ssd's and gaming pc's

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

an SSD is something that CAN be considered for a future upgrade if you have to cut down on main components...yes...IF you're willing to have a sloppy machine that takes 39 seconds to boot...19 seconds to launch firefox etc.

were gettin some were now 

[chris76816]

3 minutes ago, CatXice said:

am not sayin dont get a ssd but the people who get worse cpu's and gpu's to get a ssd on a rig they intend to only use for gaming and web browsing shouldn't be 

I think that's just stupid, if you have a ridiculously low budget like $400, then don't get an ssd but if you have a budget for enough where you can get good pc parts, I think it is necessary to allocate a small amount of your just so that you can at least get a cheap 120gb ssd.

[DocSwag]

3 minutes ago, CatXice said:

am not sayin dont get a ssd but the people who get worse cpu's and gpu's to get a ssd on a rig they intend to only use for gaming and web browsing shouldn't be 

But the thing is, that money you would've spent on extra gaming performance would only amount to 10-20% extra performance at most in most scenarios, whereas an SSD could make your PC feel 5 times snappier while loading the applications, opening files, loading games, and whatnot. It's a difference type of performance.

[Cyborgsmith]

1 minute ago, CatXice said:

am not sayin dont get a ssd but the people who get worse cpu's and gpu's to get a ssd on a rig they intend to only use for gaming and web browsing shouldn't be 

I doubt anyone actually does that, its not 2010 anymore its not like SSDs are expensive anymore. A 250gb SSD can be had for little more then the cost of a mechanical drive. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

I think OP should have the experience of making a Skyrim build with 30GB of mods and making sure everything works as intended.

 

I think by the time they're on their fifth time waiting for a minute for everything to load only for the game to CTD, they'll be wishing they had an SSD. :B

 

4 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Disagreed unless the performance difference is substantial. If it's rx 470+SSD vs. rx 480+HDD, I'd say rx 470 any day, but if it's 1050 ti+SSD vs rx 470+HDD then I'd pick rx 470.

Really? I thought CPUs were fast enough that that didn't matter at all. Afterall, most SSDs can transfer data at around 500-1000 MB/s peak, which translates to around 4 billion to 8 billion bits/sec, and CPUs these days are clocked at at least a few billion clocks per second plus they have multiple cores and each core can process lots of data at a time. Could you show me your post?

It's in this topic

 

Though it's such a corner case it may not matter as much, but the point still stands, CPU performance can affect loading times.

 

EDIT: The setup used a Core i5-4670K.

[CatXice]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

But the thing is, that money you would've spent on extra gaming performance would only amount to 10-20% extra performance at most in most scenarios, whereas an SSD could make your PC feel 5 times snappier while loading the applications, opening files, loading games, and whatnot. It's a difference type of performance.

if your loading up loads of programs and files all the time its not a gaming pc its a work station in a work station get a ssd

[STRMfrmXMN]

13 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

I guess op saying an ssd is not needed without using an ssd

I remember three years ago I found a 60GB Samsung SSD in a computer shop for like 30 bucks. The night and day speed difference was very noticeable which was hilarious considering CrystalDiskHealth warned me how much the drive had been written to and that it was at the end of it's life. It was a SATA 2 SSD on my SATA 2 laptop. I later upgraded that laptop to a Sandisk Ultra Plus. From there I couldn't stand hard drives as boot drives. I put an SSD in my then Core 2 Quad machine and never looked back. I now have an SSD in everything and my desktop has two

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, CatXice said:

if your loading up loads of programs and files all the time its not a gaming pc its a work station in a work station get a ssd

no, it's just a PC...nobody only do GAMING on a PC...not even you...you're here...

[Zodiark1593]

40 minutes ago, CatXice said:

Snip

SSDs aren't necessarily for raw performance, rather, for the general usability of the system. I do agree that gaming by itself benefits little from an SSD, gaming PCs are seldom used only for gaming. For many on here, their gaming PC is their primary PC, and strong, all around capability in all aspects is important for a primary PC.

 

I see this time and again with the PCs at work, where the latest i5s are used, yet are also using slow hard drives, and as a result, general usability suffers greatly. My PC should be waiting on me, never the other way around. That is why I use SSDs in all of my systems.

