet spot.

[@OldGold-v9v]

holy shit the 0.1% lows are absolute terrible!!

[@AirNOTT]

Yeah that was when I went into the gsx menu, popping a menu seems to momentarily tank fps.

[@kosys5338]

@@AirNOTT I noticed that too, switching camera views will do that too sometimes.

[@goalski134]

@@kosys5338same here.

[@MrBigdan90]

upgrading today 16GB to 32GB

[@chrisearlyup]

Nice Video. Thanks for the great information. I started thinking about joining a virtual airline. Do you have a video or any advise on how, what and where? Keep up the great work Cheers 🎉

[@AirNOTT]

We run the AirNOTT virtual airline via Newsky. You’d need a newsky account then you can start applying to join virtual airlines. Up to you if you want to use VatSim or not, I’m not fussed either way so long as you’re all having a good time

[@-thefalcon-]

I skipped 64 and jumping to 96gb why not

[@AirNOTT]

Respect!

[@britfrog]

128gb's of 6400 DDR5 is the sweet spot

[@tomnicholls6086]

Never seen my usage go above 36 of my 64GB. Sim still runs like garbage for me no matter what I tweak, the VRAM of my 4080 Super is instantly maxed and the frame rate crashes. Losing the will to keep trying to get this to run properly and am using the time to catch up on other games for now!

[@CaribFLYChannel]

I bought the game and only flew it 2 times

[@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi]

I dunno, ive got a work computer for grpahics and installed it on it. Ive got one of the fadtest available ssds 128gb DDR5 and a 3080 aorus master watercooled and overclocked along with an i9 14900 and i dont think its about frames and all this bullshit. Its just a crap game. So many bugs, so many problems that just break the immersion. The horrid ai voices being one of the worst bugs.

[@micsunday14]

This game is hard enough to run on its own if you dont have a 9800x3d . You have too much crap open. Or get a laptop to run the extra stuff

[@aixizu]

will you be getting the 9800x3d ?? o:

[@AirNOTT]

At this rate, quite likely!! In fact I’ve just been testing some more and even at 1080p high with DLSS quality running, I’m getting the same fps issues, so I’m thinking it’s my cpu 😩

[@aixizu]

​@@AirNOTT 5800x3d has done very well though!! me going from 2020 to 2024 showed me that i need a new gpu then probably new platform as well since i still have a 3900x paired with a 2070 super !! i'm averaging around 32-35 fps on 1440p but struggling with vram on 2024 so i'm stuck on low/medium/high mixture ;sob;

[@Heebyy]

i uhh i have 16 gb of ram will it be fine or will my pc explode?

[@nawnaw4709]

You may generate a black hole

[@Heebyy]

@@nawnaw4709 pffff black hole shmack hole my rx 580 and 16 gb of ram can do anything ur fancy rtx 4090 with 64gb can

[@vitus619]

​@@nawnaw4709.....lolol...best answer yet...

[@MustafaGT]

My sim is currently using up 34GB of my 64GB. So YES, 64GB is recommended.

[@25rodrigomg]

Same here

[@caribbaviator7058]

Until they fix it. MSFS2020 had ram issues at launch. 64gb is probably never going to be used much less 32gb when its further optimized!

[@bradclooney69]

Seems like AMD users have the most problems currently, it’s a trend. Notice how people running it smooth are on Intel.

[@wetland3010]

Dunno. I changed from Intel to get rid of the stutter. My 5800 X3d runs smooth as silk at 4k. I'm a happy camper. I do run 64 GB ram and 16 GB graphics card 6900XT.

[@320_Crew]

I’ve got 16gigs now and I want to upgrade to 64. I also have an RTX3060 and want to upgrade to a 4070. Do you think it’s a good upgrade?

[@gregstarjun]

Depends on your cpu, usually with a jump like that you will need a cpu as well

[@vrj0]

4070 with the 8GB VRAM will give you serious headache in MSFS and stuttering with good settings. Go AMD and get double or more VRAM for the price. Thats my advice (7800 XT 16GB or 7900XT 20GB). Since MSFS is a freaking VRAM EATER.

