how much does hard drive performance affect game performance (not launch times)?

[Rangoon]

Will I see much difference in gaming performance between Caviar Black, VelociRaptor, or SSD? I realize this will affect installation and loading times, but will it affect gaming performance?

I can imagine in large-world games like ArmA 2 that there could possibly be a discernible difference, but I honestly don't know if ArmA suttering would be reduced by a faster hard drive.

Any games in particular where an SSD would make a real difference? Or 10,000RPM vs 7200?

Thanks.

EDIT: Here is an article at Tom's Hardware which suggests that framerate is affected by hard drive speed if the game writes a lot, rather than just reading:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-rift-ssd,3062-13.html

It also looks like having an SSD for the OS and other general apps like antivirus will allow the game (on a HDD) to be unaffected by that activity in the background (the SSD).

 

[Prey2big]

When I got my first SSD I experienced a huge improvement in world of warcraft, just traveling through the landscape. I guess any MMO would benefit greatly from an SSD.

Have never played ArmA though.

 

[Zap]

Generally speaking, no. That said, there are a few specific instances where certain games benefit from being on an SSD. For instance WoW seems to run smoother as you move around the environment, since it seems to load stuff dynamically. I've also heard that FSX benefits in a similar manner.

With many multiplayer games, you don't benefit from faster load times because the game forces everyone to start at the same time.

Playing single player of course does benefit from faster load times - less of your times wasted.

 

[exdeath]

Load times are the least of it. Its all the random stutter and hitching that occurs here and there that just reminds you why HDDs suck. Run around and turn around quickly and erratically so the game's pre fetching can't work correctly and CRRRRRRRR hitch lag.

 

[BrightCandle]

Games I know where it directly helps the frame rate or experience:
- Arma 2 - stops texture and tree popping.
- WoW - players load in faster and frame rate is improved especially in towns

Games I know where I wouldn't want to be without the additional load speed:
- Shogun Total War 2 - Its like 3x faster and you load a LOT in this game
- HL2 - Why does this take so long to load a level for 5 minutes of play....well the SSD fixes that problem!
- Rage - Loads better textures faster so you often don't see the insanely low quality ones

It helps on pretty much anything that quick saves as you go as well.

 

[theevilsharpie]

For games, I've never seen a modern hard drive be a bottleneck. Even when I'm loading the game, it spends more time decompressing and "compiling" (for lack of a better word) the data than it does reading it from disk.

Most of the disk-related gaming performance problems I've seen have been a result of excessive fragmentation of the game data, or hard page faults due to a lack of sufficient physical memory.

 

[BFG10K]

There’ll be little to no benefit. Most games load the entire level into the RAM first so if you’re seeing a performance gain there, you need more RAM.

For streaming games (e.g. sandbox games) I’d be very wary of believing any tales about improvements without hard numbers or visual side-by-side videos. I tested a few games with in-game pauses (e.g. Stalker 3) and found the SSD was pausing just like the HDD was.

There’s a lot of unrealistic hype about SSDs out there, similar to a few years ago where certain individuals insisted you needed four cores for gaming and were spinning all kinds of nonsensical stories (“it feels smoother to me”) to justify their expensive purchases.

 

[Magic Carpet]

There’ll be little to no benefit. Most games load the entire level into the RAM first so if you’re seeing a performance gain there, you need more RAM.

For streaming games (e.g. sandbox games) I’d be very wary of believing any tales about improvements without hard numbers or visual side-by-side videos. I tested a few games with in-game pauses (e.g. Stalker 3) and found the SSD was pausing just like the HDD was.

There’s a lot of unrealistic hype about SSDs out there, similar to a few years ago where certain individuals insisted you needed four cores for gaming and were spinning all kinds of nonsensical stories (“it feels smoother to me”) to justify their expensive purchases.

This.

 

[BrightCandle]

There’ll be little to no benefit. Most games load the entire level into the RAM first so if you’re seeing a performance gain there, you need more RAM.

