kksnowbear

Among other things - which I'll have to get back to later, the fact is this: There are 9 games more that use DirectStorage now than there were at some point before. So unless you're privileged to some factual industry information, I'd submit there's no way possible for anyone (including you) to actually know what will and will not happen. However, factually, once it's already happened, then we all know. And, factually, those 9 games actually support it. So - for some reason, in spite of your theory - some game developers have already invested in it. Hmm. Interesting. You (nor I) really know why, because we're not them. But what we do know is they did it. The "why" doesn't matter. And that would certainly seem to suggest they know something you don't. And since it's their business and their company, well I'd have to trust they're not intentionally trying to lose money. As I said, it looks as if there are some people/businesses who agree with me, in spite of the experts here. Maybe we should tell them the DCS forum experts have concluded how bad their decisions are.

I already knew you weren't saying anyone should go back to SATA from NVMe. See how I said "Of course not."? Helps if you read: The point was exactly that: Just because some tests show that SATA can equal NVMe, you're not going to suggest we all go back to SATA. Likewise, just because some benchmarks show a 990 can come close to T700, doesn't mean it's good advice to go backwards to older technology. Especially for those who already have Gen5 boards, or are already planning to move there. In any event, your earlier post is still misguided, because your 990 Pro is - as I said - still factually slower, even at 4k reads. And (which I notice you don't acknowledge) current drives already saturate Gen 4 transfer rates. Gen 5 has more than 10% room left to increase yet. Can't do that with a Gen4 drive, period. There being 'no word' on what ED will or will not do is immaterial. You (nor I) didn't know before they announced DLSS or MT that they were definitely going to do those things - but here we are. You (nor I) don't know factually they will or will not - so your point is moot.

What is "worth paying for" is completely and strictly a matter of opinion and perspective. (Referring to the line I bolded in your quote) So you're suggesting that everyone should go back to using SATA vs NVMe? Of course not. Funny how every time a newer, faster technology (in this case PCIe 5) comes out, you pretty much have two factions: The "early adopters" and the "haters". This happened when SSDs came out; the enthusiasts/early adopters were excited by the new technology, interested in learning more and seeing the potential it brought to PCs in general and gaming in particular. Meanwhile, all the haters kept on saying "It won't improve game performance, only load times" (blah, blah...) Yet now, it's entirely commonplace that even novices will advise others they need to get SSDs. It's the same people, mind you - they just finally got SSDs themselves, so they now tell others it's the obvious thing to do. Like they were saying that all along (not lol). And this thread sounds exactly like that did, back in c 2005 or so. I'm an early adopter. I see enormous potential in Gen 5 storage, and ultimately DirectStorage *will* be the rule not the exception. (And it's already here, now, today - in a growing list of games). Apparently, the storage industry shares my opinion about how these things matter, and so do at least a few game developers as well. But hey, what do they know? lol Surely a group of 'experts' here in the DCS forum know better than the people and companies who are in the business of developing these technologies.

I got bad news for you: Yup, I can spend what I want. And I did. And I also know all about 4k reads... I also own 990 Pros (more than one). Unfortunately, still not as good as the T700...and BTW, the T700 isn't topping out the PCIe 5 transfer rate yet, where the 990 Pros (and everything else Gen 4 or earlier) is already maxed out. The Gen5 drives now all pretty much have the same Phison controller, and are all pretty much 12400 max transfer...but the PCIe 5 bus is 14000. So there will be faster drives. Can't do that with a Gen4 drive, period, because the currently available drives can already saturate the bus. Oh, and let's not forget: When I got my T700, it cost me $217, which was less at the time than the same size 990 Pro (as I said earlier). So there's that. Plus, I already have a Gen5 board, so it would be stupid for me to spend more to put in a slower drive (regardless of which metric/what margin, still slower). And that deal was just me being diligent, anyone could've gotten it. But, even if someone didn't get the deal I did, the difference in price for the T700 was something like $38 even after the sale I caught. So if someone has a Gen5 board already (like me, and I've also now built 3 for others), you'd have them spend more to get a slower drive... ...or (best case) buy a drive that is slower (even at 4k reads) to save $38 on the same size drive. Also: Making all these qualifying statements such as "For games that don't have Direct Storage", while there's constant usage of the term "future proofing" in this forum, is completely misguided. (And I personally understand the entire concept of 'future proofing' as a fool's errand). And to be specific, that's all I actually said in this thread. To be clear, not once in this thread did I actually advise/recommend/tell anyone to buy a Gen5 drive. I simply said if the argument is future proofing (and it often is) then Gen 4 drives make no sense, particularly if you already went to a Gen 5 board. Now if you already had the drives, that's another matter. I migrated two Gen 4 drives when I moved to a AM5 build. But I also paid extra to have a Gen5 capable board...I'm not buying a new (comparatively slower) Gen4 drive, for a build like mine. It would be stupid to do that. BTW, Gen5 boards (the E models) cost a good deal more...why spend money on the board if you're going to insist that Gen5 isn't worth it? Makes no sense to me. (Sounds like someone throwing money at an expensive board, who doesn't even understand the features. You have a build with a 7800X3D, a 4090, and you're worried about $35 more for the fastest storage? Well...that doesn't make sense to me, either.) And mine actually cost less when I bought it, so the $35 wasn't even at issue. Sorry but if you pay more for storage when you can find a better deal by waiting, catching sales, etc that's just not smart...has nothing to do with whether Gen5 storage makes sense. I can't help the fact that other countries charge more - not my fault, not my problem. Here in the States (where I live and build many gaming machines for others, including for several DCS users), I can do better.

