If you're looking for a new custom PC, fill out the custom PC page in the link below 😊 cataclysm.com.au/pages/custom ✅ Free express delivery nationwide! ✅ 3 year warranty including courier fees!
I have an NVME 3.0 and it handles all games fine....hell even my old SATA SSD doesn't struggle with games. As long as its not an old spinny HDD its fine.
Here's the thing - while this may not matter for loading speeds in games, this will matter if you are doing any sort of file transfering or file verification. You also don't necessarily wanna cheap out on a cheaper drive for reliability reasons, cheap drives can fail quicker (yes, i am aware that even high end Samsung SSD's have been known to do that, but those are still pretty isolated cases) and that's not something you wanna deal with at all, especially if you have sensitive data on it, since recovering lost data on a dead SSD is way more difficult than an HDD.
Cheap or not cheap is all relative. Some companies are simply greedier than others and use the strenght of their brand to dictate the price and not because they are much better. For example Crucial P3 Plus is patechicaly slow by Nvme standards in Pcpartpicker's tests , yet game loading times shouldn't be much worse than these drives and Hardware Busters claim that in their experience they are far more reliable than many speedier drives in terms of failiure rate(they did not name them when I asked). Maybe they made a video about it, maybe they didn't. So unless you are doing truly MASSIVE file transfer very often that need to be finished as quick as possible, a lot faster drives may be recommended, but other than that P3 Plus(not sure about regular P3)comes as HIGHLY recommended. When Hardware Busters recommends something people should listen...except maybe their chair reviews. IF you do not know who they are,Aris their founder I believe is a living legend among PSU reviewers and he founded the Cybernetics company who's... badges I suppose provide some indication of quality (or lack of it). PSU brands are placing on their PSU boxes more and more often and to receive their high recommendation badge on the box is MUCH more challenging than mostly useless and unreliable 80+ ratings, so when TH-cam influencers tell you 80+ tells you quality of some PSU they are either lying to you or they are as ignorant as most of their viewers. Most do overviews and call them reviews or do some very simple PSU performance measuring that anyone can do that hardly counts for anything. There are few places truly competent to provide profesionaly made reviewers. Hardware Busters,Tomshardware, Kit Guru,recently murdererd Anand Tech(but their reviews should still exist online)and maybe few others.
Did you use an almost full SSD to reproduce those tests? Or it has only the game loaded? This make a huge difference since you said the more data you store, the slower non RAM SSD gets.
You need to test games that are SSD-bound to see any difference in loading times. Titles that are over 10s are obviously CPU bound in their IO. Find something that is coded well and test that. (something that loads a ton of stuff in
In gaming it doesn't make a big difference. But i wanna know about huge file transfers, is the difference big enough for me to buy a gen 5 ssd? Or should i just buy gen 4 instead
just buy the gen 4, and if you care about preserving your data, like if you do both work and gaming, donot buy cacheless ssds. slc cache ssd is basically cacheless ssd btw, slc cache is literally just your ssd temporarily using your free mlc, tlc, or qlc blocks as slc, reducing their capacity and only works well if your drive isnt full or close to full
it's also worth to note that nvme gen4+ is bottlenecked by single core so if your app doesn't perform multi-thread I/o (and most don't) you won't significantly exceed peak gen3 nvme speed (something between 3-4 GB/s). Those are speeds I'm actually seeing irl, achieved on games loading screens. But not more. And I have 4x gen4 RAID10 so it has theoretical read rate of 28 GB/s and write 14 GB/s. I've never seen that kind of I/o load, outside of synthetic benchmarks.
generally is worth to go for a dram-cached ssd for the os (imho it's noticeably snappier depending on the task) and a cachless ssd (or simple slc cache) for storage and games
Fast SSDs aren't only for the initial loading. There a lot of process being run at start-up. Some games check the compiled shaders, that's a CPU intensive load. Places where a fast SSD shines is when moving between maps. That's the reason why this generation of consoles has fast SSDs. But I agree that you don't need the fastes for that, but an NVM PCI gen4 drive shouldn't break the bank and the speed is noticable in other situations, besides gaming.
