m.2 drives...

[kksnowbear]

 

On 1/13/2024 at 7:47 PM, LucShep said:

Now what?

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.

Edited March 11, 2024 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

16 hours ago, LucShep said:

For what it's worth...  

 

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.

 

Edited January 14, 2024 by kksnowbear

[BitMaster]

Gen5 makes sense if the price is right, temps are manageable and the drive supports Direct Storage too for future games, maybe even DCS some day.

For most cases tho, a good Gen4 is all you need.

 

[LucShep]

4 hours ago, BitMaster said:

Gen5 makes sense if the price is right, temps are manageable and the drive supports Direct Storage too for future games, maybe even DCS some day.

For most cases tho, a good Gen4 is all you need.

 

Pretty much this.

When the time comes that Gen5 drives make any real sense for intensive game titles (it doesn't currently), they'll be already so much cheaper and then worth getting.
That's just not today.
As good as they are, it just makes no sense to get one right now at these outrageous prices. (...unless you're in the US and the very rare/odd local promotion comes up, that is!)

IMHO, advising people to get a 2TB Gen5 drive which won't make any difference for any intensive game title anytime soon, when right now people could instead get a very good 4TB Gen4 drive (double the storage capacity!) for less money than it, or the same very good 2TB Gen4 for less than half(!) of its price, just shows incredibly poor judgment.

Edited January 14, 2024 by LucShep

[CMDR Shepard]

В 14.01.2024 в 04:05, kksnowbear сказал:

 

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% more or $32.  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.

 

This was damn funny to read. You can spend your money however you want. I just want to say one thing: for games that don't have Direct storage, you only need to monitor for 4K reads (including DCS). And I have bad news for you:
 

It's a Samsung 990 Pro.

Edited March 10, 2024 by CMDR Shepard

[some1]

The results of practical m2 benchmarks are nowhere near the synthetic ones, especially with computer games. Here you can see that some Gen.4 drives score better than Gen.5, Gen.3 are mixed with gen.4 with no clear difference and sometimes even SATA drives give better performance than NVMe. And overall, the difference between "decent" and "top" drive are so small, they aren't worth paying for.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/crucial-t700-pro-4-tb/16.html

[kksnowbear]

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.

On 1/12/2024 at 11:36 AM, kksnowbear said:

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...)

On 1/13/2024 at 11:17 AM, kksnowbear said:

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.

Edited March 10, 2024 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

5 hours ago, some1 said:

The results of practical m2 benchmarks are nowhere near the synthetic ones, especially with computer games. Here you can see that some Gen.4 drives score better than Gen.5, Gen.3 are mixed with gen.4 with no clear difference and sometimes even SATA drives give better performance than NVMe. And overall, the difference between "decent" and "top" drive are so small, they aren't worth paying for.

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.

Edited March 10, 2024 by kksnowbear

[some1]

44 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

(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.

Nope. What I'm stating is that in real world applications the actual technology inside the disk is the primary thing which determines performance. The interface also matters to some extent, but not to the level synthetic benchmarks suggest. The current PCIe Gen.5 disks can produce huge numbers in synthetic throughput benchmarks, but it does not translate to practical results much.

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

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). 

Direct Storage works on any NVMe disk, even Gen. 3. So far in that one game which has Direct Storage and which people bothered to test, Gen. 4 disks are basically as fast as Gen.5. And while Gen.3 is slower, it's nowhere near the difference you can see in CrystalDiskMark or other benchmark software.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/directstorage-testing-shows-pcie-3-drives-are-basically-as-fast-as-pcie-5

As for the current version of DCS, I have both NVMe Gen.3 and Gen.4 drives in my system, and loading times are the same on all of them. I tested. No word from ED on Direct Storage coming to DCS any time soon.

[LucShep]

6 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

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.

 

Please stop, now it's getting into pure fantasy.

