GPU on a budget

[Dawullf1]

Hey Guys, I was gifted a new Desk Top for Christmas. Here are the specs." HP EliteDesk 800 G5 SFF- intel core- 9th Gen-i5-9600-256 GB SSD-16GB Ram-3.1 GHz- Intel UHD 630- Win 10". I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out exactly which Gpu upgrade for this desktop. It's nearly impossible to fly let alone dogfight with any clarity at all even at low default settings. I'm afraid if I can't get something figured out I'm just going to uninstall DCS and move on to something different, whatever that might be. This is just a hobby but its getting so frustrating and I don't have the funds to spend on an expensive GPU when I'm not sure it would even solve the issues. ALL of you guys are way above me on PC specs and Hardware specs than I will ever be. Kinda getting on up in age ,lol.Checking my Fps and was getting at max 11 FPS with everything turned off or lowest setting. Help me out guys!!

[speed-of-heat]

assuming you are running on an intergrated GPU at the moment and that that is the bottle neck, what is your budget and what is your goal , i assume you are not trying to play in VR, so what resolution is your monitor, what refresh rate does it run at?   i seem to remember getting pretty good FPS on my old 1070 and 1080ti before i got the VR bug, so you don't need a massively expensive GPU to get a good play in DCS on a monitor.  You might see if you can easily cheaply take it up to 32GB of RAM as well 16 is the bare minimum... same with the SSD, getting a bigger or second SSD will really help

oh you might be sort of screwed (I just looked this up) HP EliteDesk 800 G5 Small Form Factor Business PC Specifications | HP® Support assuming that's what you got given you might not have space to put a seperate GPU in a box that small depending on form factor.. it's not really designed for gaming or being upgraded 

Edited January 30 by speed-of-heat

[speed-of-heat]

you do have a couple of PCIE16 slots if you look in the manual Hardware Reference Guide (hp.com) here you will find  some information , but it looks like a non-standard form factor and is certainly reduced length half sized cards in terms of length, and it also looks to be a non-standard height for the card as well (based on the chassis dimensions 

Chassis dimensions (W x D x H)

10.0 x 33.78 x 30.81 cm (3.94 x 13.3 x 12.13 in)

10cm would be the total height of the chassis , a normal PCI card is about 11 cm tall ... so thats going to be "bad it did ship with a number of discrete cards for the platform... 

NVIDIA Quadro P400 2 GB Graphics Card

NVIDIA GeForce GT 730 2 GB DisplayPort DVI Graphics Card

AMD Radeon RX 550 4 GB 1DP 1 HDMI Graphics Card

AMD Radeon R7 430 2 GB GDDR5 64-bit DP and VGA Graphics Card (not available in all regions/countries)

AMD Radeon R7 430 2 GB GDDR5 64-bit 2 DP Graphics Card

none of these are actually very good and 2Gb of RAM is way below the minimum spec for DCS, but it is possible you might find some form factor that would be similar "Caveat Emptor", also your power supply is also tiny for a deiscrete gaming  graphics card... 

so given this i would have to say it's a nice gift, but its not really compatible with many modern games, and you will struggle to get DCS to run better.

[xoxen]

Wow, this is a tricky topic as the case is very small. I found this graphic card, which could be an option.

Link to low profile GPU

If you put additional 16 GB of RAM into it you should be OK running DCS with low to medium settings.

I hope this helps.

Edit: This page (link) should show you the options you have in a good way.

Edited January 30 by xoxen

[kksnowbear]

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.

Edited February 2 by kksnowbear

[Dawullf1]

Ok Thanks to all of you for replying. I have an older i3 Dell full size case that i was running on and had been wanting to upgrade that system. A family member caught these units on sell so he grabbed up a couple of them. He just doesn't have the full understanding of just how demanding DCS is. Anyway Thanks to all and I'm going to drag out the old system and have a go at it. I didn't want to start throwing good money after bad investment on the new system, but never to old to learn and sometimes you just have to ask! Thanks again Guys

[kksnowbear]

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

You have PMs

 

[blkspade]

It should be noted that the suggested power supply requirement is with a lot of buffer space, to accommodate for unknown variables. It's more useful to look at the power consumption under load of what you have and intend to add. The RX6400 only uses 53w at load, and a PCIe slot is required to provide up to 75W. The i5-9600 non-K will be closer to the 65W TDP in such a system than a K part, especially in gaming loads. The K model is 120w at full (synthetic) load for example. A SSD won't be more than 7-14W. You'd likely be looking at around 70-80% power capacity at worst, while gaming. It's doable.

