kksnowbear

AIOs can go bad (gunk in the liquid). BTW it's "liquid", not "water" cooling. (I'd say to have a swig sometime...but I think it's either poisonous or at minimum, not very good for a person to consume). I've rebuilt a few of them, and you'd be amazed what comes out. This can render even a good AIO completely useless. Also, pumps do fail sometimes. Replacing thermal paste is (almost) never a bad idea, particularly if it's been several years. Incidentally, use good compound. Never mind thermal conductivity (which is also a consideration)...the cheap crap dries out far more quickly, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that wet stuff conducts heat better than dry stuff. I personally recommend Arctic MX-4 since it stays 'wet' (doesn't fully cure) for up to 8 years. Given the case you have, I'll assume you have the radiator top mounted to exhaust heat, correct? Very bad idea to mount a radiator in the front as an intake. The only reason people usually do this is a case that wasn't built to house the radiator they're trying to shoehorn in the case (buy a proper case). Putting a radiator in the front dumps heated air back into the chassis, which per the law of conservation of energy (i.e. "energy can neither be created nor destroyed"), is obviously a bad idea. A couple things to consider: When you say too hot...how hot, exactly? I know people who freak out when a CPU hits 70c...which is not that hot these days (depends on load, conditions, and exact CPU, of course). According to Intel, Tjunction for a 9600k is 100c, so unless you're seeing temps north of say 80 or higher at stress-test level loads, it's probably not an issue. You'd need to know more. Also, can you say the temps are worse now than when the system was first built? Try setting fans to 100% in BIOS - just as a test - to see if the temps improve. This can help narrow down any problems.

Well, they might be largely useless for DCS...but in fact, games will run on those machines - and not too terribly (realistically considering what it is...). And I'm not just talking vintage stuff, either. Depends on the market. For 'school age' (pre-teen) gamers who don't have budget (or their parents, usually) the SFF machines can be hammered into running Fortnite, PUBG, GTAV, and many other fairly recent games which are more akin to animated/cartoon graphics as opposed to photo-realistic as with DCS. These 'twitch gamers' tend to run lower settings anyhow, tend to use cheap 1080p TVs (and often can't afford high-res monitors), plus they've typically migrated from consoles on which frames rates are often limited to 30 or maybe 60 (when they start looking at $500 consoles for better FPS, they often start considering PC gaming). My sister-in-law likes playing GuildWars2, that and many other MMO type games run just fine on cards even far less capable than a 1650 LP. I have encountered a number of people who were stuck with those type machines, and in fact have somewhat developed a "best case" outcome for that situation. But, back on topic, anything that openly states a minimum of 6GB VRAM (as the edited DCS specs say now) just isn't going to do well, in all likelihood. No doubt, if you're not already stuck with it, the SFF machines should be avoided.

Running the 3090 with the 9600k won't hurt anything, so (if you're interested in the 3090) go for it - with the intent, of course, of moving it when the time comes. If you're already planning an upgrade, I would seriously consider skipping the CPU change from the 9600k. This is one reason I dislike the term "bottlenecking"...people read this and imagine a weak CPU is going to do terrible things to an over-matched GPU. It won't. It may not perform as well as it would with a better CPU, but I will absolutely guarantee you that moving from a 2080ti to a 3090 will be huge, regardless. (I've owned several examples of both, recently, so this is a first hand, professionally trained and experienced opinion). Unless you already planned on going to a GPU better than a 3090 with your next upgrade (no small feat TBH) then the 3090 is a great card. Since you're also doing VR, this needs to be carefully considered. If you know, for instance, you want to go to a 4090 then it might be better to tough it out now and wait. That will honestly come down to how long before the upgrade you're considering.

They've been edited, and somewhat recently. Among other things, as recently as late last year they used to specify a 1070 as recommended for 2D and VR. They now simply say a card with 8G VRAM. Never mind that pretty much everyone knows they're kind of a joke...my point in mentioning them is that cards with anything less than 6G VRAM don't meet minimum per these edited requirements. Technically, this excludes the low profile cards being discussed on the subject presented by the OP.

