kksnowbear

Actually they are fairly easy. PITA sometimes because there are so many connectors and cables...and it does warrant a bit of caution. I'd recommend seeking help if you're not certain and confident. Please check your PMs.

Like I said above, somewhere ~90-100 is probably reasonable, <75 probably starting to get into "cheapo" range. Those two you listed aren't terrible units, depending on cost. EDIT: Amazon has the Corsair unit for $80 (plus tax of course) - it's a Bronze unit with a 5-year warranty; the eVGA you listed goes $110 - it's a Gold unit with a 7-year warranty.

A *very* quick check indicates some decent units are out there right around ~$90-100. Might do better if you catch a promo/sale. Also, please do not confuse "Gold", Bronze" and other 80+ ratings with any sort of quality scale. 80+ is a rating system for efficiency not quality. It is entirely possible to have a Bronze (lower) rated PSU that's actually higher quality than a Gold (higher) rated unit. And please take note: It's not just Gold, or Platinum...these rating MUST have the 80+ logo to be legit: Finally, you don't *need* anything higher than Gold, and even Bronze is OK, if it's an otherwise quality unit. Post back with what you find and we'll see.

Well, there are lots of good ones...eVGA, Corsair, Antec, PCPower and Cooling, BeQuiet... More important than the name brand, though, is which model. See, they don't really build these units. Pretty sure they *all* farm their PSU builds out to Chinese companies - some much better, some worse. So, you can buy a mediocre unit from even a big name. Even the big names have produced units that were found to have dangerous design flaws in a few rare cases. They kinda know people trust a name, and they often abuse that trust, I'm sorry to say. Here's an idea: Maybe find something you're considering, post back here. I'm sure you'll get input. Don't buy anything that feels lightweight - not kidding...good PSUs at 750W will have fairly heavy heatsinks inside, so they'll feel solid. Also, don't buy anything cheap. If it sounds too good to be true...well, you know. Look at the 'going rate' for 750W units in general, then find something not too far from that range. But, without doubt, it is best to ask someone who knows first, if you can manage that.

Yeah, that's gonna depend *entirely* on the quality of the PSU and the rest of the system. ANd, to be accurate, I am pretty sure that some 500-550 units actually support proper 12VHPWR connections, with signaling, and also support the ATX 3.0/PCIe 5.0 required 'excursion' limits. The PSU can exceed 2 or even 2.5x it's max output power, IIRC, as a short-duration 'peak' dedicated to the GPU. The thing is, the adapter cables "cheat" the GPU into thinking the PSU is up to the task by hard wiring what are designed to be actual control signals. When the lie is big enough...well, this is what sometimes can happen. Not saying it won't work, but if Asus says 750, I'd listen. They make the card after all. In any case, I cannot imagine the PSU the OP has is capable of actually delivering any 500W - even at peak. It's just honestly a low-end unit (I looked it up; among other things, it has a red 115-220V selector on it...this is a dead giveaway of a really low-end unit).

Yeah...see, that cable is signaling the GPU (via the 4 small pins) that your PSU is capable of dedicated 600W delivery to the PSU**. So the GPU (at boot) tries to kick into high gear, and the 480W PSU just falls over screaming. Or at least, that's what seems likely to me. ** This does depend on the exact wiring of the 4 pin 'sideband' connection, but I am given to say the ones with all 4 pins are wired to signal a 600W-capable PSU.