By the way, I never said that (yet you write it as if it's a quote). I've quoted you exactly; please stop putting words in my mouth.

You've insisted throughout this entire thread that you know what NVMe was for, and how the inventor didn't mean or understand what she was saying, or what she invented it for. Your comments are in stark contradiction to her own statement. If that's not claiming to know more than the inventor, I don't know what is.

What I'm doing is providing exact quotes from you. The "why" is because you keep posting more and more unrelated terms and figures, to obscure the fact that you contradicted genuine experts and stated incorrect opinions. All the stuff you're posting since, trying to undo that, doesn't change what you said. I'm not failing to grasp or skewing anything. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. I quoted your exact words, and I quoted the expert's exact words. The brutal reality is that your statements are incorrect, and I get that you don't like that. But like I said, don't blame me. That's your entire original quote, and you didn't say "typical" anywhere. What you factually did say is that it's intended to be accessed by 'many clients', and that's misleading. The number of clients will definitely make the contention problem worse, but even one will still experience contention at times. Putting everything on one drive factually decreases availability (regardless of drive speed or number of users), thus increasing contention. Multiple drives, as well as faster drives, IF properly configured and allocated, will decrease contention by increasing availability - thus improving system responsiveness.

The word 'meaningful' in your question is well-placed, but makes the answer a good deal more complicated. Having a separate display absolutely puts more load on any GPU, and resources must be used to drive the pixels on that display. So there's no doubt that there is a 'hit'. "Meaningful", however...well, that's a lot more subjective than objective. I personally believe (and advise clients for whom I do builds including for DCS) that you should avoid running a second monitor on your primary GPU unless they're just no other option. (And the key is that other options are readily available and not that costly). For me, since it is given that there will be *some* load on the primary GPU if you connect an additional monitor, it's best to just avoid that and thus avoid any problems (not just load, but also potential for conflict as we all know Windows is known for at times). There are solutions which don't require installation in the PC case, cost ~$20 and can drive reasonable resolution displays. I don't consider it the best idea, but in certain respects, it beats running anything other than your primary monitor off the primary GPU. That said, though, I have worked on systems where there was only one GPU and the users seemed able to play their preferred games without enough of a 'hit' that it caused problems. One thing that definitely has to be considered is resolution of the second monitor: Whatever the extra load is, it will be more at higher resolution - this is why I don't advise just saying "It won't matter". The truth is it depends on a number of factors - including your own personal preferences and budget (believe it or not).

