About Steam games and "Small" SSD space. (Steam Mover, Salvation?)

[JamesV]

I'm running the common setup, main OS SSD (120GB), and storage HDD (1TB).

Booting is super fast (about 14 seconds to login screen), and everything feels snappier, but I don't really see any difference when I move a game to the storage HDD from the SSD.

I just moved Skyrim to the HDD the other night, and tested it out - can't tell any difference at all on load times (less then 4 seconds on both SSD and HDD-in most cases, sometimes it takes up to 8 seconds). Same thing goes for Civ 5, maybe 1 second slower to load a huge pangea map, but that could just be me (just using a watch and counting, not perfect).

I use the command line over Steam Mover (cmd.exe), because I've been using that forever (same commands as DOS), and don't like to have tons of programs I rarely use installed when an alternative already exists.

I install on the SSD, and then move games to the HDD when I need space, and it isn't like it's difficult (guy saying doesn't want to be bothered moving stuff all the time). It may take a few minutes to move a 10GB folder, but the actual creation of the link takes all of 30 seconds.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

I'm running the common setup, main OS SSD (120GB), and storage HDD (1TB).

Booting is super fast (about 14 seconds to login screen), and everything feels snappier, but I don't really see any difference when I move a game to the storage HDD from the SSD.

I just moved Skyrim to the HDD the other night, and tested it out - can't tell any difference at all on load times (less then 4 seconds on both SSD and HDD-in most cases, sometimes it takes up to 8 seconds). Same thing goes for Civ 5, maybe 1 second slower to load a huge pangea map, but that could just be me (just using a watch and counting, not perfect).

I use the command line over Steam Mover (cmd.exe), because I've been using that forever (same commands as DOS), and don't like to have tons of programs I rarely use installed when an alternative already exists.

I install on the SSD, and then move games to the HDD when I need space, and it isn't like it's difficult (guy saying doesn't want to be bothered moving stuff all the time). It may take a few minutes to move a 10GB folder, but the actual creation of the link takes all of 30 seconds.

Skyrim is a bad example. I think they have programmed a delay just so people can see what the loadscreens contains.

Instead, try a game like Fallout 3. HUGE difference. With the Harddrive it can take 20 seconds to load up the gameworld. With a SSD it takes only 1 second. Also, using an SSD causes no stuttering in the gameworld, due to loading up textures and meshes.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't understand why people put games on an SSD in the first place.

Improved load times mainly:

 

[Anteaus]

Have you ever tried a system using a fast SSD? 😱 When I got my first SSD, a couple of years ago, I was shocked at how much faster and more responsive my system became!

I've been a PC enthusiast since 1995, and the last time I got really shocked was when the Voodoo 1 cards arrived. First time I tried the 3Dfx Glide patch for Quake, coming from 2D was a HUGE experience for me. So was going to my first SSD. Maybe even more fantastic then my first experience with 3D gaming and Voodoo 1!

You might be right but I'm not sure how much I'm missing. I have a i7 2600 with 8GB ram and my system certainly doesn't feel unresponsive. I think it depends on what your system build is. I'm definitely not saying an SSD doesn't improve overall Windows responsiveness but the question is: given the high price point and lower flexibility in regards to capacity, is it worth spending all that money just for your OS to feel slightly snappier while everything else stays the same (assuming a HDD for games)?

I'm definitely going to get a SSD, I'm just not doing it now. Hopefully in 6 months the price/GB will split in half again.

 

[Zorander]

I'm one of those people who install only games currently being played on the SSD and uninstall/back-up the rest. Works out fine for me.

As to the SSD vs HDD argument, I experience texture popping/corruption while driving around in La Noire on my HDD-only HTPC. Stopping or slowing down the car allow the city to 'gain its looks'. Quite obvious the system is not loading the textures fast enough and it's something SSD users likely will never notice.

 

[Demo24]

As I've said, it's very easy and fast to make a local backup of Steam games. This way you don't have to download them again.