It's been a few years now that we read about Direct Storage on PC. The reality check is that the full list of games using DS is comprised of 9 (nine!!!) games only. 
And no, they're not really growing in number:
 
Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart
New World
VOXEL HORIZON
SYNCED
Forspoken
Diablo IV
EA SPORTS FC 24
Forza Motorsport
Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown

source: https://steamdb.info/tech/SDK/DirectStorage/

Microsoft Direct Storage won't be universally adopted (far from it), and here's why:

1. It's an API by Microsoft, which has been walled off from Windows 10 - baffling requirement, as it's still the most used OS also for gaming (source: Steam Survey), a scenario that will continue as Windows 11 adoption has not been widely praised. You're also out of the loop if using Linux for gaming.
   That's right, you're forced to use Windows 11 to use it.
    
2. You also require a GPU that supports the DirectX 12 Ultimate API. 
   This limits the GPU choices to NVIDIA's RTX 20-series, 30-series and 40-series, Intel ARC, and AMD's RX 6000 and RX7000 series.
   While this is fine here in DCS-land, it's not in mainstream PC gaming.
   Anyone that is still using a perfectly usable GTX 10-series (GTX1080Ti, for example) or AMD RX5000 series (RX5700XT, for example) will be forced to upgrade.
   As side note, these are the most sold GPUs on the used market, and with huge numbers in the Steam survey for GPUs.
    
3. Another hardware requirement that's baffling is that you need an NVMe drive with at least 1TB in capacity.
   So, if you're one among many thousands of users who bought one or two (or three) SSDs or NVMes with 500GB and have been fine with them, tough luck...
   That's right, will be forced to swap/upgrade to a 1TB+ NVMe drive.
    
4. The final nail in the coffin is that it requires games built around DirectX 12, to take advantage of Direct Storage. Yes, you read that right.
   In an era when other APIs are growing in strength for PC gaming, such as VULKAN (because it's "open" and cross-platform, can be used on Windows, Linux, and even smartphones) - DCS soon being another of its adopters, as we all know now.

I don't know what experience with game development (and with game developers) you have but, anyone in this difficult business knows that the PC gaming market is comprised of people with limited funds, not your typical wealthy enthusiast.
This is part of the reason why the progression in "eye-candy" hasn't been as big as it was in decades prior. Games with more aproachable hardware requirements are often more popular, frequently in the longer term as well. And it's a tough market out there.
You can not invest "head first" in solutions for a product that only a percentage can use, while leaving out most of the people that would buy your product, due to requirements. Again, we're talking mainstream usage (not niche segments), which ditactes the success also of APIs.

If there's any lesson to be learned with recent history of AAA games is that, focusing on proprietary "closed" solutions (like Nvidia's DLSS, among others) is partially doomed.
First, because it takes many, many years on end until finally adopted. And then can only be used by part of the game's userbase - sacrificing a substancial chunk of customers.
Second (and even worse), reality shows that it's most often used to mask "lazyness" from incompetent developers (and faults of game-engine in use), not to improve the medium as initially intented.

Considering the current PC gaming market and users, the imediate impact with downsides are too many with Direct Storage, because of its (current) requirements.
They'd have to do a complete 180º turn with decisions for it to become widely adopted.
The reality is that, for PC gaming, Microsoft's Direct Storage will likely be limited to a few XBOX console ports to PC.
And that's it. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

18 minutes ago, some1 said:

Nope. What I'm stating is that in real world applications the actual technology inside the disk is the primary thing which determines performance. The interface also matters to some extent, but not to the level synthetic benchmarks suggest. The current PCIe Gen.5 disks can produce huge numbers in synthetic throughput benchmarks, but it does not translate to practical results much.

Direct Storage works on any NVMe disk, even Gen. 3. So far in that one game which has Direct Storage and which people bothered to test, Gen. 4 disks are basically as fast as Gen.5. And while Gen.3 is slower, it's nowhere near the difference you can see in CrystalDiskMark or other benchmark software.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/directstorage-testing-shows-pcie-3-drives-are-basically-as-fast-as-pcie-5

As for the current version of DCS, I have both NVMe Gen.3 and Gen.4 drives in my system, and loading times are the same on all of them. I tested. No word from ED on Direct Storage coming to DCS any time soon.

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:

2 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

(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.

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.

[kksnowbear]

25 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Please stop, now it's getting into pure fantasy.