Thank you, at least someone gets it... I would take it a step further, however, and say that how the concept is expressed is crucially important. You're absolutely right in that it does exist, of course. That said, there will always be those who claim that, because it's infrequent or difficult to observe, it's not a problem. That's the foundation for their entire argument. Unfortunately, this gets turned into the very argument in this thread: That it doesn't matter. It absolutely does matter. What matters to them is entirely their business, and not for me to say. But it is wrong and misleading to say it makes no difference at all, just because it doesn't matter to you. My point is it makes zero sense to spend multiple thousands to build/buy high-end systems, another thousand or two on peripherals...and then 'build in' contention (thus factually decreasing system responsiveness), by refusing to invest another 1-2% into avoiding the contention that will occur (hard to observe or not). That's like buying a million dollar sports car and burning cheap gas in it And it also makes zero sense to carry on like the contention issue doesn't exist. It's well known, and as I've explained (or tried to) it is a key factor in storage improvements of any type. I'm just now wrapping up yet another DCS build for a member of the forum here, and I can tell you that even though there's a fairly constrained budget, it's a 'no brainer' to include separate storage for DCS. And in this case, it's actually a much bigger percentage of the cost (~10%). Here's a guy who gets it: He doesn't even have $5000 to throw at a system ...yet he's not going to create a problem that can easily be avoided. Something else I mentioned earlier that has been completely obscured by all the subterfuge is that the engineers who design the motherboards we use are fairly smart people. They build the boards with multiple controllers/slots for storage, because even they understand that a properly implemented storage subsystem can use multiple drives to improve responsiveness by increasing availability thus decreasing contention. They understand that (for people who can actually wrap their heads around it) this is a key part of optimal overall system design. Of course, there will always be those who don't understand the concept, and will continue to argue that it doesn't matter, simply because they don't understand it. I'll be honest, a lot of nuclear physics is lost on me because I don't understand it. I do, however, have more sense than to argue with the direct statements of the folks who invented the technology.

Direct quote there, and misguided opinion. It "promotes my point" exactly: As I've repeatedly explained, RAID is one of many technologies developed to increase availability, thus decreasing resource contention. Faster data requests are handled, sooner the storage subsystem is available to other requests and thus contention is reduced. In this manner, the entire array is actually being devoted to different tasks (other requests), by way of increased availability. Storage Architects understand availability is crucial. Yet you're still attempting to argue it was a bad example. It was a perfect example, if you understand the importance of responsiveness and availability in storage subsystems. The fact that you keep arguing simply goes to show you really (really) don't understand this concept. And plenty of single users have/had RAID arrays. It was intended to improve responsiveness by increasing availability thus decreasing contention. It's just not a matter of how many users, simply because contention will occur in any system - and, as I said in the very beginning of this, it doesn't matter how much or how often, when it happens (and it will), it's a bad thing. The point behind *any* storage performance improvement - RAID, NVMe, whatever - it to improve responsiveness by increasing availability thus decreasing contention. That's what you don't get. But I urge you, by all means: Go ahead, ask a fighter pilot: Laying aside everything else, would you want a system that was more responsive or less responsive? Ask a competitive gamer the same question. I'm absolutely, 100% certain of the answers you'll get. And yet you go off again, arguing a bunch of stuff no one is arguing. It's just straw man. If a system suffers bottlenecks elsewhere, that's a different issue with a different solution. You just wanted a way to throw in some person's name and title to make it seem as if it reinforces your argument. How many cores a PS5 has isn't even remotely at issue; this conversation is and has been about storage responsiveness in and of itself. The point behind *any* storage performance improvement - including DirectStorage, even in a PS5 - it to improve responsiveness by increasing availability thus decreasing contention. Obviously you need to stir up a lot of mud in the water to distract from the facts, but those are the bottom line: You contradicted the industry's leading expert on NVMe, and you continue to prove your opinions in general regarding storage subsystems are misguided. Everything else you're posting honestly is subterfuge, and straw man arguments which are not at issue, to distract from the obvious inaccuracies in your own statements.

Absolutely. And a damn shame at that.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. I might add, though, that at one point, there were people who *were* 'screaming from the hilltops' over it - and rightfully so. What happened then is a testament to the stupidity of mankind: More and more people forgot about their privacy, and security, gladly giving it up to be able to lazily click on something and find a picture of Britney Spears naked (albeit faked), or a movie or music they didn't have to pay for....what they did was exactly the same as a donkey with a carrot hung in front of him. "I don't care what I'm giving up, I want the free video/music/naughty pics/whatever...after all it's FREE" Well, news flash: It ain't free. NOTHING in this world is free save maybe the love of your family and that of the Almighty (and the family can be questioned at times lol). We'd have been fine, had all the geniuses listened. We could have put a stop to it at the onset, as consumers. Unfortunately, every time someone (rightfully) tried to speak up, here come the geniuses: "You need to stop complaining and just upgrade..." "It's not hurting anything, it's helping me see when things I want are on sale..." blah, blah blah. Right on through Windows 7 to Windows 10's forced updates...how long do you suppose it will be before Microsoft wants to charge everyone f**king monthly subscriptions to use *our* hardware? (Hint, they already intend to). The *real* problem, to be honest, is those who say it's normal, it's to be expected, and we should just accept it. Sooner or later, everyone's going to realize all the convenience and naked pics of Britney Spears on the planet aren't worth what it will cost. We should've heeded common sense when this all started. We should've raised hell then, and stopped it. I personally was among those 'screaming from the hilltops' that this was all coming. And I was attacked by "this is normal, to be expected..." "You need to just upgrade..." And *now* everyone's crapping in their pants at what they've finally realized is going to happen??? Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I'd submit a more modern take on the concept: Those who give up their personal identity and privacy to get "free" pics of Britney Spears naked, and have someone else picking over their food from the grocery store, deserve all they get

