LucShep

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.

Well, they are over double the price across the whole continent that I live in. Now what? VERSUS WD SN850X and Corsair Pro XT are slow Gen4 drives? LOL ...that's the best one I've read all week. No PCIe 5.0 system, not even top end ones, sees perceptible benefits today with whatever sim/game (DCS included) with a Gen5 drive versus a good Gen4 drive. It's aking to something as getting an RTX4090 to play at 720P. Or getting an Nvidia Quadro GPU or a Threadripper 7980X CPU for gaming. It's specific performance capabilities at high cost, from which you won't get improvements for gaming any time soon. But hey, great for bragging rights though. If you're a professional content creator packing and converting monumental ammounts of data and files, with your livelihood depending on it, then that Gen5 drive may make sense, as a tool for your own work and business, as was intended. Otherwise, at those stupid prices, don't even bother. That money would be better canalized instead -also if building a brand new system- to other HW that would be positively way more impactful. For example, a 4TB version of those Gen4 drives (230,00 EUR / $250 USD), or a better CPU, or better RAM, or better PSU, or better cooler, or better PC case, etc, etc. For what it's worth...

That must be in the US, which means it's a very particular scenario for a restricted part of the world. I'm currently looking at Amazon sites in Europe (ES, IT, DE, FR, NL) and they all list the Crucial T700 2TB at 365,00 EUR ($500 USD). Meanwhile, excelent Gen4 drives like the WD SN850X 2TB and Corsair MP600 Pro XT 2TB (heatsink included!) are at or under 150,00 EUR ($164 USD). Looking around, these prices are also reflected (so, generalized) across different places all over the EU. I can only suspect, but likely similar in the Eastern side of the world as well. So, no, NVME5 Gen5 drives (Crucial T700 or others) are still not worth it, when they still are at well over 200% cost against top Gen4 drives. Absolutely not recommendable. Just get a good Gen4 drive. Be it for your current or upcoming system (yes, even if building a brand new system!), at such prices it's a no-brainer.

Yep, it is. Let us know if you happen to know about RTX 4090 24GB in the market at the $1,599 MSRP....

Yep, the obvious reply is obvious. Future proofing with a Gen4 drive when using a PCIe3.0 motherboard made and still makes sense. It doesn't with Gen5, even if with a new PCIe5.0 motherboard! When Gen4 drives got out, they were 25% more expensive than Gen3 drives. They always made sense. Now prices are pretty much the same. They now make even more sense. Gen5 drives have been 200% (and over) more expensive than Gen4. It does not make sense, that's horrible cost/benefit ratio for any home (gamer) user. Your case is particular because, as you said, you had the chance to get a Gen5 NVME for less than a Gen4 NVME. Revel on it. There is no current or soon upcoming game that will exhaust speeds of Gen4 drives (not even close), not even the most average ones. Don't get me wrong, Gen 5 drives are amazing but they currently make little sense for 99% of use cases, even less for such awful prices - like using a Ferrari to get the groceries. I think what happens in practice will vary between what is loaded and plugged into the PC. With the random access nature of most applications including games, there won’t be performance differences under normal circumstances to undermine either solution (single NVME with DRAM versus SATA+OS with separate NVME for games). If one has a system that is polluted with unnecessary services and apps in the background, of course things can change -whichever way with whatever system- necessity of system optimization (should always be a must) comes into the matter, but that's a different discussion. In my experience, applications such as games (even most demanding ones) won’t be an issue coexisting with the Windows installation, if using a single NVME with DRAM. But then (and of course) "alas DCS" ....the exception to all rules, and its never ending changing nature of (increasing) all hardware demands.

IMO once you go past 4.000 MBps reads/writes, it's all a bit irrelevant for gaming (DCS included), but yeah... I can only envy. I saw excelent promotions for the Crucial T700 2TB around here some weeks back (usually at 400€... and then they ask why Gen 5 haven't been selling as well as they envisioned) but then me with the good old PCIe 3.0 motherboard....