This is a bit overpeiced especially when comes to terabytes writen durability in that terms is firecuda 530 better and cheaper choice also with cache it should be 1gb on every 1tb of storage if i remember correctly to be considered a good drive but finding these parameters is a hard task sometimes and there are other parameters like memory type mlc/tlc/qlc... Try to search and learn a bit about that only then you can get what you really paid for and do informed decision which one is best for you ;)
For Ultra and Super Ultra budget builds where litteraly EVERY $ counts,SATA 2.5" drives are still cheapest. Around 25$ or so. On pcpp Silicon Power A55 has 5 stars out of 20 something reviews. I almost always trust 20 user scores there more than 20 000 on Amazon(speaking of which I am waaay too lazy to check Amazon User Score)because they almost always take into account more important things than how fancy is the product's box and other ridiculous criteria. It's speed is approximately 50% lower than this portable external Silicon Power Nvme drive. Loading times shouldn't be more than few seconds longer in most extreme cases.
I upgrade my ssd from 3.5Gb/s to 7gb/s and didnt notice ANY improve in game loading times. I wouldnt say it was a total waste cuz I had 960gb before and now I have 2TB, so, at least, I got a lot more space.
*On a side note.* Ive noticed that a few manufacturers will use the phrase _"Up to...."_ in their advertising/marketing. So you might not even get the quoted speed. For instance My WD 850X says *"up to 7200MB/s"_* , Ive only managed to get between 6979-7000MB/s. The same goes for their SN770. I have never gotten their quoted speed of 5150MB/s. Its always been slower.
@@BlackLixt We shall see. I have a Thermalright HR-09 Pro in my possession that's going on the 850X a little later. Ive already got a low profile heatsink on it but it still does get quite toasty at 75'c but Its well below the limit where it starts to throttle. Maybe the HR-09 can unlock some more speed.
@@istvandjumber6474 yeah. I dont know how im going to live with myself after that. I might end up losing the house. selling the dog and living rough on the street 😅😅
I ain't complaining, anything is better then a HDD. Like it still amazes me how we went from a big chunky noisy thing to something now smaller then a ram stick that is super fast, silent and holds so much data. I'm building a new computer for the new year and I got myself a Samsung 990 PRO NVMe M.2 SSD, 2 TB, PCIe 4.0, 7,450 MB/s read, 6,900 MB/s write for £114.99 to start of with.
I’ve noticed this not long after buying my first XPG SX8200 1TB. All my NVMe drives I have bought I knew weren’t getting utilized that much as most game loading only pulls data around the same as SSD speeds. I have found areas where these NVMe do show their speed and it’s when I move game folders around between two of these fast drives. When the files get checked it reads them and transfers them at modern NVMe speeds. Also when I do image back ups with Acronis I now use NVMe as the back up location. So back ups take a couple minutes and restores the entire boot drive now in about 5-10mins. But yes for game loading times even now at the end of 2024 yes they don’t perform much better than quality 2.5” SSD. If the price is close I would still buy premium Gen4 drives like 980/990 pro or SN850X. I have 22 NVMe gen3&4 drives currently installed between 9 PC’s. Only my garage PC has SSD’s as boot drive and a 3 way storage space spanned SSD array for games. Figured I might as well use these three old intel ssds for about 850gb of game storage.
For me the most important parts while recommending an SSD is TLC, SLC cache and a high enough life span. As I rather pay more for an SSD that has a higher chance of living longer, than maybe even lose some files. And if I am willing to spend more money then I add DRAM cache
SSD speeds aren't fluff. It's mostly for use case. However, people said this same thing ebfore games started laoding in more assets. For 4k Faster SSD's are essential to getting improved performance. For most users you still need at MINIMUM a sata ssd, with 500 mb/s loads for most games nowadays. Now for loading limitations with engines, this is something that is caused by Windows asset loader settings. They created an API for games to use which take advantage of the SSD's speed and actually utilize it,. The problem is that many games don't want to spend the extra resources to set up the API with their engine. Its called the Direct Storage API btw. This is used in very few games, but it definitely makes a difference. Anyone that says it doesn't is lying.
Well, if you go back to older os versions, you will feel the power of it. The new os versions sucks as it is always grabbing more power and not opmitzr.
Pc games are slow to load because of compatibility with older ps4 and ps3 era games. Since they were limited to slower hdd drives and thats what the game engines were built for
The speed rating doesn't matter when application is either limited by latency or CPU. Latency limitation is that choosing the next data to be loaded is dependent on previous data to be loaded. For those its round trip time from where data is stored to CPU. That's where cache helps because it shortens the total round trip time. For optimized loading program should already know all the data to be loaded after a single load round trip, which means latency doesn't matter but bandwidth. But this would require thinking of optimizing the loading to convert as much latency sensitive to bandwidth sensitive. Second bottleneck is decompressing all the data, compiling shaders, etc... lots of CPU heavy stuff that could be multithreaded to a high degree, but don't know if its done in practice. But in theory those load times could be reduced by simply having lots of cores and splitting the task in a way that all the cores could work.
