kksnowbear

Well, just to be clear, it's my perspective that there is a need to be accurate - not that I'm faulting you, at all, and I understand you're not terribly concerned about it, which is entirely your prerogative, of course The unfortunate reality, though, is that some others will read this, and will immediately pounce on "See, there's no real improvement" (which isn't really accurate). So please understand that my observations are more about that than they are any reflection on you/your situation. Still others might be wondering about the nature of the actual improvement, and I believe it's important to set expectations appropriate to fact. Many might not actually realize the 'breakdown' applies as I've described - it's my experience that storage subsystems are greatly misunderstood, among even experienced gamers. Crucial offers the "Storage Executive" for drive management. Helps with other tasks, in addition to checking the slot lanes/PCIe revision. I was surprised that board only has one PCIe 5.0 slot on it (between the CPU and GPU), but I suppose that pretty much makes it the "right" slot

To be accurate, that's actually around 7% improvement. However, it bears considering that much of what is being done while "booting" (starting) the game has nothing to do with drive speed (or even the drive at all). For example, a faster drive obviously cannot increase the speed at which your CPU (and RAM, for that matter) actually processes everything being done when the game is started. So the 7% overall difference in time might just as easily be a substantial improvement. If the entire amount of time required for starting the game was 100% drive activity, then the improvement is 7%. If, however (strictly as an example) the amount of time is composed of 80% CPU time and 20% drive time, then a faster drive will have zero impact on the 80% CPU activity - it will only affect the 20% that the drive is responsible for. So, using your 45>42 second example, and assuming 80/20 "split" as I described, then: Of the 45 seconds total, 36 seconds (80%) are not affected by any drive changes (and cannot be, since they are not caused by the drive to begin with). The remaining 9 seconds (20%) are subject to improvements in drive performance. Thus, if that 9 seconds is reduced by 3 seconds, that's an actual improvement of 'in-game' drive performance of over 33%. IOW you're now spending the same 36 seconds waiting on your CPU and RAM (as would be expected, since they didn't change at all), and 6 seconds waiting on the drive. Of course, this is just an example - although I'd speculate it might not be terribly far from what's really happening. In any event, I'd wager the 'startup' of the game is much more CPU time than drive time - still, just a guess. Could be more than I'm guessing. Also, there are also other factors: What slot on the board is being used by the new drive (it matters). Speaking of which, what board are you using? CPU? Was the test repeated to generate a reasonably average result? Have you checked to make sure the drive is actually using four PCIe 5.0 lanes? Just some things worth considering. Hopefully it makes sense.

PS I should say that, in my professional career, I have spent *days* analyzing all sorts of trace files, from machine language to ASCII text. I even designed equipment whose sole purpose was to monitor control systems and generate traces that could be used for troubleshooting. (Still do some of this now, just not as much...supposed to be "retired" lol) So I know it can be very useful- but again, it depends entirely on how good the software is. You have to be really sure your data is good before you start drawing conclusions based on it

Great question. I dunno TBH. I would say at minimum it depends on the resolution of the timestamps. Also, how accurate the timestamps are to begin with...we have to remember timestamps are just another software functionality, and I personally have seen examples where they were *way* off (due simply to poor programming, in my experiences). We used to say (of software) that "If it's capable of having the problem, then it's capable of causing the problem" I'm just not familiar enough with DCS tracks etc to know how reliable and helpful it might be at that level of detail. I will say this, though: improvement is improvement. It gets harder to distinguish if it occurs in smaller increments...but if we want an example of the difference, all we need do is run the same tests on the system, once with the fastest Gen5 drive and one with a conventional hard disk. That ought to answer any questions about the difference in performance, right there Any other difference will be in terms of it being "worth" the cost...and, as above, that's an individual choice. I personally cannot see spending the kind of money it takes to build a top end DCS machine, then choking it just to save <2-3% on storage.

Absolutely. But, if I may: The argument will then become DCS won't improve because we're not talking about 100GB files on a server... ...and that's misleading. Performance in storage is a matter of "contention"; that is, the requestors waiting on data they want, because the system can only provide so much per unit of time. The more you ask a storage subsystem to do, the longer it takes that system to do it - and this is irrespective of speed, type of storage, etc. And no matter how you do it, more contention equals less performance. It should be obvious, then, that the faster a storage subsystem is, the faster it can satisfy demand, thus there is less contention. This is why faster storage will always perform at least somewhat better: Lower contention. Sheer data throughput is only part of measuring performance in storage subsystems.

