News Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 needs 64GB of RAM for ideal performance — oddly, the game install size is only 30GB

[Admin]

After Flight Simulator 2024's launch on November 19, Microsoft announced detailed system requirements, explained enhancements, and revealed how the new game could run with a much smaller file size.

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 needs 64GB of RAM for ideal performance — oddly, the game install size is only 30GB : Read more

 

[Neilbob]

Some rather bizarre minimum and recommended requirements there (or so it seems to me).

Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.
Difference between a GTX 970 (with that 3.5 GB VRAM) and an RTX 2080 = even more significant.

Meanwhile, the AMD requirements are virtually identical. Struck me as odd.

But whatever, this isn't a something that's of particular interest to me. Also, it'd very likely obliterate my relatively slow internet with only 100 GB per month maximum usage (I'm still about 10 years ago). That's why I purposefully broke my Windows Update, because that alone was contributing to the Windows System munch up about 30 GB.

 

[Makaveli]

The comments from this around the web have been funny. Everyone is hyper focused on that 64GB of ram for Ideal and completely ignore 32GB for recommended.

Some rather bizarre minimum and recommended requirements there (or so it seems to me).

Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.
Difference between a GTX 970 (with that 3.5 GB VRAM) and an RTX 2080 = even more significant.

Meanwhile, the AMD requirements are virtually identical. Struck me as odd.

But whatever, this isn't a something that's of particular interest to me. Also, it'd very likely obliterate my relatively slow internet with only 100 GB per month maximum usage (I'm still about 10 years ago). That's why I purposefully broke my Windows Update, because that alone was contributing to the Windows System munch up about 30 GB.

You are right the difference in those requirements are weird.

And an uncapped internet connection is required for this I wouldn't bother if I had a data cap.

 

[JTWrenn]

Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.
Difference between a GTX 970 (with that 3.5 GB VRAM) and an RTX 2080 = even more significant.

I am curious which way it is weird, and I think it is likely that AMD's version of a 970 just couldn't handle it. ie the minimums for the AMD side were bumped up because of something weird with older gen stuff. Maybe some compatibility issue? The rx 5700 is a much more powerful card than a 970 but AMD really was well behind until at least the 2000 series so maybe that is the issue? Betting it is some specific requirement that a card handle something that old AMD cards just didn't support and for some reason NVIDIA's did.

Same with the CPUs I guess. Pretty odd I agree. Such a hugh diff I wonder if it is a typo.

edit: interesting note while the rx 5700 beats the pants off the gtx 970 in most things in something like Counter Strike it is only about 15% better. So I wonder if the 970 just has really high raw polygon pushing but horrible lighting/shading by todays standards. So for potato level it is doable, but old AMDs can't so they must be 5700? Still weird but think that is it.

 

[Neilbob]

The comments from this around the web have been funny. Everyone is hyper focused on that 64GB of ram for Ideal and completely ignore 32GB for recommended.


You are right the difference in those requirements are weird.

And an uncapped internet connection is required for this I wouldn't bother if I had a data cap.

Yes, it's a good job my descent into being a curmudgeon includes losing interest in excessive data usage.

I also agree about the pointless fuss about the 64 GB. I reckon the issue here is that the 'Ideal' may exceed 32 GB on occasion, but I suspect it rarely does so. This is likely just Microsoft insuring themselves against raging. If having 48 GB installed wasn't a pretty obscure setup, I'm sure that'd be listed instead and would be far more than adequate.

 

[why_wolf]

By streaming do they mean "no install" as in each time you fly this path the data will be sent to you again. Or do they mean we will install the bits of the Earth you fly over bit by bit. So by the end your file size will be back to that 400Gb if you fly over the whole Earth?

I suspect many people will want to download the Earth data just once and not have it streaming in forever. Low caps or slow bandwidth.

 

[Neilbob]

I am curious which way it is weird, and I think it is likely that AMD's version of a 970 just couldn't handle it. ie the minimums for the AMD side were bumped up because of something weird with older gen stuff. Maybe some compatibility issue? The rx 5700 is a much more powerful card than a 970 but AMD really was well behind until at least the 2000 series so maybe that is the issue? Betting it is some specific requirement that a card handle something that old AMD cards just didn't support and for some reason NVIDIA's did.

Same with the CPUs I guess. Pretty odd I agree. Such a hugh diff I wonder if it is a typo.

In this case they could probably suggest an RX 5500 as a minimum. That'd be much more in line with a 970 but still keep up with the technology of the time. In fact, I reckon that said 5500 would be able to manage.

Maybe. Like I already indicated, my interest here is merely academic

 

[JTWrenn]

In this case they could probably suggest an RX 5500 as a minimum. That'd be much more in line with a 970 but still keep up with the technology of the time. In fact, I reckon that said 5500 would be able to manage.

