Hey Guys,

I am thinking of adding another 16GB of RAM on my system and was wondering if it will help with DCS Performance.. Currenty here are my specs:

1. Intel 7600K @ 4.7GHZ
2. MSI Z270 SLI Motherboard
3. Corsair Vengence 16GB
4. eVGA 980GTX
5. SoundBlaster Z 5.1 soundcard..
6. Win 10 64bit..
7. Western Digitial VelociRaptor 500GB

I am not looking to get a SSD. I used them and they don't work well for what I do and how I use the PC..

I doubt it. Are you running out of RAM?? Why are you skipping the SSD? I would've thought that'll be the best thing you can do for your system and games... it'll help with loading times and access, but will do nothing for FPS gain. Some people did say it helps with microstutters (accessing the HDD), but not sure how it applies to the current build of whatever DCS branch you're playing.

OK I am going to keep the SSD drive I have and what I did was transfer the DCS World games to that drive we shall see what happens.. it definetely loads quicker.. but I was hoping that adding more RAM might help as well..

I did see a post over at ED Forums with the same question and it seems more say it helped that not.. I will have to run that mission online and see what the ram usage is to determine what I am going to do..

The only game that can "take advantage" of over 8GB of RAM is Batman Arkham Knight, and that is on Windows 10 only. For whatever reason it requires 12GB on Win 10. But remember, that game was so buggy at release it was pulled from sale for months. I think X-Plane might take advantage of it? Some obscure game does. But aside from that, you'd be hard pressed to need over 8GB of RAM for any game. 32GB is entirely overkill unless you're getting into professional video or audio editing. Or something else professional.

I dont think that is correct Flogger..DCS is using a ton of Ram.. Do you play DCS Flogger, because I had 1 mission where the vram alone was almost 11GB Plususing 5GB for the gamealone.. so basically my vram on my vid casrd is 4GB so anything over that it uses RAM. I figure 8+5=13 ram. I just thought maybe Ram was like Hard drive space you need a certain percentage for headroom and such??

So since I was using so much Ram I thought adding 16 more would help stability and such..

"When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory". — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft

Here is one that takes full advantage of 16GB of ram, It loads entire map files onto the ram for faster access and less stutter, all so recommends 4gb or more graphics cards when choosing the option in the settings
Squad


Only a matter of time before 32GB of ram will be the norm for other game manufacturers to take advantage of loading entire games onto ram.

All so, you can buy ram which can function as both a hard drive and access memory for faster Up\Down speeds than ssd's.

Some manufacturers are selling SSD cards that fit into a 16x slots like the graphics cards......only a matter of time before PCI-Express become the norm for hard drives and do away with cables entirely

good luck getting another 16G kit to play well with your current kit

m.2 is faster.

Of all my last 12-months investments, the biggest positive effect on both DCS and CloD were obtained by: a) getting a 8GB VRAM card; b) getting an SSD; c) bumping system RAM from 8 to 16. Exactly in that order.

DCS 2.0 is already extremely VRAM hungry now and I think it's going to stay that way in the future. It also continuously loads lots of assets during flight, especially when using zoom function. That used to cause just too many damn annoying stutters on my older config, when the game ran off HDD, furiously exchanging data between HDD, RAM and VRAM. Buying SSD solved almost all of them, buying new card dealt with the rest.

16 GB of system RAM is enough for small-to medium scale single player missions. People report it's not always quite enough for mulitplayer and bigger scenarios though. Do some tests flying on your favourite servers and monitor total memory usage, including swap file. I would still recommend not giving up on SSD!

You may be correct in stating that a particular game doesn't use more than 8-12GB RAM......however, it really depends what else is going on in your system and what else is taking available resources - its unrealistic for everyone to kill background processes to free up memory every time. A system with 8GB may only have 4Gb available at the point of launching a game and whilst some will be released where available there is no point in strangling a system. There's really no such thing as overkill with system RAM....,the more you have, the more it will be utilised and there are distinct advantages for having more than less.

That is just plain incorrect.