It's been a few years now that we read about Direct Storage on PC. The reality check is that the full list of games is comprised of 9 (nine!!!) games only. 
And no, they're not growing in number:
 
Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart
New World
VOXEL HORIZON
SYNCED
Forspoken
Diablo IV
EA SPORTS FC 24
Forza Motorsport
Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown

source: https://steamdb.info/tech/SDK/DirectStorage/

Microsoft Direct Storage won't be universally adopted (very far from it), and here's why:

1. It's an API by Microsoft, which has been walled off from Windows 10 -  baffling requirement, as it's still the most used OS also for gaming (source: Steam Survey), a scenario that will continue as Windows 11 adoption has not been widely praised. You're also out of the loop if using Linux for gaming.
   That's right, you're forced to use Windows 11 to use it.
    
2. You also require a GPU that supports the DirectX 12 Ultimate API. 
   This limits the GPU choices to NVIDIA's RTX 20-series, 30-series and 40-series, and AMD's RX 6000 and RX7000 series.
   This is fine here in DCS-land, but not in mainstream PC gaming.
   Anyone that is still using a perfectly usable GTX 10-series (GTX1080Ti, for example) or AMD RX5000 series (RX5700XT, for example) will be forced to upgrade.
   As side note, these are the most sold GPUs on the used market, and with huge numbers in the Steam survey for GPUs.
    
3. Another hardware requirement that's baffling is that your NVMe drive must be at least 1TB in capacity.
   So, if you're one among many thousands of users who bought one or two (or three) NVMes with 500GB and have been fine with them, tough luck...
   That's right, will be forced to swap/upgrade to a 1TB+ NVMe drive.
    
4. The final nail in the coffin is that it requires games built around DirectX 12 to take advantage of Direct Storage.
   In an era when other APIs are growing in strength for PC gaming, such as VULKAN (because it's "open" and cross-platform, can be used on Windows, Linux, and even smartphones) - DCS soon being part of its adopters, as we all know now.

I don't know what experience with game development (and with game developers) you have but, anyone in the business knows that the PC gaming market is comprised of people with limited funds, not your typical wealthy enthusiast.
This is part of the reason why the progression in "eye-candy" hasn't been as big as it was in decades prior. Games with more aproachable hardware requirements are often more popular, frequently in the longer term as well. 
You can not invest "head first" in solutions for a product that only a small percentage can use, while leaving out most of the people that would buy your product, due to requirements. Again, we're talking mainstream usage (not niche segments), which ditactes the success, also of APIs.

If there's any lesson to be learned with recent history of AAA games is that, focusing on proprietary "closed" solutions (like Nvidia's DLSS, for example) is partially doomed.
First, because it takes years on end until it's finally adopted. And then, can only be used by part of the game's userbase.
Second (and even worse), reality shows that it's extremely likely to be used to mask "lazyness" from incompetent developers (and faults of game-engine in use), not to improve the medium as initially intented.

Considering the current PC gaming market and users, the imediate impact with downsides are too many with Direct Storage, because of its (current) requirements.
The reality is that, for PC gaming, Microsoft's Direct Storage will likely only be used on a few XBOX console ports to PC.
And that's it. 

 

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.

[LucShep]

29 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

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.

Not sure you noticed but, those nine games are XBOX ports?
As in, not PC based game titles?

Actually, I am privy with a few developers in the gaming industry (sim-racing segment, more I can not disclose) who show no interest whatsoever in Direct Storage, mostly for the reasons I mention. It's investing precious time and resources on something that, at least currently and as it is, has "impending doom" written all over it. 

A bit of shame really, because it's not the tech per se (which is actually appealing), it's the unfortunate downsides wrapped around the application.
We'd need for it to be API agnostic, and perhaps "open source", for it to evolve as desired. But, alas...

Edited March 10, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

38 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Not sure you noticed but, those nine games are XBOX ports?
As in, not PC based game titles?

Actually, I am privy with a few developers in the gaming industry (sim-racing segment, more I can not disclose) who show no interest whatsoever in Direct Storage, mostly for the reasons I mention. It's investing precious time and resources on something that, at least currently and as it is, has "impending doom" written all over it. 

A bit of shame really, because it's not the tech per se (which is actually appealing), it's the unfortunate downsides wrapped around the application.
We'd need for it to be API agnostic, and perhaps "open source", for it to evolve as desired. But, alas...