Maybe. Like I already indicated, my interest here is merely academic

Agreed. Far less vram but they claim 4gb is fine so...it just makes no sense. Hope it is a typo, but who knows.

 

[Neilbob]

edit: interesting note while the rx 5700 beats the pants off the gtx 970 in most things in something like Counter Strike it is only about 15% better. So I wonder if the 970 just has really high raw polygon pushing but horrible lighting/shading by todays standards. So for potato level it is doable, but old AMDs can't so they must be 5700? Still weird but think that is it.

Hrm, possibly.

It'd be nice if we could get some kind of benchmarks when the time comes, but all these cards mentioned are rather past it, so it's probably unlikely.

I bet RX 5500 would still give the RX 6500 a spanking!

 

[Heat_Fan89]

I'll stick with the Series X instead.

 

[DS426]

So people wanting to play offline are screwed? Is it like that for FS2020?

Funny that they traded storage for RAM. 1 TB SSD's are pretty common and affordable as opposed to 64 GB RAM that is far more expensive, so this "beauty of cloud technology" isn't so beautiful at all, lol.

 

[Makaveli]

So people wanting to play offline are screwed? Is it like that for FS2020?

Funny that they traded storage for RAM. 1 TB SSD's are pretty common and affordable as opposed to 64 GB RAM that is far more expensive, so this "beauty of cloud technology" isn't so beautiful at all, lol.

Streaming from RAM is much faster than a M2 SSD.

 

[OneMoreUser]

Yes, it's a good job my descent into being a curmudgeon includes losing interest in excessive data usage.

I also agree about the pointless fuss about the 64 GB. I reckon the issue here is that the 'Ideal' may exceed 32 GB on occasion, but I suspect it rarely does so. This is likely just Microsoft insuring themselves against raging. If having 48 GB installed wasn't a pretty obscure setup, I'm sure that'd be listed instead and would be far more than adequate.

I think the reason why the 64 GB gets lots of attention is because few have that, while many do have the 32 GB and also the 64 GB requirement is new.

I grabbed the Steam August 2024 hardware survey, so this will about those that game in general and not just go flying with their PC (see list below).

Some 30% have 32 GB in their rig and only 3+% have 64 GB. If we look at the optimum GPU requirements there is also 3+% which meets the requirement, only there is likely a good deal of them that don't have 64 GB ram.

Here is the Steam survey data.
Less than 4 GB
0.06%
-0.01%

4 GB
2.41%
-0.29%

8 GB
10.55%
-0.74%

12 GB
2.95%
-0.08%

16 GB
47.36%
+1.43%

24 GB
1.33%
+0.01%

32 GB
30.24%
-0.57%

48 GB
0.55%
+0.04%

64 GB
3.26%
+0.16%

More than 64 GB
0.34%
+0.01%

Other
0.94%
+0.03%

The data are, amount of RAM, share of users and change in share compared to the previous month.

It will be interesting to see if the next couple of months sees a jump in 64 GB ownership. I know I will be adding those 32 GB

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

In the DDR5 era it's not a big deal, 2x32GB DDR5-6000 is about $200 and DDR5-5600 is about $150 (using Crucial and G.Skill modules for prices at Newegg). Compare that to the $125 for 2x8GB DDR4-3200 in 2020 (G.Skill Flare, basically required for us Zen 1 early adopters),

$200 for what's likely the 3rd longest lived component of your PC (after the PSU and SSD) is a small price to pay to not have to worry about it again until the DDR6 era.

 

[TeamRed2024]

In the DDR5 era it's not a big deal, 2x32GB DDR5-6000 is about $200 and DDR5-5600 is about $150 (using Crucial and G.Skill modules for prices at Newegg). Compare that to the $125 for 2x8GB DDR4-3200 in 2020 (G.Skill Flare, basically required for us Zen 1 early adopters),

$200 for what's likely the 3rd longest lived component of your PC (after the PSU and SSD) is a small price to pay to not have to worry about it again until the DDR6 era.

Exactly. If there was ever a reason that I built with 64GB ram... it would be MSFS 2024.

I suspect many people will want to download the Earth data just once and not have it streaming in forever. Low caps or slow bandwidth.

I'd be one of those people.

I grabbed the Steam August 2024 hardware survey, so this will about those that game in general and not just go flying with their PC (see list below). It will be interesting to see if the next couple of months sees a jump in 64 GB ownership. I know I will be adding those 32 GB

Yeah I've seen those Steam surveys... I think the overwhelming majority are still on low to mid range GPUs running 1080p.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Exactly. If there was ever a reason that I built with 64GB ram... it would be MSFS 2024.