Asus makes several different 4070 Super models, but a quick look indicates that the recommended PSU would be something like 750W. Your PSU is 500W on a good day, when it was brand new, with a tail wind - and only then for so-called 'peak' output (meaning *very* short duration). It's total output is actually 480W, and I *really* doubt it would do that continuously. Also has to do with 'ambient' temp at the PSU's intake. Put it in a closed case, upstairs in a warm room during summer...well... Good PSUs will deliver their rated output, continuously, and at a given temp (usually at least 30c and more often 40-50c or 86-122F). Now, 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. So there *might* be a little slack there, but I would suggest it wise to follow their recommendations. Any chance you can try a different PSU? Also - further to the PSU discussion: It looks as if the Asus 4070 uses what's called a "12VHPWR" connector; that's two rows of 6 larger pins each, and a row of 4 small pins on the side. Since I'm guessing there's almost no way your PSU has this type of connector, that means you're using one of the "octopus" multi-legged adapters for power...is that correct? Like below, or different? null

A 4070 Super is a 220 W GPU. That's just the GPU; the rest of the system could go 200-300 watts. Your PSU is (just being honest) not the highest quality, and it's rated 500W *max* (480 is more accurate, and it probably wouldn't do that continuously). So it's possible - not to jump to conclusions - but it's possible the PSU isn't able to provide enough power to the GPU. Who made the GPU/what model, please? It should say on the box what the recommended power supply is.

Not to be a pain, but we'd need to know the exact manufacturer/model to determine what the GPU LEDs indicate, please. And yes, the power supply as wel. To be clear: Do you have extra PCIe power connectors plugged into the GPU? I looked, albeit quickly, at the motherboard manual. Doesn't indicate you have the on board boot LEDs. Unfortunate, since they can help...but, anyway... Any noise (beeps, with both old and new card)? Often, boards that don't have LEDs will beep if there's a boot failure - but there has to be a buzzer/speaker installed. A few boards had speakers on the board, but more common there are just header pins near the front panel headers.

LOL Yup, that too

What kind of GPU (both old and new) please? Not all GPUs show a light when they have power. Specifically, some have LED indicators when they're not plugged in properly. Some have different colors that mean different things. Some are on when the machine is off, and turn off when the machine is on. What motherboard? Does it have the 4 "boot sequence" LED indicators or one of the numerical displays?

Now, who in their right mind would bother spending money on separate drives? I mean, what with it being such a poor value, after all. Crazy as it sounds to spend a whopping $50 on a system worth thousands, to help ensure technically superior performance... ...yet plenty have done exactly that. I wonder if they all know how bad an investment they made. <SMH> Remarkable.

No, and that's commonly understood. However, as I already tried to explain to you, recently: Frame rates are *not* the be-all/end-all indicator of gaming PC performance that you seem to think they are.

Dude everything is "off topic" whenever you don't agree... I was explaining to you what "haters" meant and how it does apply here. You acted just like they did back in the day. You said this: And the fact is, that's not correct. I went on to explain that, if it were correct, faster drives would not have evolved as they have, nor would we have newer technologies to improve gaming beyond simple load times, as you stated. What you said is inaccurate, and the old argument that faster storage only speeds up load times is just not true. (Tell that to the real games, already using DirectStorage right now, today. Tell the consoles, where its been in use even longer...) That's what the haters used to say. Those who didn't want to accept they were wrong constantly "hated" on people who knew faster storage was more than just faster load times. "An SSD is just going to load the game and/or missions faster." Exactly what you said. So, you sound exactly like the haters did. Funny thing, fast forward a decade, and there's the same people...only now, telling everyone to get SSDs

This is really all that need be said. Simple.

The haters were called so because they said people who were early adopters of high speed storage (like me) were wasting money for no benefit. They were wrong then, and now they're the first ones to squawk "Get an SSD" Just because you don't understand what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm on some "off topic rant". You hide behind "off topic" every time it's shown you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing I've said here is off topic, you just don't like it because it shows you're wrong. Case in point: I noticed your lack of response to the points I made concerning fast storage being about more than just load times. I showed why you were wrong, and you start with "off topic" again.

