LucShep

You can also try Scanline Sync (aka S-Sync), as alternative method. Just follow the linked tutorial. It's pretty much using V-Sync OFF without the screen tearing. You can also use "Fast Sync" (instead of "Force OFF") in conjunction to it - works even better that way in DCS, in my experience. Also works fine with head-tracking. Matter of preferences but, at least with 60Hz refresh-rate, I prefer it to GSync or FreeSync. It's really smooth, and as close as it gets to V-Sync ON without its performance and latency penalties. The major downside of Scanline Sync is that you really need to ensure the GPU does not work at over 90% of usage, otherwise it gets very choppy real fast. EDIT - added video about someone disserting about it:

Good point. And, well, it's again same principle as the game installation folder. The files inside the DCS Saved Games folder can be considered also part of the game files, being somewhat frequently loaded from there too. So yes, if you already have a separate drive for DCS, and if so inclined, moving the Saved Games files of DCS away from the OS drive can be another good move. If you want to experiment with it, you can do that by using symbolic links for folders (SimLinks). It works fine. Actually, I think ED should consider moving the Saved Games files of DCS into the game installation folder, altogether (just my opinion). It can get quite big (especially with mods), and it would help those who are already using a separate drive (or even a separate partition) for the installation of DCS.

Yep, good for DCS 4K. Not sure what RAM or motherboard you're going for. I suppose the motherboard may be one of the latest "14th gen ready" Z790 DDR5 models. If it isn't, then make sure the BIOS is updated (to fully support Intel 14th gen). For the DDR5 RAM, 96GB (2x 48GB kit) of capacity is a good long-term investment, though I believe 64GB (2x 32GB kit) will more than suffice for quite a while, if budget becomes a concern. As for the speeds and latency, 5600 CL28 and 6000 CL30 should be cheaper and theoretically more than good enough, but it's not that far off the price of the slightly faster 6400 CL32 kits (maybe even the 6800 CL34 kits), so also consider the faster memory. It's all a matter of budget.

Fellas, I don't think anyone contests some points being debated here. Some are not even debatable, they're just facts. Such as "the faster the drive, the better". Or "keeping intensive games in a separate drive" (to avoid the so called "resource contention" mentioned above). These are all true, as of "being better" strictly speaking, that has not been the point. The point is.... the debate, for the actual "real life usage and gaming" results, turns into splitting hairs. It really does. It's like those hot debates about sky high overclocking and refresh rates - diminishing returns ensue. At a certain point, as of today, it really makes no difference to your gaming experience. So long as it's a good system, with a good NVME PCie 3.0 and above, it's really hard to see/feel any game choking just because it's installed on same drive as the OS. Even with the "heaviest" stuff available to the gaming public (DCS is not the only one), this won't be an issue. It won't hamper the experience. Perhaps in the future, with (even) more intensive game titles it will make a real difference? Who knows? If you're very strict and anal about your system, willing to have the "the bestest" then, sure. Get a separate (fast) NVMe drive for your intensive games, keep those off the OS drive. That is technically the superior solution. But does it really make a difference? Not for now, it hasn't made any difference in my experience. Similar to what @Baldrick33 and @SharpeXB mentioned above. I'm sure some logged data may appear disproving it, but it's not something you can empirically notice, really. And no, one way or the other, it's not a solution or otherwise guarantee for DCS' ocasional stuttering issues (a particularly sensitive aspect in VR) as some may wish to dissect. The problems lie elsewhere.

Nvidia can "polish it" as much as they want, but nothing will ever beat this: https://github.com/Orbmu2k/nvidiaProfileInspector

*bumpity bump* Please ED, give a look into this. Another year has passed, with no real intervention on the subject. The problems remain. There is also another thread where Taz1004 aproached the subject with greater detail and "proof": FWIW, Taz1004 already has done the bulk of the work with a mod (popular with the community, but creates issues online on servers with "pure textures" enabled). It's just a matter of adopting it and further develop it (for more maps and modules): ED please do consider it for the sake of all. We really need it.