Or because you don't want to worry about it in the future? A proper mid-range GPU will run you $500+, a "gaming" CPU like the 7800X3D $300+, an ATX X-70E motherboard $250+, and $200+ for a proper quality ATX 3.0 PSU, like SeaSonic, so 64GB RAM for $150-$200 is literally the next to cheapest core component you will buy (cheapest is storage), and literally one of the only two components you won't need to bother with until the next memory standard (the PSU being the other).

And it also carries the benefit of leaving you 32GB of RAM should one stick fail and you need to RMA.

 

[TeamRed2024]

Or because you don't want to worry about it in the future?

Yeah... that too.

 

[thestryker]

Or because you don't want to worry about it in the future? A proper mid-range GPU will run you $500+, a "gaming" CPU like the 7800X3D $300+, an ATX X-70E motherboard $250+, and $200+ for a proper quality ATX 3.0 PSU, like SeaSonic, so 64GB RAM for $150-$200 is literally the next to cheapest core component you will buy (cheapest is storage), and literally one of the only two components you won't need to bother with until the next memory standard (the PSU being the other).

And it also carries the benefit of leaving you 32GB of RAM should one stick fail and you need to RMA.

Unless of course you want memory over 6800 (aka not buying AMD) in which case 64GB simply isn't a choice as you're not going to get high frequency across 4 DIMMs.

 

[usertests]

Difference between an i7 6800K and an i7 10700K = significant.

It doesn't seem that significant. i7-6800K is 6-core Broadwell-E. The 8-core i7-10700K is only 34% faster ST, 75% faster MT (PassMark). It seems weird to recommend the 6800K but I guess it's making a point about how threaded the game is.

2020 recommendations: i5-4460 / i5-8400 or Ryzen 3 1200 / Ryzen 5 1500X.
https://www.tomshardware.com/featur...or-benchmarks-performance-system-requirements

 

[Dementoss]

Streaming from RAM is much faster than a M2 SSD.

Streaming from RAM? How do you think it gets to RAM? A lot of people still don't have fast internet connections so, having the data predownloaded will work much better for those players. Nobody wants to be always waiting for content to load, every time they fly, having the option to download before playing would help many. I note the blog post makes no mention of the required download bandwidth for smooth running.

 

[CelicaGT]

Streaming from RAM? How do you think it gets to RAM? A lot of people still don't have fast internet connections so, having the data predownloaded will work much better for those players. Nobody wants to be always waiting for content to load, every time they fly, having the option to download before playing would help many. I note the blog post makes no mention of the required download bandwidth for smooth running.

It will buffer into RAM, there will also likely be a rolling cache on the SSD, as in 2020 which stores downloaded textures for future use. Is less than 100mbps still common in the US? (I'm assuming US here). The minimum speed available here in a backwoods canadian town is 330Mbps. Anyways, here are the specs Tom's SHOULD have linked....

https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com...272798364-Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-2024-FAQ

 

[punkncat]

I find the system spec to be a bit confuddling as well. As was pointed out in the first post, there is a significant difference between the 6800K and a 10700K, but more specifically why aren't they suggesting a lower level of AMD CPU than the 2700X?
Surely if a 6800K would work then some flavor of R5 or perhaps even an R3 would be workable. It seems odd that they wouldn't broaden the horizon for potential buyers of the game to mention something closer to that Intel chip on the low end.

Aside from that aspect I am not a huge fan of the idea that you purchase a game which is never really yours, not downloaded and playable on a single player/no internet rig. IF this game is really streaming offline rather than actual local play.... Considering how many people here in the US share bandwidth within certain areas like a neighborhood this could literally cripple people trying to actually work from home and such, which is a large concern for my use case.

 

[CelicaGT]

It doesn't seem that significant. i7-6800K is 6-core Broadwell-E. The 8-core i7-10700K is only 34% faster ST, 75% faster MT (PassMark). It seems weird to recommend the 6800K but I guess it's making a point about how threaded the game is.

2020 recommendations: i5-4460 / i5-8400 or Ryzen 3 1200 / Ryzen 5 1500X.
https://www.tomshardware.com/featur...or-benchmarks-performance-system-requirements

2024 is supposed to be VERY threaded, unlike 2020 which pretty much lives on a single thread. On approach to larger airports (with all the CPU heavy goodies like other aircraft in increased density, ground traffic, buildings etc..) I'll see framerates dip below 50fps from well over 100fps at altitude. All while the GPU utilization drops to below 50%.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Unless of course you want memory over 6800 (aka not buying AMD) in which case 64GB simply isn't a choice as you're not going to get high frequency across 4 DIMMs.

In the context of this article and discussion, computers built primarily for gaming, DDR5 RAM speed is fairly irrelevant since games aren't RAM intensive tasks, and the gains outside of games for programs which would typically run on those systems really diminish after DDR5-4800.

 

[TeamRed2024]

2024 is supposed to be VERY threaded, unlike 2020 which pretty much lives on a single thread.

Lets hope so.