How shiny will your gaming be on an SSD

Subject: General Tech | December 11, 2013 - 02:19 PM |
Tagged: gaming

Sure, it is obvious that an SSD will speed up your boot time and the loading speed of programs but will it actually make your in game experience better?  [H]ard|OCP tested a Western Digital 640GB Black Edition HDD against a Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB in five different games.  The results are as you might expect; consistency, framerate and gameplay performance differences all fall within the margin of error showing that in game the SSD will not have much effect.  On the other hand load times for both the game and saves are vastly improved.

View Full Size

"We've upgraded all our video card test systems to SSDs recently. But does it actually make a difference in real world gaming performance? Today we are going to test the claim that an SSD will improve your gameplay experience compared to a spinning hard drive. We test several games apples-to-apples on our video card test system."

Here is some more Tech News from around the web:

Gaming

Source: [H]ard|OCP
December 11, 2013 | 04:28 PM - Posted by mLocke

Wish they would have measured load times on games with lengthy load times, like Civ, Europa Universalis or even HL2 with its flow-breaking mid-level load screens. Also would have been interesting to see if SSD effects AI turn time in games like Total War or Civ.

December 11, 2013 | 05:36 PM - Posted by Prodeous

agreed with mLocke. FPS shouldn't be in any way affected by the HDD/SSD. however load time (something only mentioned in the conclusion) is the primary reason for SSD in the system.

And as mLocke mentioned, games like HL2 with it's continuous load screens that take you out of the game would really benefit.

Wonder what Allen things of this article.

December 11, 2013 | 07:34 PM - Posted by aaron (not verified)

I use that very hard drive with an SSD cache and I'm very happy. Would games load faster with only SSD storage? Of course but hdd+ssd cache is a much better bang for the buck. I've used both the Intel RST method and a Sandisk SSD that comes with it's own software, and both work well although the Intel caching mechanism is better.

December 11, 2013 | 08:30 PM - Posted by Shortwave (not verified)

The big difference between using SSD vs HDD is not simply load times in many cases, but is found within the frame rate quality, opposed to actual frame-rate? Am I incorrect?

For example, in game engines where textures are constantly being pulled in and out of catch, you may go to spin around quickly and experience micro-stuttering, which may deter ones ability to get dat' headshot.

Something I've noticed anyways is micro-stuttering far improved. Perhaps some people could do some more specific tests with that idea.

Theres more to game quality than simply load times and frame-rate.

December 12, 2013 | 04:45 AM - Posted by Klimax (not verified)

There is another option, WD Black or VelociRaptor. (Or equivalent from Seagate)
(Black had 100MB+ in sequential, while Raptor had 150/200)

December 12, 2013 | 07:38 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Terms like micro-stutter and bottleneck are thrown around far too much.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.