@@hatty101 Not SSD speeds, load times those are different. Load screens also include stuff that CPU does instead of what SSD does. And not necessary X3D but simply more cores, it depends on what it does. PS5 has 9 ryzen 2 cores worth of special purpose hardware to decompress loaded data. So if that kind of thing is issue and developer has multithreaded the decompression routine then number of cores would be issue. Another instance one game developer shared its trick of getting rid of stutters is running a quick playthrough of a level in the background of a loading screen. Without even showing it to the player. That way all the shaders get compiled, by the driver during load screen after loading the level instead of at random time in during game play. Then if you have randomly generated levels the random generation is a CPU tasks. And building a memory structure to handle all the data in the level and all the enemies is a CPU task also. Basically loading a level is not just loading from SSD, but all the tasks what is needed to create a memory representation of that level and preparation of running the game. However, this is theoretical and with fast SSD the actual culprit of long load times varies. For instance for long time GTA 5 had a single thread loading bottleneck for online play. And the culprit was using a terrible text format and horrendous parser to parse that text format, and load times was reduced by 70% by DLL string length function returning a previous measurement of string length if address matches the previous call. Rockstar fixed that bug in their engine.
@jouniosmala9921 thanks for the info. But I think no need to run the level in background while loading anymore maybe coz ue5.5 have runtime shader caching
@@hatty101 Not everything uses UE5, however it's just a trick I remember that one Indie game developer used. And it's either he used OpenGL and wrote the game directly in source code instead of using ready made engine or used an engine that needed it. Vulkan doesn't need it, and it was needed to fix random stutters. The thing is, loading screens have multiple potential uses, and it definitely depends on a title what work is done during the loading. And there's better way of handling that problem but what he did was simplest. Most common CPU required is decoding the level data and building the level in memory. Shader compilation is something that may or may not happen at that time depending on what happens.
I've been telling people building gaming rigs for a long time not to bother with the super premium SSDs unless you're getting one for your boot drive. For extra game storage grab a second, cheap, bigger drive. As long as it's not cacheless, it's still going to be incredibly fast compared to any HDD, and HDDs are still the king of bulk storage. I feel like too many people are caught up on the tippy top Samsung models.
I nearly went with a 980 1TB back in the day, but then settled on the blazing fast - better reviewed an less problematic - SN850X 1TB that had recently released, only to send it back luckily enough, because the seller took too long to send it, and then realized I should instead settle on a 2TB SN770 instead. Boy Im glad I went with twice the storage and sacrificed a 3rd the speed. I upgraded from a 1TB HDD so it was light speed in difference.
I am surprised by the fact that no one asks what the disadvantages of fast SSDs are. I can list a few: 1. You are limited to the number of writes to an SSD and because they give us large capacities, we never think about how many times we can actually overwrite a 1 GB sector in the same location! 2. Because of the very high speeds, the OS and other programs and even websites now use subroutines to collect data, without the user noticing the change. 3. Hackers and malicious programs have the same speed to our data and malicious programs can encrypt our data even faster, because we can no longer turn off the internet or electricity in time to save anything when the programs start running. 4. In the event of a memory silicon failure, there is no longer any possibility of saving data except by dismantling and removing the chips, which means that we always lose something. First of all, money and time, because there are not enough such services for everyone. Every time we buy an SSD, we have to buy two to store data.