"Load times" during play will improve with faster storage. How much so will vary and, as you said, is much harder to nail down. I personally feel it improves overall responsiveness, and helps reduce "hitches" from texture loading during play. But it will make a difference, either way. And, assuming incorporation of improvements in storage technologies, that difference absolutely can translate to better frame rates. This has already been demonstrated. Indeed it is I gotcha

I didn't know that. Here, at least, I think they don't include taxes because sales tax varies by state and even city sonetimes. So it's factored in at check out. And even if you buy online, you pay local sakes tax...wasn't always that way

Nahhh... Although to be fair I think 100c is a bit much for an SSD

This is a very important factor, and one that is typically overlooked (or ignored). In fact, if this weren't part of the equation, then it would be impossible for the advanced storage technologies to actually increase frame rates ... ...yet they have already done so. That's before tax IIRC. And tax can make a big difference. I pay 6% but some others pay much more.

Yet, indeed LOL they're here... I brought it up because it's part of the discussion. The OP stated: There will almost certainly be someone to come along insisting it won't matter. As I've described, this is typically because of the misguided concept that performance can only be observed in frame rates, and/or lack of understanding how storage subsystems actually work in computers. I prefer to make sure all sides of a topic are accurately expressed. It happens that I also have a genuine dislike of misinformation being spread

Yup, $239 (2TB) here in the states...EU prices always seem higher for this stuff - it is what it is, and that's just that. However, prices change (of course). Just a matter of time. The price will ultimately be such that it's a genuine 'no brainer' for people who have boards that support Gen5 drives. I have two of these drives - a 1TB model and a 2TB (I've also put them in builds for other people). I never pay 'worst case retail', and they're worth every penny to me. As far as difference goes: Yes, of course, they are decidedly faster than other drives - even many of the other Gen5 drives. No, they will not increase frame rates (at least as things are now in DCS, and I don't really get why someone might think they would, TBH). Yes, they will shorten load times (but this is not by far the only benefit). Yes, there will always be 'haters' who insist they don't improve performance. They are wrong, and there's a ton of data to prove that. The problem here is that these people apparently don't understand that "performance" is more than just sheer stupid FPS. Historically, there were haters who said the same thing about SSDs when they first came along (they were wrong then, too). They said the same thing about every advancement in storage performance, and they were wrong every time. You need only look at these same people's systems today: SSDs instead of platter-based conventional spinning hard drives. Fast drives using NVMe protocol instead of SATA SSDs. They all go on about it not being 'worth it' but they ultimately move to the exact same thing themselves. If it's not a good idea, then why do they all eventually wind up doing it? The cost may be higher at first, but that's a matter of individual choice. "Worth" is absolutely and always up to whoever is paying for it, like it or not. In spite of all the naysayers, the industry has vigorously pursued faster storage subsystems - and not just in servers, either - because they understand the impact on performance. While it is true the costs can be an obstacle, the prices come down because there is a market for faster storage - and there's a market for it because it improves performance. And, there is real technology, right now, today that allows actual increase in FPS once it's supported in a game - this has been proven already, and it is measurable in a system now, regardless of game support. While it is true DCS doesn't yet support this technology, and there is developer effort associated with supporting it, I personally believe that (just like prices coming down) it's only a matter of time. ED did extra work to put MT in DCS because most systems support it and it improves performance. ED put DLSS in DCS because many systems support it and it improves performance. Obviously, ED isn't above putting work into supporting performance-increasing technologies like these. And, even if DCS doesn't support the newer technology yet, a system that supports it *will* absolutely benefit from faster storage. Right now, today. Regardless of specific game support. Anyone who actually understands how storage in a computer works also understands this.