No worries, I wasn't offended, just wasn't sure who you meant. I welcome informed discussion, that's what discussion forums are for Your point is well taken about the GPU being tied up and thus not much else for the CPU to do. What I'm referring to (sorry it wasn't clear) is the times when I see the GPU usage drop badly, because the CPU usage is even lower still. Doesn't happen often, necessarily, but it's a real thing I've seen first hand, and can duplicate at will. It first came up when a customer who I had just finished a build for, called me and said, hey, why's my shiny new 3090 dropping from 120 to 45 FPS at times??? Something's wrong!! Looking into it, I discovered that the CPU was only being used maybe 50% in total across all it's cores (a 5600X with a 3090 at the time). Bad. Really bad. The sim was obviously very busy, but the CPU is so underused that the GPU becomes bored, only being utilized itself ~50% at that moment. There's nothing wrong with the CPU or GPU (tested same on completely different hardware). Later on, he changed to a 5800X3D, which helped but the problem was still there. I was also using a 5800X3D at that time, and saw the same effect on my own machine - which is when I tested it with a 1080 and got roughly the same frame rate as a 3090 in that situation (just the GPU was now much more utilized, for obvious reasons). That's bad. The CPU is being so badly underutilized, it can only load a 3090 to the same level as a 1080 can do. Since that time, I have moved to a 7800X3D, and I'm also doing a 7800X3D build currently for another DCS player. And, no big surprise: The 7800X3D does increase frame rates on the same GPU, since it's able to keep them busi(er). But it is also still not being near fully utilized - and the GPU is still being under utilized because of it. Basically, this means I'm/we're having to throw 200% the hardware capability at it, to get what should be attained with half as much, because it's obvious that half (at least) isn't being used as it should be. I would respectfully not call this (in this case, specifically) normal and to be expected (my example, not yours). Like my client said that day: Something's wrong. If I can get the same performance (in FPS) from a 1080 as a 3090...something's really wrong. And it ain't hardware When it gets to the point that the GPU isn't being fully utilized because the CPU isn't being utilized (and both are still showing plenty of capacity available)...well, I consider that a big problem. Anyhow, I don't want to get too far off course, but it is 'on topic' because the question was about CPU utilization. The point I'm trying to illustrate is that it's fairly bad in many cases, although as I said DCS seems to be better in my casual anecdotal observations. And I believe you're right about the "MT journey" just starting, and I'm looking forward to further progress. I can say absolutely there's at least one sim out there that could stand to learn from DCS in that regard.

Not sure who you're referring to as being 'not totally aware' - but I can assure you I understand multicore CPUs enough to know they are typically being underutilized. In some cases, problematically so. (Not to get too far off here, but I can show you one example in a sim which very clearly shows a CPU being so poorly utilized that it actually causes a high-end GPU to run like a 1080. And yes, I proved it, and duplicated it reliably.) I also understand what makes these X3D CPUs great - already built several running DCS and many of the predecessors (5800X3D) as well. And I've already gone on to show that even these wonderful X3D units (both AM4 and AM5) are subject to the same problem outlined above. I'm just saying it's still underutilized - and it is. The reasons why - particularly that it might be hard on the developers (not my problem TBH) - don't matter. For example: It's easy to see my GPU is working his tail off, being close to 100% utilized sometimes. That's what I paid for. But then I see cores/threads on the CPU sitting at (much) less than 50% usage - often less than 25%....sorry, but that's just performance left on the table. In fact, although TBH I cannot claim to know for sure, the evidence supports the conclusion that the problem I describe above would be substantially mitigated, *if* the software were utilizing the CPU effectively. (Again, to be clear: This is NOT in DCS - but it's still a real-world example, in a well-known flight sim) No one's questioning what's more difficult to attain or program, or which applications do it better or worse. Those are details for the software people to work out, not the end user. It's not accurate to imply a CPU can't be 100% utilized (or at least much , much closer than they sometimes are). Again, the issue is the software isn't effectively utilizing what's there.