 

Doesn't matter where the 9 titles came from, there are factually 9 more than there were before.  There is interest.  And for every new one, there's one more than before that.  There's growth.  How much, where it comes from, and all that doesn't matter, because it remains that if it were a losing proposition as you claim, then no one would be pursuing it.  As in 'none'.

But that's not the reality.

Also, I know developers as well...and I know enough to understand the developers aren't calling the shots at these companies.  The business side of it is handled by others (typically) and the actual 'developers' are worker bees.

And one developer (or team, or even company) does not an entire industry make.  So while you may know one, there are (at least) nine others that see things my way.

Bottom line: It is happening.  So, again, in spite of what you're speculating about, we can all see factually that it is being done, right now, in reality.

And since those companies doing it have to invest at least some resources, I can only surmise that - again - they're not intentionally trying to go under.

[kksnowbear]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

Direct Storage works on any NVMe disk, even Gen. 3

Of course, we all know that...but it's also missing the point.

Your comparison is intentionally made on a playing field that's not level; it's inherently biased toward slower storage.  On a Gen3 board - or a Gen4 board, as I've said, the transfer rate is not going anywhere, primarily because the storage device speed has exceeded the saturation point of the bus.

This might not matter as much with these benchmarks and whatnot, but the fact remains that Gen5 is faster - and the various implementations of DirectStorage can actually take advantage of speed beyond what Gen3 and 4 are capable of.

So while they may all seem the same in benchmarks presently, that won't be the case once the technology is in place to actually use the advantage of Gen5 speed.  And, as I've already pointed out, that advantage is already present, in PC games, today.  The rest is just a matter of time.

And yes, I've already tested this myself, and there is clear benefit to Gen5 speed when coupled with newer storage technology:

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Doesn't matter where the 9 titles came from, there are factually 9 more than there were before.  There is interest.  And for every new one, there's one more than before that.  There's growth.  How much, where it comes from, and all that doesn't matter, because it remains that if it were a losing proposition as you claim, then no one would be pursuing it.  As in 'none'.

But that's not the reality.

All that doesn't matter?   Not the reality? 
Being an XBOX ports means everything - the console uses Direct Storage. They just port the content to make it functional also on PC.
 

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Also, I know developers as well...and I know enough to understand the developers aren't calling the shots at these companies.  The business side of it is handled by others (typically) and the actual 'developers' are worker bees.

And one developer (or team, or even company) does not an entire industry make.  So while you may know one, there are (at least) nine others that see things my way.

Bottom line: It is happening.  So, again, in spite of what you're speculating about, we can all see factually that it is being done, right now, in reality.

And since those companies doing it have to invest at least some resources, I can only surmise that - again - they're not intentionally trying to go under.

You're not getting the bigger picture. 

Today, the Direct Storage solution is happening in the consoles, and it happens on PC by those developers with invested interest also in the consoles - hence why you see it in console ports. 

Console gaming and "PC only" gaming development are very, very different.
PC gaming today is no longer comprised of huge publishers pumping the cash and giving the orders to developers for certain projects - those are actually a minority today.
Perhaps in the console arena it happens, but in the PC arena the days of a big table of rich and dumb investors calling all the shots is long, long gone.

Most developers for PC gaming today are independent dev-houses, comprised of a team of people (big or small but, of course, with hierarchies) leading every aspect of their game title. Exactly because the independence gives them freedom to decide on everything. Because they've been burned out by those bean-counters in the past.
IIRC, we have Eagle Dynamics as one among multiple hundreds of developers exemplifying this.

I'm an ex-developer myself (sound-designer, worked as "freelancer"), who worked intermitently in the industry for about a decade, surrounded by hugely talented people of all areas of game development, so (at least I believe), I can speak from experience.

While these people do the best they can according to their ideals for a project, it's still according to fastest ROI, for the given moment.
If you're a "PC gaming only" dev-house, it's most likely that you're independent with tight funds (like most are). And if you decide to invest in an API for 3D graphics, it's likely you'll prefer an "open" one (say, Vulkan). This is even more relevant if you're investing on a project for a niche market.
Why would you "lock" yourself to a certain (certainly closed) API, only because it gives a certain nice feature (like DS) with its own major downsides?  Do you understand the conumdrum there?