[kksnowbear]

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.

Edited February 3 by kksnowbear

[TheFreshPrince]

Am 31.1.2024 um 20:34 schrieb Dawullf1:

Ok Thanks to all of you for replying. I have an older i3 Dell full size case that i was running on and had been wanting to upgrade that system. A family member caught these units on sell so he grabbed up a couple of them. He just doesn't have the full understanding of just how demanding DCS is. Anyway Thanks to all and I'm going to drag out the old system and have a go at it. I didn't want to start throwing good money after bad investment on the new system, but never to old to learn and sometimes you just have to ask! Thanks again Guys

Well, then the solution is easy. Sell the HP and upgrade your Dell desktop.  

Dunno how much you can get for it, but certainly enough for a little upgrade. DCS isn't that demanding anymore if you only fly in HD or 2k and can live with medium graphic settings. 

[kksnowbear]

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...

[SharpeXB]

It’s funny how useless the listed DCS system requirements are. The recommended CPU “Core i5+ at 3+ GHz” could mean literally anything including something from 12+ years ago that would struggle to run this game. Plus GHz as a stat by itself means almost nothing. And despite VR being about 3x as demanding as 2D the requirements listed for VR are identical to 2D.

Edited February 5 by SharpeXB

[Dawullf1]

Exactly Sharpe, heck I stay confused enough as it is!! I can watch or listen to one conversation or video and think I get an idea of the scope and watch another that is saying no way this or that setup will run it..

[Dragon1-1]

That's because those requirements had presumably not been updated in circa 12 years, as that's when the original DCS:A-10C came out. This was a reasonable PC configuration at the time. VR requirements are presumably copypasted. It's better on Steam, where the recommended specs call for a 6-core 4.5GHz CPU, which will handle DCS on a Full HD display.

[kksnowbear]

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.

Edited February 6 by kksnowbear

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, SFF is good for office uses, but largely useless for gaming, unless you're into vintage stuff or phone ports. DCS is unlikely to run on a PC designed to quietly and unobtrusively sit in a corner, running a browser and Word or Excel.

[kksnowbear]

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.

Edited February 7 by kksnowbear

[Dawullf1]

You are correct snowbear. My brother in law bought 2 of the SFF machines and gave me one. He gave the other to his son who does play fortnight with no problems as per the in- law. I think that's where he misunderstood how demanding of a platform that DCS demands. I was running DCS on low settings on a gtx 970 and later gtx 1050 with the old DELL. I have actually been doing ground attack and some bomber escort P-51 missions on the SFF. Not ideal but flyable. 

[72westy]

DCS can be ran effectively on small for factor machines as such...

https://store.minisforum.com/products/elitemini-hx90g?variant=44489936863477&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad_source=2&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiqPWhMWfhAMVjyqtBh3dDg5bEAQYAiABEgLkL_D_BwE

[LucShep]

20 hours ago, 72westy said:

DCS can be ran effectively on small for factor machines as such...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYnLp-x1b4o

https://store.minisforum.com/products/elitemini-hx90g?variant=44489936863477&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad_source=2&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiqPWhMWfhAMVjyqtBh3dDg5bEAQYAiABEgLkL_D_BwE

We're going a bit off-topic but, got to say, that Acemagic Tank03 is quite interesting.

SFF and mini PCs with "punch" have been getting more and more users around in recent years.
The low overall Wattage consumption, the small space required and portability, you name it.
Get it in your backpack with a cheap mini touchpad keyboard+mouse, can then also use it wherever you can plug it to a screen.

You can even build a capable one for (1080P) gaming yourself. This guy knows the stuff:

 

Edited February 10 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

Uhh...that's not even an SFF machine (it's a "Mini PC"), particularly not one like the OP has asked about. Its a cube full of laptop grade hardware, which - as everyone knows - is not nearly the same as the desktop counterparts.

Buying into a proprietary design like that is just as much a mistake as buying into Dell/HPs proprietary SFFs. It's overpriced for what you get, and when you get ready later on to upgrade, you'll be SOL.

Proprietary designs in personal computing are a joke, period. Always have been, always will be. The single biggest advantage "clone" hardware brought the PC industry - compatibility- is completely lost in *any* proprietaty design, by nature.

"Small Form Factor" in this instance (per the OPs original topic) is a proper noun, not a generic description.

Yeah, sure, you can buy all sorts of "small" crap, including so-called "gaming laptops".  But all of that is way off topic here.