Again, the fact that you continue to use indefinite phrases like "seem most unlikely" means you understand that there's more to it. Not sure what "IT" you worked in or how long, but if you don't understand resource contention in computer systems, then it's difficult to imagine what exactly your training and experience involved. I mean, sure, we had guys who "worked in IT" whose job was pretty much changing backup media... sorry if it wasn't clear but I don't think any of them ever gave a moment's thought to things like resource contention. I guess I'm referring more to people who are in a professional capacity responsible for systems design, commissioning, and maintenance. But here's my favorite part...just to be safe, you turn around and say this: LOL if it's not an issue and zero gain..then why would anyone ever have to worry about it? Either it's a problem or it's not.

No that's not all. You sound just like the "haters" who for years insisted that SSDs were only good for increasing game and level (mission) load times. Not accurate. And technologies like DirectStorage exist specifically because your assessment is inaccurate. If you were correct, there would be no need for faster drives and newer technologies. Yet they do exist, and they've been developed *because* it is not just about load times. Been going on for years. Nowadays, even novices know SSDs perform better and it's *not* just about game and level load times. That thinking was wrong 20 years ago, and it's more wrong now. Of course you wouldnt have "noticed", so obviously the entire PC industry must be wrong (oh, and even consoles, which also benefit from faster storage, newer technologies and eliminating stupid bottlenecks rather than causing or worsening them).

The fact that you used the word "may" here indicates you understand that it being 'negligible' is not given. Again, no one's arguing any of these points. Straw man. Didn't say that. Please read before posting retorts to things I didn't say. Look, this is really, really simple: A computer system - any system - absolutely cannot perform any task (even DCS) better if it experiences more resource contention rather than less. This is an indisputable fact, recognized by the entire IT industry for decades. If you design/build/buy systems with resource contention 'built-in', then factually you are causing (or worsening) performance issues. No one's arguing why it might be necessary for someone to only have one drive, or whether it's more economical...that's a totally different matter. Just because someone - anyone - doesn't notice something does not mean it isn't happening, and it sure as hell doesn't mean it's not causing problems. This is the problem: People with zero formal training, nor professional experience, acting as if they're experts. Just because you cannot recognize/admit/understand the issues doesn't mean they aren't there. Plenty of people died from heart attacks without 'noticing' anything, where having a professional involved would certainly have saved (at least some of) their lives.

That has nothing to do with anything, and no one's arguing that. Straw man. I'm telling you - factually, whether anyone likes it or not, and regardless of what anyone is observant enough to notice, it absolutely *does* take place, and it absolutely *does* impact the performance of any resource (drives or otherwise). To suggest otherwise is completely stupid. I can't believe those actually arguing this point, when people - even novices - have known better for many years now. (PS: ED does state that for certain levels of performance, an SSD is required. Anyone familiar with games knows that this is because of the increased performance SSDs provide. That being the case, it follows logically that any increase in drive performance will help DCS run better and any decrease is going to have an adverse effect. Hence the ED system requirements. Multiple processes accessing the same storage device *will* experience delays and thus reduced performance. Therefore, single drive systems *will* create an environment adverse to best performance, period.)