In regards to the upgrade to a new CPU, notice that will also require a new motherboard, and probably new RAM and a new CPU cooler as well. You may end up spending a lot for not a huge improvement there - careful with expectations. I build systems somewhat frequently and, even with Intel 13900K and AMD X3D builds done, I'll tell you right away that, sure, you'd notice the improvement in performance with the upgrade, but it's not the "WOW" factor that some comments may let you wonder. The i7 10700K and i9 10900K may be getting old but are still good, IMO. Honestly, I'd wait for Intel 15th gen (later this year) and then decide. And if it turns out to be mediocre (I doubt it, but....) and you really want to upgrade then, I think the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D with a mid-range AM5 motherboard and DDR5 6000 CL30 should still be good for a dedicated gaming PC. In your case, with i7 10700K overclocked and 64GB DDR4 3200 RAM, your performance deficit is (IMHO) solely on the GPU - the RTX 2080Ti was a great GPU back at its launch, but even the previous gen RTX 3070 matches its speed (minus the VRAM). Either the RTX 4070Ti Super 16GB (~950€) or RX 7900XT 20GB (~850€) would be my pick for your case. A used RTX 3090 24GB would be a great option but, good ones are still hard to find below 700€. Plus, it absolutely needs to be from a careful owner (no warranty, remember). It's nearly two years since both Nvidia and AMD generations launched the current generation, so late 2024 should present new generation announcements - there's also that. But... it's still a long way to go, and you may not want to wait. Resuming, I'd say to pass on the CPU+Mobo+RAM upgrade for now, and focus on the GPU - spend on the best one that you can afford.

Absolutely - avoid the RTX 4060/Ti, its 128-bit bus is utter garbage. If it has to be same price/segment, the previous RTX 3060/Ti is better (actually performing same as stock RTX 3070 after OC/undervolt). As is the older equivalent RX 6700XT of AMD, also a better alternative. If it has to be Nvidia 4000 series, get the RTX 4070/Ti (Super or not) or, if you can pay that high, the RTX 4080 (Super or not). But, it has to be said, AMD is providing the best overall performance for the money right now, with the RTX7800XT and RX7900 XT / XTX. Ray Tracing is definitely not as good with these and, sure, DLSS is absent (uses FSR instead). But the raw (rasterization) performance is there, as is higher ammount of VRAM compared to the Nvidia competition. Also, AMD drivers got a lot better in recent years, more stable and intuitive to use than in years/models past.

Meh.... it's like everything else - you use with moderation! I have already a mild tinnitus following years of heavy use of headphones (result of continuous repeat of loud engine and FX samples editing, on a daily basis). Plus... I'm a motorcyclist that loves a deep engine rumble, who didn't want to wear ear-plugs for years on end, until too late. If I'm not deaf yet (far from it), then you needn't be afraid about headphones. Just be moderated, that's it. Sound is another sense that we can/should definitely enjoy. Get your audio fix, man!

Yep, I subscribe to that too. Though I realize I'm just too accustomated to "headphone cans" and the change to IEMs hasn't been easy at all for me (so many years wearing over-ear headphones daily, too used to the format and comfort of cushy pads on my ears). I knew the format of IEMs is different to wear, and yes, for some (like me) it needs some time to get used. But I just had to get these KZ Castor "Improved Bass version" following recommendations of "a new standard among really affordable IEMs". It could be the format, and that other IEMs are like this, but they weren't wrong. The audio is very, very crisp, really good, nicely detailed but, with these, it's the way all the low-frequencies are reproduced (especially what people call "deep bass"), which never breaks, distorts or get muddy. I tell you... it's like it a friggin subwoofer booming (right into your bones!) yet it never gets unpleasant.

We're going a bit off-topic but, got to say, that Acemagic Tank03 is quite interesting. SFF and mini PCs with "punch" have been getting more and more users around in recent years. The low overall Wattage consumption, the small space required and portability, you name it. Get it in your backpack with a cheap mini touchpad keyboard+mouse, can then also use it wherever you can plug it to a screen. You can even build a capable one for (1080P) gaming yourself. This guy knows the stuff:

You don't mention sort of headphones nor budget, or type of connection, if wired or wireless.... I'd consider the Beyerdynamic gaming line. Closed or open headsets, wireless or wired (analogue jack connection), your pick. Recently tried their MMX300 and was well impressed. Somewhat similar sound to my good old DT990 Pro (but closed, like the DT770 Pro) with a bit more bass. Good mic as well. Really comfy and great build quality (it's Beyerdynamic after all) but these are not inexpensive. Now, if you're willing to experiment with something different..... how about some (in-ear) wired earbuds? If so, I'd definitely suggest the KZ Castor (Improved Bass version, with mic), plus the adaptor to make its included microphone work on PC (5ft/1.5m lenght, so adds lenght to the cable as well). This one is an inexpensive solution (thirty-something bucks?!) that actually sounds surprisingly good. It just may, or not, work for your needs.