1. TBW, it‘s at the box when you buy ssd, and there are a wonderful program called CrystalDiskInfo you should check it out… 2. Not just ssd, hdd can be attacked… 3. Not just ssd, hdd can be attacked, when you playing game, browsing web you don’t pay attention to read/write or service or task manager. 4. hdd have more point of failure, reading head, plater, motor, pcb and such. ssd is just a lump of silicon and remove chip from pcb is not damage anything, dude from r/soldering performed an ssd memory transplant 3 years ago…
Defaq u yapping about? 1. The average user ain't gonna write that much data 2. Still wtf u yapping about? As if having a slow ssd or hdd changes anything about that. Just use add-ons to help with privacy concerns 3.? WHAT
The reason no one talks about any of the "downsides" you listed is because they have nothing to do with ssd's or their speed. It's very common for people to mention that ssd's have a limited number of writes, and the reason no one cares is that it takes years of constant heavy use to wear out an ssd enough for there to be a problem. 1. This is not exclusive to ssd's let alone fast ones. Everything has a finite lifespan. The spindle motor in a hard drive wears with every single rotation it does, and many spin at 5,400-7,200 times every minute. The 4tb samsung 990 pro ssd has a 5 year warranty, which is the same as a 4tb seagate ironwolf pro hard drive. The only difference is the seagate drive is warrantied for 550 terabytes written per year, or 2750 terabytes written across 5 years, while the samsung is warrantied for 480 terabytes written per year, or 2400 terabytes wtitten across 5 years. These are not even the limits for either drive, these are the minimum lifetimes that the manufacturers guarantee for their drives, many keep running long after the warranty expires. 2. This has nothing to do with ssd's or their speed. If this were true, the entire internet would grind to a halt because of the massive ammount of data being moved around. People would notice if their computer started uploading the full contents of every storage drive connected to their computer, and most people's internet connection is slow enough that the speed of the drive doesn't matter. Most of the data on people's computers is useless to corporations, hackers, and even the user of the computer. The vast majority of data collected by websites is just basic information on what hardware and software you are using to connect or if you have already logged in to your account with them and the few more intrusive companies still don't care what is on the computer but who, where, when, and why you are on the computer and will use the webcam or microphone, which often require you to permit them access. 3. This has nothing to do with ssd's let alone their speed. The vast majority of time you run into "hackers", they are either a scammer or just plain lying. The majority of the time you get malware and viruses on the internet is if you you went into random websites looking for free v-bucks or something and installed whatever random crap the website told you to and you wouldn't be fast enough to stop it regardless or were the direct target, which means that the person targeting you has directly interacted with you before. Computer viruses don't work like they do on tv shows where a big bar comes on screen that says "Running Encryption Hacks.exe". 4. This is not exclusive to ssd's. In the event of a head crash you have to disassemble the hard drive and remove and replace the damaged head and platter, likely losing some or all of the data depending on if the drive was running in RAID or the severity of the damage. It doesn't matter what you store data on or how durable it is, redundant backups are the best way to prevent data loss, and even then data will be lost if the failure happens before the backup does.
My comment got deleted 13 hours ago, So here we go again. 1. TBW, "Terabyte Write" is at the box of the SSD, read the manual. And you also have a wonderful app called CrystalDiskInfo that keep track of your SSD lifespan... 2. HDD also venerable to data collection, they doing it since SSD still not popular... 3. HDD also venerable to data ransom, they doing it since SSD still not popular... 4. HDD have multiple point of failure, reader head, plater, motor, pcb, and you might not know that HDD also use SSD as a cache. There is a dude in r/soldering that fix a snapped SSD by migrating memory modules to a new PCB and preserve the data.. I bet you don't know about raid.....
If you're looking for a new custom PC, fill out the custom PC page in the link below 😊
cataclysm.com.au/pages/custom
✅ Free express delivery nationwide!
✅ 3 year warranty including courier fees!
I have an NVME 3.0 and it handles all games fine....hell even my old SATA SSD doesn't struggle with games. As long as its not an old spinny HDD its fine.
Here's the thing - while this may not matter for loading speeds in games, this will matter if you are doing any sort of file transfering or file verification. You also don't necessarily wanna cheap out on a cheaper drive for reliability reasons, cheap drives can fail quicker (yes, i am aware that even high end Samsung SSD's have been known to do that, but those are still pretty isolated cases) and that's not something you wanna deal with at all, especially if you have sensitive data on it, since recovering lost data on a dead SSD is way more difficult than an HDD.
Cheap or not cheap is all relative.
Some companies are simply greedier than others and use the strenght of their brand to dictate the price and not because they are much better.
For example Crucial P3 Plus is patechicaly slow by Nvme standards in Pcpartpicker's tests , yet game loading times shouldn't be much worse than these drives and Hardware Busters claim that in their experience they are far more reliable than many speedier drives in terms of failiure rate(they did not name them when I asked).
Maybe they made a video about it, maybe they didn't.
