GhostDog

So I installed 2.5OB and I think it worked as you described, copying needed files from the existing installs and downloading the rest. When 2.5 stable is released, will 2.5OB get updated, or 1.5.8?

So, if I have 1.5.8 stable, and 2.2 open alpha, which one do I update to get to 2.5 beta? And which one will get updated with 2.5 stable?

Assuming your monitor is the AOC U2879VF, you may need to enable V-sync in your games. The monitor's refresh rate is only 60hz, and I expect your GPU is pushing frames at a much higher rate (at least at resolutions below 4K). The monitor has FreeSync, but FreeSync is incompatible with Nvidia cards, and since FS is a competing technology, Nvidia has no plans to change that as far as I know.

Have you ensured that you've selected "high performance" in the Windows power settings? Depending on how a game is coded, this can impact gaming performance, as the system will sometimes put cores to sleep when they're not active if you're not in high performance mode. It's an easy thing to overlook. Also, what kind of monitor are you using?

I'll be putting together a new rig in a few weeks after all the parts arrive. I'll try to do some benchmarking with 8GB and 16 GB and report back on the results.

Is your test system the one listed in your sig?

If budget efficiency is your goal (and I think it has to be no matter the size of your budget), then I think you always want to optimize the price/performance ratio, i.e. get the best performance possible for the lowest price possible, within your budget, bearing in mind that "best performance" is relative to your personal goals. If bragging rights is your goal, then by all means spend away on a benchmark crushing beast. If task specific performance is your goal, find the system that's best suited to that task, for the lowest price.

What other processes are running?

So, while scrutinizing more closely the claims and counterclaims regarding Kaby Lake vs. Ryzen, I came across what was for me new and troubling information. Apparently, the driver framework that MS uses for DX12, Windows Display Driver Model 2.0, forces the GPU to use the Windows 10 graphics compositing engine, so that the display will support the various UI overlays that MS wants to integrate across all devices and platforms, such as a recording bar and on-screen keyboard. From the article I found: At this stage in DX12's development, utilizing the OS compositing engine has some peculiar effects on display output, like automatically capping the framerate at 60 FPS, no matter the refresh rate of the monitor or the in-game V-sync settings. The benchmark testing conducted by the author on "Ashes of the Singularity" revealed that AMD GPU drivers were achieving this by simply dropping frames when the GPU output exceeded 60 FPS, similar to how some low end displays claim to be able to "overclock" their refresh rates. Thus, the in-game benchmark reported much higher framerates than were actually output to the screen. Nvidia avoided this result by using a workaround in DX12 to bypass OS compositing and directly control the display. The aforementioned article explains all this in full detail. In my view, MS is using DX12 as part of a strategy to try and force all games built for Windows to behave like XBox console games, no matter what platform they're intended to be played on. This only increases my distaste for the Universal Windows Platform and my skepticism of its goals. I truly wish there was a realistic alternative. In addition, all of this underscores for me the importance of deconstructing the hype surrounding metrics such as FPS, thread count, and core count and closely examining how any given architecture impacts the experience of the end-user in real-world terms. Maybe in the near future, all of this will be moot, as we'll all be running around sporting all-in-one VR visors or some such, but moves like this make me feel like the era of PC building for anything other than boutique purposes is quickly coming to a close.

Agreed. Not only that, it's hard to know what is causing the RAM usage without seeing benchmarks and knowing the system configuration and what processes might be running in the background. Seems like most of the DCS specific evidence is anecdotal. Aside from that, my own question with regard to 16GB v. 32GB is, does more RAM result in perceptible performance gains. If not, why bother, IMO.

Well, based on my research as well as feedback from this forum and others, I've already pulled the trigger on an i5-7600K. I feel confident that it will suit my needs.

The numbers that I looked at don't reflect that. In any case, I can't evaluate which CPU is "better" in the abstract. I chose the platform that seemed more suitable for me and my purposes, based on the data.

Thanks. I'll be using a 27 in. 1440p 2K screen. I'll add it to the list.

I'm not up to speed on the relationship between unit population size and system RAM usage. A primer would be appreciated. Personally, my philosophy about the future when it comes to PCs is to build the best system that you can for your present needs, while allowing a bit of headroom to further optimize with what will by then be cheap past-generation components a couple of years down the road. That's always given me the most bang for my buck.