Edited March 10, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Not sure you noticed but, those nine games are XBOX ports?
As in, not PC based game titles?

Actually, I am privy with a few developers in the gaming industry (sim-racing segment, more I can not disclose) who show no interest whatsoever in Direct Storage, mostly for the reasons I mention. It's investing precious time and resources on something that, at least currently and as it is, has "impending doom" written all over it. 

A bit of shame really, because it's not the tech per se (which is actually appealing), it's the unfortunate downsides wrapped around the application.
We'd need for it to be API agnostic, and perhaps "open source", for it to evolve as desired. But, alas...

 

Also, apparently you're unaware, but DirectStorage technology is not bound to die just because it's only supported in DirectX12 or whatever...

NVIDIA Brings the Benefits of DirectStorage 1.1 to Vulkan Under its RTX-IO Brand

This article explains that DirectX actually came from the original RTX I/O, and NVIDIA has developed a Vulkan version of the original RTX-IO tech that can be used by game developers with engines primarily designed for Vulkan.

So there's that.

 

12 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Being an XBOX ports means everything - the console uses Direct Storage. They just port the content to make it functional also on PC.

I know that.  The point is they wouldn't bother if there wasn't interest.  They wouldn't bother if they didn't think there was a reason to do so.

You seem to think you know their business better than they do.

And, as I've already explained: For every time it happens - regardless of how or why - it's one more step in the right direction.

The question here is whether DirectStorage (and related technologies, see above) can do more with the speed of Gen5 devices - thus making it no longer a comparison hobbled because the speed isn't being used, which in turn means Gen3 and 4 devices - although they'll work - just cannot perform at the same level.

Which means Gen5 storage is not the terrible investment that a couple of experts in the DCS forums seem to think it is.

Edited March 10, 2024 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

8 minutes ago, LucShep said:

All that doesn't matter?   Not the reality? 
Being an XBOX ports means everything - the console uses Direct Storage. They just port the content to make it functional also on PC.
 

You're not getting the bigger picture. 

Today, the Direct Storage solution is happening in the consoles, and it happens on PC by those developers with invested interest also in the consoles - hence why you see it in console ports. 

Console gaming and "PC only" gaming development are very, very different.
PC gaming today is no longer comprised of huge publishers pumping the cash and giving the orders to developers for certain projects - those are actually a minority today.
Perhaps in the console arena it happens, but in the PC arena the days of a big table of rich and dumb investors calling all the shots is long, long gone.

Most developers for PC gaming today are independent dev-houses, comprised of a team of people (big or small but, of course, with hierarchies) leading every aspect of their game title. Exactly because the independence gives them freedom to decide on everything. Because they've been burned out by those bean-counters in the past.
IIRC, we have Eagle Dynamics as one among multiple hundreds of developers exemplifying this.

I'm an ex-developer myself (sound-designer, worked as "freelancer"), who worked intermitently in the industry for about a decade, surrounded by hugely talented people of all areas of game development, so (at least I believe), I can speak from experience.

While these people do the best they can according to their ideals for a project, it's still according to fastest ROI, for the given moment.
If you're a "PC gaming only" dev-house, it's most likely that you're independent with tight funds (like most are). And if you decide to invest in an API for 3D graphics, it's likely you'll prefer an "open" one (say, Vulkan). This is even more relevant if you're investing on a project for a niche market.
Why would you "lock" yourself to a certain (certainly closed) API, only because it gives a certain nice feature (like DS) with its own major downsides?  Do you understand the conumdrum there?

 

I can only repeat what I've already said: These are the companies' businesses, and I find it exceptionally unlikely that business management - never mind software developer worker bees - would actually expend resources on something that is as doomed to failure as you describe.

I think *you* don't get the picture: I'm not saying your reasons aren't reasons.  I'm saying that, in spite of all your reasoning, it would appear that it's happening all around us, right now.

So, somebody seems to know something you're not taking into account.

[LucShep]

1 minute ago, kksnowbear said:

Also, apparently you're unaware, but DirectStorage technology is not bound to die just because it's only supported in DirectX12 or whatever...