So unless you are doing truly MASSIVE file transfer very often that need to be finished as quick as possible, a lot faster drives may be recommended, but other than that P3 Plus(not sure about regular P3)comes as HIGHLY recommended.
When Hardware Busters recommends something people should listen...except maybe their chair reviews.
IF you do not know who they are,Aris their founder I believe is a living legend among PSU reviewers and he founded the Cybernetics company who's... badges I suppose provide some indication of quality (or lack of it).
PSU brands are placing on their PSU boxes more and more often and to receive their high recommendation badge on the box is MUCH more challenging than mostly useless and unreliable 80+ ratings, so when TH-cam influencers tell you 80+ tells you quality of some PSU they are either lying to you or they are as ignorant as most of their viewers.
Most do overviews and call them reviews or do some very simple PSU performance measuring that anyone can do that hardly counts for anything.
There are few places truly competent to provide profesionaly made reviewers.
Hardware Busters,Tomshardware, Kit Guru,recently murdererd Anand Tech(but their reviews should still exist online)and maybe few others.
Did you use an almost full SSD to reproduce those tests? Or it has only the game loaded?
This make a huge difference since you said the more data you store, the slower non RAM SSD gets.
The PX10 was roughly 50% full.
You need to test games that are SSD-bound to see any difference in loading times. Titles that are over 10s are obviously CPU bound in their IO. Find something that is coded well and test that. (something that loads a ton of stuff in
In meme terms. HMB Cache is the sassy _"Cache me outside. Howboutdat"_ Cache.
In gaming it doesn't make a big difference. But i wanna know about huge file transfers, is the difference big enough for me to buy a gen 5 ssd? Or should i just buy gen 4 instead
just buy the gen 4, and if you care about preserving your data, like if you do both work and gaming, donot buy cacheless ssds. slc cache ssd is basically cacheless ssd btw, slc cache is literally just your ssd temporarily using your free mlc, tlc, or qlc blocks as slc, reducing their capacity and only works well if your drive isnt full or close to full
it's also worth to note that nvme gen4+ is bottlenecked by single core so if your app doesn't perform multi-thread I/o (and most don't) you won't significantly exceed peak gen3 nvme speed (something between 3-4 GB/s). Those are speeds I'm actually seeing irl, achieved on games loading screens. But not more. And I have 4x gen4 RAID10 so it has theoretical read rate of 28 GB/s and write 14 GB/s. I've never seen that kind of I/o load, outside of synthetic benchmarks.
generally is worth to go for a dram-cached ssd for the os (imho it's noticeably snappier depending on the task) and a cachless ssd (or simple slc cache) for storage and games
Fast SSDs aren't only for the initial loading. There a lot of process being run at start-up. Some games check the compiled shaders, that's a CPU intensive load. Places where a fast SSD shines is when moving between maps. That's the reason why this generation of consoles has fast SSDs. But I agree that you don't need the fastes for that, but an NVM PCI gen4 drive shouldn't break the bank and the speed is noticable in other situations, besides gaming.
I still install most of my games on a HDD, I've only noticed a bottleneck in games that are poorly optimised. I'm not ready to give up my spinny boi.
Thanks! I'm planning buying the Samsung 990 pro but it seems like I just need a ssd with some kind of cache
This is a bit overpeiced especially when comes to terabytes writen durability in that terms is firecuda 530 better and cheaper choice also with cache it should be 1gb on every 1tb of storage if i remember correctly to be considered a good drive but finding these parameters is a hard task sometimes and there are other parameters like memory type mlc/tlc/qlc... Try to search and learn a bit about that only then you can get what you really paid for and do informed decision which one is best for you ;)
Pick storage over speed, as the last 2 gens of SSD's are very fast already.
always so much important information in a simple and easy way to understand
For Ultra and Super Ultra budget builds where litteraly EVERY $ counts,SATA 2.5" drives are still cheapest.
Around 25$ or so.
On pcpp Silicon Power A55 has 5 stars out of 20 something reviews.
I almost always trust 20 user scores there more than 20 000 on Amazon(speaking of which I am waaay too lazy to check Amazon User Score)because they almost always take into account more important things than how fancy is the product's box and other ridiculous criteria.
It's speed is approximately 50% lower than this portable external Silicon Power Nvme drive.
Loading times shouldn't be more than few seconds longer in most extreme cases.