TBH it sounds as if there could be a power problem - but it would seem not to be a problem with the USB devices/the hub (as you've indicated it's a powered hub and been replaced). The part about it happening when there's more of a load also more or less suggests power problem (to me). Even though you indicate good GPU temps, that isn't necessarily the temp that might cause problems (though it won't help if it's hot, and could be part of the issue). Have you looked at CPU temps? Inside the PC (with a very few notable exceptions), the USB ports are contained within the CPU itself and the chipset (which of these it's in depends on which port). It sounds like either the CPU or chipset dumps the USB ports eventually during your gaming, possibly as a result of getting too hot. Could also be a power fluctuation as the PSU itself heats up. Speaking of which, how's the PC arranged? It's not sitting on something like a carpeted floor, is it? The PSU only really has one intake for cool air, and it's underneath the computer. If the computer sits on carpet, the weight pushes the case down into the carpet and can block the PSU intake altogether. (As an aside, they didn't mount the PSU with the fan intake facing inside the chassis...did they?) Try running with the case open. I'd also consider directing a fan at the open chassis during some test flights - this is all temporary, as a test, to see if better ventilation will help. Also: By "Legion mother board and case" I'm assuming you mean a Lenovo Legion - is this correct? Be aware, Lenovo doesn't make motherboards (or really any of the other guts). They rebrand stuff from OEMs, sometimes custom designs by Lenovo, sometimes not. This would apply both to the motherboard and the power supply. If you can provide more details on the internals: Specifically the motherboard and power supply, this may help nail down where the issue is - although be forewarned, sometimes they intentionally obscure (or even forbid) any type of labeling by component providers. Seemingly simple stuff like requiring the PSU label to be places such that it's not visible once installed in the machine. Unfortunately, these 'pre-built' companies tend to use cheap parts in many instances. Cheap motherboard designs and cheap power supply designs are not uncommon. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but this has been my overwhelming experience across more than 4 decades building PCs. What about warranty? You mention the machine is new - have you been in contact with the company who has the support obligation? Often, people buy machines from Dell, HP, iBuyPower etc, because of the name. The idea is with a 'big name' company, it must be a good system. But the name is really only as good as whether they support the hardware they sold. By the way: You have a 4090 GPU. They require a lot of power. Depending on a number of particulars, it's entirely possible your PSU isn't keeping up with the 4090. Can you provide the exact manufacturer and model number of your 4090, please?

Not sure if it's the source of your confusion, but I run into this a lot: People seem to think the higher series of GPU (i.e. 40xx vs 30xx) automatically means all the cards in the higher series are better than all the cards in the lower series. That isn't accurate, however. You have to look at the second section of the model number; that is, the xx90 or xx70 etc. to gauge how strong a given card is. As an example, a 3090 is superior to a 4070. In the case you cited, a 3080 would be better than a 4070 (even if only marginally/in some instances) and thus also better than a 4060, 4060Ti etc. Of course, performance will vary with the specific game, resolution, settings, etc. - but that's the long and short of it. Note that this has been true in large measure throughout the long history of nVidia GPUs...a 1030 is nowhere near as good as a 960, a 1080 is better than a 2060, and so on. There are some 'irregularities' and exceptions in the pattern at times, but it holds true broadly and generally in most cases.

Incidentally: The RX6400 cards use a PCIe 4.0 interface, but it's only 4 lanes wide. That means that using this card in a PCIe 3.0 machine (like the ones we're discussing here) will be running the card 4 lanes at PCIe 3.0 speeds...this is already long since proven to impact the performance of these cards; one review I recall put the loss at ~14% (which is all the more significant when you're already looking at this card's very low frame rates to begin with). By comparison, the GTX1650 doesn't suffer this limitation; they are PCIe 3.0 cards using a 16-lane bus. Also: It looks as if ED has (finally) updated the system requirements stated here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/stable/ to indicate that the minimum is now a GPU with 6GB VRAM - which means something like a GTX1060 or 980Ti (nVidia) or a 5600XT (AMD). Technically, this excludes both the RX6400 and GTX1650 - which is why I'd already said above it's probably best to move on from the SFF machine. But - if you're stuck with the SFF and a PCIe 3.0 board - as I mentioned above, the GTX1650 is going to be the 'go-to' unless you're willing to consider extensive modification to hardware which will require a certain level of technical expertise. Not advisable for the average, non-professionally-experienced gamer. FWIW the 'recommended' system has been updated to specify an 8GB GPU...which, I'll be honest, can still be rather conservative. A GTX1070 has 8G, and they will run DCS...but I think the experience will be only adequate, even at 1080p. I've tested these and found frame rates which are OK, but will drop to <45 at times, depending on map, settings, etc blah-blah...