NVIDIA Brings the Benefits of DirectStorage 1.1 to Vulkan Under its RTX-IO Brand

This article explains that DirectX actually came from the original RTX I/O, and NVIDIA has developed a Vulkan version of the original RTX-IO tech that can be used by game developers with engines primarily designed for Vulkan.

So there's that.

Yep, we've been hearing about Direct Storage from Nvidia since 2020 (was to be present with RTX 30-series).

I was not aware that Nvidia finally announced it to bring it to VULKAN but... it's still an RTX I/O, and just how feasable it actually is remains to be seen (may take years).

People with Nvidia GTX GPUs are left out, as are those with AMD and INTEL GPUs. How and if those will make their own version remains to be seen.
It's the DLSS and RT story all over again.
No mention as well if there are other kinds of limitations (such as locked to Windows 11).

You see, untill Direct Storage becomes a thing that is "universal" (OS and hardware agnostic) and something that "is there, doing its own thing", for which the developer doesn't have to preocupate, doing its job as normal, it won't stick.
Of course, we're in 2024, hopefully this will all be different and a certainty in, say, 2030.

[some1]

59 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

So while they may all seem the same in benchmarks presently, that won't be the case once the technology is in place to actually use the advantage of Gen5 speed.  And, as I've already pointed out, that advantage is already present, in PC games, today.  The rest is just a matter of time.

Yawn. Wake me up when there's a meaningful performance difference between gen4 and gen5 in the games we can play on a PC. And by meaningful i don't mean "0.5 s faster loading".

Then I'll go and but gen5 drive, most likely with better specs, and for a fraction of price of what is available now.

Until then, well, at least you can keep getting excited about benchmarks. 

 

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Yawn. Wake me up when there's a meaningful performance difference between gen4 and gen5 in the games we can play on a PC. And by meaningful i don't mean "0.5 s faster loading".

Then I'll go and but gen5 drive, most likely with better specs, and for a fraction of price of what is available now.

Until then, well, at least you can keep getting excited about benchmarks. 

 

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

Yawn, indeed.

Edited March 10, 2024 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

Yep, we've been hearing about Direct Storage from Nvidia since 2020 (was to be present with RTX 30-series).

I was not aware that Nvidia finally announced it to bring it to VULKAN but... it's still an RTX I/O, and just how feasable it actually is remains to be seen (may take years).

People with Nvidia GTX GPUs are left out, as are those with AMD and INTEL GPUs. How and if those will make their own version remains to be seen.
It's the DLSS and RT story all over again.
No mention as well if there are other kinds of limitations (such as locked to Windows 11).

You see, untill Direct Storage becomes a thing that is "universal" (OS and hardware agnostic) and something that "is there, doing its own thing", for which the developer doesn't have to preocupate, doing its job as normal, it won't stick.
Of course, we're in 2024, hopefully this will all be different and a certainty in, say, 2030.

ED decided to put DLSS in DCS.  MT as well.  They chose to do this for their own reasons - but it remains they did choose to do so.

I can list many technologies that didn't come about overnight, but did actually become commonplace - and made substantial differences in their respective applications when they were implemented (I'm not just talking PCs; rather, the process of evolution in technology).

It isn't always as fast as we might like.  Sometimes, yes, it fails.

But that doesn't mean that DirectStorage/related technologies are doomed as you put it.  And, although it's obvious you wish to sound as if you know, the truth is you don't really know any more than I do.  And the actual events taking place, over time, seem to be more consistent with my perspective.

I'm saying, even with the points you made, there is progress with DirectStorage/related tech.  That much is undeniable.  I believe the available evidence strongly suggests the potential will be realized - much the same as DLSS and MT in DCS.

I see why you say what you do, but what you say still doesn't prove at all that DIrectStorage won't succeed.  You simply don't know that.

And - again, to get back to the topic of this thread, I never once gave any specific advice to "Do this".  That was you:

On 1/12/2024 at 5:19 AM, LucShep said:

Resuming -  get a Gen4 NVME, always and regardless.

Talk about "incredibly poor judgment".  I guess you'd advise those with Gen5 boards to use Gen4 drives always and regardless (your words, not mine).

