add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

SSD VS. SSD For Game Loading

Comments

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

i would say you should go with the ADATA SSD since it has 6.25x faster read speed than the other, and since game loading is 90% of the time just reading from the drive it would be tons faster and better for only games.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

But is it really needed? Since it isnt really any big workloads just games opening and closing

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

Games don't just "open and close" they have to load and read from the drive that they're installed onto, if you have a faster drive then it would be less bottleneck.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I just put it in simple terms i know they dont just open and close, but i mean is it really worth the extra $50 for a quicker drive that will be a game storage? Also bottleneck on a drive?

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

Actually now with more thought go with the western digital drive, ~500mb/s read and write should be plenty for games, as for bottleneck i meant the SSD wouldn't be the problem with loading slow and the CPU or (although less likely) RAM to be a bottleneck when loading games.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Thank you! I need to talk to you more often. Very Helpful! Thanks again!

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Would you look at that 19 comment karma with 17 comments. Magic!

[comment deleted]
  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

The WD drive is a SATA drive in the m.2 formfactor, vrtually identical to a 2.5" SATA drive

The ADATA drive is a NVMe m.2, and is runs off PCI-E lanes and is several times faster.

Given the price difference I'd go with the ADATA NVMe drive. If saving $30 is more important to you then the WD SATA m2 will be fine. You probably won't ever feel sad about it, even if you get an NVMe drive down the road.

But is it really needed? Since it isnt really any big workloads just games opening and closing

"needed" no, but faster, generally it would be, if only a little sometimes.

Both drives will provide leagues better performance than an HDD. I've run and am currently running both SATA and NVMe drives and really for most general computing both are generally fast enough just because HDDs are so slow by comparison. If something takes a minute to load on a HDD, and you can get that down to 20 seconds on a SATA SSD because a good chunk of that minute was due to the slow seeks and reads of the HDD. That's pretty great. But even if you got disk read times down to 0, you're still going to have some loading time. The CPU needs to read data out of the RAM and do some work to get the program running.

But anyway, you're down to 20 seconds load time, and a NVME drive is several times faster than SATA, But our load time only drops to 16 seconds. NVMe is fast, yes, but there's still time involved. Is going from 20 to 16 seconds huge? Is it worth the extra cost? Sometimes the difference will be larger or smaller depending on the specifics of the applications your loading. But getting off the HDD to any sort of SSD provides the largest improvement, faster and faster SSDs do provide some improvements over slower SSDs, but it's a case of diminishing returns.

And the caveat also some workloads really do benefit from NVMe's bandwidth, so the value of that speed is dependent on your use case.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Yea no workloads at all. Thanks for the help!

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Well just for clarity when I say "workload" it's a generic term for any processing the system is done. Be it playing games, compiling code, running photoshop the PC is doing work. Whether or not the work the PC is doing it fun or work for you is immaterial.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh Alright its just for games thats it thanks!

  • 4 months ago
  • 2 points

I have the Samsung 970 Evo 1TB (M.2 NVMe) and Samsung 860 Evo 1TB (2.5" SATA SSD) and because I had motherboard issues with the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra which I don't have anymore with the MSI MEG Z390 Ace (returned the Gigabyte board after three weeks), I used both drives for booting, installing, and loading games. I can tell you that the first setup for Windows for the 970 Evo was ridiculous. I think it took more time to load the files from the USB drive than anything because the installation jumped to 79% immediately. The first setup on the 860 Evo was still very fast though, maybe 3-4 minutes. As for booting into Windows, the 970 Evo is instantaneous. The 860 Evo takes maybe a couple seconds.

For actual game loading though, both are very fast. To me, there isn't a noticeable difference. I play Metro Exodus, Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Battlefield 5, Watch Dogs 2, and Resident Evil 2 Remake. All of these games have been installed on both drives. Maybe the difference is like 5 seconds to 8 seconds? All I can say is that it's definitely faster than a mechanical drive, but comparing a SATA SSD to M.2 NVMe for loading games is like comparing two different high end sports car to each other. Both are super fast and in the end, you probably won't notice if you go with the cheaper drive.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I got the other Adata with the heat sink, gammix s11 I think, same drive. It rates close to the EVO. I have the 480gb. Sata is pretty fast in seconds, most say you need really big files to see difference with Nvme and small files are much like sata.

So why get it, my reasoning was I can spend a little more and get this fast drive my mobo will take and I will not have to change out my OS drive in the near future. Today Nvme is fast, in 5-10yr it might not be, who knows, but for a cost I can use new tech now. I mean you would not use an old hdd for boot in a new PC would you? Nvme makes sata old, even though it still works well. So guess it depends on your budget. You can always get the intel 660 it does 1800 read vs sata 600, and adata/evo around 3200...so 1800 is 3X sata and its 109 for 1tb. The difference here is they cut price to almost sata ssd but still 3X as fast as sata, its hard to resist.

If you need every last dollar for your gpu or something, then save with a sata ssd it will work well. Or you can go sata and swap in a m.2 later and use the sata for secondary if you are good with cloning it/reinstall.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

the damn adata is 180 it sucks that its that much but i guess itd be worth it

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

That is why I got the 480 at ~90 figure it was enough, paired with a 3tb for 69 for video/pics/backup. I can add a m.2 or sata any time. I should be able to fit games I play on the 480. I wonder if you can run StoreMI on a secondary m.2 with a hdd lol. I'd likely get a intel 660 or such 2nd M.2 for games if needed.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube