kksnowbear

I've used Asus AURA on a number of RGB builds over some time (maybe 20 builds in 2 years). It can be very finicky and is generally junky IMHO. I moved to SignalRGB more recently, having done 5-6 with that now. It's a better way, IMHO. Among other things, it's not proprietary - which if you know RGB in general, that's the biggest problem: Asus software doesn't want to work with eVGA GPUs (or whatever). It's not perfect, in that some things are not supported (most notably, AMD GPUs from any manufacturer aren't supported yet last I looked, which is really unfortunate). And your specific RGB controller may not be supported (why I asked what model). Here: https://www.signalrgb.com/devices/ Can't hurt to check. Maybe try it. It's free (with ads, but you can pay to get rid of them). It's actually not bad, and in my experience, behaves better by far and uses less system resources than Asus AURA. I've had very good experiences with it controlling GPUs from one mfr on motherboard from another mfr and using a few different RAM and fan mfrs as well. Helps get away from the proprietary sh*t that a lot of the manufacturers try to force on you, so that you have to buy all your RGB components from them (**TOTAL** BS in my opinion). PS: Pretty sure there's an 'Aura clean up tool' or some such...strongly recommended. These stupid lighting control apps are notorious for leaving sh*t all over a system.

So it really does more or less sound like something with the ARGB controls from the motherboard (to include software, although hardware is not impossible) as opposed to a power issue. To me. Are you determined to use Asus' software or could you consider something else? Have you tried removal/reinstalling Asus software?

Many people here will agree DCS can use more than 32g and therefore 64g has become kind of a standard of sorts. It does depend on the circumstances, but if you can afford it, it can help avoid the really bad things that happen when memory capacity is inadequate. Increased memory capacity alone will not directly affect frame rate, though it can affect how "smooth" things feel by avoiding the problems I mentioned above. Mixing memory modules is just usually not a good idea. You MUST be very careful with different modules as you have indicated (your 32g not same as friends). I will say that generally this is not recommended at all, and it can definitely cause problems. So unless you're absolutely sure, I'd consider another way. One alternative is to find someone who's willing to take your 32g in trade toward a 64G set. There are reputable sellers who offer this. So I'm not accused of posting just to try to sell stuff (utter BS regardless), PM me if this interests you at all. Good luck

Where does the hub get its ARGB control input? Does this indicate the AIO and Thermalright hub are both (separately) connected to the motherboard? As in two separate motherboard ARGB headers? What is the exact model of the Thermalright hub, please? When the blinking occurs is it *all* the LEDs, only those connected to the hub, or only those on the AIO? If they're all doing it *and if* they're all ultimately controlled by/connected to the motherboard ARGB headers, I'd suspect something going on with the motherboard ARGB, and yes software can be a problem (Asus AURA can be particularly stupid at times. There are better choices in some cases). Power might be an issue, but that would depend entirely on how everything is wired up. If the AIO and fan hub get power from separate points, I'd think you'd have other power related issues (if it were a PSU problem for example.) If both are *powered* (never mind PWM and ARGB for a moment) by the same cable for instance then yes, a single bad connector might cause it. (Note since PWM fans don't control speed by varying DC voltage like older fans do, it is entirely possible to have ARGB and PWM connected to the motherboard, and still have a power connector as well). It would be very helpful to have a complete and accurate diagram of how exactly all this is put together. Did you build the machine yourself?

There are far more people who find tech like DLSS/FSR/RSR beneficial, and the vast majority consider the gains outweigh the drawbacks. This 'level of approval' is also consistent with/reflected in the growing implementations throughout the industry. This isn't (and shouldn't be turned into) a specific commentary on a per-sim basis. But, if that's the angle, well then all I can say is ED chose to do it for some reason. Proof of the pudding, as it were. And I really don't know where you got the idea about a "hype train promoting the idea that it has no downside"...but no one who knows anything about it has ever remotely tried to claim that. If they claimed that, it's a dead giveaway they don't know cr*p about it. It's a compromise - but a damn good one for many people who cannot afford to spend thousands on a GPU but still want to get substantially improved frame rates. The choice re: quality sacrifice is, once again, entirely subjective and a matter of individual opinion. As always, what's 'worth it' depends entirely on personal perspective.