I went from 8GB to 16GB a few months back and noticed zero performance change. A few updates ago DCS started experiencing a lot of stutters. It is worse on the wold map; NTTR is much smoother. This seems to be a DCS problem and likely won't change until the big graphical engine update is released. I even updated my GPU in that time frame and went from 4 to 8GB of VRAM and I still get the stutters. I have never played a game that was limited with 8GB of RAM. Even years ago, 2GB of RAM on Vista running Crysis showed zero performance/load time difference in my casual tests. And we all know Vista was a resource hog compared to Win 10.

Adding over 16GB of RAM for games is like adding in a 1000 watt PSU. It won't hurt, but a quality 550 watt PSU is more than enough for a PC with a top of the line GPU and CPU.

VRAM is entirely different. Games have been using this more and more, and increases in resolution/AA use more VRAM. If you're on 1440P I would get a GPU with 8GB of VRAM... 1080, I would get one with 6GB and no less.



There is truth here, but I would wonder why you would leave so much stuff on. If anything it will have an impact on CPU performance. Just save your work and shut down your programs when you game.



I must be doing something magical with my PC, because I've had zero problems with 8GB of RAM in top of the line games for years. I've yet to see any benchmark site show a performance decrease with only 8GB of RAM.

Assassin's Creed Unity/Syndicate
Metro Last Light
GTAV
DCS World
ArmA 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield 1
Rise of The Tomb Raider
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Mirror's Edge: Catalyst


Some examples of recent games I've tested with both 8GB and 16GB. Zero performance difference, zero load time difference. I've even played Squad fine with 8GB vs 16GB. Zero difference that I could tell although I never ran an FPS counter in that game. But it runs very smoothly.

If you're running out of RAM, especially at 16GB, close Photoshop, ect.!

Err nope. A background process that is loaded into RAM may be idle and not using CPU resources at all (or even if it is could be negligible)......however it still has an allocation of memory. It could be anything from drivers/peripherals, items in the sys tray etc.....I have 32GB RAM and I don't need to shut down programs when I start gaming, that's the point. The game will never be in a position it requires the system to go dumping data to a page file (which is exactly what you don't want happening). Stating that a game doesn't use all the available RAM is not even a quarter of the story......it's not all just about how much a game will take/utilise because even if you have 8GB (pretty much a standard these days) and you know the game/sim you're playing doesn't need more than 3GB, you still have Windows eating 3-4GB and another load of processes in the background eating whatever is there.....drivers/gaming peripherals/joystick mapping software....it all adds up and although Windows is pretty good at releasing RAM to give it to the prioritised apps that need it you're compromising on performance as soon as this happens.

Well if your video card only has 4gb of Vram where do you think it is getting it for the other 7gb it needs?? it takes it from your system memory.. yes it is different but if you don't have the vRam then it has to take it from somewhere.. I am not expecting some miracle cure but IF I am running border line on the amount of memory I am using I figured addidg a bit more for some cushion..

I could just save what I have now and put it towards a new card but theyse new 1080 are pretty spendy still and to get a Ti even more spendy..

Might be proof of the poor coding than actually NEEDING that much RAM.


My recent install of Win10AE (less than 2 months old) shows a steady 4.9GB RAM usage with only my background applications running. Had a few instances of "running out of RAM" but this was more due to a memory issue with Helios. Otherwise, I never really use more than 12GB. Of course, people who do graphics or video production will benefit from more RAM, but this is not the context of RAM usage as per the original post. 16GB kits are cheap and have been so for a while now, so no reason to be running 4GB or 8GB unless on a really tight budget. Adding another 16GB kit or swapping to a 32GB kit (2x 16GB sticks) --- go right ahead if that money is burning a hole in your pocket, but the improvement on performance will not come anywhere near justifying the cost for the additonal kit.

I would say that if you're using more than 5GB RAM on an 8GB RAM setup, it might be time to think about killing some background processes and preventing them from starting up.


I love it how he just says "you're wrong" without even explaining why...


No, no, no, no. Flogger, you're just plain incorrect. This is truth and you'd best accept it because cichlidfan said so.


So something could be running in the background, not using resources, yet is ALLOCATED resources? So you don't need "space," but you're given it anyway, so the rest of the programs have to make-do with whatever space is left?


How did you determine that your game/program needed 13GB vRAM? What game is this? For a game to ask for 13GB vRAM, isn't that just silly? Maybe tone down the graphics settings a bit?