While true, never works that seamlessly. Takes awhile for steam to sort through it again, often needs to download some stuff again, and needs to install again. Can easily take 5 to 30 or more to do this. I'd rather have all ~25 games I actually play installed and ready to go. And I've installed some games to my ssd before and never felt it was a significant enough increase in speed to justify it. Now that I have a raided ssd setup I could probably put most of the steam games I want on there, but everything is nicely contained in a special folder on my storage drive so I'll deal for now. 🙂


Might move tw2 though since that streams a lot of stuff and I intend on playing it again pretty soon.

 

[BFG10K]

Have you ever tried a system using a fast SSD? When I got my first SSD, a couple of years ago, I was shocked at how much faster and more responsive my system became!
I've been a PC enthusiast since 1995, and the last time I got really shocked was when the Voodoo 1 cards arrived. First time I tried the 3Dfx Glide patch for Quake, coming from 2D was a HUGE experience for me. So was going to my first SSD. Maybe even more fantastic then my first experience with 3D gaming and Voodoo 1!

I can’t agree with that. See my review here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2231417

My SSD shaved off a few seconds from game load times and boot times, and general Windows use is a tad snappier. But it’s nothing Earth-shattering over my Caviar Black. Certainly nothing like comparing GLQuake on a Voodoo1 to the software renderer.

Synthetic scores don’t mean much in the real world. To get such a huge difference in the real world you’d have to be running a piss-poor HDD or be completely I/O bound, such as constantly copying files in Windows Explorer, or constantly hitting the page file because you’re running out of system RAM.

The way some people talk about their SSDs, you’d think they were receiving digital orgasms every time they sit at their computer.

Instead, try a game like Fallout 3. HUGE difference. With the Harddrive it can take 20 seconds to load up the gameworld. With a SSD it takes only 1 second. Also, using an SSD causes no stuttering in the gameworld, due to loading up textures and meshes.

That’s simply untrue. There’s no way an SSD will be twenty times faster for loading a game. Games are bottlenecked by more than just I/O, and you can see examples of this in my review where the SSD wasn’t much faster than the HDD in some of them.

I’m guessing you loaded the game first on your HDD, then tried the SSD without restarting the system? If so, that’s not the SSD, that’s RAM caching. RAM caching works regardless of the storage device, so the HDD would be just as fast if you launched it the second time.

Also SSDs still have texture pop-in and pauses, the effect is just reduced. I’ve tested this in the Stalker games and a few others.

 

[Craig234]

The way some people talk about their SSDs, you’d think they were receiving digital orgasms every time they sit at their computer.

Well, here's one culprit for praising SSD's: some guy named 'Anand'.

From this site's review section:

In almost every SSD review we have published, Anand has mentioned how an SSD is the biggest performance upgrade you can make today.

 

[TheKub]

While true, never works that seamlessly. Takes awhile for steam to sort through it again, often needs to download some stuff again, and needs to install again.

Right, on my last reinstall I used the backup option in Steam waited the 3 hours for it to chop it up and store it on the server. Then after the reinstall I went to restore the backup and then it just started pulling all the games from the internet again *facepalm*.

 

[BFG10K]

In almost every SSD review we have published, Anand has mentioned how an SSD is the biggest performance upgrade you can make today.

I don't agree with that statement and I've hard (real-world) numbers to prove it. The biggest performance upgrade for me is the graphics card, by far.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

I can’t agree with that. See my review here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2231417

My SSD shaved off a few seconds from game load times and boot times, and general Windows use is a tad snappier. But it’s nothing Earth-shattering over my Caviar Black. Certainly nothing like comparing GLQuake on a Voodoo1 to the software renderer.

Synthetic scores don’t mean much in the real world. To get such a huge difference in the real world you’d have to be running a piss-poor HDD or be completely I/O bound, such as constantly copying files in Windows Explorer, or constantly hitting the page file because you’re running out of system RAM.

The way some people talk about their SSDs, you’d think they were receiving digital orgasms every time they sit at their computer.


That’s simply untrue. There’s no way an SSD will be twenty times faster for loading a game. Games are bottlenecked by more than just I/O, and you can see examples of this in my review where the SSD wasn’t much faster than the HDD in some of them.

I’m guessing you loaded the game first on your HDD, then tried the SSD without restarting the system? If so, that’s not the SSD, that’s RAM caching. RAM caching works regardless of the storage device, so the HDD would be just as fast if you launched it the second time.