It's the one chip that, back in the day, turned Intel to a meme because of its high wattage and temperatures. But, today, the newer iterations of 13th and 14th gen make it look like an easy inocent chip. Nothing really to watch out for with the i9 9900K. It's a tough processor that will run forever and is hard to kill BUT, if buying used from unknown source, better to enquire the seller about possible modifications -- OC'ing enthusiasts liked to play around with direct-die cooling or liquid metal mods. If it's completely stock, then it's good to go. The i9 9900K is an 8c/16t CPU that is extremely similar to the i7 10700K (actually, vice-versa is more correct). It overclocks fine upto 5.1GHz but gains are barely noticed once over 4.9Ghz (all-core OC), and at huge cost of temps and wattage (plus possible slow degradation of the chip). Already good at stock, I'd even say that overclocking on it is not a huge performance exercise (as was over a decade ago) but more of a fun thing to do "because you can". There are three other versions of the i9 9900K, that you'll notice if buying used: 1) The i9 9900KF, which is same as a regular 9900K just without the onboard graphics (requires a dedicated GPU) - great choice for a gaming system, and usually cheaper. 2) The i9 9900KS, a higher binned special edition, which comes already pre-overclocked to 5.0Ghz (all-core) from factory - good, but people ask a big premium for it. 3) The cheaper i9 9900K "ES" versions, which are much lower binned and lower clock "engineering sample" versions - these are not worth the savings, do NOT buy. The i9 9900K is not a hybrid CPU (no little/big cores like most recent ones) so all cores are treated equally and never create issues with whatever program or OS. Plus, the "snappy" feeling is present (memory controller is on the CPU, not in motherboard chip). And it's probably why people still keep them, regardless of faster choices today. No longer the performance champion (an i5 13600K blows it to the weeds) but it's still a good gaming chip, which, in particular cases like yours (budget and/or ease of upgrade), can make for a quick affordable(ish) solution that is good for quite a while still. In the last 25 years I've been constantly building (and upgrading) systems where only a small % of CPUs, motherboards and RAM sticks were bought new, and same for GPUs. There's nothing wrong in buying used HW parts at all, if you know how to handle the stuff. Huge savings to be had! ...that is, so long as you don't crave for the latest/greatest. If it's PSUs, NVMEs, SSDs, HDDs, and coolers, now that's a different story (buy these new, always).

Sounds fairly good for you with that RTX3090 then. A good 850W PSU is fine with an RTX3090 and i5 9600K (or even i9 9900K). If it was a modern i7 or i9 (13700K / 14700K, 13900K / 14900K), then I'd say ≥1000W recommended. I get your dillema. RTX4070 Super 16GB would be a good purchase, it's a nice upgrade over an RTX2080Ti. But they're still too expensive (considerably more than that used RTX3090). RTX4080 (Super or not) even better, for sure, but that's priced too high, even worse. If your 9600K is already all-core OC'ed at 4.9Ghz, then don't bother going over that and leave it as is - huge diminishing returns from that point on (with that processor), IMO. I may differ from other's opinions but, I think in your case an i9 9900K would be a decent upgrade "on the cheap" - search around on Ebay, you'll find some under $200USD. It's a direct CPU swap. And if your AIO cooler goes "kaput", consider going for a twin-tower air cooler. If so, I strongly recommend the Thermalright PS 120 SE, at $35 it's simply unbeatable atm. It matches performance of a Noctua NH-D15 (and even 280 AIO coolers) at a fraction of the price, and no reliability concerns - other than possibly fans, nothing to go wrong. It also allows for a decent overclocking on an i9 9900K (think all-core 4.9Ghz). Unbeliveable cooler for such a low price.