As I mentioned, I already did the math. (I am formally trained, and have 40+ years experience, so trust me, I know what I'm doing...) I've also been dealing in power systems for that whole time as well. I build 15-20+ gaming PCs every year and have for many years now. I know how to properly spec power supplies, and really don't need to be told what's 'more useful', thanks. The RX6400 may be a 53W GPU, but it's also the least desirable of the options, "doable" or not. A 1650 performs much better...but is also a 75W card. There is a reason the 1650 remains the 'go-to' upgrade for these SFF machines. BTW, as I mentioned, I have four of these SFF machines in my shop as we speak...so this isn't just about specs that anyone can look up online. It's also about first-hand experience. The machine we're discussing uses a 250 watt power supply, and even though the Dells and HPs tend to use decent (OEM) PSUs, the thing is many years old and who knows what it's been exposed to. I'm very aware that the recommendations for power supplies are often based on maximums, and I've measured tons of loads on hundreds of different machine types over the years. I'm also very aware it's foolish to run a machine at (or even near) max load, period. Even if you 'get away' with it, you could easily run into stability/reliability problems as load and ambient conditions vary...and, worst case, if you were to have problems, then try to pursue a warranty claim with a manufacturer after ignoring their power supply recommendations, they can (rightfully) tell you to go piss up a rope. (Call to get an RMA: Hi, can I help you? Yes, I have your GPU here, only 6 months old...outside the return window, so I need to RMA it... What's the problem with the card? It causes my machine to crash; it started happening recently. It was fine at Christmas when I got it. But it started acting up in the spring. Are you running the machine upstairs? Yes, why? And what size power supply is in the computer the card's in? 250 watts. Sir, our recommendation is 300 watts. Your power supply is probably getting too hot now that it's summer time, and causing the machine to crash. This probably wouldn't be happening if your power supply had more output capacity at higher temps. As it is now, the machine is probably struggling to provide stable power because the heat has increased. Also, if your power supply is older than say 5 years, this can become worse. Regardless, we can't honor an RMA if you're not using a properly rated power supply. Sorry we can't be of more help - but we do recommend you try a properly sized power supply. But my small form factor Dell PC won't accommodate a larger power supply... That is unfortunate, sir - but, again, we do recommend a 300 watt power supply. Perhaps you need to upgrade your computer to one that can support a bigger power supply.) Aaaaaaaaand we're back: On 1/30/2024 at 7:42 AM, kksnowbear said: **PS: TBH if it's even remotely possible to start over with something other than the SFF machine, in my considered, professional opinion, you're better off.

Best of luck. If you provide info on the full sized machine, there may be some ideas for updating that. You have PMs