Kinda convoluted, but you can put the machine back to a version before 24H2: Your machine is licensed (or should be) to run W11. Therefore, it would activate no matter the actual version of W11 you actually run. So, try to get with someone who has an ISO for installing a prior version of W11 (i.e., before 24H2), and install W11 "from scratch". Don't connect the machine to the internet during installation, and once the installation is done, deal with disabling the updates. This can be done in a few different ways: You can pause updates long enough to get online (to get drivers, etc)...then you can use a tool like GRC offers to "cap" your Windows version. I believe it is accurate to say this can also be done via registry edits - though, if you're not experienced, a tool like GRC's is a good choice: https://www.grc.com/incontrol.htm Don't worry if you've not heard of it. Steve Gibson (hence GRC; Gibson Research Company) has been around forever, and he's been providing utilities to cope with Microsoft's stupidity for many years now. If you can get/use a separate/blank drive to do this, all the better - as it preserves your new drive, untouched, while you attempt to do what I'm suggesting. If anything goes wrong you have your original drive to fall back on. The intent is that you wind up with a machine with an activated OS, but won't run updates other than security updates* and you can move on from there. Pretty sure this will do it, though in full disclosure I don't use VR and thus haven't actually had the problem being discussed. YMMV. *Note that it is entirely possible that future updates will circumvent whatever you do, which is entirely Microsoft and TBH not much anyone can do about that. For example, in the past, they actually classified an OS upgrade as a 'security update', which then gets around many ways of blocking the undesired updates while still keeping security updates. Most people will tell you not to disable updates entirely, and that leaves a path by which the a$$clowns at Microsoft can force you to do what they want. Moral of the story is that one way or the other, they'll have their way. We all agree to it the moment we run Windows on a machine -as much bullsh*t as that is. HTH

Not the ones we're discussing - that is, the PCIe lanes that are affected by 'bifurcation' in the BIOS settings are 16 lanes, directly from the CPU, and used in the 'primary' slot (usually for a graphics adapter), or are split between the first couple slots (so as to allow for high-bandwidth storage on 8 lanes, or even splitting the 16 CPU lanes between two GPUs). Of course, in your board, there is no second slot, thus making the BIOS setting to bifurcate the CPU's 16 lanes kind of....well, stupid, it seems to me. I looked over the manual, including the part describing storage, and there's nothing I could see that indicates sharing of the storage lanes with the others. If it's doing that, it's not mentioned anywhere I can see. You can/should use simple apps (typically available from the drive manufacturer) to make sure each drive is using the appropriate number of lanes/PCIEe revision. (If you'll tell me the manufacturers of the drives you have I can help you do this). The 11700K CPU has 20 total PCIe lanes which are available to the motherboard designer/user: 16 for the PCIe slots (as above, and which can be split depending on motherboard), and 4 others for storage. The storage slots (M.2; NVMe is technically a protocol as opposed to a drive type or slot) will get PCIe lanes of their own. Typically the total number of lanes for storage is comprised of those provided by the chipset, and those from the CPU. In your case the CPU has four gen4 lanes available to storage in one slot (front side of board); the chipset provides four gen3 lanes to the second slot (back side of the board). Per the manual, p.8: (Incidentally, the slot on the front of your board is Gen4, thus twice as fast as the one on the back which is Gen3.) As I mentioned earlier, it may not be likely that the GPU having 8 lanes vs 16 will make the difference, but it might/it does vary, and it doesn't hurt anything/is best at 16 anyhow. Since there's no other physical slot, the lanes would simply be wasted by bifurcating via BIOS setting - the only physical PCIe slot on your board (for the GPU) will lose 8 lanes, which (it would appear) will not be used by anything else. I could be wrong, but I don't see any way for any other device to use those lanes, since there is no physical slot (or space for one). This is among the reasons I said earlier that even the best of hardware currently will not eliminate all the performance issues DCS is known to exhibit at times, especially in VR.

My day's fine thanks. Always a good day when I can offer accurate advice that may be helpful to people who actually want help, and who appreciate correct input. @Gil80: Hopefully you benefit from the comments that are actually helpful and directed at your request for advice. It would be great to hear back about whether the BIOS setting makes any difference (and also if your BIOS is updated). Best of luck with it.

Right. Interesting that my sig is actually directed at specific terms, which you used exactly. Very thinly veiled, IMO. Just sayin'. Humor, indeed. As I said: In reality, not so funny when people buy high-end expensive hardware but have zero idea how to use it. Proof in the pudding re: My advice concerning the OP's BIOS settings, which may have an effect on the issue he requested help with. Even if it doesn't change his problem, it won't hurt anything, and he's better off. Plus, odds are fair it might help another reader (who may or may not ever even ask).