You're not wrong. The thing is, there's not just the OS (Windows) but also all other programs running in background. Take DCS VR usage (usually sensitive to friggin anything), for instances, with all VR and peripherals/controller related (and likely other unrelated) apps running at same time.... With the NVME far faster speeds, access, writes and reads (random or sustained) and with DRAM on it, versus SATA SSD, it will still be faster/smoother even if all in same drive. Just a practical fun way to check the drives read/writes. No worse than your ATTO benchmark there. While fussy, it actually ends up being more accurate to real life with the specific system (see how long it takes, speeds for read/writes during copy/paste transfer, and compare). Yes, and I know that particular case is not the best scenario for what I was mentioning - obviously, someone who has 970Evo on a PCIe 3.0 motherboard won't notice much difference, if any (versus SN770) - and it's not worth substituting of course. Buuuuut... he/she will surely notice it with el-cheapo older Gen 3 drives, which are actually not so much less expensive to justify it. And once he/she steps up to a PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 motherboard will notice it even more. As to say, makes no sense to recommend a Gen3.0 instead of a Gen4.0 drive at similar price (especially good budget ones, say older SN550 Gen3 vs newer SN580 Gen4) that not only will run a bit faster in the older boards, but will also (surely) run and feel far faster once it's used in the next upgraded system, with newer and faster PCIe capabilities. Considering that drives are something that can usually be re-used on the next newer system, it just makes sense to recommend (and get) the best drive one can afford - within reason, of course - also for future proofing (IMO). That's what I meant to say back there without extending too much.

That's funny, it was the opposite in my experience (on Z490). The 970 Evo is a very good Gen3 (PCIe 3.0) drive, as was the 970 Pro bigger brother. Those are among the "very few" ones that I mention. But OK. Now try, for example, to copy a full installation of DCS from one drive to other. Then reboot and repeat the process in reverse. You'll see what I mean. In that Z390, the SN770 should be just a wee bit faster overall but (clearly) much faster in sustained writes. ATTO benchmark is ok (I've also used it) for a general idea but it doesn't show the full picture.

Yep, it makes sense in your case. If using OS + DCS in same drive, the OS and the game are sharing space and access, reads and writes will be happening at same time frequently. Get a good one with DRAM.

As said previously, there are benefits by using a Gen4 NVME even with motherboards that only support Gen3, like yours. While in such case the Gen4 drive won't reach its capable full speeds, it will definitely run at the full speed of Gen3 - something very few Gen3 drives ever achieved. So, it doesn't compensate to buy a Gen3 drive at this point, when there's such a minor price difference to Gen4 ones today (it's worth getting the latter, always). This is regardless of being used on next system (future proofing) or not. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there's the new Gen5 drives that some feel tempted to invest in, but there is none worth the money right now. Currently, it's just not for gaming/simming use, even if with newest hardware. Could make sense in scenarios where you really need to make huge transfers at the highest possible read/write speeds - we're talking professional/commercial use case applications, and even here sometimes the higher prices won't justify. Resuming - get a Gen4 NVME, always and regardless. It depends. If this is to be a separate second (or third) drive for games and/or general storage, then it's perfectly fine (no issues), as the lack of DRAM in the drive won't be felt. But if this a drive to put the OS + DCS, then you should definitely avoid buying a ramless NVME - these are meant as a complementary drive. Sure, these can be used as primary (and single) drive for "budget" oriented systems with less pretentious goals for gaming, but this isn't a system you'd idealize for DCS. Well reknowned NVMEs with DRAM, such as the Samsung 990 Pro and 980Pro, WD SN850X, Corsair MP600 Pro XT, etc, are well worth paying, to be used as primary (OS) drive. Especially if in case of single-drive based system (i.e, using just one NVME drive for everything), they always feel snappier (sometimes a lot more) and help immensely with (less) stuttering when using demanding games (such as DCS), where lots of data transfers and access speed, plus reads speeds, do matter for a smooth experience. It makes sense in this case to have a good NVME with DRAM, because the OS and the game are sharing space and access, reads and writes happen at same time frequently. Ideally, performance/price, for drive arrangement I find that one would want: - a smaller capacity (250GB or more) fast Gen4 NVME with DRAM as primary drive (for OS and program files). - a larger capacity (1TB or more) fast Gen4 NVME (which doesn't necessarily need to have DRAM, i.e, can be ramless) as separate drive for demanding games, such as DCS. - a very large capacity drive (2TB or more) for regular storage (older games, downloads, music, movies, etc) where performance is not a concern - can be a SATA3 SSD or HDD.