If I'm not mistaken, that's one of the (in)famous Small Form Factor (SFF) machines. I have four of this type machine in my shop right now, so I'm fairly familiar. As discussed above, the form factor is definitely a constraining factor, but there are cards that will fit. In fact, if it is the one linked above - and I believe it is - then it's actually one of the better ones in terms of slots and space (compared to other SFF units, that is). However, the real issue is going to be the power supply in the unit you have; it's a 250W unit. There are a (very) few alternatives but with that power supply, you're really limited. The most common "go-to" GPU upgrade for those SFF machines is a GTX1650 "low profile" card; both Gigabyte and MSI made these; they go $150-200 generally speaking. Another more recent option is a Radeon RX 6400 low profile card. Keep in mind these cards are specifically designed to fit a small space, not for very high performance. So while they will fit and probably run OK, they're likely to just be playable with minimal settings etc, not much more. I have one of the SFF machines in the shop running one of the low profile 1650 GPUs right now (the MSI model). Here's the rub: The manufacturers recommended PSU for even the 1650 GPU is 300W. I've done the math and the load actually comes very close to 250 (depending on number of memory modules etc)...but it's *really* close to what the PSU is rated for. The manufacturer's recommended PSU for the RX6400 is 350W. Broadly and generally, it's not a good idea to try running a PSU at max load continuously...cheap ones won't do it anyway, but the ones in these machines are fairly decent units. Even then, it's awfully close. It will definitely run (with an MSI LP 1650); I've done it. But I haven't run it extensively, or spent hours and hours gaming on it upstairs in a hot house in summer time (etc). This is where it will matter: Near-max load on the PSU, high temps (made worse with that cramped case), long-term usage... There is actually even a low profile GTX4060 that would fit the case...but the recommended PSU for that is 450W. Of course, there are alternative approaches, but these almost certainly involve extensive skill and experience working with PCs, and/or money. There's a discussion here https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Desktop-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/PSU-Upgrade/td-p/8525308 where a guy does mods on these machines to basically add a second PSU (outside the chassis of course) - so that means it is possible, just not necessarily for everyone - and quite possibly not worth it, due to cost, complexity, etc. The guy mentions in his posts that there is no replacement PSU for the 250W unit. Sometimes, you can find third-party units that will fit. Admittedly, I haven't looked for any length of time to see if there is any such thing. Looking at the documentation, however, it's also apparent that they used non-standard motherboard wiring for this unit - making it all the more unlikely that there is an available, inexpensive, 'drop-in' option. So, in summary: If keeping the SFF machine is the only real option**, and if (fairly extensive) modifications aren't an option, then the only two GPU options are low-profile 1650 or a Radeon RX 6400. And these are both very conservative in terms of performance. Also, the manufacturers of both these GPUs recommend a power supply bigger than the SFF machine has. Not saying it won't run (it will), but how well and for how long...well... Sorry I can't offer a reply closer to what you were probably hoping for. **PS: TBH if it's even remotely possible to start over with something other than the SFF machine, in my considered, professional opinion, you're better off. The concern is that, best case with everything factored in, the performance will just be disappointing. Not at all to 'look a gift horse in the mouth', of course - but consider returning the SFF unit if at all possible, and find a more viable platform to start from.

You mention you're using an i5 but you don't say which i5 - this can vary a lot. Intel made i5 processors across all 14 generations of their 'Core' CPUs, starting in 2009. I do fully appreciate this isn't stuff everyone knows, but realistically it's necessary to know which i5 in order to give you a reasonably 'good' answer. Also worth asking whether you're willing to consider used hardware or strictly new, since that will definitely affect your options. If it's me, TBH - and going on no more than you've said so far, I'd be looking at a used GPU, and possibly upgrading to the best CPU your motherboard will accommodate. Personally, I don't recommend dismissing used hardware out-of-hand, because there are excellent bargains to be had for less than new stuff will cost - and reputable sellers offer references, support, and warranty that rival or even exceed what new/retail sellers typically offer. Next, and this is more gut instinct, you also don't mention how much/type RAM you have, and I can't help but wonder about that, in the larger context of upgrading your system. Knowing what resolution your monitor is will also help determine a good graphics card choice. One last thing, what type machine is this? Is it a pre-built or store-bought (like from an online vendor or retail shop), or more of a generic, self-built machine? Is it one of the 'name brands' (like Dell, for example)? These factors can easily makes the difference between a machine that can double performance with easy, reasonably-priced upgrade parts...and a machine that has *zero* potential for upgrades at all. What we're looking at here is things like how much capacity your power supply has, and what kind of internal space is available. As an example, Dell built many (*many*) types of machines that were proprietary designs, and thus very limited where potential upgrades are concerned. Good news is it's entirely possible you have a system that will support several key upgrades which could really change your experience in DCS considerably - without having to build a new rig. But, in order to know, we have to take a much closer look at the system itself, to see what could be done with it. I look forward to your responses

Incidentally...I'd like to point out a direct quote from the "reviewer" you've cited (if you can really call it that...lol) In a video called "Are Gen5 SSDs Worth Buying?", at 7:22 she states "It took quite a while for Gen4 SSDs to...really...start making sense." Just exactly like I'm saying above: When Gen4 first came out, there were plenty of arguments that they didn't make sense compared to Gen3... But wait, it gets better. She goes on to say "And this Gen5 drive is already showing pretty big improvements in regular use cases..." Let me repeat that: Big improvements in regular use cases. This isn't even a reviewer I follow (or ever watch at all TBH). She's kinda cute, but I don't really consider that much of a basis for sound technical advice lol But since you cited her work, well...by all means, but let's use the entire body (pun completely intended). So, while it's always easy to take a small piece of information to try to make a point...when we look at the whole picture, there's more to it.