I upgrade my ssd from 3.5Gb/s to 7gb/s and didnt notice ANY improve in game loading times. I wouldnt say it was a total waste cuz I had 960gb before and now I have 2TB, so, at least, I got a lot more space.
*On a side note.* Ive noticed that a few manufacturers will use the phrase _"Up to...."_ in their advertising/marketing. So you might not even get the quoted speed. For instance My WD 850X says *"up to 7200MB/s"_* , Ive only managed to get between 6979-7000MB/s. The same goes for their SN770. I have never gotten their quoted speed of 5150MB/s. Its always been slower.
7000 out 7200 ain't bad
@@BlackLixt We shall see.
I have a Thermalright HR-09 Pro in my possession that's going on the 850X a little later. Ive already got a low profile heatsink on it but it still does get quite toasty at 75'c but Its well below the limit where it starts to throttle. Maybe the HR-09 can unlock some more speed.
you poor guy, you managed to get only 97% of the advertised speed...
@@istvandjumber6474 yeah. I dont know how im going to live with myself after that. I might end up losing the house. selling the dog and living rough on the street 😅😅
I ain't complaining, anything is better then a HDD. Like it still amazes me how we went from a big chunky noisy thing to something now smaller then a ram stick that is super fast, silent and holds so much data. I'm building a new computer for the new year and I got myself a Samsung 990 PRO NVMe M.2 SSD, 2 TB, PCIe 4.0, 7,450 MB/s read, 6,900 MB/s write for £114.99 to start of with.
Where did you get that price?
@@duvanflo8643 On Amazon Black Friday sales, I also got an extra £15 off buying through the Amazon App instead!
@@duvanflo8643USA is a wild place
True that anything is better than HDD, but I wish sata SSD would be cheaper and more available cause I don't need nvme speed
HDDs are for storing long-term data because they are cheaper and there are more ways to recover the data
The automatic translation of audio from Spanish has a slight side effect and that is that it sounds very accelerated
I’ve noticed this not long after buying my first XPG SX8200 1TB. All my NVMe drives I have bought I knew weren’t getting utilized that much as most game loading only pulls data around the same as SSD speeds.
I have found areas where these NVMe do show their speed and it’s when I move game folders around between two of these fast drives. When the files get checked it reads them and transfers them at modern NVMe speeds. Also when I do image back ups with Acronis I now use NVMe as the back up location. So back ups take a couple minutes and restores the entire boot drive now in about 5-10mins.
But yes for game loading times even now at the end of 2024 yes they don’t perform much better than quality 2.5” SSD.
If the price is close I would still buy premium Gen4 drives like 980/990 pro or SN850X.
I have 22 NVMe gen3&4 drives currently installed between 9 PC’s. Only my garage PC has SSD’s as boot drive and a 3 way storage space spanned SSD array for games. Figured I might as well use these three old intel ssds for about 850gb of game storage.
For me the most important parts while recommending an SSD is TLC, SLC cache and a high enough life span. As I rather pay more for an SSD that has a higher chance of living longer, than maybe even lose some files. And if I am willing to spend more money then I add DRAM cache
I am using total 15tb of SSD which is 1,2 & 4 tb of Adata S70 Blade 7000mbpsNVME gen 4 and 2 4TB of Team group Vulcan sata ssd. How are they all?
Beasts
Two to three years ago people had problems with that adata drive where they would lose data. Idk if it’s fixed.
Actually I think it just randomly died for them. Some still have issues as recently as a few months ago.
I have corsair mp600 non core; I bought because of benchmarks, ignored specs entirely
Found it 6:27
The one thing you did not test, games with directstorage. They do have actually have differences still not the biggest but they are there.
SSD speeds aren't fluff. It's mostly for use case. However, people said this same thing ebfore games started laoding in more assets. For 4k Faster SSD's are essential to getting improved performance. For most users you still need at MINIMUM a sata ssd, with 500 mb/s loads for most games nowadays.
Now for loading limitations with engines, this is something that is caused by Windows asset loader settings. They created an API for games to use which take advantage of the SSD's speed and actually utilize it,. The problem is that many games don't want to spend the extra resources to set up the API with their engine. Its called the Direct Storage API btw. This is used in very few games, but it definitely makes a difference. Anyone that says it doesn't is lying.
**me still running a HDD for my main game installs** "bet" 💅
Welcome back mate.