Your ASUS B460M-A motherboard manual mentions a particularity that you should take into account. If NVME #1 is in use (in SATA mode), then the SATA slot #1 will be disabled, because they share bandwidth - see image below. Regardless, I'd recommend to simply move the SATA plugged cable in SATA port #1 (if any is in use there) to another SATA port (#2, or #3, or #4), before placing the new NVME drive in its respective type slot #1 (aka M.2_1). You can also try to place the new NVME drive in the other respective slot (#2, aka M.2_2). Just remember to check in BIOS the boot drive priority, so that the drive you have with OS installed (one to be used with Windows) is given most priority.

Doesn't really matter the order of NVME. The OS drive can be in whatever NVME slot (you can swap boot drive priority in BIOS), etc. If it's the middle NVME port that is available, plug the new NVME drive there. If it's the top one available instead, same thing. So you're good. But for those two 2.5" SSDs, you'll probably need to plug those on the SATA ports #2 and #3 (instead of #1 and #2 as you currently have them). EDIT: in your motherboard the SATA ports #2 and #3 are the ones marked yellow in this image: I say this because this is what I gather from a quick diagonal read on your motherboard's manual: - Using the first NVME slot (M2M, top one closest to the processor) affects SATA ports #4 and #5. - Using the second NVME slot (M2A, middle one, closest to the top PCIe x16 for graphics card) affects SATA port #1. Quoting from your motherboard's manual (see pages 33 and 34): https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3094181/Gigabyte-Z390-Aorus-Master.html?page=33#manual

Z390 motherboard supports PCIe Gen3, not Gen4. That said, there are some benefits by using a decent Gen4 NVME even with motherboards that only support Gen3, like yours (and mine). While in such case the Gen4 drive (obviously) won't reach its capable full speeds, it will definitely run at the full speed of Gen3 - something very few Gen3 drives ever achieved. If this a second drive, not to be used by OS and meant only for games, then there's no need to get a really fancy NVME Gen4. In short - get the WD SN770. It's ramless (therefore not ideal for OS drive) but it's really fast, reliable, and it's cheaper, so ideal for this purpose.

BTW, comparing it to MSAA x2 does not mean much, that one never did a good job for AA, not just DCS but whatever the game. MSAA x4 does the job, better also over DLAA or TAA in DCS (remains unbeaten). And if I have to further increase resolution (and/or increase Pixel Density in game) to upsample the image that DLSS is downsampling (then losing any performance benefits it has) that is an obvious sign that its purpose has been clearly defeated, isn't it? EDIT: oh yes, the "melting" you mentioned is the mentioned ghosting trails (smearing) on moving objects. If one uses motion reprojection (which I presume most will be using in VR for DCS) with DLSS enabled, it's impossible to look at. Absolutely horrible.

Yep.... and now imagine it in VR, where it's much, much worse than with a 2D screen. It's not only a blurry mess, you get added ghosting trails on moving objects. It's horrible. The downgrade in image is absolutely obvious. But, of course, if you're not a purist for graphics with a keen eye for detail, and considering the current state of (un)optimization of DCS, you may excuse and even prefer it, for benefit of the performance increase. The funny thing is that this technology does seem to work fine in some other games. For instances, in WRC Generations setting DLAA + DLSS Quality it even looks better than the game without it at default resolution + TAA.

In Europe the RTX 4080 Super is expected to go over 1.600,00€, and this is if scalping doesn't occur. Which will likely occur, considering it has been over a year since the last launch of new higher end Nvidia GPUs, and people who have been waiting to upgrade will (again) jump head first. Performance increase is expected around 8% only, over the regular RTX 4080. Honestly, I don't think it's worth it if one owns an RTX 3090 already. Give or take, it's a ~35% performance increase (a good upgrade is considered from 50% and over). For such hefty cost, might as well think about the RTX 4090... or wait for RTX 5000 series (end of 2024?), as the RTX 3090 is still a great GPU. The only model that is really interesting in this "4000 Super" trio line up of Nvidia is the RTX 4070Ti Super 16GB. Now that'll be an awesome upgrade for someone coming from, say, RTX 3060/Ti or 3070/Ti, or older RTX 2080/Ti, and AMD equivalents. How DCS has become so much more demanding (especially in VR) in just three years, is what beggars belief. I think what we need is far better optimization, rather than better GPUs. The GPU prices just make that even more obvious and urgent.