Maybe what I'm saying isn't clear; let me try again: I'm not at all saying that you can't use DLSS at 4k, nor that it won't work or whatever. What I'm saying is that a 4090 at 4k res is not the "showcase" situation which technology like DLSS (or AMD equivalents FSR and RSR) are focused on. Pretty sure the tech came about as a way to allow higher frame rates at a given resolution, even on lesser GPUs. For instance, yes have a 4k monitor, but rendering at lesser res to lower the workload while still getting the 'pixel sharpness' of the 4k resolution display/panel. Works great/been there/done that. All those points you make about 4k are perfectly valid - what I'm saying is that these technologies are more impressive by far for what they can do on lower-end hardware which is more readily available/affordable than the (far fewer) people who can already afford a 4090/4k arrangement. For every one person running a 4090 at 4k who could already get very good performance regardless, the technologies now make it possible for 100 or 1000 to get similar levels of performance without necessarily paying the same price (though I would absolutely maintain it's not without compromise). Or: 4090 (already very good and thus don't 'need' DLSS tech to perform well) <lower-end GPUS> (which were struggling at performance in certain circumstances, but can now approach double their performance) I think, of the two cases, the latter has far more to gain, where the former was fine even without DLSS. I think the 'saltiness' which you observed yourself (as in not me) is due to a related-but-different cause. Among other things, it (further) diminishes the validity of simple FPS numbers being proportional to cost of the hardware.

I know very well what it is and how it works; exactly as I described, and exactly the way your brain and eyes do the same thing. "They look like sh*t" is 100% subjective opinion, and from someone who's running a system that is not in any way the intended target for the technology. Plenty of people are amazed by the tech and what it's capable of. As I said, it's growing. Fast. And with good reason. Not everyone can afford top end equipment, and it's perfectly capable, legitimate, and very good at what it's designed to do.

An absolute misrepresentation of the technology, if there ever was one. The pixels, I can assure you, are quite real (of course). The technology incorporates machine-learned "guesses"...and that's not any more 'fake' than the exact same thing your brain and eyes do with what you 'see'. This is why the saying exists that someone's 'eyes are playing tricks'. Either way, there is interpolation based upon what is there. Same - same. Never mind which way is better, the technology is an absolute game-changer - literally. People who can afford 4090's have zero objective way to judge this, but the gain on lesser systems - without substantial adverse effect - is remarkable. And that's the intent. It works, it works well, and it's catching on.

What I know is people can buy whatever they want. I'm never going to advise anyone to just buy what's cheap. Not the way I operate (especially when I can typically do better on a trusted, quality component). What I also know is the forum moderator asked if we could please ensure this thread stays on topic. Stop taking shots at me just to try and show off.

When it comes to everything, you do always. I'm not going to argue with you. Anyone can buy whatever they want. But it's long since established that "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." It's as true now as it was nearly 250 years ago when good old Ben Franklin said it (and he was a fairly smart fellow, Ben was)

Sure is. For those who value cheap over performance, absolutely. As with anything else, you get what you pay for