I've had fun researching and getting feedback for my latest PC build. In the past, I went with general advice from gaming forums and reviewing sites when selecting components, but this time around, I focused a little more intensively on data and benchmarks in configuring my build. I thought it might be useful to share some of the lessons I learned. 1. Build a rig suitable for your primary purpose. Theoretical performance and synthetic benchmarks are all well and good in the abstract, but how will your system perform on the primary tasks you will be carrying out? Studying real-world benchmarks led me to switch from AMD to Intel for the first time, since games will be my most demanding applications by far, and Intel has better gaming performance. 2. Build around a complementary cpu/gpu pairing. Previously, I focused on the best CPU/mobo I could afford, and selected other components accordingly. But since gaming is my most computing intensive task, I learned that it makes more sense to focus on a complementary CPU/GPU pair that will maximize data throughput without bottlenecking either. Speaking of data throughput: 3. Bigger/faster does not always equal better. It makes no sense to build more capacity in any of your subsystems than can ever be reasonably utilized. For example, having a CPU that can OC to 4.8+ GHz makes no sense if you don't have the components to achieve a stable OC at that frequency. Having more than 16GB of RAM makes no sense if even your most demanding applications will never utilize anything more than 12GB. And so on. When selecting components, my watchword became performance gains. I only considered upgrading a component if it meant obtaining meaningful performance gains or adding useful functionality for my specific configuration. 4. Understanding how each subsystem processes data is critical. For instance, learning about the relationship between GPU memory clock speed, bus width, and memory size helped me to avoid making some poor GPU choices (https://superuser.com/questions/1186150/gpu-memory-bandwidth-vs-speed). That led me to further consider the relationship between the PCI bus, mobo chipset, and the memory and storage subsystems. In the end, considering how the major subsystems work together to create an efficient, high-performance PC that is optimized for the user's primary tasks (as well as his budget) is worth the time and effort, and results in what I consider to be a thing of beauty. 5. There are lots of very smart people out there who are happy to provide their insights and advice. It's impossible for any one person, even an expert, to know everything. It's always helpful to seek advice and feedback on your planned build before you pull the trigger. With that in mind, here's a link to the build that I finally settled on. I'd appreciate feedback: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xsLKVY Edit: the Samsung Pro Evo is only for illustrative purposes. I actually chose a PNY CS2030 480GB, but it wasn't on the part picker list. Edit2: list updated to include monitor. The model in the list is different from the actual monitor, in that it uses an IPS panel, but it is approximately the same price and resolution.

Unless you're doing other I/O intensive tasks like video rendering, a single 1TB SSD is overkill for Windows + DCS + Steam, even if you have a massive steam library. The only benefit to SSD storage is faster read/write times. Static files, like music, video, game assets that are unneeded at game load, etc. are best stored on a cheap HDD, as there's no performance gained from storing them on an SSD. Also, I can't see how distributing programs across three SSD volumes will make any of them perform more efficiently, any more than it would on 3 HDD volumes. But perhaps you have a RAID setup or some other special configuration that takes advantage of this.

+1

Do you have data for that? I'd be interested to see. I haven't seen anything showing performance gains above 16GB.

My thoughts: Mobo: If you're going to drop that much on a mobo and water cooler, you might consider going whole hog and going with the Maximus IX Extreme with the integrated cooling block. SSD: An NVMe SSD, like the Samsung Pro Evo 1TB, would give you better storage throughput (don't let those high speed M.2 slots go to waste!) Overall, should be one heckuva rig!

