How big of a difference do SSDs make when gaming?

it's worth it for the much lower chance of failing alone.

yes ssd's are amazing, but you don't really need an nvme one, a sata one will be pretty much the same

OP is talking about HDD vs SSD. Not SSD vs NVMe.

SSDs are one of the best quality of life upgrades you can make for gaming on PC and even regular usage. Load times will be slashed to a fraction of what they are on HDDs.

Just don't cheap out on a crap one, and don't fall for the NVME meme unless you REALLY have money to spare because it's a notable markup for only minor gains in gaming over a SATA SSD.

Good choice, that's one of the best consumer options. Bit pricey but you get quality and reliability for the money.

>will be pretty much the same
aren't nvme significantly faster?

Depends on the game. Generally there are three kinds of games regarding SSDs in my experience.
>games with infrequent loadings, like Civilization, Cities: Skylines etc. where the only benefit is faster initial start, nice but not really very important
>typical games with somewhat frequent loading screens, like Bethesda’s games, here the benefits start to become rather meaningful when you start shaving lots of loading time off over the gaming session, still not *essential* but something I would still recommend
>HOLY FUCK YOU NEED SSD FOR THESE GAMES like Total War: Warhammer (probably the best example) or post BF3 Battlefields, where the difference between HDD and SSD is staggering. In Battlefield, level loading is reduced from something like 2 minutes to 20 seconds, meaning that SSD guys actually start the round before the HDD guys can load in, while Total War Warhammer has fucking long loading times BEFORE and AFTER every single battle unless you have a SSD. Seriously, I couldn’t even play it on HDD, the load times would be too much to bear.

On paper and bechmarks, yes, but in reality the differences are rather small. While HDD to SATA SSD is immediately noticeable to anyone in real use, I personally doubt that anyone would really notice the difference between SATA and NVME in real life gaming use, it’s something like 10 vs 9 seconds of loading difference, not always even that.

only for transfering video like 3GB+ porn but for other stuff like games and turning on your PC. No.

Yes and no. For large file transfers and other non-gaming tasks they're much better, but in gaming specifically the difference is often not that big. Some games you'll see gains as low as taking 8 seconds to load instead of 10 seconds between NVME and SATA. Game installation is the only real case you'll notice a big difference.

Also you gotta be picky and get one with DRAM so it's not hobbled when near full and doesn't have a disappointing lifetime.

>from HDD to SSD
Really big, it will significantly cut down load times.
>from SSD to faster SSD
You'll barely notice a difference in most cases.

I bought an HP ex920 m.2 1TB did I buy a bad one?

Nah you're good, decent model and has a DRAM cache.

I also got a 4TB WD blue HDD to fill with videos and shit.

>games are 100 gigs
this is a jew tactic right? so people cant have too many games installed and play games from competitors. I miss games from around 2010 when they were around 10 gigs

It's a jew tactic in the sense that game developers don't compress large files probably because that means more time and money and devs/publishers never want that.

if you have the drive bays for 3.5" drives you will get more bang for your buck on a 1TB performance HDD like a WD black over a sata III ssd. i have been running my games for years on WD black 1TB with pretty good loading times. There was a time where i would keep my games on an ssd that i intended to play a lot for faster load times but noticed little difference if any in loading times. Where you may see improvements in loading times is if you use a NVMe SSD for your games. In current year i cant ever recommend using a HDD for your OS. a Performance HDD still has great sequential read times but for random access does not meet the demands of a modern OS (At least modern Windows).

The data transfer rate of NVMe is significantly higher than SATA III SSD but it probably isnt worth the price to performance ratio yet.

why the fuck would anyone get a 1TB HDD when 1TB SSD is not much more

NVME is shit because of temperature throttling.

>hurr why are bigger files making games bigger?
It's not something as fucking stupid as devs not bothering to compress files dipshit. Higher resolution textures, more audio, more languages, more custom assets and particle effects, etc. all adds up.
Most games still fall in the 40-75ish GB range but the more effort put into the presentation naturally leads to larger sizes.
On top of that consoles have weak hardware and the less time they have to spend decompressing assets while streaming them in the faster they can do it, which means in some cases a lack of compression is a tradeoff made for performance.

>not much more

You're funny.

>why get the best performing and reliable 1TB HDDs on the market if they are the same price as chinkshit 1TB SSD

>can u even buy hdds anymore?
yeah, and they're cheap as fuck. every once in a while i grab a 1, 2, or 4tb hard drive on sale, just for backup purposes. i have 3 1tbs, 2 4s, and 4 2s. get em all under $100 too. you don't really need that many, but i like to have all my shit backed up multiple times, just in case.

this literally isn't a problem unless you cheap out on your mobo and cooling, and if you're buying a fucking nvme instead of sata then clearly that won't be an issue unless you're grossly mismanaging your budget

DOOM eternal is only 40gigs and looks and runs better than anything

one of my hard drives is dying soon, it has a tick sound of death.
now that HDDs are so fucking cheap its insane, I'll start buying a few and start backing up things.