Pretty sure that other comment was a sarcastic jab at me, given my signature comments. Whatever...proof of the pudding, as they say (I could be wrong and will apologize if so). Thank you for acknowledging my sincere effort to help as you requested. Nice to get the feedback to confirm my suggestion was accurate. I actually don't know much about VR, but I try to help with what I do know. I do hope it actually helps; if nothing else, anyone who reads this later on could also benefit. I doubt honestly that the change will correct all the performance issues DCS can exhibit at times. With that said, however, there are many "PCIe scaling" tests published online, which usually indicate that a high-end card will not 'saturate' the bus width of the bus it runs on natively - for example a 4090 will not saturate a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus. The tests usually go on to run the card at lower bus widths and/or PCIe versions, in order to determine where the card saturates the bus and performance is affected. So, for example, the same 4090 might be tested at PCIe 3.0 x16 or PCIe 4.0 x8 - both of which essentially cut the interface bandwidth in half. Typically, the result is that the highest-end cards can saturate the halved bandwidth and performance is impacted, although not by a lot. There might be small difference, say 2-3% - but it does vary, and it can vary a lot more. It depends on not only the game itself and your settings, but also the resolution you're running at. Obviously a 4070Ti Super is not a 4090, thus it would be much less likely to saturate even the lower PCIe 4.0 x8 you were using. However - and this is significant: - It can't hurt. As far as I can tell, after looking over your board's documentation, I don't find any way those other 8 lanes can even be used by anything else, because there are no physical slots to add anything that would use them. So, as I said, if you set it to bifurcate the CPU's 16 lanes, they're just wasted. TBH I feel it's very bad programming by Gigabyte to even have that option in the BIOS. To me, it seems sort of obvious this happened because they've 'reused' BIOS code on different models. Motherboard manufactures do this, nothing inherently wrong with it, but it's downright lazy to leave a setting that has no purpose *and* can cause problems if set wrong. Incidentally, have you updated the BIOS on your motherboard? It is possible it was changed in a later BIOS version - the most recent on the Gigabyte website is dated December 19 2023. - It might actually help. While the scaling tests I mentioned typically find that even high end cards only suffer 2-3% loss at half the bandwidth, some of the same tests found that in certain games/settings/resolutions, the loss was a lot greater. VR is very demanding, and you're using a card that is not top-end, so it's working harder than a 4090 would (for example). Maybe the little bit of extra 'breathing room will make a difference. You certainly don't need anything making matters worse. Moreover, you have absolutely nothing to lose by having it set to Auto, and as you can see, the board now properly assigns/utilizes the full 16 lanes that the GPU is built to run on. Easiest thing to do is try it and see - keeping in mind that (IMHO) no amount of high-end hardware is capable, at least currently, of eliminating all the issues DCS has, especially in VR. Best of luck to you

Awfully funny. In reality, not so funny when people buy high-end expensive hardware but have zero idea how to use it. OP: I looked up the board/manual briefly; TBH I can't even see there's another slot (it's an ITX board, which I hadn't noticed earlier)...so I'm not sure why they'd even have bifurcation in the BIOS, since there appear to be no other PCIe slots to share the 16 lanes. I did check to see if it's related to the storage slots, but didn't find anything related and that really shouldn't matter regardless as those lanes are provided separately of the PCIe lanes to the first couple slots. In any event, pretty sure this needs to be set to Auto else it's going to split the lanes as I described earlier and per the manual. And since there don't apperlar to be other PCIe slots anyway, that would be wasting half the CPUs 16 lanes - whether the 4070ti Super needs/uses them or not.

Why do you have it set for x8x8? Do you have some sort of expansion card in the second PCIe slot? If you set it x8x8, it's bifurcating the lanes, half each to the two PCIe slots (check the manual). If you don't have another card there, you need to set the BIOS for Auto, so it will go to x16 (based on your GPU). If you do have another card in the other PCIe slot then you either have to move the other card or live with the x8 lanes you're getting now. BTW I'm not sure whether a 4070 TI Super can saturate those 8 lanes, but it seems possible TBH. I'd have to look into it more to know.