I have to agree with the others here. I also have a 7800X3D and have built several over the part year or so (paired with 3090, 3090Ti, or 4090, although not using VR). One of the biggest frustrations for me personally is to have a very capable CPU and see how much of it's ability is *not* being used. It really is a shame that you could benefit from that extra horsepower, and it's sitting there idle. BTW this isn't just DCS in my observation. Other sims do it too - and in my experience, at least one of those is far worse at times. I haven't studied it in detail, but casually and anecdotally, I might even venture that DCS is among the *better* one at using the CPU. A valid conclusion would require a lot of time and effort I just don't have. Anyhow, best of luck

I posted direct, word for word quotes from her and you. Simple as that. You contradicted an undisputed expert. She invented NVMe with one other person, pretty sure that's been stated. No one said she was the only person working on it - straw man (which would also be totally ludicrous to suggest). She was the Principal Engineer (maybe you ought to look that up). Plenty of inventors and scientists had teams but the name credited by history as the creator is the lead. No one's questioned what Intel's most important segment is - again, straw man. Seriously, stop trying to drag servers back into it just so it sounds like you weren't wrong. You were. Engineers invent stuff all the time regardless of whether there's an existing use. Doesn't make it any less valid, and (again) she stated clearly what it was intended for: To replace SATA in clients. When it was invented, and whatever else it has use for, is immaterial. This is just more subterfuge, attempting to obscure the bottom line. She invented it, and she stated clearly why. Per the actual industry expert (who stated exactly what I quoted), it was not invented for servers as you said. Period. Doesn't matter how much other stuff you stir up trying to obscure it, that remains the bottom line. It is absolutely absurd that you continue trying to make it seem like she didn't know exactly what she was doing or why. Intel paid her for her skill as a Storage Architect, which your posts make it obvious you are not. Anyone with any sense can see who the expert clearly is. (But we're all supposed to listen to you.) Your comment about RAID also showed you don't understand how RAID arrays work to improve availability, and thus reduce contention. As I said, there are people today still building RAID arrays, from even the fastest NVMe drives, because using both technologies allows approaching the maximum in availability. They understand that availability, as the inverse of contention, is key in storage. They further understand that improvement in storage availability is critical to overall system responsiveness. And, in gaming specifically, responsiveness is among the most important goals of better performance. So: Increased storage availability factually equals decreased contention, which conclusively results in better system responsiveness - a crucial factor in gaming performance. Anyone who doesn't believe in or understand the significance of responsiveness, need only ask a competitive gamer why responsiveness in systems is critical (or, you know...an actual fighter pilot). Attacking you personally is of no importance to me and is not what's happening here. I'm just presenting conclusive evidence that your opinions are inaccurate (and there's a history, at that.) I get that you don't like your comments being proved wrong, but don't claim I'm attacking you personally. It's your own stated opinions that I'm rebutting, and it's your own comments - directly quoted, word for word - that are proving you wrong. Again, don't blame me. I've already explained what matters here is calling BS what it is, and trying to present genuine fact, according to real experts, to help people who might actually want to learn (rather than just repeatedly acting as if they know more than the people who actually created the technologies being discussed.)

Quote, per the inventor: It was invented for client. You said it was invented for servers. Opposite what the actual inventor said. What part of you contradicted a genuine expert are we not getting? And you're off and running again, with a bunch of stuff to distract from the fact that your stated opinion is wrong according to the industry expert who actually created the technology. What it would benefit eventually has nothing to do with that fact. Straw man. How can her statement be true...? Seriously? She invented the technology. I'm gonna guess she must know what the heck she's talking about. She was professionally compensated by one of the biggest tech firms on the planet to invent it...but we're supposed to believe you instead? Wow. Don't forget, she worked on SATA before NVMe. So I'm pretty sure she would know where storage was coming from, and where it was going (that whole Principle Engineer/Storage Architect thing). But you're right...why should we accept the words of the paid professional who invented the technology? We have you to tell us what everything is really all about. Wow. Just...wow. And now we're adding in Intel being disingenuous? Really obvious you're just muddying up the water now. You keep bringing up a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the fact that the exact words of the actual inventor prove the opinion you stated is incorrect. Your stated understanding of the reason NVMe was invented? Incorrect. Your statement concerning RAID improving availability and thus decreasing contention? Misguided. Dude, it can only be said so many ways. All this other stuff you keep throwing into it has nothing to do with what you said being inaccurate, and really only proved your understanding of storage technology is limited to using a lot of terms in writing, and the same volume of 'hands on' experience that assembly workers also have.