VRAM and RAM pools are separate. If you have 128GB of system RAM but 2GB of VRAM and you're running out of VRAM it won't make a single difference. You're thinking of consoles which run shared memory - but they work different from PCs. If you run out of VRAM you run out of VRAM and you'll see stuttering. If you really, really want to get an extra 16GB of RAM then do it. But if your purpose is gaming you're throwing money away. Put it into a new GPU or CPU.

http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2677-bf1-ram-benchmark-frequency-8gb-enough/page-2

8GB is fine. A few titles are coming close to it. That is the reason I recently went to 16GB myself. I'm sure in the next year or two some demanding games may come out that can benefit from it. But for the the vast majority, essentially everything, 8GB is fine. 16GB is future proof and sensible if you're getting a new PC. 32GB for gaming? Worthless. If you're running out of RAM, just shut off programs. No reason to run 15-20 production grade pieces of software in the background.

I'd also say that the days of "game optimization" or "game booster" programs are gone. These programs were intially run before gaming and they would shut down background programs so as to free more resources for gaming... but with current-gen GPUs and CPUs, plus 8GB and 16GB being roughly norm for RAM, any sensibly-maintained system has no need for such programs. If you do need them, then you're the equivalent of those PC users who complain that their PC is slow, then the tech guy opens up a browser and finds this....





If DCS can run on a 5896x1080 resolution + 1920x1080 resolution setup on a Radeon 7970 GHz Edition 3GB card and 8GB RAM 4-5 years ago, why would it need more than that now?

Ice I never said 13GB 7+4 =11 where I am from.. I saw it on DCS own Frame Counter so maybe that is lying to me and that game ir really not using it..


The mission I ran and when I looked at the VRam usage it was 10,900.. so does DCS FRame Counter thingie lie then and it dont know so I can base what I need on nothing??
I


Either way I am done here thnx thos guys..

LOL... 7+4... no idea why I typed in 13GB. Maybe best to watch Task Manager or Resource Monitor or MSI Afterburner or HWiNFO or some other program to determine resource usage.

If you have more RAM your system will use more of it. This doesn't necessarily mean it needs it, or it will make the program run better. Check the two links I provided above. To summarize, 16GB is plenty if you're playing games and your computer doesn't look like ICE's picture above. 16GB will be enough for the next 5 years easily.

Hahahaha!! That's not even my picture... just a google search result! I get the shivers just looking at that picture!!

WEll I ran Riva Tuner and checked against the ingame couner.. Now Rivatuner said I was using 4000VRam and the ingame counter said I was using 7000Vram?? I am wondering which is more accurate..
Either way if it is showing a high number and I did not run that real heavy vram usage mission but it would still be at least 8GB Vram..

Maybe a New video card a 1080Ti will be needed.. I think I am going to save and get a new video card first.. I will try and use Rivatuner in that misiion just to double check.. Ram Usage was about 5000MB..

I will have to try and sell some stuff on ebay to get the funds but I will report back IF I get the video card..

Well, as has been mentioned, the program will use what resources it has. Just because a game uses up 8GB vRAM does not mean it won't work on a system with 4GB vRAM. It still would work, but you'll probably have to lower some settings.

What resolution are you playing at? I doubt DCS uses more than 5-6GB VRAM at 1440P. Just a few months back I was running the game fine at 1080 with 4GB VRAM on my GTX 970. I'm now at 1440P and running a GTX 1070. Few games will hit a VRAM limit at 1440P. Essentially zero. There are some exceptions, mainly crazy texture mods for games like FO/Skyrim.

Well this is just my 2cents or how you USA people say.


But for me best things in dcs so far:

SSD , this get rid off stutters etc.. i have second install in fast HDD and there are always some stutters here and there. So get SSD, same things noticed in BMS , SSD drives are quite well used in simulators.

8>16gb of ram, even less stutters in BMS and dcs , but SSD makes more diffrence. Still i would get least 16gb today.

Gpu vram, well, i use Oculus rift CV1 and my 970 4GB runs fast out of vram , supersampling and Antialising needs mem. So i ordered RX 580 pulse 8Gb card , yes radeon for now. Just because it was for my budget. Time will tell if its worse choice than NVIDIA 1060

My Resolution is 2048x768 120Hz.. I am thinking a 1070 Will be fine for my needs.. I looked at the 1080Ti looks overkill for my needs..