>HDD
>reliable
HDD's are always timebombs even your supposed good ones still fail eventually. new SSDs will never fail for a normal persons lifetime and even if they did somehow fail they basically become read only or someshit. when HDD's fail they are done data is gone

Bruh a solid HDD costs £35-40, a solid SSD that's not total crap will easily run you £100+ and probably closer to £130-40. That's just the 1tb range, go to 2tb and the cost difference explodes.

who the fuck has temp problems in a build able to afford an nvme?

questing. are you supposed to take the sticker off NVME's?

I’m at least happy that some devs are now having 4K textures as an separate download, so that everyone doesn’t need to download them to bloat their installation sizes. For example, Rainbow Six Siege is already something like 70 GB, but with 4K textures it gets alarmingly close to 100 GB, and most people don’t have the screens to see the difference, at least I can’t see it on 27 inch 1440p screen.

>Higher resolution textures, more audio, more languages, more custom assets and particle effects, etc. all adds up.
All fixed by compression.

>970 Samsung Evo Drive
$200 and still slower than the PS5's.
yikes!

this should not even be a question anymore
have you been living under a rock for the past 5 years

Are you from 2010?
Everything should be on SSD unless you're running a server and even then you'd still want an SSD for the OS

imagine thinking the PS5 SSD won't be a rinky dink chinese bottom of the barrel SSD.

Doom Eternal is an entirely static, linear singleplayer game with a shit ton of (very smartly done) asset recycling and not much audio. It also has the standard usage of lower quality textures on inconsequential environmental details to reduce hardware demand.

It's an impressive filesize but not unexpected given its nature. The games hitting 100 or above are typically openworld with a shit ton of audio and unique assets or at least something like Hitman 2 where it's two games in one and very expansive and detailed levels with lots of immersive idle audio are a key feature.

this or just dont fucking bloat the game up so hard

>when HDD's fail they are done data is gone

not true

also *knock on wood* i have never had a HDD have a hardware failure. and i have had countless over the years. Also with S.M.A.R.T capable drives there should be no reason why you can't detect your drives beginning to fail .there are almost always signs. yes freak shit happens but that happens to both Solid state and rotational storage.

You can't compress things reasonably past a certain point. On top of that devs are aware storage is cheaper than ever and they no longer need to try hit sub 40gb or else a portion of their market will simply refuse to buy it since they can't fit it on their 60gb PS3 or whatever.

Don't listen to any solid shit shills the can't cope with actuator arm going brrrr ha ha.

>boomers still shilling mechanical HDD in 2020

im done

hows that 2500k treating you old man?

but i have a 2500k and an SSD

>bro just compress the files!
Why though? It reduces their fidelity, adds extra demand on hardware to decompress them, and generally isn't necessary since 50-75gb is fucking nothing in the day of 1TB hard drives costing less than a new game and consoles coming with 500GB standard (and sometimes more due to replacable drives/external options/higher capacity SKUs)

Like at a certain point compression is just pissing away frames and quality in exchange for some edge cases having to delete another game to free up an extra 20GB. Why fucking harm the experience for the bulk of your players when even the ones negatively impacted have an easy fix available?

Might be a dumb question but what are the differences in brands other than the price?

Attached: 1577900445866.jpg (150x150, 6.35K)

bro you dont understand i NEED to be able to fit all my games on my 240gb chinkshit ssd its all i can afford!

its not fair that devs leave assets uncompressed or only lightly compress them! i don't care if my textures have artifacts and audio has the mids crushed i just want to put twelve new aaa games on my tiny drive at once!

there is no absolute answers but typically the controller used and possible the quality of the NAND chips.

research differences in controllers and make a decision based on that. usually the factors are reliability and performance. Honestly when it comes to SSD the controller is a huge factor in performance - which is why you see a lot of cheap high performince drives now on cheap NAND chips.

Build quality, materials, manufacturing techniques, components. There's basic specs built towards and some parts/standards that are widespread but different brands build shit differently and produce very different results.

Doesn't make much of a noticeable difference. I have a Samsung 850 evo SSD and I only use it for my OS because I found loading times weren't that much different than on my HDD so I use my 1TB HDD for all my games now.

This thread seems like a decent place to ask instead of hopping over to /g/: Is there a big performance difference between a Samsung 850 EVO SSD and 860? My dumbass bought one years ago, lost it, and just found it righf before I planned on buying a new SSD.

unless you care about benchmarking your drive every day you will likely not notice a difference between the two.

yes

i have ssd raid set up and my boot times are non-existent. and my games are loaded before i open them