![]() This boot time will vary from PC to PC and game to game, but in some instances booting a game from an SSD can take less than half the time it would take to boot it from a hard drive.Īlso, load times to go from a game’s menu into the game itself are faster when the game is installed on an SSD than when it installed on a hard drive. Games that are installed on an SSD will typically boot faster than games that are installed on a traditional hard drive. So, if you have an aging gaming PC, and you were planning on upgrading to an SSD because you thought that might help you run your games at a more acceptable framerate, you’d be better off using the money you were going to spend on an SSD to, first, get a newer graphics card and, then, upgrade your CPU and RAM.īut, while SSDs won’t give you higher framerates, that doesn’t mean that they are useless for gamers… Where SSDs Can Help GamersĪlthough an SSD isn’t going to give you a higher framerate in your favorite games, it will offer gamers an advantage over traditional hard drives. An older benchmark from Tom’s Hardware shows virtually no difference between an SSD and HDD in in-game performance. The reality is that games that are installed on an SSD will not deliver you more frames per second than if those games were installed on a hard drive, all other things equal. ![]() In the testing that I’ve done and of the benchmarks that I’ve seen, the results show that the difference between a solid state drive and a hard drive in games is negligible. However, in terms of in-game performance, an SSD will not provide any kind of significant performance advantage. The faster read and write times of an SSD help it load large files faster and also cut down on the boot times into both your operating system and the programs and applications on your computer. There are a lot of performance advantages of choosing an SSD over a traditional mechanical hard drive. Final Verdict: SSDs vs HDDs for Gamers What Gaming Benchmarks Say: SSDs Don’t Deliver Higher Framerates Should You Put Your Games on Your SSD or HDD?Ħ. With a fast enough CPU and an SSD drive I can get better speeds closer to my 1GBPs connection.5. This is mainly due to the high compression of the files so basically my CPU is capping out how fast I can really download games from steam not my overall connection. I have a 1GBps connection but I can only realistically get 400mbps off Steam. This process is both CPU and disk intensive. It essentiallyġ) Gets a list of 'changes' it needs ot make from the patch fileĤ) writes out the new file with the changes The down side is that locally it uses more CPU and disk to process these files. This allows the download itself to e much smaller. Rather than "here is the entire file again, even though we added like 1 digit at the end of the file" They basically tell steam "hey go look at this part of the file and chnage these bits". I didnt know that you could compress that big of a patch in that small of a file ![]() Originally posted by Geeknificent:so it basically downloaded a hyper-compressed file is what you are saying. As Satoru's right and it's more about IOPS than pure bandwidth, an SSD would help a huge lot (if the long patch time's bothering you, that is). Without those system, you'd have to download 15 GB (bold guess, I've seen games wiht 35 GB archive files) because of a 3,5 MB patch. Then what Steam does is to unpack the file you already have on your HDD, apply the patch and repack the now-patched file. ![]() Those may be compressed, but they're typically rather huge. Rather, all those small files get packed into huge package files. Meaning that not every single texture is a separate file. What's causing all the I/O (Satoru is damn right, your IOPS, I/O operations per second is what's causing the long times) is the actual patching. While it certainly IS compressed, it's not that heavy compressed. I didnt know that you could compress that big of a patch in that small of a file Sort of. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |