LucShep

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.

If you're going from triple screens to a 21:9 superwide screen with 34'' size, then I think it would be a downgrade, in my opinion. It's a smaller screen area, and you'll surely notice it. If you like the ultrawide aspect of triple-screens, if it's bezels bothering and higher resolution impact concern, then consider a 49'' 32:9 monitor, with vertical 1080P resolution. The 49'' 32:9 is equivalent to 2x 27'' 16:9 monitors. For reference, currently you're at 5760 x 1080 resolution with your triple 1080P screens, that's a total of 6220800 pixels. You'll notice latest 49'' ultrawides are 5120 x 1440 (1440P vertical resolution, total of 7372800 pixels - will be heavier on the GPU). But there are other 49'' ultrawides that are 3840 x 1080 (1080P vertical resolution, total of 4147200 pixels - will be lighter on the GPU). Whichever the case, budget at least $700 up to $1500 (depends on the model and its specs). For example, among other models, the Asus ROG Strix XG49VQ is a 49'' ultrawide that is 3840 x 1080 144Hz. It's a 2019 model (high-end back then, was $1300) currently being sold at discount prices ($800 more or less). In your case, it may be worth a look.

Yep RTX 40 Super incoming: https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-teases-new-geforce-cards-on-the-horizon-rtx-40-super-incoming

That should definitely be reported to the website management of that partlist, because it's a silly error (and maybe not so inocent) that will end up forcing people to overspend on what they don't have to! Pick any ATX case you like, go to its specific product website. There, the only two things you need to take attention is that it must explicit say in product specifications that: 1) For the RADIATOR SUPPORT, that it allows for a 360 radiator (for your 360 AIO, ideally in horizontal at top, or alternatively in vertical at front - some will allow both!). 2) For the GPU LENGTH CLEARANCE, that it allows GPUs up to 390mm (note, Zotac RTX4080 Trinity is 355mm long, add at least 35mm to that if mounting radiator at the front!). As said previously when I posted suggestion of parts, the Lian Li Lancool III (~160€, very likely the best for that price) as well as the Lian Li Lancool 216 (~110€, and likely the best for that price) will allow room to spare for even the biggest GPUs on the market. EDIT: if interested, someone made a comparison video between these two cases. There should also be competing models of other brands with enough space as well.

That list seems good. Just my opinion but, the Corsair 7000D Airflow case is one of those examples of really overpriced (at 270€) and oversized cases (full-tower instead of mid-tower, why?) that are more "vanity pieces" than anything else. Plenty other cases will do the same job just as good, for half the price.

Before I forget, and since you are going for an Intel "K" 13th/14th gen based system, here's some small tidbits that may help... Intel 13th and 14th gen "K" processors are supposed to be good up to 100ºC, but keeping it under 85ºC is ideal. Better be aware of the following: Make sure that you peal out the sticker from the cooler's coldplate (the flat thing that actually touches the processor) before installing it. I know it sounds silly (looks too obvious) but it happens more often than you think! Get the Thelmalright Anti-Bending Buckle for LGA1700 (available in most places, including Amazon, Newegg, etc). Although not a necessity, it's a solution that is worth the time (and not complicated, watch the videos). The stock ILM in Z790 (and previous Z690) motherboards, unfortunately, doesn't ensure the best connection between the cooler's coldlplate and processor, and this thing solves that problem. You get better temperatures, as it should have been from the start. Motherboard manufacturers often use an "enhancement" setting that they leave ON (on "Auto") by default, in the BIOS settings. In my opinion, this should always be set to OFF (as "Disabled"), because leaving it enabled actually brings more troubles than benefits. That specific setting is "MCE" (MultiCore Enhancement). What this setting does is remove Intel's safety limits and applies even more voltage, to enforce turbo-clock on all cores (hence why many call it an irresponsible cheat). As far as long-term goes, MCE won't overvolt anything to dangerous levels, but it does make the CPU operate with (even more) higher wattage and temperatures. The thing of relevance here is, it provokes what it's not supposed to from factory. Just put that thing OFF (as "Disabled"), save and exit BIOS... and off you go. For example, in the case of ASUS it's usually seen there as "Asus MultiCore Enhancement". IIRC, on the TUF boards it's under "AI TWEAKER" tab, while on the ROG boards it's under the "EXTREME TWEAKER" tab (like image below). Different names but same thing. Regardless, it should look similar to this:

CPU: Intel i7 14700K This is, IMO, currently the best purchase of the entire Intel CPU line-up. That said, the previous i7 13700K is a great alternative if this system is strictly for gaming (sims or any other genre) as it's cheaper. If compared to the i7 14700K, it lacks four E-cores and is only three percent slower in gaming (which is negligible - runs any sim/game just as good). And no, you don't need the i9 14900K/13900K (the same eight P-Cores as the i7) for any current or soon to be released sim/game, VR or otherwise, for whatever GPU. If anyone says its miniscule increase in L3 cache and turbo-clock makes a difference, then I'm sorry to inform but it really doesn't. You just get more heat (even more) and pay dearly for it. CPU Cooler: a good 360 AIO For example, the Arctic Freezer II 360 (RGB or not). Great performance, pricing and quality/reliability. It may lack "bling" but its simplicity also makes it non-fussy to deal with. There are now 420 AIOs but they cost more, and not all cases allow for it. There's not a great deal of difference when gaming to 360 AIOs, unless if overclocking. Motherboard: a quality mid-range Z790 motherboard (250€ ~ 300€) For example, the ASUS TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI. Please note that for 14th gen Intel processors you need the latest BIOS update with most Z790 motherboards. Do not feel tempted to waste your money on "ubber super dupper" mega hype bling-bling expensive model of any brand, you don't need it even if overclocking. RAM: 64GB (2x 32GB) DDR5 6400 CL32 - this is currently the "best performance for the price" (64GB capacity) memory for an Intel 13th/14th gen sim/gaming rig. For example, GSKILL variations of these, such as the GSKILL RipjawsS5 F5-6400J3239G32GX2-RS5K and GSKILL Trident Z5 RGB F5-6400J3239G32GX2-TZ5RK. Corsair and their Vengeance equivalents as well, available with RGB and without RGB. STORAGE: a good pair of 2TB NBVME Gen4 For example, the Samsung 990 Pro (if with latest firmware in place!), Samsung 980 Pro, WD SN850X, Corsair MP600 Pro XT, these are all great NVMEs that are often recommended for the best reasons - high speed, very snappy and great reliabilty. From these mentioned, get the 2TB version you find at the cheapest price. If you want to save a little on the second (and/or third) NVME just to install games, then the WD SN770 is an awesome "cheap" option. Yes, it's RAMless (so not the best choice if using as a single NVME for OS) but it's fast and ideal for such purpose. And no, for storage you don't need NVME Gen5 at all for any sort of gaming. NVME Gen4 vastly exceeds any heavy gaming demands and is more affordable too. PSU: a quality 80+ Gold (or better) 1200W ATX3.0 PSU For example, the Bequiet! Pure Power 12M 1200W and the Corsair RM1200X SHIFT. - The Bequiet Pure Power 12M 1200W is awesome for the price, a great example of good quality without having to pay a fortune. - The Corsair RM1200X SHIFT is good quality and its peculiar "shifted layout" can make for easier/faster building (or changes) due to much better access to the connections (which are put out at the side, instead of the back). It doesn't work with every ATX case (see reviews of this PSU) but it does work with most. CASE: this is more complicated to suggest, because it depends on personal tastes and desires. For me, the best balance is found in the Lian Li Lancool III. Good build quality, layout and features, huge airflow, good looking and nice to work on, at a very reasonable price. There's also the popular Lian Li Lancool 216, although it's a more basic case, it too has good build quality and layout, great airflow, also nice to work on, and is cheaper. Any of these two have room to spare for even the biggest GPUs from Nvidia and AMD. Lastly, for the GPU, between the RTX4080 16GB and RTX4090 24GB there is a big price difference, same for heat and power-consumption... advantage for RTX 4080 16GB. The RTX4080 16GB should be all you need, but the RTX4090 24GB may provide you that extra bit of performance (+20%) and VRAM (+50%) to keep you happier with VR, from day one and for a longer time. ...it's up to you and your budget.