Move to the States? Look, not my fault prices are better here. And of course, now you're going to start the (predictable) argument that no system will benefit from Gen5 storage speed (yawn...). Sour grapes. I have a 7800X3D, 64G DDR5 RAM, a 4090, a case I love, an excellent 1300w PSU (with a UPS that will actually power it)...etc etc... There's no need to spend money anywhere else, just so I can run a comparatively slow Gen4 drive. BTW, since we're adding images to illustrate points... Below are benchmarks from a 980 Pro (certainly one of the best Gen4 drives money can buy) and the Crucial Gen5 T700. Note these results are from CrystalDiskMark 8 - one of the most widely respected storage benchmarks in the world for years now. Not just numbers I'm making up, and not some "reviewer" who's getting paid to make it seem like it's stupid to buy Gen5 storage. In CrystalDiskMark, the T700 Reads are 88% faster than the 980 Pro. That's damn near double. And even in a worst case retail, as I mentioned previously: Prices on Amazon just yesterday put the T700 at $270 while a 990Pro was $185. So, just as I said: 85%(+) better performance for ~45% more cost. The difference was $85, and for that money, there's no other upgrade that's going to make as much difference as an 85%+ improvement. (And remember, I actually got the T700 for <$217, so it's really only 17.2% or $32 more, if we're looking at yesterday's prices). I can assure you most anyone could do just as well if they pay attention and time it just right...at least here, in the States. Again, don't blame me for global economics). The idea that I should forego an 88% performance increase to save the $32 and spend it on some other improvement in an already top-of-the line system...that doesn't make any sense at all. There's no other place that $32 (in my case) is going to make a difference even close to 88%. As for the argument that PCIe 5 speeds don't matter...well...yes, I'm fully aware of all those arguments. But that also depends. For one thing, there's really no way for anyone to know with any certainty what might come about in the future that could make much better use of the speed difference. DirectStorage/RTX I/O have certainly promised to make a big difference. Saying PCIe 5 speeds don't matter now is a lot like saying Gen 4 speeds weren't going to matter back when Gen 3 was most common. And, of course, there were plenty of people at that time screaming Gen4 speeds were unnecessary and no gaming machine would ever use that speed; in fact, no gamer could even tell the difference.... ...yet here we are, today, arguing Gen4 is *the* way to go. Time marches on. I can almost assure you that, for any performance increase the hardware folks can come up with for PC technology, the game developers will find a way to (over-)utilize said improvement, and one day we'll all be wishing for a 6090 GPU, DDR12 RAM, or Gen9 drives. Again, if you subscribe to the 'future-proofing' concept, then you're on board, in perpetuity - like it or not.

Crucial T700 2TB Gen5 NVMe M.2 SSD - Up to 12,400 MB/s - DirectStorage Enabled - CT2000T700SSD3 - Gaming, Photography, Video Editing & Design - Internal Solid State Drive https://a.co/d/eqKwnRy Edit: I had unintentionally pasted in info for the model with a heatsink. The standard model is in fact still $269.99, as I said earlier. We can agree to disagree about what's "worth it"...but the Gen5 drives are *not* 200% anything (that's a real comparison), at least not here. As for worth it, it would be stupid as all hell to put a comparatively slow Gen4 drive in a board that I paid to get Gen5 from, when I can get 80% more performance for <50% more cost.