Also SSDs still have texture pop-in and pauses, the effect is just reduced. I’ve tested this in the Stalker games and a few others.

LOL!

You cant only compare READ/WRITE times! IOPS is the most important. And it is the cause one feel the whole system much, much snappier using SSD VS HD.

Also, a harddrive is only good for reading or writing one thing at a time. If it gets more, it goes to a CRAWL. SSD can read/write 10 things+ without effort!

Believe me, I've tested using good harddrives. Even used a Raptor. Doesn't matter, you cannot compare the ancient harddrive tech (spinning platter with a reading head) to storing to very fast flash mem (SSD).

Also, that fallout 3 loading I told you about, is true. Tested severeal times, in different systems and shown to friends.

I don't know how you even can begin to try and justify a harddrive VS a good SSD with regards to user experience?? 😵

And yes, coming from 15 - 20 years with harddrives, to SSD's is nothing less than earthshattering! And finally getting rid of the biggest bottleneck for the last 20 years is BIG! It's HUGE! It's EPIC!

Go TROLL somewhere else!

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The benefit is mainly loading times and to stop stuttering when streaming in new content into open world engines.

In the series of hardware:
- Storage -> Memory -> CPU
- Storage -> vRAM

The slowest point data transfer wise is the storage by a massive factor, so an increase in speed there is a huge step up.

Right now on my 120gb SSD I'm really just copying out steam games to a backup folder on my archive drive, for anything more than about 1Gb, and then when I want to play again I'll move it back to the SSD, I don't install/uninstall games very frequently so it's not such a big deal. Anything under about 1Gb will come down again from steam servers in just a few minutes anyway.

 

[Golgatha]

So, I'm going to say my method (RAID0 array + DDR3 RAM software cache) is the smartest one.

1) Cost - Cheap RAM and cheap HDDs. HDDs were purchased before the great flood came and ran me around $150 for both 500GB RE4 drives. 6GB of additional RAM cost me about $50. Total cost for 1TB of game install space and enough RAM to 24/7/365 dedicate it to caching the drive is $200. How much SSD space can you get for $200?

2) Speed - Sure the first load of game data will be slower, but the FancyCache software stores a local backup of the cached data that it loads on boot time. Also, even on a 1st load of data, the load is largely sequential read, which is around 220MB/s on my RE4 drives in RAID0. With 8GB of DDR3 RAM cache available, you can load several games before it starts expunging data from the cache. On the 2nd load of the data (game relaunch), or reload of say map data during a game session (very, very likely scenario), the transfer rate is equal to RAM speed; in my case around 6.3GB/s. No SSD can touch this number.

3) Capacity - 1TB of space holds all the Steam games I own with around 300GB to spare for more game installs.

4) Ease of use - No mucking with OS directory remapping, uninstalling/reinstalling routines, or specialized software. If you get low on capacity, buy the next tier of spindle HDD storage size or uninstall a few older games you no longer are playing.

Sure you could get a bit more speed with say 2x512GB SSDs in RAID0 + the software RAM cache, but at that point you're currently looking at $1000-1200 for 1TB of space, and the speed increase is negligible. Also the speed increase is only a speed increase for the 1st sequential read of data, as the 2nd read will come from RAM. The observable speed benefit would almost be indistinguishable from my setup. Even if I could easily afford such a setup, I wouldn't use it because the benefit is so minor, and SSDs in RAID0 are not as robustly supported as spindle HDDs are.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

So, I'm going to say my method (RAID0 array + DDR3 RAM software cache) is the smartest one.

1) Cost - Cheap RAM and cheap HDDs. HDDs were purchased before the great flood came and ran me around $150 for both 500GB RE4 drives. 6GB of additional RAM cost me about $50. Total cost for 1TB of game install space and enough RAM to 24/7/365 dedicate it to caching the drive is $200. How much SSD space can you get for $200?

2) Speed - Sure the first load of game data will be slower, but the FancyCache software stores a local backup of the cached data that it loads on boot time. Also, even on a 1st load of data, the load is largely sequential read, which is around 220MB/s on my RE4 drives in RAID0. With 8GB of DDR3 RAM cache available, you can load several games before it starts expunging data from the cache. On the 2nd load of the data (game relaunch), or reload of say map data during a game session (very, very likely scenario), the transfer rate is equal to RAM speed; in my case around 6.3GB/s. No SSD can touch this number.