And who's not making concessions? BTW, if you can't find mine, you're really not trying. I'll be glad to find an example for you, but I can't afford to spend all day on it. If you look, there's plenty out there. Hmm. Seems a perfectly friendly concession, which I made to you in this very thread (replete with smiley winking emoticon, nonetheless). That's one; there are plenty of others. Sorry, man, but I'm not the bad guy here just because I don't agree with you. And, at the end of the day, it would certainly seem that's what you're pissed about. Again, let's debate the point. Forum discussions may well include concessions, but that's not at all the entirely of a discussion. Dissenting perspectives are also part of the deal (and should be welcomed, not attacked TBH). I'm not pissed at you because we disagree, so no reason you should be. We have different perspectives; I've stated mine. It happens I genuinely oppose "expertise" in forums that typically exists only because most users don't have the knowledge or experience to disagree. I do. And I debate where I see there is room for other perspectives. I don't think that's against forum rules, as much as you might want it to be. My IT experience and the fact that I do this work professionally is absolutely relevant. Sorry if you don't agree. You'd trust someone as a doctor or lawyer who didn't have experience? By the way, you should consider that, right now, today, there are people I know from this forum (and other sim forums), who I have done work for, or am currently doing work for. And you want me banned or something just because I don't agree with you? I'm not a freaking "troll" (or whatever names you like calling people), just because I don't see things your way. At least some people here understand and appreciate what I do. Sorry that's not you. You do whatever you want, but you shouldn't dismiss those other members of this forum simply because I've earned their trust and respect. And again, I mention my work and experience because it's relevant. (BTW the majority of my work comes from offline, so although you can report whatever you want, I'm not just here 'fishing for customers'. When one wants to meet racing fans, one goes to the track - and I'm the bad guy? I also fly DCS and other sims and have been involved in that for over 40 years as well...this makes me a troll?) My initial posts in this thread were directed at the OP, and intended as helpful advice - and apparently, recognized by the OP as just that: TBH it was only once all the posts advising always and regardless buying Gen4 drives that things got muddied up, and I didn't start that. I simply responded that if the future proofing argument can be applied to Gen 4 on a Gen3 board, then it can certainly be applied to Gen5 drives. That's it. Didn't advise anyone to buy Gen5 in this thread, as you claimed was "very poor judgement". I believe all I said was the future proofing argument could be applied to Gen5...but by all means, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, if you can show me where I advised or instructed anyone to buy Gen5 in this dialogue. Regardless, as I've said, I've been approached by people who ask me to build Gen5 machines for them, without me advising anything. But you want my professional experience banned from the discussion, because it doesn't suit your argument. Incidentally, Amazon is well known for routinely changing prices by the hour. Why is that my fault? People shop holiday sales (when I got my T700) all the time - but I'm wrong for it? I make a point of finding good deals, and I often pass it along to people I work with on systems. I am blessed, I 'pay it forward'. This is wrong? Seriously, it just starts to seem you're just mad because of prices where you are - again, certainly not my fault. Everyone in the States supposed to turn down decent opportunity because you don't get the opportunity? You "specialize" in European stuff; I specialize in the market I have access to. I don't think I've said or done anything to mislead anyone in that regard. I simply related my own personal experience buying my own drive (which anyone in the right place and circumstances could benefit from). As for my luck in finding that deal, again: More skill than luck. I find ways to make arrangements people are happy with. If I can't offer someone an arrangement that's acceptable to them, then I advise them to buy elsewhere. Seems like another concession and perfectly reasonable advice. Certainly not forcing anyone to do anything Oh, here's another example: I actually bought a BeQuiet 1200W PSU, based on your recommendation here in this forum. And this was installed in a build that *I* am obligated to support. That's not me "putting my money where my mouth is"...that's me putting my money where your mouth is. But (and here's the key) I bought it only because I found a deal on it. Your recommendation was enough that I considered it from a technical perspective...but getting the deal I got actually made the sale. And I passed it along. This is wrong, why? Guess you wouldn't care that this more or less proves I'm not trolling anything, that my goal is simply and specifically helping people get into this hobby with the best arrangement I can possibly come up with (even at the risk of agreeing with you LOL). Sometimes I agree with you. Other times, I do not. Simple as that. I have factually lost money (at times) doing this, because I don't do it for the money. It is not the 'money making' part of my operation. I do it to help others, using the skill and talent the good Lord blessed me with, because I love the work. And now you're pissed. I would submit your own words are what you're angry about, and I'm sorry, but dude, seriously: I didn't make you say those things. Sorry to get off the subject. The subject here was M.2 drives. I'm stating my perspectives on the subject of building and installing computers as it applies to M2 drives, per the topic. I'll leave it at that. I think it will become more apparent I'm not some troll (a personal attack I don't care for or deserve).