Nobody said you can't run DCS on a "small" machine. Mini ITX machines are small and powerful, without being proprietary like that video shows. ITX is a standardized form factor.  With SFF at least there is general industry consensus on the size, at any rate - and generally they use FlexATX power supplies (which is also a standard) and typically can house half-height expansion cards, meaning some industry-standard add in cards will fit. 

"Small" is not a standard, neither is 'small form factor', and although I'm not certain, I don't think "Mini PC" is an actual standardized form factor, either.  It matters, because if it's not an actual standard form factor, then the hardware manufacturers aren't going to make components to go in it.  Which leaves you screwed at upgrade time.

What has been said is that it's not a good idea to try upgrading one of the HP/Dell SFF machines (specifically), to run DCS.  That was the topic started by the OP.

Oh BTW LOL Desktop 3090 45% faster at 1080p...and those cute little things cost how much?  I saw $1000 on one, before taxes etc.  Great if you need something portable (I guess)...but for actual desktop gaming?  Same Better performance, save money, get a 3060  

Edited February 10 by kksnowbear

[Zius]

On 1/30/2024 at 1:42 PM, kksnowbear said:

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

 

I happen to have a GTX 1660 Super (2GB), as a remnant of my previous home-built micro-ATX system (which I have since replaced with a midi tower and ATX motherboard).

I have to say, DCS runs fine with this card, and with most of the settings on "high". I use a single 1920x1080 monitor.

The GTX1650 is a bit slower but not *that* much and I think it should perform reasonably fine.

[kksnowbear]

The difference in a 1660 Super and a 'vanilla' 1650 4G DDR5 card (which I believe both LP models are) is between 60 and 80% (or more, according to various online sources, depending on who you ask, what games, resolution, settings etc).

That's a lot.

Even a 1660 (non-Super) is around 50-60% faster than a 1650 (14469 Graphics score in FireStrike, vs 9112 for the MSI LP 1650), so it makes perfect sense that a 1660 Super would be that much better.

No one's saying it wouldn't run, but it's obvious that a 1650 would struggle at the same settings and resolution where a 1660 Super does fine.  Moreover, given the OPs subject machine (an HP SFF), and that no one makes a 1660 Super in a card that will fit...well...moot point anyhow.

BTW not sure what card you're referring to, but unless I'm mistaken, 1660 Super cards had 6G VRAM, not 2.

Edited February 12 by kksnowbear

[Zius]

49 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

The difference in a 1660 Super and a 'vanilla' 1650 4G DDR5 card (which I believe both LP models are) is between 60 and 80% (or more, according to various online sources, depending on who you ask, what games, resolution, settings etc).

That's a lot.

Even a 1660 (non-Super) is around 50-60% faster than a 1650 (14469 Graphics score in FireStrike, vs 9112 for the MSI LP 1650), so it makes perfect sense that a 1660 Super would be that much better.

No one's saying it wouldn't run, but it's obvious that a 1650 would struggle at the same settings and resolution where a 1660 Super does fine.  Moreover, given the OPs subject machine (an HP SFF), and that no one makes a 1660 Super in a card that will fit...well...moot point anyhow.

BTW not sure what card you're referring to, but unless I'm mistaken, 1660 Super cards had 6G VRAM, not 2.

 

Yeah, that's fair enough.

Just saying that DCS is not that extremely demanding when it comes to hardware.

Regarding VRAM, Speccy says Physical Memory 2047 MB. Not entirely sure.

[kksnowbear]

I can assure you, there were no 2G 1660 Super cards.  Run GPU-Z, it should give you proper values.  You should also be able to look at the Nvidia Control Panel and see the card's properties (see below, albeit for a 3090).

https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/graphics-cards/compare/?section=compare-16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_16_series

What is 'demanding' honestly becomes more subjective.   People have very different ideas about what is 'demanding', what is 'acceptable', etc.

A lot of people complain about using 'synthetic' benchmarks, but this is the real reason they're valuable: It takes the subjective factors out, allowing objective comparisons. 

The 1650 was and is the go-to for those SFF machines simply because it fits the available physical space and power, that's really it.  It is not a high-end card, but it can manage some simpler games at "good" frame rates.  There are a few other alternatives, but not really much that makes any sense.  Everything else will under-perform, and/or require too much power, and/or costs *many* times more than the SFF unit itself.

 

PS: Found this https://community.ccleaner.com/topic/63672-speccy-not-reporting-graphic-card-gpu-memory-size-correctly/

which indicates it's a known problem dating back a couple years, but without update from Speccy.  I don't use it, so I can't say whether it's been updated or not.

Edited March 1 by kksnowbear