You said: NVME was mainly a server targeted technology, where hundreds/thousands of people could be making requests of the system. (Direct quote) The industry expert who invented it says otherwise: NVMe and PCIe SSDs are intended to replace (or be the next generation) for client devices (Also a direct quote) (Those other people in that PodCast didn't create NVMe. She did, and those are her exact words. Since she actually invented it, I'm going to say she's the expert on why, not them...but thanks for the subterfuge.) Those were exact quotes from you and her. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, nor make them say anything. So you're not arguing with me, you're contradicting the very person who invented the technology. Pretty straightforward. Doesn't take all that rambling on about queue depth and whatever to see that. And yet, you're still arguing. Wow. As I said, I've followed this work since the beginning, and I'm very familiar with it. I actually learned about this stuff back then; I didn't just look anything up now. I linked the article to show the facts, not to prove you wrong. You made the statements that actually proved you wrong. Don't blame me. You've learned to use a bunch of really technical sounding terms, but your original comments show your actual level of understanding. Your original statement about NVMe was incorrect, and your original comment about RAID performance was misguided as well, proving that you don't actually understand how availability and contention work in storage subsystems. See, you're just piling on technical terms to obscure these few basic facts. 'Muddying up the water', as it were. Years ago, I used to go to meetings where VPs and PMs sat at a table, tossing around technical terms just like that, when they really had zero idea how the stuff actually works - which they'd also eventually prove with their own statements. Seems familiar in this discussion. But hey, you keep on arguing. Good for you (Incidentally, to be clear: You're not by a million miles the only person to be "hands on with with thousand<sic> of client computers". That still doesn't prove you understand any of the storage concepts. We had production guys making $8 an hour who were "hands on" with thousands of client machines, yet they were NOT in any way trained, skilled, or experienced professional IT people. They were assemblers, that's it.)

Yup, but the actual expert made it clear: NVMe was *not* designed or intended to replace storage technologies in servers at the time it was invented (by her). Pretty much opposite what you said. It was targeted at plain old desktops because SATA couldn't keep up.

You see it as "D waving". I see it as an important need to promote fact according to empirical data and genuine experts - not BS and personal opinion. My references to experience in the field are there to demonstrate that there are different levels of expertise and different levels of 'experts' ** Moreover, it is entirely possible (likely) that the 'average DCS user' causes themselves problems by doing a lot of this stuff wrong. All you have to do is look at the forums just about any time to know this. And the reality is that most of the 'experts' that show up - while they might know more than the 'average DCS user' - are not really experts. They look smarter because they know more compared to the other guy. Oldest trick in a military inspection...you wanna look better, stand next to someone who looks worse. Fall in between two guys who look worse and you're golden. As I said above, it does no one any good to spread BS. It hurts the sim, the community, and the users. Whether you notice something in single digits is a matter of your own opinion, and it doesn't give anyone the right to mislead others. Just because you don't notice or don't care doesn't mean no one else does - that's up to the reader, not you. I'm posting facts, with references (like the Podcast link above)...so if you're interested in learning from *real* experts (as I have) then I'm offering the resources, that's it. If you're not interested, then don't read - simple. Others are just getting all pissed off because the facts don't agree with them - plain and simple. BTW "Technically superior" wasn't my phrase. It was taken from LucShep's post earlier in this thread. Apparently at least he understands and cares at least enough to know the facts. The "storm in a teacup" is because (again) it matters when people spread misleading information about how things work. If someone wants to wallow in ignorance, that's certainly their prerogative. But they're not entitled to force everyone else to, by squelching detailed, factual information just because it steps on some toes. I'm not hurting anyone by sticking up for fact here - and in reality, it helps those who actually want to learn. ** Edit: Incidentally, a good part of my more recent experience is with building custom gaming machines for several people right here on this forum. They trust my advice (and spend their money) where they can see real expertise. So it's not just "d waving" online. I'm out here, making it happen - in reality - every day. If you choose not to listen, that's totally up to you. But don't dismiss those people who have trusted me as fools. I'm gonna go ahead and bet right now they'd beg to differ - and I know for a fact they are 100% satisfied with my actual, real work. On a PC. Running DCS. I have two DCS user builds in the shop right now, along with several others for other sims...so someone's getting it done. I don't know what it is....but a guy builds himself a PC to run DCS one time (or even a few)...he's a freakin' expert. If he's got enough money to buy a 4090, he's a genius LOL But I can assure you, for every one of those times that someone actually managed to make it work, I have a client walking in my shop, willing to pay me after they did it themselves (or bought a pre-built for that matter). If I had a dime for every time I've had to work to undo mistakes and misconceptions people had from reading on the forums and places like Reddit....wow. There are a ton of opinions on the internet. How many of them are backing it up, every day, with actual experience and production?