I'm really divided on opinion, and this is from someone who actually owns an RTX 3090, bought used (mint condition - not mined - from other like-minded gamer). I got mine right at the time of the RTX 4090 and 4080 release, after watching their (trully) ludicrous prices, the wattage consumption, and 12 pin adapter idiosyncracies (plus, they don't undervolt all that well, AFAIK). I paid about the same you mention for mine (650€ back then) and I'm still really happy with it, not going to upgrade anytime soon. That said, some other perspective before jumping the gun... With the sole exception of the mighty RTX 4090, the RTX 4000 series have not been selling well. Even the latest RTX 4080 and 4070/Ti Super that were released recently are not in demand as early expected (so far, time will tell later on). It's not that they suck, it's the prices that (still) do. There will be the ocasional deal for them. Rumours are just that -rumours- but, while the RTX 5000 series were expected only in early-to-mid 2025, it now seems a "end of 3rd quarter 2024 launch" may happen. Regardless, we're at the declining curve of this 4000 series RTX generation. If an RTX 4070Ti Super (yes, it "only" has 16GB) is already a bit faster than an RTX 3090 24GB, then how fast do you think an RTX 5070/Ti will be, at a (somewhat?) similar price? Don't get me wrong, I love my RTX 3090 and after a nice undervolt I can't even call it a "hog" like most reviewers did (~100W less at max consumption, zero performance loss). But let's be real.... it'll be four years -and maybe two generations- old at the end of this next summer. Unless it's a planned upgrade with all this accepted, and it's a GPU from someone you trust, be very aware you'd be investing on a used (no warranty) soon to be ageing GPU. But, if it checks all the boxes, and if you're confident that you can resell it later, then, heck.... go for it? EDIT: if not upgrading CPU, then think about overclocking that 9600K - some bottlenecking is expected.

DCS 2.8 is either GPU intensive, or both GPU and CPU intensive, depending on mission complexity. It is also very RAM intensive if you do Multiplayer (over 42GB of RAM and pagefile usage is not uncommon). If you just want to swap the GPU and it really has to be brand new, then I think for your use case the RTX 3060 12GB is probably the best option. It goes for about 290,00 USD/EUR/GBP (depending on model and where you get it). It's an excelent GPU for 1080P, it's pretty good on power draw and temperatures, has good ammount of VRAM, and it's not at stupid high prices like other GPUs. And may be still good enough to be usable later once you upgrade that system. That said..... I'm not sure how you feel about buying used hardware. I favor it because it can provide very good affordable solutions, or at least interim ones - untill one can afford that "latest and greatest" brand new complete system sometime later. If you don't mind buying used items, there are deals on Ebay for the GTX 1080 8GB and RTX 2060 Super 8GB, at about 150,00 USD/EUR/GBP "Buy it Now" . Just my opinion but, with that system, one of these two will still be valid, and a more inexpensive solution for you to game at 1080P resolution. Performance is more or less identical between GTX 1080 and RTX 2060 Super, but please note that the former, being older, does not have modern features like DLSS (which DCS can use) that the latter does have - it will sway purchase decisions towards the newer model. In the same vein, but for CPUs, there are used item deals such as the i7 6700K (~50$) and i7 7700K (~90$), which are direct swap replacements in your system's motherboard. Not sure what motherboard you got (Z170?) but it may require latest BIOS update for the i7 7700K. These are 4 core and 8 threads CPUs, will provide a bit more performance and smoother gameplay. Your i5 6600K is 4 cores and 4 threads only, and very limited at this point.

AMD 8700G is an APU, worth it for those not going to use a dedicated GPU. It does have very good performance if looking at the leaked benchmarks, and it does have a few interesting (non-gaming) new features, like the Ryzen AI neural processing unit (which accelerates AI workloads, for those in that field). But it's not something really worth upgrading to if the use case is gaming. Not (IMO) if coming from 5800X, and not for someone using an RTX4090 24GB (fastest GPU today). In your case, you want a processor with 3D V-cache. The 5800X3D can be an option if interested in remaining in AM4 platform, making a simple and direct CPU swap only. Or the 7800X3D if thinking about upgrading platform, with AM5 (X670/B650) motherboard + DDR5 (6000 CL30) memory. More expensive but biggest boost in performance.

