Is 16-GB RAM worth it ?

[WheelwrightPL]

Will upgrading from 8-GB to 16-GB improve how IL2 performs in terms of loading assets, or in some other way ?

Will it load more assets in memory so when you switch to a new view (by pressing F5 for example) all the assets (or at least more of them) will be loaded  ?

If not, will 16-GB improve graphics, gameplay or sound in any way whatsoever ? Did anybody who upgraded notice any difference ?

 

[Panzerlang]

It will improve your experience significantly.

An SSD is highly recommended too.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Uffz-Prien

[WheelwrightPL]

Ok, thanks. What about moving from 16-GB to 32-GB ? Did anybody here do it and what was the result ?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

20 minutes ago, Uffz-Prien said:

It will improve your experience significantly.

No, it won't. Going from 8 to 16 GB will not improve performance significantly unless you are running out of memory due to other programs. In a heavy mission, I see Il-2 using only about 3 GB of memory.

 

14 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

Ok, thanks. What about moving from 16-GB to 32-GB ? Did anybody here do it and what was the result ?

Although there will be no performance gains, it is nice to have 16 GB to avoid running out of memory when using multiple programs at once. It's best to check memory usage in Task Manager to get an overview of the situation. 32 GB is far too much for the vast majority of consumers.

 

However, faster RAM with higher frequency and lower latency can certainly make a difference in performance, depending on your CPU architecture.

[WheelwrightPL]

That's disappointing because IL2 could really take advantage of this extra memory to load assets quicker.

It would be really nice to be able to look around from your cockpit and every building and other asset is already loaded into memory, within a reasonably large radius.

Right now those assets are constantly popping into existence even on my 16-GB machine, this breaks immersion.

The issue also happens when playing the replays: when switching to other plane's view it often displays that plane's default skin first, which is then overwritten by the proper skin. Why isn't the correct skin loaded in the first place ?

[-332FG-Gordon200]

 

27 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

However, faster RAM with higher frequency and lower latency can certainly make a difference in performance, depending on your CPU architecture.

That other flight sim requires more than 16Gb. Here in IL2 you can do very well with 16Gb and as Mitthrawnuruodo said above look for high frequency and lower latency. Freq is measured in Mhz and latency uses a C number to indicate the length of delay with the lower number being faster.

 

A quick search on Amazon found this pair with 3000Mhz and C15 latency.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0134EW7G8/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

[AndyJWest]

25 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

That's disappointing because IL2 could really take advantage of this extra memory to load assets quicker.

It would be really nice to be able to look around from your cockpit and every building and other asset is already loaded into memory, within a reasonably large radius.

Right now those assets are constantly popping into existence even on my 16-GB machine, this breaks immersion.

The issue also happens when playing the replays: when switching to other plane's view it often displays that plane's default skin first, which is then overwritten by the proper skin. Why isn't the correct skin loaded in the first place ?

 

What you are seeing there is data being moved from main RAM to your video card. All map assets are loaded at the start of the mission.

[Panzerlang]

47 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

No, it won't. Going from 8 to 16 GB will not improve performance significantly unless you are running out of memory due to other programs. In a heavy mission, I see Il-2 using only about 3 GB of memory.

 

Although there will be no performance gains, it is nice to have 16 GB to avoid running out of memory when using multiple programs at once. It's best to check memory usage in Task Manager to get an overview of the situation. 32 GB is far too much for the vast majority of consumers.

 

However, faster RAM with higher frequency and lower latency can certainly make a difference in performance, depending on your CPU architecture.

 

"...unless..." Yes, unless a lot of things. 8GB is marginal these days for any modern graphics-intensive game. Sure, IL2 ran fine on my 8GB rig until the "unless" reared its occasional head. Adding 8GB did away with all that edge-mechanic annoyance.

Then I upgraded the entire rig, including 16GB of 3600mhz RAM, so it's no longer possible to specify which component makes the biggest difference, but 8GB of RAM would not be acceptable alongside the other bits.