[@kosys5338]

Also if you upgrade your CPU you might want to look at the motherboard. It never ends, just have to find the sweet spot that works for you. My ram upgrade turned into a system rebuild, best thing to do is think it out do your research and then make a plan. once you have the plan set stick to it, then work with what you got. Even at the highest end you will run into issues and will be doing a lot of tweaks to dial it in. I am running An X870 motherboard, a 79000X3D CPU, 64 gigs of Fury Ram running at 6400MHZ CLS 32 and a RTX 4080 graphics card. That is relatively high end and I still have to fight to dial it in. It seems the more we get the more we want. I know one thing for sure, the way I run the sim I absolutely couldn't get by with 32 gigs, I too am running around 30 gigs of ram when in the sim. How you use the sim is going to dictate a lot, do like flying airliners with custom airports or are you a GA kinda guy or are you both, do you like to use a lot of addons? These are the things you need to consider when making your game plan. You certainly can have your cake and eat it too, but let there be no mistake that will come at a price. All things considered my sim is running pretty good and I am not maxing out my Vram or my Dram. I run in 4K using DLSS on Quality in the new sim, half my settings on high and half on ultra. P.S. I also learned that the speed of my Ram made a huge difference for me. 6400MHZ down to 3600MHZ is about a 25-30 FPS loss in FPS for me. I also learned that if your going to be running over 6000MHZ then you need to make sure your ram is compatible with your motherboard or you WILL have an unstable system bigtime. Sometimes just upgrading one part will cause bottlenecks elsewhere so gotta do your homework. Also doing a little research first can go a long way in saving you a lot of money later. Cheers and good luck, hope that helps!

[@kosys5338]

When you upgrade ram be sure to check the CVL list and make sure it is compatible with the motherboard you are going to use. It really matters. I have a Dominator Titanium 64 gig Ram kit that I paid over $400 bucks for and it crashed my PC, go figure. That's why I had to switch too the Fury kit. The Dominator was also not on the CVL list for my motherboard where the Fury is, and now my system 100% stable. So be careful when upgrading your ram.

[@kosys5338]

@@vrj0 When I am in the sim with my RTX 4080 I am using up between 8-10 gigs of Vram, normally around 10 gigs. My card has 14 gigs of Vram.

[@Britalex]

I have 2x32gb of ram coming today as my beloved a300 was using 36gb of ram at a default airport with your settings (4080s, 7800x3d). 64gb I'm hoping gives me headroom but I'm convinced this is poor software

[@ettorebugatti6846]

You need a 7800 or 9800X3 CPU (or equivalent) with DDR5 and all you have a serious bottleneck there. I get those frames in VR with 3….x4…. Pixels Per eye.

[@DINCA21]

I think this sim wants more core from the cpu than 3d cache …..😊

[@NightOwlGames]

with only 16GB ram msfs 2020 was using 15GB ram it was stuttering and could i hell open a google page Zzzzz i put 32GB in it, it start using up to 23GB and had 10GB spare the stuttering went away and now i can open google page instantly 32GB was a benefit but feel like 64GB is a waste of money, 32GB is more than fine yes i have backgrund apps and multiple RGB softwares, theres 142 background processes at any time even now not playing anything.

[@RippingWieber]

So amd is the win with 32 gb at 6500 getting 60 fps 1440 with rtx 3080

[@get_outdoors]

Asobo have done us all dirty

[@chelseafc7145]

Thanks for the video as I’ve just upgraded to a 7800x3d with 32gb of ram and now I may need to upgrade to 64gb 😂

[@AirNOTT]

Anything for you, Chelsea 🤙

[@Andy.Gledhill.Models.]