I appreciate such a quick comment mate, literally just posted this! 😁
Dont forget M.2 SSD, PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe
Well, if you go back to older os versions, you will feel the power of it. The new os versions sucks as it is always grabbing more power and not opmitzr.
Hou forgot to mention how dram reduces the weardown lf the ssd
Now make it MLC or SCL, and I will buy it !
Pc games are slow to load because of compatibility with older ps4 and ps3 era games. Since they were limited to slower hdd drives and thats what the game engines were built for
Also the faster you have to access random files the more cpu load you will have
Even direct storage doesn't make much of a difference vs a 3.5k and a 5k read/write ssd
Very good explanation❤
Nice jacket btw dude...
The speed rating doesn't matter when application is either limited by latency or CPU. Latency limitation is that choosing the next data to be loaded is dependent on previous data to be loaded.
For those its round trip time from where data is stored to CPU. That's where cache helps because it shortens the total round trip time. For optimized loading program should already know all the data to be loaded after a single load round trip, which means latency doesn't matter but bandwidth. But this would require thinking of optimizing the loading to convert as much latency sensitive to bandwidth sensitive.
Second bottleneck is decompressing all the data, compiling shaders, etc... lots of CPU heavy stuff that could be multithreaded to a high degree, but don't know if its done in practice. But in theory those load times could be reduced by simply having lots of cores and splitting the task in a way that all the cores could work.
so x3D ryzen chips help SSD speeds? they have ton of cache
@@hatty101 Not SSD speeds, load times those are different. Load screens also include stuff that CPU does instead of what SSD does.
And not necessary X3D but simply more cores, it depends on what it does. PS5 has 9 ryzen 2 cores worth of special purpose hardware to decompress loaded data.
So if that kind of thing is issue and developer has multithreaded the decompression routine then number of cores would be issue.
Another instance one game developer shared its trick of getting rid of stutters is running a quick playthrough of a level in the background of a loading screen. Without even showing it to the player. That way all the shaders get compiled, by the driver during load screen after loading the level instead of at random time in during game play.
Then if you have randomly generated levels the random generation is a CPU tasks. And building a memory structure to handle all the data in the level and all the enemies is a CPU task also.
Basically loading a level is not just loading from SSD, but all the tasks what is needed to create a memory representation of that level and preparation of running the game.
However, this is theoretical and with fast SSD the actual culprit of long load times varies.
For instance for long time GTA 5 had a single thread loading bottleneck for online play. And the culprit was using a terrible text format and horrendous parser to parse that text format, and load times was reduced by 70% by DLL string length function returning a previous measurement of string length if address matches the previous call. Rockstar fixed that bug in their engine.
@jouniosmala9921 thanks for the info. But I think no need to run the level in background while loading anymore maybe coz ue5.5 have runtime shader caching
@@hatty101 Not everything uses UE5, however it's just a trick I remember that one Indie game developer used. And it's either he used OpenGL and wrote the game directly in source code instead of using ready made engine or used an engine that needed it.
Vulkan doesn't need it, and it was needed to fix random stutters. The thing is, loading screens have multiple potential uses, and it definitely depends on a title what work is done during the loading. And there's better way of handling that problem but what he did was simplest. Most common CPU required is decoding the level data and building the level in memory. Shader compilation is something that may or may not happen at that time depending on what happens.
I've been telling people building gaming rigs for a long time not to bother with the super premium SSDs unless you're getting one for your boot drive. For extra game storage grab a second, cheap, bigger drive. As long as it's not cacheless, it's still going to be incredibly fast compared to any HDD, and HDDs are still the king of bulk storage. I feel like too many people are caught up on the tippy top Samsung models.
I nearly went with a 980 1TB back in the day, but then settled on the blazing fast - better reviewed an less problematic - SN850X 1TB that had recently released, only to send it back luckily enough, because the seller took too long to send it, and then realized I should instead settle on a 2TB SN770 instead. Boy Im glad I went with twice the storage and sacrificed a 3rd the speed. I upgraded from a 1TB HDD so it was light speed in difference.