There's no such thing as 'overkill' in graphics cards!.......you're always one step away from the next upgrade

Your "needs" would depend on the simulation you're running...

I'm thinking of upgrading from GeForce GTX760 to MSI 1070 Sea Hawk for DCS, BMS - would the sea hawk be worth it?

Already have Samsung 1TB SSD, 840 EVO and Kingston 16GB (2x8GB), PC3-15000 (1866MHz) DDR3.

Regards,
Marto.

I'm assuming single monitor 1080p resolution? If so, going from a 760 to 1070 will be quite a nice upgrade... personally not sure about the effect in DCS but definitely see an improvement in other games.

Went from GTX780 to 1070 myself, just two weeks ago (and cranked my i5 up from 4.2 to 4.4 GHz) Even though it's only modestly clocked Palit JetStream model, playing at 1200p I got quite a bit of a boost in 1.5.6, though with its obsolete terrain rendering engine, not utilizing the card properly, it could've been better. This version of DCS, however, is going down the drain soon (hopefully), and is not really a good benchmark, so I'm not bothered by it.

2.0.5 with Nevada, ha, that's where the new card shines! So it will on the new maps it seems. I don't know what the specs of your planned SeaHawk are, but as long as your CPU is not a bottleneck, going from 760 you will certainly see a great performance improvement.

Hi guys,

Yep 1080p

My specs are:

Intel Core i7 4790K (Base:4.00GHz, Turbo:4.40GHz / 6MB / LGA1150 / Quad Core / Fully Unlocked)

GIGABYTE GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 MB, Z97, 4x DDR3, 3x PCIE3.0 x16, 8x SATAIII, 6x USB3.0, 1x SATA Express, 2x M.2,VGA, DVI, HDMI, ATX, Killer E2201,SLI/Xfire

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX760 Overclocked (Base:1085MHz,Boost:1150MHz), 4096MB (6008MHz) GDDR5, PCI-E 3.0, Dual DVI, HDMI, Displayport

Kingston 16GB (2x8GB), PC3-15000 (1866MHz) DDR3, HyperX Fury Black, 10-11-10, 1.5V, Dual Channel Kit

Samsung 1TB SSD, 840 EVO Series, SATA III, 7mm, Read up to 540MB/s, Write up to 520MB/s

AOC G2770PQU 27inch Gaming Monitor

Think I'll get the Seahawk 1070 it's a good price now (1/2 of what it started):
MSI GeForce GTX 1070 SEA HAWK X (Base:1607MHz,Boost:1797MHz), 8GB GDDR5 (8108Mhz), PCI-E 3.0, DVI, HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Liquid Cooled By Corsair Hydro Series Liquid Cooler

RE DCS
Only use Caucasus, I'm not really interested in NTTR as I'm more interested in theatres that simulate actual combat zones rather than training areas. If NTTR was $10 I might get it... As for Normandy and WW2 not really interested either because I'm more interested in in flying modern aircraft, for my WW2 fix I go to IL-2 CLOD. Hopefully they will come out with a new interesting modern theatre one day...

No problem with CPU then. Well, when Caucasus gets a 2.5 revamp, your new card will be a beast in it. But even in its current form, the map will run noticeably better, and with a good price for the card, I'm sure you can't go wrong with this purchase.

P.S. - you will like how 1070 performs in CloD as well (just don't crank up the rendered buildings number to "unlimited", because it will murder your PC no matter what you have in it ).

Long story short, the new card will be awesome. The fact that DCS may not be able to use all of that awesomeness or use it properly (yet) is not the card's fault

DCS has long had a big fat memory leak problem, and the ram used keeps increasing the longer you play, until it will CTD. So yes, more RAM will help with stability, but no performance IMO.

Well I rediscovered ReadyBoost and I am using it on my SSD drive the macx capacity of ReadyBoost.. Not sure if it is helping but better then spening another 150USD on Ram..

I am also considering a new video card but that will be on hold for another month or two need to get Floors put in a couple more rooms in the House..