I think once you have 32GB of ram, it may be better to have as much VRAM on your GPU as you can get? Instead of getting another 32GB ram. I only have a RTX 3060, but it has 12GB VRAM. If I were to upgrade to a 4060 (cheapest upgrade option at around £290), maybe I would be worse off because the 4060 only has 8GB VRAM? A 4060TI with 16GB VRAM would set me back between £400 and £550. Price of decent GPU's is a complete joke.

[@ParallaxEffect]

What's best, I found, is to calmly shut down 2024, then re-open 2020, and immediately notice how much higher resolution + FPS + graphics quality you get, and enjoy your life. Even the clouds look better, in my opinion. The ONLY advantage of 2024 is perhaps 1 or two of the 200 new features they built that noone asked for, nicer cliffs, nicer trees and some ground rocks / tire tracks etc for bush flying. Thats IT. In return for that they take $200, make us put up with streaming, created 1000 new bugs, and worst of all took 30% of our FPS / resolution / detail.

[@Andy.Gledhill.Models.]

@@ParallaxEffect I suspect that all the poor performance issues are due to the stupid idea to stream loads of it from the cloud, I reckon that as time goes on, Microsoft will slowly allow us to put more and more onto our hard drives. What's the point of owning a half decent M2 SSD drive if the sim doesn't use much of it?

[@zorbakaput8537]

Pretty much a useless test for anyone but yourself. You talked about some of the software your PC was using. You did not mention iirc your recording software or whether you are using a capture card. Fairly important points I would have thought. A snapshot of the services and programs listed by Task Manager would have made it more informative. The fact that both the GPU and CPU were running at around 45% average tells us very clearly that 2024 is a waste of PC and the user's time at this stage. Any one who buys it and expects smooth performance (regardless of hardware spec) in my opinion needs to get a manager. I suspect another 12 months in the oven is needed before it is properly baked.

[@AirNOTT]

Recording was done on a separate pc

[@LulzSecvirusinvader]

96 gig is optimal for 2024

[@DINCA21]

Incan see you’ve got some bottleneck on the gpu and cpu usage 😢…maybe I’m wrong ….

[@felipeepilefelipe]

Your RAM, processor, etc. does not matters too much to do with this software, remember that it is streamed. MSFS2024 works very similar on Xbox Series X, a console from 4-5 years ago to a 2024 PC… so if it works on Xbox, its obviously that you don’t need the ultimate mega power PC. The problem here is the extremely poor Microsoft/Asobo server bandwidth and the way Asobo delivers the multiple streamed data.

[@mattcrazy7070]

The 64gbs is for when you have a fully detailed airport, traffic, study level airliner, GSX and high graphics. The game uses up to 27gb and 40 for total system

[@georgeandreou695]

I have a 4080 and 13600KF and I've never seen more than 25GB RAM usage in 2024🤔

[@carolebaskin138]

20 fps lol

[@Kreemerz]

I'm sorry was it a yes or no? Too much blabbering. Had to give thumbs down. You have to get to the point quickly

[@AirNOTT]

Maybe try TikTok

[@MegatronRacing237]

Kids with short attention span. Stick to KZbin shorts/TikTok.

[@Sean_Coyne]

@@AirNOTT LOL!

[@TheGarlicMan]

Crazy you get such bad performance. I’m using an i7 14700k 4080 super and 64GB ddr5 6000mhz ram and get 60fps butter smooth b performance with the Fenix

[@andrewnicholls6065]

I've yet to see any video's convincing me to swap to 2024. I'll stick to 2020.

[@ssttiaan]

I don’t really care. Who are you talking to?

[@ReignIsLyfe69]

Nobody's forcing you to choose either, lol. You do what you want with your time. That's what matters.

[@caribbaviator7058]

If you have a crappy rig then stay with 2020! 2024 runs better!

[@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi]

Your right about not changing, modded 2020 is far superior to 2024. I never should have wasted my money on avaiator. Its just so bad.

[@mattcrazy7070]

Nobody cares 😂

[@louislitt530]

Surprising how crap this game runs and it’s streamed!!! 😂