benjaminr
-
Posts
452 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Posts posted by benjaminr
-
-
Just now, benjaminr said:
I AM ASKING WHAT CPU AND RAM I HAVE?
BECAYSE YOU TOLD ME also depends on the spec of the rest of your PC.
WHAT YOU MEAN?
-
Just now, remus243 said:
I give up.
I AM ASKING WHAT CPU AND RAM I HAVE?
-
5 minutes ago, remus243 said:
Like I say, it doesn't feel like you are understanding whats being communicated.
It might be 2 seconds on one game/level/scenario and another figure in another game.
It also depends on the spec of the rest of your PC.
WHAT YOU MEAN depends on the spec of the rest of MY PC.??
-
41 minutes ago, remus243 said:
I think you are going around in circles and not taking information in, the difference between the two is so minimal in games that you won't notice the difference.
Just buy one, neither is a bad choice, however I would personally go for the Samsung.
so the time between nvme and sata3 is only 2 seconds?in games?
-
4 minutes ago, remus243 said:
If you're only going to use it for games, then nvme is a waste of money. Although hypocritically I am going to buy a 970 Pro soon simply to put OW and Apex on it.
I am bias but I would always buy Samsung over Crucial, I suggest you research it but i'm sure the 860 Evo is faster and better quality.
860 Evo is faster from crucialmx500 in gaming?
-
Just now, benjaminr said:
which is faster ,, better in quality and etc?
the time between nvme and sata3 is only 2 seconds?in games?
-
1 minute ago, remus243 said:
I think this question has already been answered but my two cents: SSD is much more affordable now, there's not really a good reason to buy a HD other than for storage of items which you need but dont often use.
Personally I have 1x 1TB Samsung 860 Pro, 1x 500GB 850 Evo, 1x250GB 850 Evo on my gaming PC and I don't use any HD
which is faster ,, better in quality and etc?
-
4 minutes ago, Jarsky said:
The earlier ones were prone to a ticking, I had that with one of my earlier Blacks. The newer ones don't have that.
My 4TB is about 3 years old now and its just fine.
Which from these 2 is better to buy? which is faster ,, better in quality and etc?
https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/h81m-c/CT11338050
why most people prefer the samsungs against crucial?
how much endurance has the evo 860 2TB and mx500 2tB?
also in performance and speed which is better?
evo 860 2TB or mx500 2tB?
can you tell me please?
-
1 minute ago, Jarsky said:
I personally haven't tried the BarracudaPro series from Seagate, but i've been extremely happy with my WD Black
does black make noize and is warm,? because some people say that blacks are warm and loud
-
1 minute ago, Jarsky said:
Personally I just use a WD Black 4TB for my games. I have it partitioned into 1TB which stores all my personal data and windows profile/appdata, and 3TB partition for my games which is about 2TB full. Many modern games pre-render stages/scenes so you don't really notice the loading times. The biggest differences you're typically going to notice are when you try to load large dynamic open world games.
A few games i've noticed the load time on are Rise of the Tomb Raider and Rust. But i haven't found the benefit overall enough to justify the price of a 2TB SSD which still wouldn't fit my whole active game library. A 2TB SSD still sells for at least $550 in my country while a 4TB Black drive is less than $300
WD Black 6TB Performance Desktop Hard Disk Drive - 7200 RPM SATA 6Gb/s 256MB Cache 3.5 Inch - WD6003FZBX https://www.wd.com/products/internal-sto rage/wd-black-desktop.html
or
https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barracuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST8000DM005/dp/B01LOOJBNW?
which is faster from these 2?
-
5 hours ago, HNKenshiro said:
Hello, first time poster here.
I just did a few tests with Final Fantasy XIV Stormblood Benchmark (for those who don't know, it has a loading time benchmark). Here are the results.
Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe
Scene #1 1.633 sec
Scene #2 2.325 sec
Scene #3 1.737 sec
Scene #4 2.740 sec
Scene #5 4.652 sec
Scene #6 0.956 sec
Total Loading Time 14.046 secSamsung 850 EVO SATA 250 x2 Raid 0
Loading Times by Scene
Scene #1 1.891 sec
Scene #2 2.510 sec
Scene #3 1.860 sec
Scene #4 2.994 sec
Scene #5 5.375 sec
Scene #6 1.075 sec
Total Loading Time 15.707 secWD Black HDD 7200 RPM (drive is kinda old and 99% full so I think it's especially slow. Should probably be faster if it's a new, empty drive)
Loading Times by Scene
Scene #1 8.836 sec
Scene #2 7.554 sec
Scene #3 7.001 sec
Scene #4 9.182 sec
Scene #5 16.503 sec
Scene #6 3.348 sec
Total Loading Time 52.429 secAnd just in case someone wants to see results for a RAM Disk (SoftPerfect Ram Disk 3.4.8)
Scene #1 1.294 sec
Scene #2 1.908 sec
Scene #3 1.429 sec
Scene #4 2.230 sec
Scene #5 3.655 sec
Scene #6 0.786 sec
Total Loading Time 11.303 secSo a decrease 15.7 to 14.0 seconds is still about 11% difference. In another test I was doing with the same FFXIV benchmark, it got about 14% difference. So I think there's still a difference from SATA SSD to NVMe. From those youtube comparison videos, I'd like to say it's more like 5-10% difference. Some people say you're not gonna feel the difference. Yeah, I guess that's true, but some people probably won't feel the difference between playing at 60fps and 54fps, but 10% is 10%. Probably not worth the premium just to get a NVMe just to shave off 2 seconds from a game, but if you're building a new computer, NVMe is probably nice to have.