@@Elyygee you mean the P5? I don't think crucial have a P500?
dont care, I'm buying a new 9800x3D, I'm going balls to the wall, so t705 it is, 1tb for windows. Then 4tb for games
my old SATA HDD is very fast compared to my new NVME SSD
😂
T705's still best
Yoooo
I am surprised by the fact that no one asks what the disadvantages of fast SSDs are. I can list a few: 1. You are limited to the number of writes to an SSD and because they give us large capacities, we never think about how many times we can actually overwrite a 1 GB sector in the same location! 2. Because of the very high speeds, the OS and other programs and even websites now use subroutines to collect data, without the user noticing the change. 3. Hackers and malicious programs have the same speed to our data and malicious programs can encrypt our data even faster, because we can no longer turn off the internet or electricity in time to save anything when the programs start running. 4. In the event of a memory silicon failure, there is no longer any possibility of saving data except by dismantling and removing the chips, which means that we always lose something. First of all, money and time, because there are not enough such services for everyone. Every time we buy an SSD, we have to buy two to store data.
1. TBW, it‘s at the box when you buy ssd, and there are a wonderful program called CrystalDiskInfo you should check it out…
2. Not just ssd, hdd can be attacked…
3. Not just ssd, hdd can be attacked, when you playing game, browsing web you don’t pay attention to read/write or service or task manager.
4. hdd have more point of failure, reading head, plater, motor, pcb and such. ssd is just a lump of silicon and remove chip from pcb is not damage anything, dude from r/soldering performed an ssd memory transplant 3 years ago…
@FinlayDaG33k Great ideas! But who implements them?
Defaq u yapping about?
1. The average user ain't gonna write that much data
2. Still wtf u yapping about? As if having a slow ssd or hdd changes anything about that. Just use add-ons to help with privacy concerns
3.? WHAT
The reason no one talks about any of the "downsides" you listed is because they have nothing to do with ssd's or their speed. It's very common for people to mention that ssd's have a limited number of writes, and the reason no one cares is that it takes years of constant heavy use to wear out an ssd enough for there to be a problem.
1. This is not exclusive to ssd's let alone fast ones. Everything has a finite lifespan. The spindle motor in a hard drive wears with every single rotation it does, and many spin at 5,400-7,200 times every minute. The 4tb samsung 990 pro ssd has a 5 year warranty, which is the same as a 4tb seagate ironwolf pro hard drive. The only difference is the seagate drive is warrantied for 550 terabytes written per year, or 2750 terabytes written across 5 years, while the samsung is warrantied for 480 terabytes written per year, or 2400 terabytes wtitten across 5 years. These are not even the limits for either drive, these are the minimum lifetimes that the manufacturers guarantee for their drives, many keep running long after the warranty expires.
2. This has nothing to do with ssd's or their speed. If this were true, the entire internet would grind to a halt because of the massive ammount of data being moved around. People would notice if their computer started uploading the full contents of every storage drive connected to their computer, and most people's internet connection is slow enough that the speed of the drive doesn't matter. Most of the data on people's computers is useless to corporations, hackers, and even the user of the computer. The vast majority of data collected by websites is just basic information on what hardware and software you are using to connect or if you have already logged in to your account with them and the few more intrusive companies still don't care what is on the computer but who, where, when, and why you are on the computer and will use the webcam or microphone, which often require you to permit them access.
3. This has nothing to do with ssd's let alone their speed. The vast majority of time you run into "hackers", they are either a scammer or just plain lying. The majority of the time you get malware and viruses on the internet is if you you went into random websites looking for free v-bucks or something and installed whatever random crap the website told you to and you wouldn't be fast enough to stop it regardless or were the direct target, which means that the person targeting you has directly interacted with you before. Computer viruses don't work like they do on tv shows where a big bar comes on screen that says "Running Encryption Hacks.exe".
4. This is not exclusive to ssd's. In the event of a head crash you have to disassemble the hard drive and remove and replace the damaged head and platter, likely losing some or all of the data depending on if the drive was running in RAID or the severity of the damage. It doesn't matter what you store data on or how durable it is, redundant backups are the best way to prevent data loss, and even then data will be lost if the failure happens before the backup does.
My comment got deleted 13 hours ago, So here we go again.
1. TBW, "Terabyte Write" is at the box of the SSD, read the manual. And you also have a wonderful app called CrystalDiskInfo that keep track of your SSD lifespan...
2. HDD also venerable to data collection, they doing it since SSD still not popular...
3. HDD also venerable to data ransom, they doing it since SSD still not popular...
4. HDD have multiple point of failure, reader head, plater, motor, pcb, and you might not know that HDD also use SSD as a cache.
There is a dude in r/soldering that fix a snapped SSD by migrating memory modules to a new PCB and preserve the data..
I bet you don't know about raid.....