It doesn't matter that it was a deal - as I've said, anyone at the same time and in the same circumstances, could've gotten the exact same deal (in the States). This wasn't a wholesale arrangement, it was brand new hardware prices at retail (websites). Granted, it didn't last long (a matter of a few hours IIRC) but it was available to anyone (in the States, I presume). Sorry but I'm a little too busy to keep up with other countries' economics, and since I'm not advising or building for anyone in another country, most people could understand there's no reason I should need to. It's also not really a measure of my luck as it is a certain 'skill' in being patient and diligent. You can argue that point, but the fact is it paid off. I didn't pull any miracle out of my behind, I was just a good shopper, that's it, period. And, FWIW, this is another thing I do with clients: Advise them on how to buy, not just what to buy. And it works. I generally encourage competition and will often provide comparison costs when I quote work. If I can't offer a better value, I tell them so, plain and simple. Sorry, but from my perspective, all the grousing here is just jealous "haters". There is a reason people pay for my work and trust my advice. Several have allowed me to do multiple builds over the years. You are correct. I was not comparing the cheapest Gen4 drive, and there's nothing to suspect: I stated as much. It starts to become apparent that you're arguing here without actually reading (which doesn't do much for understanding, I might add): You might wanna go back and read those earlier posts (although you were actually participating). What's happened is fairly simple; I wasn't the one who started about "future proofing", and I was saying that, way back in the beginning of the thread. What I actually said is quoted above, and I'm still pretty sure that at no point have I advised anyone to do anything in this thread. (Still waiting for someone to post a quote where I actually did that, BTW). Also, I have discussed getting a deal, as well as my good fortune, just seems like you don't read: And here's the exact, initial comment that I made about future proofing (after someone else brought it up, not me): Basically, I'm responding to what others say. And it's absolutely true: What someone feels is "worth it" in terms of 'future proofing' is always up to them. People have posted in this forum about spending thousands on GPUs that go way beyond what DCS requires to run even at 4k (and we're not talking VR users either)...faster CPUs, more memory, and so on...more costly all the while, all in the name of 'future proofing'. There is frequent mention of 'future proofing' when people post about new builds... ...all this is OK, but I decide it's "worth it" to me to spend less than a top end Samsung 990Pro would've cost, to get the same size Gen5 T700 that's actually faster...because I already have a Gen5 board, having just started my own AM5 build... ...and I'm the bad guy? Now that's absurd. This 'always' and 'never' attitude is what started the argument. Those two words seldom apply to what 'makes sense' when it comes to building PCs - and I do custom builds all the time, some of them for DCS users. Sometimes it makes sense to wait for a better deal; sometimes it makes sense to buy now. Sometimes Gen4 might makes sense; sometimes Gen5 might. To me, it makes zero sense to be in the process of a Gen5 capable AM5 build (including the added cost of the Gen5 board), then pay as much or more than a top end Gen4 drive, when you can get a Gen5 drive at a comparable cost. It so happens I'm doing yet another AM5 build for a DCS user right now, and guess what we just discussed? He wants a Gen5 drive ('worth it' to him, obviously, and it was entirely his choice), but on my advice, we agreed it's not the best time to buy right now. Amazing...when I am actually advising someone to do something, it makes sense and they understand that. Wow. I've also done Gen4 (non "E" model) AM5 builds. Not my recommendation, but the point is I wouldn't advise a Gen5 drive in that case (obviously). Or, put another way, if your goal is to save money by using cheaper Gen4 storage (even though you're doing a brand new AM5 build) then save yourself a chunk of money and don't buy a Gen5 "E" board. Again, not my advice - but as I keep on saying, what's 'worth it' is strictly and entirely a matter of opinion.