Also, I'm gonna call "BS" on this comment, too. This podcast ( >LINK< ) features Amber Huffman, a Principal Engineer and Storage Architect at Intel, and one of the two designers of NVMe. Amber was also involved in SATA development before NVMe, and is therefore unquestionably the world's foremost expert on NVMe as it evolved after SATA. She states specifically it was designed in order to take advantage of continued speed improvements in non-volatile memory devices (SSDs) - meaning it didn't have anything to do with multiple users or servers particularly as you claim. It came about basically because SATA couldn't keep up anymore. Further, she explains NVMe was developed as a replacement for SATA at the client side (that means not servers). "NVMe and PCIe SSDs are intended to replace (or be the next generation) for client devices" The intro for the podcast states outright: On the client side PCIe/NVMe SSDs will eventually replace SATA drives and on the enterprise side will be a complementary technology for SAS. Again, replacement in clients, not servers. Usage in servers, but not targeted as a replacement (as it was with desktop). Amber goes on to say that, while there are uses for NVMe in enterprise (i.e. servers), that there will also continue to be technologies like Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) drives - meaning NVMe is not intended to replace server storage. It wasn't 'mainly a server targeted technology" as you stated. It has use in both areas, but was actually intended as a replacement in desktops, not servers. And that's directly from the person who invented NVMe. So, unless you're prepared to contradict the words of an absolutely unimpugnable source, I'd say your information was inaccurate. It happens I've been following Amber's NVMe work since the early days, so I'm fairly familiar with the entire evolution of that technology and what it was designed and intended to do. I'm not sure what your 20 years of IT experience involved, it certainly was not as a Storage Architect, and apparently did not involve actually learning how storage subsystems work. Seriously, as much as I'm enjoying the chance to educate people who actually want to learn by reading this, I'd like to offer a friendly recommendation that you study more in this area if you're going to represent yourself as an expert. It really doesn't help anyone when you spread information that is clearly at odds with the facts according to genuine experts. You might consider there are people out here, even on flightsim forums, that have industry experience and backgrounds well beyond your own. Just sayin' (I trust you're smart enough to do the math)

Ummm..no. Sorry, but that's completely misleading. I do understand you're trying hard to say all this stuff like you understand, but TBH every time you post, it becomes more clear that you really don't understand much at all about storage. RAID volumes were in use before solid state storage came around on any scale, and were among the early steps at trying to improve storage availability (note I don't say speed, but more on that later). I only mentioned RAID to illustrate that there are other technologies that have come about for the same purpose (whether in part or in whole). It's still a perfectly valid example, however: While redundancy is part of the benefit of RAID, many people (myself included) built RAID arrays for performance (which I was probably doing before your 20 years in IT even started). In fact, one of the most basic forms of RAID is intended strictly for performance, and has nothing at all to do with redundancy. And your 'single resource' assertion is misguided. In storage subsystems, availability and contention have an inversely proportional relationship. An increase in availability is also a proportional decrease in contention. (It is clear you don't know this already, because if you did, you'd never make the comment about a 'single resource'.) So, the fact that it's 'seen' as a single drive by the host system has nothing to do with contention. RAID arrays, when configured for performance, factually reduce the time it takes for data requests to be satisfied (in proportion to the number of drives used). And the absolute, brutal fact is, by using more drives, we decrease the amount of time it takes the "single resource" to satisfy any request. So, back to the relationship between availability and contention: Faster processing of requests = more availability = less contention. Period. In lay terms, it's like a factory, where 4 people can produce the same work as 1, in 1/4 the time. People are still building RAID arrays today, with even very fast NVMe drives, even for gaming - because they understand the inversely proportional relationship between availability and contention. Simple as that. And yes DirectStorage absolutey *does* mitigate contention, for exactly the same reason as any other storage performance improvement does: Sooner we can get the requested data out the door, the less time we are unavailable to other requests. More availability = less contention. (Besides that, all I implied was it wouldn't be used in gaming consoles if it weren't appropriate to games. It is used in consoles, because it is appropriate to improving gaming performance. Again, simple.) So I'm afraid you're wrong on that point as well. And those are just the facts of how storage works. More you argue, the more you're just...well, I think it's obvious.