I think the DDR4 3000 is adequate for what you're doing, and particularly well-suited if you want to keep the costs down. If you prefer to go with strictly new components vs used, totally your prerogative. You do not indicate plans to do a GPU upgrade soon, as I gather. So, for me, the best choice is an AM4 platform including a 5800X3D CPU. That will match well with your current GPU and 1440p resolution. If you don't mind spending slightly more, you can also go to a more recent generation and still keep the RAM you have (although not my recommendation tbh). You can also go with the most recent generation platform which will perform better still, but at the cost of having to buy new RAM. I would consider this as a reasonable option if you have the budget now *and* foresee having budget for a GPU upgrade in the near future. Best of luck

Quick check just now indicates the Gen5 T700 2TB is $270 at Amazon, and a 990Pro Gen4 2TB is $185. So the Gen5 drive is most definitely *not* twice the cost (or over!). It's about 45% more. (Yes, I know the 990Pro is expensive as Gen4 drives go...but the basis of my comparison is performance-per-Gen). And if 25% more is justified as "future proofing" for Gen4 drives on someone's board which only supports Gen 3 (because they'll upgrade one day to a Gen4 board...) ...then my point was that, in my case, already having a Gen5 board, it would make no sense at all - to me - to go backwards a generation, and lose the significant (80%) increase in performance which I specifically bought the "E" board variant to acquire...just to save <45% the cost - and that's retail, right now at Amazon, something anyone could do (thus not even counting the good fortune I had in finding the deal I did). Again, for me, the entire notion of 'future proofing' is a fool's errand - but if it can be applied at some times, then it can also apply other times. What "makes sense", and what one can argue is justified as "future proofing", is going to vary depending on the specific case, deals that are out there, etc. It's no more always a bad idea to buy into Gen5 drives than it is to buy Gen 4 for a board than only supports Gen3. It simply depends on the situation. You might even argue that someone with a Gen4 board now would be best buying a Gen5 drive instead of Gen4, provided they intend to move to Gen5 platform at some point. (Though obviously, the longer they wait, the better the price - in general). As my Dad always said: How smart you are depends entirely on where you are standing at the time. The older I get, the smarter my Dad gets

Thank you - I am glad if it helps. It happens I've done some additional testing to further illustrate what I'm describing above. I'm hoping I have a chance today to post the outcome (it's a bit involved, but helps clarify the matter substantially, I think). More later

If I'm following, you're saying that any response would have to disregard costs, as there's (almost) no reliable way for anyone to include costs in whatever they might propose. Note I'm *not* saying "money is no object" (it always is lol)...rather, I'm saying it would be exceptionally difficult to factor in cost, given the constraints you've outlined. I just wanted to make sure my understanding is correct. That said, you indicate running a fairly dated CPU (7700) with a current-gen GPU (7700XT). These two components are really mismatched (even at 1440p) - what most people refer to as 'bottleneck', just not a term I care for, and your case is the reason I say that: You're able to play and do OK in most cases...but there are times when it's obvious the CPU is "showing it's age" as you put it So the task (in my eyes) becomes finding a CPU that matches reasonably well with the RX7700XT when running at 1440p. You don't mention new or used parts, just something else to consider - and I'll tell you why: The CPU you have now was great for it's time, but that was some time ago as you've intimated. Considering that, even something from a generation or two back from present day would be an enormous improvement. And there's something else to consider; bear with me. Your 7700 probably runs on a Z270 board; in any event it is almost assured you are running some type of DDR4 RAM - and you have a reasonable amount, too (32G). You don't mention the actual speed of the RAM you have, and this will definitely matter. If it's not fairly fast, it's probably not worth re-using, and thus more or less invalidates what I'm outlining here - so we need to know the RAM specs. If you buy into the latest generation platforms - either Intel or AMD - you're looking at having to replace your RAM with DDR5 as well (there are a few exceptions but these should be avoided IMHO). You can always just go latest gen Intel or AMD and replace the RAM as well (though you only specify CPU and motherboard). By comparison, there are platforms/generations from both AMD and Intel that can re-use the DDR4. If we're ruling out the more recent gen stuff that also uses DDR4, then the choice becomes almost automatic: Buy a good, quality AM4 board (AMD) and a 5800X3D - new or used. Matches well with the 7700XT at 1440p and you can (hopefully) keep your DDR4 RAM. TBH, the 7700XT isn't going to be up to a resolution much higher than 1440p anyway, so not worth going too crazy with the CPU/motherboard to match with it. (Note: If you're considering a GPU upgrade in the not-too-distant future, that changes all this, please advise). The 5800X3D is widely regarded as the best gaming CPU of it's generation, either AMD or Intel. And you can save a bit of money buying *not* buying the latest generation stuff; even more if you're willing to consider used stuff. Alternatively, if you prefer an even more capable setup, you can also go to more recent generation platform (AM5 for AMD or 13th/14th gen Intel, but of course this will increase costs. You can probably find very good deals on AM4 boards and 5800X3D CPUs now, if you prefer to be more "budget conscious" I hope this helps. Best of luck!