Well, all that laid aside, the "Gen4 always, regardless" is very bad advice in the right circumstances. Among other reasons, always is a long time. Always and never should be used very carefully. But those were your words. And I didn't give anyone advice, only you did. You said advising someone to buy Gen5 was poor judgement - but ya see, I never actually did what you're claiming. In fact, if I can be honest, it shows very poor judgment to accuse me of doing something that (I'm pretty sure) I didn't actually do. Nope. I addressed that later/below. It actually makes the point that I did actually state. I get that you don't want to acknowledge it, but again: I didn't give advice. What I actually said was if the 'future proof' argument could be applied to a Gen3 board owner, then it also can be made (not *must* be made, I said "can be") for a Gen4 board and Gen5 drive. As I've stated over and over, this applies particularly if the Gen5 drive is cheaper than the Gen4 - which is what I found. In the States. Where I live and work, and build gaming machines for others. You can cite European examples, but I can't cite American cases? I am sorry you can't find a similar deal, but I'm not going to miss out on it just because you can't find as good a deal. That would be stupid, and it would be stupid to tell my clients, "Hey they can't get this deal in Europe, so I'm not going to offer it to you". No one's trolling anything...now you're going to claim that just because I don't agree with your opinions, I'm trolling? PS, although I'm sure it's a lost point on you, I just recently fitted a client's machine with 128G RAM - but here's the thing: I didn't advise them at all. They approached me, asked me to do it, so I did. Simple. TBH I don't know why they felt it 'worth it' but as I've said over and over here...what's worth it is entirely up to the guy writing the check. Sometimes I ask or advise clients, sometimes I just do what they ask me to do. That's (also) a business decision, not a technical factor.

Right, but my point was that the exact same argument applies to Gen5 drives - given that what's "worth it" is strictly subjective, as opposed to value-for-cost, which is objective. If I find a Gen5 drive the same size that's as cheap or cheaper as a comparable Gen4 (as I actually did) then your argument is making my point, even for someone with a Gen4 board. The Gen5 drive, in that case, is essentially a no brainer, 100% of the time (with a few specific caveats like quality, warranty etc; these were both excellent, high-end drives [Crucial T700 and Samsung 990 Pro], both 2TB.) To be clear, I don't personally subscribe to the 'future proof' idea, and I'm very careful to explain this to my clients. However, I am compelled to respect their preferences, and it happens I know what they actually mean by 'future proofing'. So I'm happy to accommodate. My point was/is with all the mention of 'future proofing' on this site, that if the argument applies one way, then the argument could be made in other instances as well. If someone has a Gen5 board - or even remotely plans on it - and (like me) finds one for as cheap or cheaper than a Gen4 drive, why would anyone say "Just get Gen4 always and regardless"?

Depends on the circumstances, how many drives, what's actually running, etc. Also, "1" is not "4" - big difference there as well. 32 might not be as common (again, depends) but 4 is certainly much more common, especially in certain circumstances. But the benchmark you posted originally is strictly Q1, not 1-4. And let's not forget: The T700 cost me less than a 990 Pro at the time I bought it. No brainer. Can't help other countries' economic situation; not a factor I have to be concerned with, nor my clients. (And I'm pretty sure the OP is in the States too...checking...yup, Kansas USA) Also, I'm pretty sure that with a DirectStorage implementation, the small data size concerns will be much less an issue. One of the biggest advantages of the newer technology is that data can be moved in *much* bigger sizes - which will (again) strongly favor Gen5 drives like the T700

Nope. That has nothing to do with it. BTW let's leave the personal insults out of it. Debate the point, instead of ad hominem attacks. It's not an edge case. In 100% of the cases, what is "worth it" is a matter of opinion. It's really just that simple. (For the record, I distinguish what is 'worth it' from 'value-for-cost' which is what you're talking about). And I have no trouble finding and working with people who actually pay for and trust my advice and work, thanks. Just a matter of actually understanding what's being discussed - and I *never* (ever) force anything on any client. I might strongly advise, or even ask them to reconsider, but at the end of the day, the decision is always theirs.

No, I'm afraid not. What it worth to someone - anyone, under any circumstances, is absolutely and entirely a matter of that person's opinion and perspective. Period. And, as I keep saying: Pretty sure I haven't told/advised or instructed anyone to buy anything in this thread, at all. So there's no advice at issue. What you recommend is your business. I'm already seeing faster performance, right now, with the T700. And that's absolutely a matter of empirical fact. You're doing what's called 'cherry picking' data, the one Q1T1 random read in that specific benchmark. In fact, the 4k read at a queue depth of 32 just above that is factually better in my post of the T700 score. And depending on the circumstances, a higher queue depth is more likely than "1".

I keep saying this, and apparently no one here's getting it, so I'm going to repeat it: I haven't once, in this thread, told/advised/instructed anyone to buy anything. Simply said that if "future proofing" can be invoked to rationalize buying any amount of other expensive hardware, and/or buying a Gen4 drive for a Gen3 board as I believe was actually suggested... ...then the same exact argument applies to buying Gen5 drives. Like it or not, it's that simple.