RAM mhz is arguably more important than latency but that trade-off argument is a hot topic.

[kestrel79]

Yes. Do it!

[WheelwrightPL]

25 minutes ago, kestrel79 said:

Yes. Do it!

 

I am an idiot: I already had 16 GB RAM so this thread's title should have been "is 32 GB RAM worth it ?"

[dburne]

35 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

 

I am an idiot: I already had 16 GB RAM so this thread's title should have been "is 32 GB RAM worth it ?"

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

9 hours ago, WheelwrightPL said:

Right now those assets are constantly popping into existence even on my 16-GB machine, this breaks immersion.

 

It sounds like something isn't quite right. You shouldn't be seeing stutters that frequently. Some stutters are normal, but I've never felt that they were extremely annoying. Perhaps the problem is associated with a weak CPU or GPU?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[SAS_Storebror]

5 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Perhaps the problem is associated with a weak CPU or GPU?

...or just the opposite.

Two weeks ago I've kicked out my trusty&rusty i5-2500K, and with it of course the mainboard (Asus P8P67 Pro Rev 3.0), RAM (4x4GB Kingston ValueRam DDR3) and Cooler (Scythe Yasya) for a new set of hardware consisting of an i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 Gaming X, 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT Single Rank DDR4-3000 CL16 and a Scythe Mugen 5 PCGH cooler.

The GPU stayed the same (Nvidia GTX 970), as well as the monitor (Acer 27'' WQHD G-Sync).

According to https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html I should expect roughly 40% performance increase per core (mind you IL-2 GB is somewhat single thread performance limited) and I've got two more "spare" cores to offer now.

Let alone the old mainboard supported PCIe 2.0 only while the new one supports PCIe 3.0, and a few more modern technologies.

 

The "before and after" comparison is:

• Overall Framerates increased - previously I've been at around 60-80 FPS, now I'm at 90-144.
• The FPS was previously CPU limited, now it's GPU- or Refresh rate limited.
• I've got microstutters whenever I move my head around quickly with TrackIR.
  This becomes particularly annoying when lots of objects are around, e.g. on a crowded airfield with many ground activity going on.
  Neither of this was the case on my old hardware.

Tried everything I can think of:

• Nvidia Control Panel settings are on "prefer maximum performance".
• Changed Windows Powerplan to "High Performance".
• Disabled all CPU C-States, core parking and any other powersaving related feature in BIOS.
• Disabled PCIe link state powermanagement in BIOS.

Temps, voltages, power targets etc. both on CPU and GPU are fine and well within limits - nothing's getting throttled here, yet I still have microstutters all over the place.

 

Conclusion:

Faster isn't necessarily better.

My old hardware was considerably slower, yet it was smooth as silk compared to the new one.

 

Mike

[TWC_Ace]

Guys. 8GB is enough for IL2 but not for some other "modern" games. IL2 uses around 4.5 - 5.5GB of RAM (total, with windows). I measured numerous times. So, for IL2 alone you dont need to buy more than 8GB of RAM. If you play other games, newer games like PUBG (with ultra), Post Scriptum, BF, Witcher 3....you need 16GB. DCS also demands 16GB of RAM. ARMA3 on example, is happy with 8GB of RAM just like IL2.

Edited March 28, 2019 by =VARP=Tvrdi

[Jade_Monkey]

Like they already mentioned, it will only benefit you if you are maxing out your RAM. Another option is buying faster RAM if yours is low end.

[SCG_ErwinP]

I'm running smoothly in my rig (ultra settings, 75 fps, 2560x1080P monitor).

When i open MSI Afterburner it's showing 5GB consumption of RAM Memory.

[III/JG52_Al-Azraq]

On 3/27/2019 at 9:46 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

...or just the opposite.