All games except one or two are 32 bit, they can't utilise more RAM. Many games stream resources from the hard drive during a level. Only a very small number of games have problems with the speed of a HDD and a couple of glitches in an hour is hardly a problem.

For streaming games (e.g. sandbox games) I’d be very wary of believing any tales about improvements without hard numbers or visual side-by-side videos. I tested a few games with in-game pauses (e.g. Stalker 3) and found the SSD was pausing just like the HDD was.

There’s a lot of unrealistic hype about SSDs out there, similar to a few years ago where certain individuals insisted you needed four cores for gaming and were spinning all kinds of nonsensical stories (“it feels smoother to me&#8221 to justify their expensive purchases.

The only games I know that benefit are listed above. Anything outside of the list I know of no evidence showing it helps. I have tested stalker 3 as well and indeed there is no benefit.

Its worth noting however I don't often see people claiming that the SSD is any use for games. The usually advice is all it helps with is load times, and then only in some games. I like to add to that message that actually there are a couple of games where I think the experience is improved by the SSD. But actualy frame rate improvements no not really, it just reduces hitching and then the only game I know to suffer from that problem is WoW and then only in the busiest of towns with hundreds of players around.

No hype just honest testing.

 

[theevilsharpie]

All games except one or two are 32 bit, they can't utilise more RAM.

For the purposes of this discussion, that's not true.

For modern x86 operating systems, the OS determines RAM allocation, not the program. 32-bit programs are limited to a 4GB virtual address, so they can't load more data than that at any given time; however, the OS can still cache the program data in RAM. If the game unloads a portion of its data from memory to make room for something else, and then subsequently reloads previously loaded data, the OS could very well service that request directly from RAM without ever touching the disk, even if the game is actively using 4GB of memory.

 

[Zap]

There’s a lot of unrealistic hype about SSDs out there

Everything you say about SSDs can also be said about faster hard drives like VelociRaptors and even the 7200RPM WD Black in your sig. We may as well go back to using 5400RPM HDDs, right?

 

[thelastjuju]

Load times are the least of it. Its all the random stutter and hitching that occurs here and there that just reminds you why HDDs suck. Run around and turn around quickly and erratically so the game's pre fetching can't work correctly and CRRRRRRRR hitch lag.

You need to stop basing your hatred towards HDD's based off whatever inferior 1990's hard drive you had a bad experience with.

Your disdain for HDD's has always been completely unwarranted, but now its just amounting to silly trolling.

I have never experienced a single gaming benefit by loading any given game off an SSD instead of a HDD, besides load times and load times only. Especially when you load up on mods that would otherwise add to the delay. Anyone who claims in-game performance benefits is probably noticing more of a placebo effect than anything else.

 

[Zap]

I have never experienced a single gaming benefit by loading any given game off an SSD instead of a HDD, besides load times and load times only.

Even if game load times were the sole benefit, I would still go SSD.

If I'm spending the bucks for a high end computer, why wouldn't I want everything about it to be fast?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I have never experienced a single gaming benefit by loading any given game off an SSD instead of a HDD, besides load times and load times only. Especially when you load up on mods that would otherwise add to the delay. Anyone who claims in-game performance benefits is probably noticing more of a placebo effect than anything else.

I'm inclined to agree. As long as you have a sufficient amount of RAM, the hard drive should not be involved in anything related to gaming other than loading data.

 

[Ben90]

I broke up my 8 drive RAID0 for more consistency to my Diablo 3 virtual machines. Access times were killing me.

 

[thelastjuju]

Even if game load times were the sole benefit, I would still go SSD.

If I'm spending the bucks for a high end computer, why wouldn't I want everything about it to be fast?

True, an SSD is becoming essential nowadays. As a MAIN drive that is.

But there's no need to move every single GAME you have onto one, when you consider how expensive they are GB/dollar-wise compared to HDDs, and also consider how large modern games are getting.. not to even mention how much larger that gets when you start modding these games with things like hd texture overhauls.