I have. Here's my take: Price and Features 1. Currently, an R5 1600X (which is the unlocked competitor chip to the i5 7600K) is actually the same price as an i5, and sometimes even more expensive than an i5 (only by about $10, but still) 2. If you account for the built in WiFi on the ASRock X370 Killer SLI, the AM4 board that has the same features as the Z270 Pro4, they're about the same price. However, the WiFi data rate for the X370 (433 Mbps) is slower than the Intel 8265 BT/WiFi module (867 Mbps) that's available for the Z270, and the X370 lacks MU-MIMO support, which is something that I want/need for my specific WiFi router. 3. The X370 top supported memory speed is only 2666Mhz, vs 3200MHz+ for the Z270, which makes a measurable difference when you're overclocking. Compare the performance of Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666 with the 3200 model for example: 2666: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-vengeance-ddr4-2666-overclocking,4011.html 3200: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-vengeance-lpx-16gb-ddr4-3200,4354.html Performance 1. The real advantages of a 4 core, 8 thread GPU are in applications like video encoding and 3d rendering, which are not a major focus for me. 2. As expected, the i5 has superior single-thread performance, which makes the difference for the majority of modern games. In particular, the i5 is consistently superior for the kinds of games that I typically play, namely simulations and RTS games. Some other kinds of games that benefit from more threads may see comparable performance from the R5 however. (see http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4). 3. The i5 overclocks to a much higher frequency than the R5, which translates to better DCS performance (see https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157374) For my money and purposes, the i5 is a much better overall value. YMMV. For ease of comparison, here's a couple of PCPartpicker lists for an i5 and comparable R5 system: i5 7600K https://pcpartpicker.com/list/VhGwf8 R5 1600X https://pcpartpicker.com/list/kqrn4C Edit: I wouldn't actually use the Intel 600p (it's a dog performance-wise). My preferred SSD, the PNY CS2030 480 GB, wasn't on the parts picker list.

Ah, thanks for the heads up. The Z270 Pro4 then ($110 USD).

Per the ASRock website, the H270 uses UEFI bios with built-in OC options. http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/H270%20Pro4.pdf

Okay, I think I'm trying to compromise in the wrong places, and I should build around a sensible cpu/gpu pair. On reflection, it seems better to either stay with an i5 7500/GTX 1060 6GB 1080p setup for ~$1K USD or go with a i5 7600K/GTX 1070 1440p setup for ~$1.3K USD. How about these two options: GTX 1060 Rig GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6 MB 192B | $260 CPU: i5 7500 w/ stock fan | $200 Mobo: ASRock H270 Pro4 ATX | $90 SSD: Intel SSD 660p 512GB | $180 HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50 RAM: G.Skill DDR4 2400 2x8GB | $110 GTX 1070 Rig GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1070 8GB 256-bit | $370 CPU: i5 7600K | $240 CPU Heatsink: Scythe Mugen 5 | $45 Mobo: ASRock Z270 Pro4 ATX | $120 SSD: PNY CS2030 480 GB | $180 HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50 RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200 2x8GB | $125 Edit: The price difference is a bit narrower than I thought ~$300

Hey guys, I'm getting ready to put together a new gaming build, and I'm weighing two different configurations. The first is more basic: GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6 MB 192B | $260 CPU: i5 7600 w/ stock fan | $220 Mobo: ASRock H270 Pro4 ATX | $90 SSD: Samsung Pro EVO 250 GB | $130 HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50 RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR4 2400 2x4GB | $70 The second has a bit more horsepower: GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6 MB 192B | $260 CPU: i5 7600K | $240 CPU Heatsink: Scythe Mugen 5 | $45 Mobo: ASRock Z270 Extreme4 | $155 SSD: PNY CS2030 480 GB | $180 HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7600RPM | $50 RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200 2x8GB | $125 The way I see it, for the second build I would be spending about $250 more for more overall system capacity (in the form of an additional 230GB SSD capacity, an additional 8 GB RAM, and around a 4.8 GHz OC capability). However, I'm wondering if I would gain more in the end by taking that money and plumping it into a GTX 1080. Thoughts? Edit: I'll be gaming at 1080p for the time being.

You could get a Ryzen 5, but you're getting poorer single thread performance, and less storage throughput, as the SRT tech in the Intel Zx70 chipset uses SSD drives for data caching. If it's an all purpose rig that he'll use for CPU intensive things like video encoding, the Ryzen might be a better bet, but I'd stick with the i5 for gaming. Plus, he would only save on the mobo since the i5 7600k is currently cheaper than the R5 1600x. edit: on second thought, SRT isn't really relevant to his planned rig, he's going for a single SSD drive. On that note though, there are some nice midrange mobo's that have M.2 NVMe sockets for PCIe SSD cards. Better performance, less space for the SSD.