But for the love of god, please don't play on a HDD.
so the time between nvme and sata3 is only 2 seconds?in games?
-
6 minutes ago, benjaminr said:
how big is this slightly noticeable??
the difference is 1 sec between 960 nvme and sata 3ssd
1sec between the ssd and the M.2?
-
5 minutes ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
There isn't a BIG difference but it's still slightly noticeable
how big is this slightly noticeable??
the difference is 1 sec between 960 nvme and sata 3ssd
-
Just now, Jacobtechtips? said:
Roughly, the textures will load faster with the nvme 970 evo and so will saves but i don't notice it much unless it creates stutter or takes more than 15 minutes to load a save.
alot of people say that nvme 970 and 860 evo in gaming thereisnt big difference.
-
1 minute ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
Yes, it's way faster!, u won't notice it's speed much in games though unless it's loading a save and/or loading textures. You will definately feel it's speed in video editing etc though.
you mean that in games the nvme with the sata 3 860 have the same speed?
-
1 minute ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
YES, the 970 EVO NVME has sequential writes up to 2,500 MB/s and Reads of 3,500MB/s. And yes, games need mainly reads unless you're saving.
nvme 970 evo is faster from one sata 3 860 evo? in gaming
-
4 minutes ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
The 860 evo is better in gaming and...
the 860 evo has a sequential write speed of 520MB/s and a sequential read of 550MB/s whilst the mx500 has a sequential write speed of 510MB/s and a sequential read of 560MB/s. So the 860 evo is faster in writes but a tiny bit slower in reads but by barely any.
in gaming we need the reads corect?
also one nvme 970 evo is faster from one sata 3 860 evo? in gaming and etc?
and why you believe that 860 evo is better in gaming from mx500? for 1 sec loading difference?
-
1 minute ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
The 860 evo is faster but not by too much, i've got the mx500 500gb version and it's not too bad. I'd go for the 860 EVO as it's got faster raw speeds and is more popular so if you have problems it's easier to sort out. They have similar build quality but the 860 evo is just a bit more 'premium' feeling.
IN GAMING WHICH IS BETTER?860 evo OR MX500?
And when you say that 860 evo is faster but not by too much what you mean?
how fast is 860 evo from mx500?
-
1 minute ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
It may have faster speeds in some tasks such as: video editing, loading times for texture heavy games, booting etc.
Which from these 2 is better to buy? which is faster ,, better in quality and etc?
https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/h81m-c/CT11338050
why most people prefer the samsungs against crucial?
how much endurance has the evo 860 2TB and mx500 2tB?
also in performance and speed which is better?
evo 860 2TB or mx500 2tB?
can you tell me please?
-
1 minute ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
I would personally go for the WD black as i've had better experiences with WD (i've had 5 of their hard drives, they are all still working and are atleast 6 years old, whereas...i got a seagate barracuda and had to RMA it within a week.). They both have similar performance but the WD black may pull ahead in some tasks.
what you mean WD black may pull ahead in some tasks.??
what you mean?
-
4 minutes ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
They are faster than the standard WD Blue drives, they are more gaming/performance orientated...but they come at a higher cost.
I'd just get a higher capacity 7200RPM drive UNLESS i had the money for it. So as long as it's 7200RPM, it should be fine. The only times an ssd feels faster (for me) is in booting and loading/opening apps.
WD Black 6TB Performance Desktop Hard Disk Drive - 7200 RPM SATA 6Gb/s 256MB Cache 3.5 Inch - WD6003FZBX https://www.wd.com/products/internal-storage/wd-black-desktop.html or https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barracuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST8000DM005/dp/B01LOOJBNW?
which is faster from these 2?
-
1 minute ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
Yeah, those speeds are fine for gaming. The only downside is loading. Sometimes in GTA V, i get a bit of stutter as it's constantly loading lots of textures but that's the only thing. Loading times don't bother me, it's like the game saying...go toilet and get a snack!
what is your opinion for black drives?
-
5 minutes ago, Jacobtechtips? said:
Hey m8,
Those hard drives should be fine for storing lots of games (i'd go for the WD performance drive, just because i trust WD a bit more),
It'll play games fine but it'll just take a bit longer to load.
And...I have a 500gb ssd and it's speed is ~500-600MB/s so your current hard drive isn't too bad.
this photos is from my hardisk and not from ssd
the reads and writes from my hardisk is ok? this i mean
also what is your opinion for black drives?
-
4 minutes ago, Streetguru said:
Going from a hard drive to a sata SSD is a major improvement in load time
Going past a Sata SSD isn't worth it because it's like going from a 10 second load to 9 seconds with NVME vs 30+ on a hard drive
you mean that one ssd sata 3 in gaming is not fast as NVME? in gaming?
For gaming which hardisk to buy?
in Storage Devices
Posted
i have one 4770k