Those of us limited to 64-128gb SSD's consider that space pretty precious. So only if its a game that we're playing quite frequently and that suffers from longer than average load times will it warrant loading off the SSD instead of an HDD.

 

[Ferzerp]

I'm finding a max-sized SRT cache in front of striped spinning disks to be a decent trade-off between speed and volume.

 

[Rangoon]

Thanks for all of the input here. I have a 120GB Intel SSD for Windows 7, and 8GB of system RAM, plus a GTX580. My original suspicion was that the HDD would be sufficient for 99% of the games I play, but I always wondered about large, open-world games like ArmA 2, DCS sims, and other flight sims where terrain is moving by very rapidly. From the TH article in my original post, it sounds like some games not only read data while moving about the game world, but write on a routine basis as well.

I decided to order a Crucial M4 Sata III SSD to move select games like those I just mentioned and see if there is a difference. What I plan to do is first load ArmA from my Steam location (on a WD caviar Black HDD), and then symlink that game to the SSD for a comparison. I don't expect a framerate change, but I am hoping to see a difference in the tree popping and stuttering already mentioned as possible areas of improvement.

Even if it only helps in those few situations/games, it will be worth it for me. I don't expect an increase in performance, but hopefully a decrease in performance bogs due to background activity and texture loading.

I appreciate that several of you don't think it will make a lick of difference in this regard, and maybe it won't. If it doesn't help with that, at least I will spend a little less time waiting.

 

[JimmiG]

Most games are designed with the limitations of HDD's in mind, so they load the entire level at the start of the game, and show a loading screen whenever you enter a new area. In that case, a SSD makes virtually no difference as far as frame rates and smoothness.

However for some games that stream data from the drive, it does make a small difference. Large, open-world games like Skyrim (especially with high-res textures and other mods) and The Witcher 2 are examples of games that run much smoother from my SSD. With Flight Simulator X, the difference wasn't that great. The actual scenery files aren't that large, and the process of compositing all the data into complete scenery is very CPU intensive, so the bottleneck isn't the speed of your drive.

 

[BFG10K]

Everything you say about SSDs can also be said about faster hard drives like VelociRaptors and even the 7200RPM WD Black in your sig. We may as well go back to using 5400RPM HDDs, right?

It’s all about cost vs. performance vs. capacity, and 7200RPM drives have held the sweet spot for years. 5400 RPM drives lose too much performance with little benefit to price and zero benefit to storage size. Plus when you’re already dealing with double-digit latency, anything extra can noticeably degrade performance.

A 3TB Barracuda offers enough space for mass storage and has enough performance for any typical situation, all for 6c/GB. Also acoustics, thermals and power consumption are already extremely reasonable. What possible reason would I have to get a Green drive?

Ironically it’s the SSD proponents that often recommend Green drives. If these people are so performance sensitive that an extra half second makes them twitch in anger, they should pick up VelociRaptors for anything that doesn’t fit on their SSDs, not purposely buying lethargic drives to offset their overpriced SSD investment.

You might have a point about the VelociRaptor, but for me personally ~$280 is worth it. I don’t lose any space compared to my Caviar Black but I gain a lot of sequential and random access performance, and 28c/GB is still a hell of a lot cheaper than any SSD.

When I can get a 1TB SSD for 28c/GB I’ll take another look at them, assuming it doesn’t take so long that 1TB becomes too small for me.

 

[steve wilson]

It’s all about cost vs. performance vs. capacity, and 7200RPM drives have held the sweet spot for years. 5400 RPM drives lose too much performance with little benefit to price and zero benefit to storage size. Plus when you’re already dealing with double-digit latency, anything extra can noticeably degrade performance.

A 3TB Barracuda offers enough space for mass storage and has enough performance for any typical situation, all for 6c/GB. Also acoustics, thermals and power consumption are already extremely reasonable. What possible reason would I have to get a Green drive?

Ironically it’s the SSD proponents that often recommend Green drives. If these people are so performance sensitive that an extra half second makes them twitch in anger, they should pick up VelociRaptors for anything that doesn’t fit on their SSDs, not purposely buying lethargic drives to offset their overpriced SSD investment.

You might have a point about the VelociRaptor, but for me personally ~$280 is worth it. I don’t lose any space compared to my Caviar Black but I gain a lot of sequential and random access performance, and 28c/GB is still a hell of a lot cheaper than any SSD.

When I can get a 1TB SSD for 28c/GB I’ll take another look at them, assuming it doesn’t take so long that 1TB becomes too small for me.

ohhh two super mods squaring off. I upgraded to an SSD and noticed a lot better load times. I play warcraft and it does run smoother. I use a HDD at work and I notice a difference...although the other components aren't comparable.

Also BFG10K, you make me lol about the cost per perforamance arguement... you have a GTX680... you could get a lot better cost per performance out of a cheaper graphics card, but you are willing to pay extra to have something better. It's the same principal with the SSD.

 

[BFG10K]

No hype just honest testing.

Your tests are certainly better compared to some of the “my SSD is 20x faster than my HDD” and “my SSD loads my games instantly” I’ve seen.

The only comments I’d have about HL2: a tested level load is ~12 seconds on my Caviar Black and ~8 seconds on the SSD. If there’s a problem with loading times then the SSD certainly isn’t fixing anything.

As for Shogun, there’s very significant reduction indeed, but not 3x according to this result I found:

 

[Revolution 11]

ohhh two super mods squaring off. I upgraded to an SSD and noticed a lot better load times. I play warcraft and it does run smoother. I use a HDD at work and I notice a difference...although the other components aren't comparable.

Also BFG10K, you make me lol about the cost per perforamance arguement... you have a GTX680... you could get a lot better cost per performance out of a cheaper graphics card, but you are willing to pay extra to have something better. It's the same principal with the SSD.

Except in BFG10K's case, he clearly states that SSDs don't have enough capacity. So it is not applicable to a GTX680, where you are paying for better graphics. In this case, the SSD just does not fulfill what he needs out of it. It's not that the SSD has reduced functionality but that it is missing functionality (capacity) that can not be replaced without paying out the nose for it.

I like using Dolphin as a emulator. Using a SNB Celeron would be a horrible experience compared to a 2500K but at least both will work (GTX 560 vs GTX 680). Using a Pentium Pro will not work at all since it is missing the SSE2 instruction set (SSD vs HDD, capacity).

 

[steve wilson]

It's not exactly the same... I never said it was... it's a principle.... key word "principle". You are paying extra money for a little bit extra performance. I don't like waiting for my PC to load up so I pay extra. He doesn't like having to play at a smaller resolution so he pays extra.

Same "Principle" with buying a luxury car. A cheap car will get you from A to B just like an expensive one, but you are willing to pay extra for comfort or speed.

 

[Zap]

True, an SSD is becoming essential nowadays. As a MAIN drive that is.

But there's no need to move every single GAME you have onto one

Even when I was using HDDs, I never installed every single game I have. I only install the handful I play, plus whatever I expect to play at LAN parties. Usually 10-15 titles has me covered.

ohhh two super mods squaring off.

Yup, we're having a nice discussion here, with no name calling oar horrrbile typin skillz. Disclaimer: All similarities of the previous statement to other forum members, either real or imaginary, are purely coincidental.

Also BFG10K, you make me lol about the cost per perforamance arguement... you have a GTX680... you could get a lot better cost per performance out of a cheaper graphics card, but you are willing to pay extra to have something better. It's the same principal with the SSD.

Haha!

Since the computer that I'm using is somewhat limited in how much I can splurge on a graphics card, I'm filling that sucker up with SSDs!!! I think I can shoehorn a third drive in there, between the PSU and the ODD tray. Hmmm...