Two weeks ago I've kicked out my trusty&rusty i5-2500K, and with it of course the mainboard (Asus P8P67 Pro Rev 3.0), RAM (4x4GB Kingston ValueRam DDR3) and Cooler (Scythe Yasya) for a new set of hardware consisting of an i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 Gaming X, 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT Single Rank DDR4-3000 CL16 and a Scythe Mugen 5 PCGH cooler.

The GPU stayed the same (Nvidia GTX 970), as well as the monitor (Acer 27'' WQHD G-Sync).

According to https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html I should expect roughly 40% performance increase per core (mind you IL-2 GB is somewhat single thread performance limited) and I've got two more "spare" cores to offer now.

Let alone the old mainboard supported PCIe 2.0 only while the new one supports PCIe 3.0, and a few more modern technologies.

 

The "before and after" comparison is:

• Overall Framerates increased - previously I've been at around 60-80 FPS, now I'm at 90-144.
• The FPS was previously CPU limited, now it's GPU- or Refresh rate limited.
• I've got microstutters whenever I move my head around quickly with TrackIR.
  This becomes particularly annoying when lots of objects are around, e.g. on a crowded airfield with many ground activity going on.
  Neither of this was the case on my old hardware.

Tried everything I can think of:

• Nvidia Control Panel settings are on "prefer maximum performance".
• Changed Windows Powerplan to "High Performance".
• Disabled all CPU C-States, core parking and any other powersaving related feature in BIOS.
• Disabled PCIe link state powermanagement in BIOS.

Temps, voltages, power targets etc. both on CPU and GPU are fine and well within limits - nothing's getting throttled here, yet I still have microstutters all over the place.

 

Conclusion:

Faster isn't necessarily better.

My old hardware was considerably slower, yet it was smooth as silk compared to the new one.

 

Mike

 

Don't worry too much about that lag with TrackIR as it is caused by the game, netcode, and server. It happens to me when I am in a high populated area in WoL, but it does not happen in KotA or TaW (which are better servers) and I have a 7700k + 1070 with 16 gb of ram and the game installed in a SSD. Those stutters are just sync problems with the server.

 

Luckily, the devs said that they are improving the multiplayer aspect of the game by improving the netcode, server queues, loby, etc. they already improved it by a lot, now I do not get kicked by the server every time I am trying to join: if there is room, I will join the server without any problem. Performance has also been improved and they are continuously working on further improvements.

 

However, no matter how hard the devs work on this, that if there is a bad server with not enough hardware power to run the game smoothly, you will have this stutters when in multiplayer.

[TWC_Ace]

 I also noticed that KOTA and TAW are more smooth than WOL.

[SCG_ErwinP]

32 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

 I also noticed that KOTA and TAW are more smooth than WOL.

Me too.

Edited March 28, 2019 by EWilhelmPaulus

[SAS_Storebror]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Al-Azraq said:

Don't worry too much about that lag with TrackIR as it is caused by the game, netcode, and server. It happens to me when I am in a high populated area in WoL, but it does not happen in KotA or TaW (which are better servers)

Yep, probably that's the bottom of it.

Funny thing is that it's my own Server, and that's not a budget solution either, but a full blown i7-4770 with 32GB RAM running Windows Server 2016.

Probably it's the massive amount of AI planes and ground objects we have on our training mission, usually causing a tick delay in the range of 12-15 on that quite powerful machine.

On that note, it seemed to me that we've been running perfectly smooth two or three patches ago, but that's probably off topic here.

 

Mike

[Solmyr]

20 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Like they already mentioned, it will only benefit you if you are maxing out your RAM. Another option is buying faster RAM if yours is low end.

 

Guys, don't forget to mention that this RAM speed will only be exploited if CPU/motherboard suits it.

[Poochnboo]

I'm running this game on a 5 year old AZUS gaming laptop. 2 GB vid card and 8 GB's of RAMM. It runs beautifully, starts quickly, and plays smoothly on line. I play with the settings on high.