Buttons outside the case are particularly dangerous. And I speak from a lot of first hand experience. As I learned in the commercial security industry: Convenience and security lie at opposite ends of the same spectrum. A "custom PC builder" doesn't necessarily do builds for the complexity (even though some might find that enjoyable). Custom simply means it's built to the owner's specifications; a custom build doesn't require complexity. Most people don't want added complexity, especially when it comes with additional cost and maintenance. The majority of people I do builds for still want air cooling, actually. Simpler, usually less expensive, and more reliable (and can still be part of a "custom" build). My own machine is "custom" in a few different and almost certainly unique ways - the very meaning of custom. Yet, even though I've done this type work for over 40 years, I would never even remotely consider a custom loop. In any event, I usually try to keep the laws of physics in mind. PS Many boards' manuals these days include instructions to remove the battery if the jumper/switch doesn't work anyway. As much as this shouldn't be necessary, it appears to be. So getting to a header isn't necessarily the obstacle, and a switch won't always work regardless of where it's located.

Yup, as I thought, custom loop. And as I said, that means it's pretty much on you to allow for the switch if you need it. Most anyone trying to build, operate and maintain a custom loop isn't really likely to be stymied by moving a 2 pin header (ie case reset button, if you must have a CMOS reset, and can't manage to add a switch for whatever reason). Point is, using a custom loop is in the extreme minority and not what defines a "custom" build at all. For most others (even most enthusiasts) a custom loop is way overkill and just too much work. So they're probably not blocking their CMOS header, even if they use liquid cooling - which should never be mounted so as to dump waste heat inside the chassis, regardless (the Law of Conservation of Energy being just that, as opposed to a "suggestion") I'd go so far as to say the vast majority isn't really going to be resetting their CMOS very often anyhow. Even if because of overclocking, you might do it a lot at first, but then (if it's done right) it's stable and shouldn't require clearing CMOS a bunch after that. A button on the board is sometimes handy, but (even on the rear panel) they're often found on "premium" boards that add a lot of other gimmicky "features" that tend to drive up cost. And most users, even enthusiasts, don't really need constant access to clearing CMOS.

I've built a couple of those Asus B650E-F boards. The CMOS jumper is at the bottom edge of the board*. (The guys laying out the board probably did this for good reason). How does it get blocked by radiator/hoses? I do hope you say "custom loop" (but then, it's honestly on you to allow for the switch if you need it) (*and no external clock generator BTW) I don't find it overgeneralizing to suggest that not everyone requires a high-end board, especially not an 800-series.

I'm fairly sure that having a separate external clock generator is not a given, even on high-end boards. In fact, IIRC there are only a handful of models that offer it (it was on my list of 'must-haves') - only four B650E boards, and only ~half the X670E units. I agree having a clear CMOS button can be handy, but not by any measure necessary. (In the wrong hands, it can be downright dangerous.) As above, most people aren't going to even use those features, and outside that, a lot of the units are very similar or identical, even lower end units.

AM5 boards don't have to be 800-series to support the 9000 CPUs (like 9800X3D), and the 600-boards cost less for essentially identical features, despite all the doom and gloom 'predictions' that an AM5 board for a new build would be $300 (which might be that or even more, if you insist on looking at worst case retail for the most ridiculously overpriced high-end boards). It's all over online: The 800 chipset adds very little to the equation, and in some cases are identical to much less costly 600 chipset boards. Pretty sure I recently saw a perfectly capable example on an Amazon EU website for <$200. I don't shop/buy in the EU, so I don't spend a lot of time on it, nor do I pretend to be an expert. But still, that's what I saw.

Yet, others do know how. And if you're willing to work at it and study, they don't charge for a 'course'. Fascinating. Do the legwork. Plenty of people online know this guy is nothing but a douchebag wannabe, trying to sell stuff.

Bullsh*t. The one that most were looking for? LOL Anyone with even half a clue wouldn't take advice from this guy. Clearly full of himself, and claims that the reason people can't get the most out of these new Intel pieces of junk is that they don't know how to do it without him. Get a 7800X3D if your competency is low...what an a$$ clown. He's not 'telling it like it is" just because he can't say three words without flinging an F-bomb. Unless you do what he says, it's not worth sh*t. If you don't purchase his "course" you'll never be able to do it. Plenty of people were overclocking CPUs, *years* before this yo-yo....yet he's the only one who can get it right. And you have to pay for a course? Wow. What a "f***ing" loser. PS He's also not the only person who uses his own money (only, as in no sponsor bias) to run a shop, test components, and make recommendations - only some people do it without trying to hawk their 'course' lol