....a month later? PSVR2 launched in February 22, 2023 (it's not even a year old). I think more recent news would be more reliable to its current state, no? PSVR2 got quite some traction at the end of 2023, mostly due to November 2023 game launches (19 new titles, I think). You have to understand three things: The "problem" with sales numbers of PSVR2 in the initial months had to do with not being backwards compatible with original PlayStation VR games. People who invested into the previous PSVR (launched in 2016, for PS4) felt there should have been some and were vocal about it, even though Sony doesn't do backwards compatibility in their devices (apart the very rare exceptions). Consoles sales numbers themselves are important only to an extent. Sony, Microsoft an Nintendo always sold their base equipments (the consoles themselves) at a loss, they still do. Because what drives the big money is the content for them, be it the games (exclusive and non-exclusive titles), the service subscriptions (GamePass, PSplus, etc) and the peripherals (1st or 3rd parties' products). It's a bit particular and different to what we see in the PC world (or to other entertainment markets), and why parallels can be difficult. A curious "non gamer" looking to the VR experience thing (essentially someone not into this sort of media) will probably look into PSVR2 and naively think "why would I get a PS5 + PSVR2, when I could just get a Meta Quest3 that is cheaper and works standalone?". The products are not even comparable, but even Sony can see it. PSVR2 is for PS5 only - one brand/console that battles with two other giants in the market - and still it's growing. That's why it's considered an overall success. Not just for raw sales numbers, but because it's now proving to be a practical, viable way and platform to get into VR. There are far more developers getting into PSVR2 (more games) in a much shorter time period compared to (and unlike) the previous iteration, which took too long to grow. So, it has steady growth of game releases (+ respective updates) and sales, has learned from past mistakes, is easy to use, and can be now considered a way to have VR in a more "globalist" fashion, even if the global economy has gotten worse. Unlike PC VR, which is still too costly and complicated for most, remaining a niche. Wether Microsoft/XBox or Nintendo will (finally) follow the example and get into VR is doubtful (but desired), considering the more conservative nature of both companies. I too hope consoles will drive the consumer market, with PC compatibility for both games and hardware coming as an extra. We (PC and VR users) could benefit from it somehow.

Wooa... is the Quest2 really that bad? I got an (old by today's standards) Reverb G1 Pro running at 2880x2812 per eye (~170% native res of the HMD) and the image resolution and clarity is actually quite good, far better than I recall with a 1080P (2D) monitor. Granted, the tiny "sweetspot" (it's only really good in the center of the lens) is the achilles' heel of headsets like mine (or the Quest 2) with older fresnel-lens tech. But with newer headsets using pancake-lens tech (the "sweet spot" being pretty much the whole screen), and with as good or better resolution, I don't think the issue is image quality in VR, really. The only problem I see with VR image is the necessity to turn down settings, due to the big impact that exhists on every game (DCS being the most problematic in my list). And, of course, the fiddling and boring testing of settings (a royal PITA) until you get to a satisfactory term. ...again, the complications and complexities which few have the patience to go through, and the "ease of use" advantage that PSVR2 has over PC VR...

Pico4 and Quest3 are the new alternatives. That said, it is indeed unfortunate that none picked up what HP had with the G1 and G2. Those two still are, and will remain as, phenomenal headsets for sims (even in second hand market), ideal for those entering this side of the hobby. A crying shame that HP have quit the VR market so soon. I keep thinking that, what everyone really wanted was a G3, not the current ultra expensive stuff. Not disagreeing, but put that into perspective versus the PC VR segment and respective world. 5 million headsets sold. With dedicated service, ease of use, and now very decent quality on every PSVR2 compatible game title they sell (40+ available). Granted, it's not inexpensive but, realize this - you get a $500 console and a $500 VR headset, pretty much "plug-n'-play", you only need to add the games. You even have the hability to add non-PS controllers (joysticks, wheels, mouse/keyboard, etc) to it with 3rd party converters, if the direcly compatible ones are not enough already. Not sure if you've ever tried VR with a propper PC racing-sim. If you did, try GT7 with PSVR2. It's mind-blowing how comparable (how good) it is, how far they've managed. Trully outstanding. We're still very far from that experience and prices on PC for PCVR, probably will remain so - oddly, given the bigger diversity. Heck, look at these forums for the proof of that. How many $4000+ high-end systems built for VR, with $1000+ VR headsets - and people still having issues ingame - have been discussed here during these last years?

I voted "use both but mostly VR". I enjoy immensely a big 4K screen and do fire up DCS on it once and then, but it never got be the same thing again after getting into VR. If immersion is your thing, there's really nothing else matching flight/race/space simulation games in VR. Ditto. For sure, the prices involved with VR, be it of the headsets or the hardware required, are the main barriers. Not to mention other complexities usually involved. PC VR will keep being a very, very niche market, though it's one that (I think) will keep exhisting solid, if very limited, as is. There is one exception growing and, funny enough, is in the console market. PS VR2 slowly but surely is getting tremendous success in that platform. I can't think of any formulas to make it happen but, the PC VR world could learn a thing or two from there. Prices, requirements and ease of use are key.