In my prior build (before Santa brought me a new AM5 platform), my "game drive" was a 2TB 990Pro. Once Samsung gets their firmware act together, their drives don't screw around lol. I got an incredible deal on a 990Pro 1TB for the new machine's boot drive. I'm currently putting together a few fairly decent machines to hopefully sell soon, so the 990Pro 2TB might wind up in one of those. I had just bought it and didn't really use it much at all.

At which point your transfer rates aren't much better than a SATA drive anyway. And I'm familiar with all manner of "way back" where computers are concerned, having worked first hand on magnetic core storage (among a lot of others.) ...just pretty sure your figures weren't correct. Each of my last two machines were all SSD storage, so it's not as if I have anything against it, or don't understand the benefit. But as I said, HDD storage can be had for a quarter what SSDs cost. Much less expensive per unit storage, especially if you need any kind of volume at all (>1TB). And plenty adequate performance for most applications. The noise is easy to cure (even without 8 inch bays lol). Also, it's worth mentioning that SSDs are supposedly going to increase in cost substantially this year, further reinforcing the cost/unit advantage of conventional HDDs for mass utility storage.

Absolutely...you are the case that proves LucShep's point, and of course in your situation it is very good advice I would say, though, that if you plan to spend money on a Gen4 drive, you should at least consider a drive that puts you closer to the highest transfer rates Gen4 can provide (~7000) vs what the SN770 can do (5120 max rated in the 2TB model). If the point is about "future proofing" then (unless you're budget strapped) it doesn't make sense to go to a Gen4 drive, but then stop well short of full Gen4 performance. And to be clear, before my lovely better half agreed to bankroll my own upgrade at Christmas, I was using an SN770 as the boot drive on my own system. So I have nothing against them at all - just not the apex of Gen4 performance.

Well, here's the thing for me (and where my advice to my customers goes)... With two drives, using two separate busses that also use two separate protocols...the chances for resource contention are as nearly zero as one can get in any present day PC. With one drive, doesn't matter how much or how little one does, or how often - the chances for contention are much greater. The guy playing the game won't notice the tiny impact from having the OS (et al) on a SATA SSD vs speed he *might've* gotten from NVMe. *BUT* When there's a huge stutter because, in the middle of his buzzing the tower in DCS, loading textures fast as his sporty Gen4 PCIe drive can barf 'em out... some other stupid process decides it needs to access the storage media that is shared by everything on the PC... ...he's gonna notice.

Not if it occurs simultaneously, it won't. The drive queuing mechanism will make one or the other wait - entirely. At that point, it's not half the speed of the bus, it's zero.

Well, everyone has their opinion about that - but I only mentioned the PCIe 5.0 drive to address the question of 'future proofing'. If you can make the argument today that buying into PCIe 4.0 makes sense in terms of future proofing, when you only have a PCIe 3.0 board...then... (To which I suppose the obvious reply is that a PCIe 5.0 drive costs more than a PCIe 4.0 drive... ...but I got the T700 for less than what a 2TB 990 Pro would cost, so...)

Well, I am blessed to have a wife who loves me and has the funds for really nice Christmas presents (though believe me, she got some pretty nice stuff too lol) That, and the fact that I do a lot of work 'in the industry', as it were, so I don't usually buy until/unless I manage to find exceptional deals. I was able to get the very same T700 you mentioned (a 2TB model) for <$217 'all in'. Yes, the newest stuff is always stupid expensive. And I usually strenuously argue against paying the premium associated with it. But, I only go for it when I can find really good prices; otherwise I wait it out. It's over-priced (especially when I know what the Gen 3.0 and 4.0 stuff is going for)...but I gotta be honest, it's nice having a new build like that, and I feel I deserve it at this point in my life