Well, again, I can't imagine why people would spend a horrific $50 to incorporate technically superior performance, on a machine that only costs a few thousand. Makes no sense to me. I wonder if all the people who did exactly that really understand how bad an idea it was. I mean, after all, they could probably have gotten a much better GPU with that extra $50. It really does make sense, of course, to have a machine that's top of the line in every other respect...and then choke the storage subsystem to death by only using a single drive, to save $50. Everyone knows single drive systems are better. No reason at all that technologies like RAID or SSDs should have ever existed in the first place, since there's no need to increase storage throughput. Thank goodness we have experts here to set us straight, because otherwise an entire industry might be wasting its resources, pursuing better storage performance. If technology like DirectStorage was appropriate to gaming, it would have been deployed on gaming consoles long before PCs. Oh, wait... (Oh, btw...for the record, I've spent over 40 years in actual professionally compensated roles doing computerized systems design, installation, and maintenance. Pretty much before there was such a thing as "IT" and well before Windows networks existed in any meaningful sense. If you ain't been around long enough to have worked on magnetic core storage, I suspect you're not gonna come up with anything I haven't seen or done already)

So, to continue unraveling the mystery of "WTF is going on with this Asus GPU?" lol... Here are some further details I found, on the Asus website, so it's straight from the card's manufacturer: Two things in the picture I wanted to elaborate on: 1. Top section shows GPU LED behavior. This is what I talking about earlier when I said that "Some are on when the machine is off, and turn off when the machine is on." My Asus 4090 behaves like that. It is my understanding this applies to all Asus 30 and 40-series cards with the 16 pin 12VHPWR connector shown above. It would be prudent to confirm your LEDs behave appropriately - as you can see having the LED ON in some states is normal, but can also indicate an improperly connected power cable. It should turn OFF when the machine is powered up. 2. Bottom section further clarifies PSU requirements. As I mentioned previously, "...they often "over-recommend" PSUs since the GPU they sell is only part of a system, and that system could be loaded with God-knows-what." What the table above shows is some examples of the various internal configurations, and Asus' PSU recommendations. The Asus website says, as indicated above, that the recommended PSU is 750W (per https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/graphics-cards/dual/dual-rtx4070s-o12g/techspec/) However, digging a little deeper I found the table and it shows what I meant: The guts inside more accurately dictate the PSU capacity. So, if in fact you have an i9 or Ryzen9, the recommendation is 750W. However, if you have a lesser CPU like the i5/i7 or Ryzen 5/7, then the recommendation drops to 650. To the OP: You didn't indicate what CPU (or other guts) so that would help. But it is possible that you might save a little on a replacement PSU if you have one of the CPUs that doesn't require a 750W per the table above. That being said, it bears mentioning here that builders often use a PSU that is intentionally oversized, the intent being to allow for expansion later on. This is becoming more an issue with GPUs of late: The power limits are through the roof, so if you wish, there's nothing wrong with using a PSU with more than the required or even recommended capacity - other than cost and perhaps physical size. On that final note, I'll suggest this: Just to be thorough, please check the dimensions on your current PSU and case, to make sure the replacement you find will actually fit and that cables are long enough to reach where they gotta go Replacing a PSU is actually not difficult...but there are lots of ways it can go to h*ll quick. Again, if you're not confident and comfortable, I'd seek help. Good luck

Actually, I believe it is a 750 W unit as I said above: https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/graphics-cards/dual/dual-rtx4070s-o12g/techspec/ Notice the OP's pics indicate an Asus "Dual" model 4070 Super, and they only make one of those in black (one is white). So I'm pretty sure that's it. Note: I should add that I am honestly surprised that Asus recommends a 750w PSU for a GPU with a 220W TDP as the OP's 4070 Super is (per Nvidia specs). Even more confusing is that the card comes with a "2 to 1" type 12VHPWR adapter for two 8 pin PCIe plugs. Technically, that means the card can draw 375W; well beyond the spec 220 TDP for a 4070 Super. Then, there's the 4 pin sideband adapter, which I believe signals a PSU capable of 600W. So...not sure what to think, but my assumption is that Asus had a reason for their recommendation, and the best answer is to follow it.