And I've repeatedly said prices in other countries are not my fault nor my problem. Here in the States, where I work building custom gaming machines for people including DCS players, I can do better. Sorry for your misfortune. And once again: What is "worth it" is absolutely and entirely a matter of opinion. Period. And unless we accept that you (or any of the other 'experts' here) has the right to force their opinion on others...well, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong.

ED decided to put DLSS in DCS. MT as well. They chose to do this for their own reasons - but it remains they did choose to do so. I can list many technologies that didn't come about overnight, but did actually become commonplace - and made substantial differences in their respective applications when they were implemented (I'm not just talking PCs; rather, the process of evolution in technology). It isn't always as fast as we might like. Sometimes, yes, it fails. But that doesn't mean that DirectStorage/related technologies are doomed as you put it. And, although it's obvious you wish to sound as if you know, the truth is you don't really know any more than I do. And the actual events taking place, over time, seem to be more consistent with my perspective. I'm saying, even with the points you made, there is progress with DirectStorage/related tech. That much is undeniable. I believe the available evidence strongly suggests the potential will be realized - much the same as DLSS and MT in DCS. I see why you say what you do, but what you say still doesn't prove at all that DIrectStorage won't succeed. You simply don't know that. And - again, to get back to the topic of this thread, I never once gave any specific advice to "Do this". That was you: Talk about "incredibly poor judgment". I guess you'd advise those with Gen5 boards to use Gen4 drives always and regardless (your words, not mine). My point throughout has simply been that if 'future proofing' is a valid argument, then buying a Gen5 drive isn't bad advice at all. Pretty sure that's what I said.

Sour grapes. Typical hater response; obviously you're pissed because the actual facts and data don't agree with you. The Gen5 T700 drive outperforms the 990, today. Yawn, indeed.

I can only repeat what I've already said: These are the companies' businesses, and I find it exceptionally unlikely that business management - never mind software developer worker bees - would actually expend resources on something that is as doomed to failure as you describe. I think *you* don't get the picture: I'm not saying your reasons aren't reasons. I'm saying that, in spite of all your reasoning, it would appear that it's happening all around us, right now. So, somebody seems to know something you're not taking into account.

Also, apparently you're unaware, but DirectStorage technology is not bound to die just because it's only supported in DirectX12 or whatever... NVIDIA Brings the Benefits of DirectStorage 1.1 to Vulkan Under its RTX-IO Brand This article explains that DirectX actually came from the original RTX I/O, and NVIDIA has developed a Vulkan version of the original RTX-IO tech that can be used by game developers with engines primarily designed for Vulkan. So there's that. I know that. The point is they wouldn't bother if there wasn't interest. They wouldn't bother if they didn't think there was a reason to do so. You seem to think you know their business better than they do. And, as I've already explained: For every time it happens - regardless of how or why - it's one more step in the right direction. The question here is whether DirectStorage (and related technologies, see above) can do more with the speed of Gen5 devices - thus making it no longer a comparison hobbled because the speed isn't being used, which in turn means Gen3 and 4 devices - although they'll work - just cannot perform at the same level. Which means Gen5 storage is not the terrible investment that a couple of experts in the DCS forums seem to think it is.

Of course, we all know that...but it's also missing the point. Your comparison is intentionally made on a playing field that's not level; it's inherently biased toward slower storage. On a Gen3 board - or a Gen4 board, as I've said, the transfer rate is not going anywhere, primarily because the storage device speed has exceeded the saturation point of the bus. This might not matter as much with these benchmarks and whatnot, but the fact remains that Gen5 is faster - and the various implementations of DirectStorage can actually take advantage of speed beyond what Gen3 and 4 are capable of. So while they may all seem the same in benchmarks presently, that won't be the case once the technology is in place to actually use the advantage of Gen5 speed. And, as I've already pointed out, that advantage is already present, in PC games, today. The rest is just a matter of time. And yes, I've already tested this myself, and there is clear benefit to Gen5 speed when coupled with newer storage technology: