New budget build suggestions.

[Edel]

OK i think, even the best SSDs still got issues with very small files. So, what really matters is raw IOPS perfomance for small files, this issue is actually mainly NAND and SSD-Controller related. PC can´t do much but maybe a RAM-drive (load game from RAM-drive°, only use SSD for saves) may speed things up, although there will be compatibility issues, as games are simply not made for it. °Not realistic as soon as a game is 100 GB in size, will be the case soon.

So, the manufacturers may praise large file transfer but raw IOPS of small files should be the gamers "holy cow".

 

[EarthDog]

Yes., 4k writes/reads are always slower and what can give the drives that fast feeling. True. Nothing new there.

 

[trents]

Boot time, Game load/level load times, large file transfers... all things that show/feel improvements over SATA...

True, but the question is how much difference is there in the usage scenario and does that difference justify the expense of scrapping an already good performing component that you have already purchased in order to gain a little more. That is the point that Zerileous and I are making.

 

[Edel]

I was checking: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-905p,5600-2.html
Most important seems to be 4k random performance and the drives are not that far away from each others, with the exception of Intel Optane. The thing that upsets me is the fact that all the manufacturers are using some unrealistic IOPS values. For example the Samsung 970 PRO got about 140k IOPS read, but the official IOPS from Samsung is more than twice that value. Nothing can beat Intel Optane but i will investigate it more properly soon.

Anyway, in most cases the drive performance is of low importance, the limitation seems to be on another spot, i´m surprised. Drives are simply faster than what the other components can handle, in this term the real bottleneck is elsewhere.

 

[EarthDog]

True, but the question is how much difference is there in the usage scenario and does that difference justify the expense of scrapping an already good performing component that you have already purchased in order to gain a little more. That is the point that Zerileous and I are making.

As always, 'worth it' is up to the buyer. I'm just stating facts that in a lot of cases, those uses show improvement.

I was checking: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-905p,5600-2.html
Most important seems to be 4k random performance and the drives are not that far away from each others, with the exception of Intel Optane. The thing that upsets me is the fact that all the manufacturers are using some unrealistic IOPS values. For example the Samsung 970 PRO got about 140k IOPS read, but the official IOPS from Samsung is more than twice that value. Nothing can beat Intel Optane but i will investigate it more properly soon.

Anyway, in most cases the drive performance is of low importance, the limitation seems to be on another spot, i´m surprised. Drives are simply faster than what the other components can handle, in this term the real bottleneck is elsewhere.

1. If they say it reached 140k IOPS, it did. Consider reading the fine print to show you what application and in what those results were achieved. But if they list them, chances are they reached them.

It's funny because a HDD, SSD, or NVMe based SSD, is the slowest component in your PC.

 

[Edel]

It's funny because a HDD, SSD, or NVMe based SSD, is the slowest component in your PC.

Something is slower than that, maybe some sort of bus-system, i just dunno. I think, even by having unlimited drive speed, some other part will lock the loading time between 5 and 20 sec.

 

[EarthDog]

Something is slower than that, maybe some sort of bus-system, i just dunno. I think, even by having unlimited drive speed, some other part will lock the loading time between 5 and 20 sec.

The bus isn't holding back some of these drives. Even with PCIe 4.0 and NVMe drives that are faster than PCIe 3.0, boot times are going to be about the same.

But yes, throughput wise, HDDs, SSDs, and NVMe based drives are the slowest things relevant to boot on the system.

Obviously, if you have unlimited drive speed, something else would be a bottleneck....but since we don't have unlimited drive speeds...............................

 

[Edel]

The CPU and/or platform must be the bottleneck.

Well, i agree on that, it can´t be the drive.

Of course, Boot time can´t be reduced endless time because OS need to initialize driver and what else, it simply takes time. But, loading a game is another matter, there is no drivers waiting to be initialized.

 

[EarthDog]

Well, i agree on that, it can´t be the drive.

Of course, Boot time can´t be reduced endless time because OS need to initialize driver and what else, it simply takes time. But, loading a game is another matter, there is no drivers waiting to be initialized.

Who did you quote there/agreeing with????? I didn't state that. That isn't even in this thread, is it? lol..........

EDIT: To me, POST does't count in boot times (in this context). POST times vary by board and what you have installed. Im a simply talking loading an OS from the HDD/SSD/NVMe SSD after POST. Game loads are limited to the number and size of files along with how the drive performs with those file sizes and quantities.

 

[Edel]

Of course not, in term i can´t find a internal agreement i use a external one, perhaps thats how it works to be faster with results. Soon this new technology will be implemented for internal and external drives i assume.

takeshi7 10 May 2018 16:32
You should do the loading benchmarks in CPU reviews instead of SSD reviews. It's pretty obvious that the storage isn't the bottleneck because all of the numbers are so close regardless of whether it's the Intel 905p or just a SATA SSD. The CPU and/or platform must be the bottleneck.

Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-905p,5600-3.html

 

[EarthDog]

You should quote the source out of the gate...confusing, you.

Anyway, we aren't helping the OP much here in this tangent... so I'm stepping away.