3) Capacity - 1TB of space holds all the Steam games I own with around 300GB to spare for more game installs.

4) Ease of use - No mucking with OS directory remapping, uninstalling/reinstalling routines, or specialized software. If you get low on capacity, buy the next tier of spindle HDD storage size or uninstall a few older games you no longer are playing.

Sure you could get a bit more speed with say 2x512GB SSDs in RAID0 + the software RAM cache, but at that point you're currently looking at $1000-1200 for 1TB of space, and the speed increase is negligible. Also the speed increase is only a speed increase for the 1st sequential read of data, as the 2nd read will come from RAM. The observable speed benefit would almost be indistinguishable from my setup. Even if I could easily afford such a setup, I wouldn't use it because the benefit is so minor, and SSDs in RAID0 are not as robustly supported as spindle HDDs are.

Indeed. I have to give you credit for that smart solution :thumbsup:

 

[Golgatha]

I don't agree with that statement and I've hard (real-world) numbers to prove it. The biggest performance upgrade for me is the graphics card, by far.

Apples and oranges. You want pretty graphics and high FPS, sure, a graphics card upgrade is your best option. You want your games to load faster; a storage speed upgrade is your best option. Upgrading one or the other will not give you both benefits.

 

[Golgatha]

Also, here's why Rift is installed on my SSD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-rift-ssd,3062-9.html

Launching, loading, and playing the game are mainly random read based and the data is coming from the server to update player location in relation to everyone else, time of day in game, etc. In other words, it's swapping out a lot of new data and the new data is overwhelmingly random in nature. This is a scenario that only a SSD can help with. Pretty much applies to all MMORPG games. If you're a MMORPG player, you will notice a huge performance increase, and even with the best video card available, if you don't have a SSD, you're going to experience framerate stutters because of constant random file reads.

I can tell you from first hand experience, playing Rift on my computer versus a spindle HDD based computer is night and day. You feel it during launch, login, and during gameplay. I can't overstate how huge the difference is.

 

[JamesV]

I don't agree with that statement and I've hard (real-world) numbers to prove it. The biggest performance upgrade for me is the graphics card, by far.

What he meant by 'the biggest performance upgrade' is the biggest upgrade possible over previously available equipment.

We've had video cards for a long time now, and everyone knows upgrading them can make a huge difference in gaming. But for your performance parts when buying a new PC, which includes a powerful video card, a SSD is the biggest performance upgrade you can buy compared to what you bought for your last 10 PC's (because SSD's weren't available/too pricey).

 

[BFG10K]

You cant only compare READ/WRITE times! IOPS is the most important. And it is the cause one feel the whole system much, much snappier using SSD VS HD.

It’s not much snappier, certainly not the way you describe it. Yes, there’s a difference but it’s not huge.

Even used a Raptor. Doesn't matter, you cannot compare the ancient harddrive tech (spinning platter with a reading head) to storing to very fast flash mem (SSD).

I used a Caviar Black for my OS/apps and now I use an Intel 320 for the same thing, so I can very much compare them, thanks.

Also, that fallout 3 loading I told you about, is true. Tested severeal times, in different systems and shown to friends.

I just timed it now, Fallout 3 with all DLCs loading a saved game outside the Project Purity building. My Caviar Black took ~8.5 seconds to load. Then I copied the game to my SSD and after rebooting, I got ~5.5 seconds when loading the same spot.

I actually posted hard numbers from several other games proving you won’t get anywhere near a 20:1 ratio in load times. You don’t understand bottlenecking at all for you to make such a ludicrous claim, so you’ll excuse me if I don’t take the rest of your ramblings seriously.

And yes, coming from 15 - 20 years with harddrives, to SSD's is nothing less than earthshattering! And finally getting rid of the biggest bottleneck for the last 20 years is BIG! It's HUGE! It's EPIC!
Go TROLL somewhere else!

LMAO.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

It’s not much snappier, certainly not the way you describe it. Yes, there’s a difference but it’s not huge.


I used a Caviar Black for my OS/apps and now I use an Intel 320 for the same thing, so I can very much compare them, thanks.