Same

OK...first of all, you missed my point. I said "it makes no difference how much or little it happens, it absolutely will happen, and when it does, it's never going to be a good thing." And it won't be, simple as that. If you're going to quote me, be good enough to include the entire concept, please. To say "this switch made no noticeable performance difference whatsoever" hardly constitutes any sort of formal, deterministic test. Your experience is very different from that reported by many others. Of course, putting games on a separate drive won't likely make as much difference as changing from a conventional disk to an SSD. I never said it would. Moreover, TBH (and as per your own admission) you had no choice, "because that's the only place where I can put them." So I'd venture your being satisfied with it is likely at least in part because you had to be satisfied with it. That's not a technical factor, it's an anecdotal, individual, and isolated circumstance. This is what's wrong with relying on people's (biased) observations instead of real tests and data. What one person finds acceptable, another might not. A guy who is used to a top end gaming system will lose his urge to play if he's forced to use a machine where the game isn't playable in his eyes. I never said anything about FPS. FPS is not the be all, end all measurement of a system's performance, not by any stretch. And typically storage isn't considered a means to improve FPS, regardless. Finally, if you've got money to spend on a decent gaming system, what makes no sense is to hobble it with a weak storage subsystem. Storage is already a weak spot as it is (comparatively), and as I said, theres only so much a system designer/builder can do about that. But just I said, it makes zero sense to make matters worse. I've seen 2TB drives for less than $100, and 1TB for less still. Building a system worth 10x that (or more) but being cheap about storage is building in a weak point, and to me is unwise. EDIT: I looked at my DCS install. Open Beta, a few AC modules, Channel Map, Normandy 2.0...my install folder is 230G right now. That's less than 250G. For the sake of discussion, let's double it, in case you have a ton of stuff *and* to leave room for updates, so we'll say 500G (and you'd probably still have space available). I've done some quick looking around and gathered big installations go between 300-500G. So there it is: 500G. You can get quality 500G M.2 SSDs for less than $75 brand new these days (I bet I could do better than $50 if I tried even a little). It's not unreasonable to suggest this is 'incredibly cheap', just as I did - especially considering people who have spent ~$1000 on rudder pedals and other controllers *ahem*, and probably $1000-1500 on their base system.

I'll gladly explain...but I got bitched at in this very thread for going "off topic", so I stopped posting. Just to be sure I don't get attacked again, are you asking me to discuss my point further, as part of this discussion? (Oh, BTW, spoiler alert: That article makes my point, precisely and succinctly. It's there, you just haven't realized it. In fact, I've never seen the article at all before now, but it does specifically and absolutely state exactly the point I'm making). Hey, while we're on the subject of that article...about these "Air Force tests"; you know what they say online: "Link or it didn't happen". So, please be good enough to provide at least some reference for this alleged Air Force testing. Unfortunately, linking an article which mentions a test but has no link or reference itself doesn't count. Incidentally, Hz stands for "cycles per second", in fact, and I don't believe that applies to a discussion concerning computer graphics frames rates. Refresh rates are measure in hertz, not frame rates.

And yet the fact remains: Whatever issues DCS (or any other game/app) inherently has with less-than-optimal resource usage, you're not going to make it any better by creating yet another point of contention in any system. There's a ton that the system designer/builder cannot control, and it is what it is. We're not fixing that. However, it makes zero sense at all to make things worse still, by creating more chances/places for problems. Particularly when it's incredibly cheap and easy to avoid. As I've said several times, it makes no difference how much or little it happens, it absolutely will happen, and when it does, it's never going to be a good thing. Even if it's not "where the bottleneck is for DCS", there is zero point in creating another one, anywhere. It's funny to me: People have been saying for who knows how long that it's better to have an SSD than a conventional hard disk, and/or that it's best to have games on a separate drive. Now we're actually going to contradict all that? LOL one or the other: Either that advice was full of crap then, or advising people to go backwards now is really misguided. *I* know which is which, but it would seem some don't.

I'm sorry but this is absolutely not accurate. I'll post indisputable proof as soon as my schedule permits. A single drive system (even NVMe drives) loses performance when being utilized by multiple processes. Fact. The absolute, brutal fact is that a machine can perform better with less resource contention. It doesn't matter how much or how little, nor does it matter how often it happens or anything else...when it happens (and it will), it's a bad thing that most assuredly will impact the drive's performance. Just as I said, it is perfectly logical that, ideally, every process would have 100% unimpeded access to all the machine's resources at once, any time and for as long as needed. Since this is not possible, the best possible solution is to approach that ideal as closely as is realistically possible. And, as I also said, since storage is relatively cheap these days, just no reason to hobble performance on purpose. Even if you have a ton of RAM, you're not necessarily going to stop paging activity - and, besides that, you'd obviously prefer that memory is available to the game as much as possible. Basic system design: Don't create 'bottlenecks' and you don't have to worry about trying to resolve them.