My point throughout has simply been that if 'future proofing' is a valid argument, then buying a Gen5 drive isn't bad advice at all.  Pretty sure that's what I said.

Edited March 10, 2024 by kksnowbear

[CMDR Shepard]

7 часов назад, kksnowbear сказал:

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.

 

Oh yes, I work in the IT industry and have absolutely no understanding of MB features. Here's the chart I used for this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NQHkDEcgDPm34Mns3C93K6SJoBnua-x9O-y_6hv8sPs/edit#gid=0
Did you know that we choose MB not only because of PCI features? 

You seem to have forgotten that we are an international community and live in different countries. In my country any Gen 5 costs twice as much as the best Gen 4 nvme. Or even more.(~440$ for 2Tb T700 and I've got my 990 Pro for only ~180$)
And as I can see, my old Gen 4 nvme faster your super-duper Gen 5 T700 in 4K reads...

Edited March 10, 2024 by CMDR Shepard

[Dragon1-1]

30 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

My point throughout has simply been that if 'future proofing' is a valid argument, then buying a Gen5 drive isn't bad advice at all.  Pretty sure that's what I said.

Ultimately, it's all about bang for buck. If the increased storage performance does not translate into noticeably increased performance in game, then you have wasted your money. In particular, consider a situation when it's simply not the bottleneck.

In other words, two questions need to be asked: 1. Is the technology as it performs now worth the current asking price? 2. Are the future gains worth the current asking price?

For 1., the answer is a resounding no. There simply aren't any big gains to be had yet. Now for 2. Generally, a new technology will drop in price as it matures, and as used hardware enters the market. I like to buy SSDs taken out of unsold laptops, which are vastly cheaper than boxed stuff. So, the question is now, how long will it be before a Gen4 SSD starts being a performance bottleneck? Will it ever be one? We seem to be approaching a performance ceiling with both CPUs and GPUs, which is not to say that there's no performance to be squeezed, but it hasn't been following Moore's Law for a long time. Even the loading times, most of the time it's not waiting on storage, but doing things like initializing stuff, parsing configs and the like. So when will Gen5 actually make a difference? And, more pointedly, how much it's going to cost then? It might just be that buying a Gen4 now, and upgrading to a Gen5 drive then will actually come out cheaper. Not to mention being able to spread costs over time matters, too.

 

[kksnowbear]

16 minutes ago, CMDR Shepard said:

You seem to have forgotten that we are an international community and live in different countries. In my country any Gen 5 costs twice as much as the best Gen 4 nvme

And I've repeatedly said prices in other countries are not my fault nor my problem.  Here in the States, where I work building custom gaming machines for people including DCS players, I can do better.

Sorry for your misfortune.

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Ultimately, it's all about bang for buck. If the increased storage performance does not translate into noticeably increased performance in game, then you have wasted your money. In particular, consider a situation when it's simply not the bottleneck.

In other words, two questions need to be asked: 1. Is the technology as it performs now worth the current asking price? 2. Are the future gains worth the current asking price?

For 1., the answer is a resounding no. There simply aren't any big gains to be had yet. Now for 2. Generally, a new technology will drop in price as it matures, and as used hardware enters the market. I like to buy SSDs taken out of unsold laptops, which are vastly cheaper than boxed stuff. So, the question is now, how long will it be before a Gen4 SSD starts being a performance bottleneck? Will it ever be one? We seem to be approaching a performance ceiling with both CPUs and GPUs, which is not to say that there's no performance to be squeezed, but it hasn't been following Moore's Law for a long time. Even the loading times, most of the time it's not waiting on storage, but doing things like initializing stuff, parsing configs and the like. So when will Gen5 actually make a difference? And, more pointedly, how much it's going to cost then? It might just be that buying a Gen4 now, and upgrading to a Gen5 drive then will actually come out cheaper. Not to mention being able to spread costs over time matters, too.

 

And once again: What is "worth it" is absolutely and entirely a matter of opinion.  Period.

And unless we accept that you (or any of the other 'experts' here) has the right to force their opinion on others...well, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong.

Edited March 10, 2024 by kksnowbear