Who's "most of us"? ~10% of registered forum users spreaded in this place? I ask because that's not what I gather from other forums or in Discord groups. Or even from the bugs section. And nope, no problem with any hardware or software here. And all of it is more than enough for 2D or VR simming purposes (or so it should be, right?). And by the gods, please no DLSS in VR! *yuck*. That was the first thing I explored (for days and days) once 2.9 was out, only to conclude that I really like my image pristine, clean of its vaseline brushing effects and of its ghosting trails on moving objects. I'm happy if 2.9 works for you, but it's no mistery that 2.56 is lighter and does work better than it - imediately observable and repeatable on pretty much any system (low or high end) than can run DCS. If you doubt it, you only need to compare one version VS the other, with same settings from the newest 2.9 that can be applied on the older 2.56. Sure, it's true that 2.56 would always have the performance advantage, mostly because of its older cloud system - no impact like in the unoptimized one of post-2.7 era. And in case you think this is also a myth, then try this simple test in 2.9 - Clouds at "high" or "ultra", then go to the Mission Editor, get your favorite mission loaded, then in "time and weather" settings, change the clouds settings to "nothing", run the mission and check the GPU usage, with or without unlocked FPS/frametimes. Then repeat again with clouds at "overcast 4" or something even more intensive for clouds than that. If you can't see the differences (the impact on resources) then, I'll repeat, I'm really happy if it works for you. Because you'd be the lucky anomaly, not the norm. MT doesn't solve all the problems, in fact it introduced a few others (stuttering in VR that is not present in ST). This always happens, just more or less pronounced (very little to a lot) depending on system - still not sure if it also has to do with CPU - if hybrid CPU or not- and/or with GPU (if for RTX 3000 vs 4000 series is worse/better, and if depends on driver version), and/or with VR headset and/or respective software, or something else that conflicts with DCS MT process. Some people are far less sensitive and dismissive when it comes to stuttering/hitching issues than others, and perhaps that's why some users feel there's no issue whatsoever, if this problem is currently of the lesser type in their case. After many, many years modding ED's game titles to one point to the other and back (since the LOMAC days, through FC2, BS and WH, etc) I still don't understand how some things get the green light for launch, be it the texture sizes and formats, or the post-2.7 cloud system. But, for sure, I'd rather advise people to revert to an older version before recommending thousand+ dollars/euros/pounds high-end hardware, meant to "brute force" fix something that doesn't necessarily have to do with hardware resources...

Nope, it's gone downhill since 2.7 and hasn't recovered to the levels seen before it. Especially if using VR, 2.9 is not even close to 2.56. During this three year period there has been considerably higher GPU, VRAM and RAM usage, loss of smoothness (plus the stuttering BS of MT, not found in the ST version). From my experience, in VR, an RTX3060TI does nearly as good in 2.56 as an RTX3090 does in 2.9 - that's a lot, considering the big perf. difference between the two GPUs. I'm also hopeful that Vulkan and "DCS 3.0" can finally be the boost we've waited for. But if it isn't... well, I'll stick with version 2.56 no problem.

One (among other) advantages that the 5800X3D has is that it's not as picky with memory timings as the non-X3D chips are (latency less of an issue). Even 3600 CL18 is fine. That said, the 3600 CL16 (16-16-16-36) kits (excelent Samsung B-die) are well recommended for AM4 Ryzen 5000 series, a family which the 5800X3D obviously belongs to. Also, 4 sticks of RAM on AM4 Ryzen 5000 series is up to 10% better performance, versus 2 sticks. So, for a 64GB total, the 4x 16GB kits are usually a better choice than 2x 32GB ones, for AM4 Ryzen 5000 series (different story on newer AM5 Ryzen 7000 series). The Gskill 3600 C16 kits, be it the TridentZ, or RipjawsV, or FlareX are really good. For example - 64GB (4x16GB) DDR4 3600 CL16 (16-16-16-36) 1.35V Gskill Trident Z RGB F4-3600C16Q-64GTZR https://www.gskill.com/product/165/166/1562839932/F4-3600C16Q-64GTZR

Pretty much this. When the time comes that Gen5 drives make any real sense for intensive game titles (it doesn't currently), they'll be already so much cheaper and then worth getting. That's just not today. As good as they are, it just makes no sense to get one right now at these outrageous prices. (...unless you're in the US and the very rare/odd local promotion comes up, that is!) IMHO, advising people to get a 2TB Gen5 drive which won't make any difference for any intensive game title anytime soon, when right now people could instead get a very good 4TB Gen4 drive (double the storage capacity!) for less money than it, or the same very good 2TB Gen4 for less than half(!) of its price, just shows incredibly poor judgment.