I just timed it now, Fallout 3 with all DLCs loading a saved game outside the Project Purity building. My Caviar Black took ~8.5 seconds to load. Then I copied the game to my SSD and after rebooting, I got ~5.5 seconds when loading the same spot.

I actually posted hard numbers from several other games proving you won’t get anywhere near a 20:1 ratio in load times. You don’t understand bottlenecking at all for you to make such a ludicrous claim, so you’ll excuse me if I don’t take the rest of your ramblings seriously.


LMAO.

Well, I do not agree with anything you say here. My experience is a very different one. And I'm sure most people would agree with me.

You are entitled to have your own opinions, but for me I have a totally different user experience VS you.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

It’s not much snappier, certainly not the way you describe it. Yes, there’s a difference but it’s not huge.

That's generally my SSD experience too. Don't have one in my main machine (for this reason), but got a cheap 30GB one in my HTPC, mainly to reduce noise. Yeah it's pretty fast booting up, installing stuff and launching programs, but first of all not exactly earthshattering. Secondly; those things being 2 sec slower does not dramatically impede my ability to use my computer.

Chrome launches really fast, but the internet is still slow. I can save 3 sec launching a game, but I'll play it for at least an hour after that so does it really matter that much? For my case I decided the cost, and space management issues of an SSD it's not worth it to me right now. It doesn't really improve what I actually do on my computer, just slightly speed up how I get to those things..

But hey, if you can afford it that's good for you! Enjoy!

 

[Soundmanred]

Well, I do not agree with anything you say here. My experience is a very different one. And I'm sure most people would agree with me.

Not me. Mere single digit seconds off of game loads aren't impressive. Most games I couldn't tell any difference whatsoever after moving to an SSD.
Borderlands, Burnout Paradise, Skyrim and many others, including casual games.

 

[IGemini]

Delete them the wrong way and it deletes your data, not the links.

Ah, no worries for me then, at least. Only time I ever mistakenly lost data was a convoluted drive letter swap in DOS long ago. Deleting the actual data instead of the links seems rather inane.

It’s not much snappier, certainly not the way you describe it. Yes, there’s a difference but it’s not huge.

I also agree. "Earthshattering" is definitely overselling the experience, the OP wouldn't be the first nor the last to do that. SSDs are still a niche product. They're great OS drives and they have their benefits, but I wouldn't suggest one to everyone for the price paid.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

I totally disagree. Going from harddrives to my first Intel X25 Gen.2 SSD was EARTHSHATTERING to say the least!

It was maybe the biggest thing happening in the world since world war2!

 

[ElFenix]

Also, here's why Rift is installed on my SSD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-rift-ssd,3062-9.html

Launching, loading, and playing the game are mainly random read based and the data is coming from the server to update player location in relation to everyone else, time of day in game, etc. In other words, it's swapping out a lot of new data and the new data is overwhelmingly random in nature. This is a scenario that only a SSD can help with. Pretty much applies to all MMORPG games. If you're a MMORPG player, you will notice a huge performance increase, and even with the best video card available, if you don't have a SSD, you're going to experience framerate stutters because of constant random file reads.

I can tell you from first hand experience, playing Rift on my computer versus a spindle HDD based computer is night and day. You feel it during launch, login, and during gameplay. I can't overstate how huge the difference is.

i mostly play an MMORPG and i can tell you that SSD, hard drive, separate SSD, it don't matter. i'm waiting on the server a lot more than i'm waiting on something local.

 

[crownjules]

I agree with you TGM. I just upgraded last week from a Velociraptor to a Corsair Force 3 SSD as my boot drive. It's a night and day difference. W7 load time has been halved. 12-13 seconds or so down to 6-7. Programs on the SSD come up near instantaneously that will take a couple seconds on a mechanical HDD. I've yet to do any serious single player gaming (where hard drive load times for textures and whatnot is a big deal) but I imagine it will be a noticeable improvement in FO3, Oblivion, and the like.

Is this all "useful" to me on a regular basis? No. But it doesn't mean that the improvement over last gen technology is any less superb.

Anyway, I bumped one of the Steam forum threads about introducing game install paths. I'd recommend everyone else do similar.