 

edit: Someone should make my 2nd to last line a slogan for their SSDs.

[CatXice]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no, it's just a PC...nobody only do GAMING on a PC...not even you...you're here...

my laptop has a 7200rpm hhd and a 250gb ssd in it i do all my work for uni on there coz am using a lot of programs that are fairly heavy loads coz the ssd works for it but when i want to game i fire up my gaming rig coz thats what its built to do

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I do agree that gaming by itself benefits little from an SSD, gaming PCs are seldom used only for gaming.

maahh...i play battlefield 1 online and the game is changing maps every 5 to 10 minutes and loading from an HDD is stupid painfull...GTA5 multiplayer is UNPLAYABLE on a HDD all you do is wait...

[STRMfrmXMN]

6 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Disagreed unless the performance difference is substantial. If it's rx 470+SSD vs. rx 480+HDD, I'd say rx 470 any day, but if it's 1050 ti+SSD vs rx 470+HDD then I'd pick rx 470.

Really? I thought CPUs were fast enough that that didn't matter at all. Afterall, most SSDs can transfer data at around 500-1000 MB/s peak, which translates to around 4 billion to 8 billion bits/sec, and CPUs these days are clocked at at least a few billion clocks per second plus they have multiple cores and each core can process lots of data at a time. Could you show me your post?

CPUs actually can bottleneck storage transfer quite a lot. It's why I generally avoid recommending NVMe drives if you're not using an i7 or the like as more cache and available threads make more of a usability difference as opposed to SATA AHCI vs NVMe.

 

I can tell a difference between my 4770S + 850 EVO and the Xeon E5 machines with SM951s my comp science PCs use, for example, but I can't tell a difference between the other i7 systems they use with various different SATA 3 SSDs, even the ones with shitty Silicon Power SSDs.

[CatXice]

3 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

SSDs aren't necessarily for raw performance, rather, for the general usability of the system. I do agree that gaming by itself benefits little from an SSD, gaming PCs are seldom used only for gaming. For many on here, their gaming PC is their primary PC, and strong, all around capability in all aspects is important for a primary PC.

 

I see this time and again with the PCs at work, where the latest i5s are used, yet are also using slow hard drives, and as a result, general usability suffers greatly. My PC should be waiting on me, never the other way around. That is why I use SSDs in all of my systems.

 

edit: Someone should make my 2nd to last line a slogan for their SSDs.

yes you understand the pc's at work should have ssd's as there loading programs all day every day yes get 1 god send but for a rig purly for gaming you dont need it

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I think OP should have the experience of making a Skyrim build with 30GB of mods and making sure everything works as intended.

 

I think by the time they're on their fifth time waiting for a minute for everything to load only for the game to CTD, they'll be wishing they had an SSD. :B

 

It's in this topic

 

Though it's such a corner case it may not matter as much, but the point still stands, CPU performance can affect loading times.

OK that's quite interesting that the clock speeds do affect bandwidth and load times... Outta curiosity, what CPU was this done on?

 

3 minutes ago, CatXice said:

if your loading up loads of programs and files all the time its not a gaming pc its a work station in a work station get a ssd

So you're telling me, you never open an internet browser (I mean you're here...), never open any pictures, documents, or videos (or any other files), never open any games or maps in games (which can benefit a lot too), or boot up your computer? Like seriously?

 

Also, did I mention, an SSD, it turns out, can actually make a difference in FPS in some games? Yeah. I'm surprised, but it actually can. Just check this out:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7911/upgrade-test-gtx-760-vs-1060-ssd-hdd-system/index.html

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, CatXice said:

yes you understand the pc's at work should have ssd's as there loading programs all day every day yes get 1 god send but for a rig purly for gaming you dont need it

if you play multiplayer games that changes maps/missions all the time like battlefield or grand theft auto for example...you want to install those on an SSD.

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if you play multiplayer games that changes maps/missions all the time like battlefield or grand theft auto for example...you want to install those on an SSD.

yes y not but would u rather have a 1070 or a rx480 thats what am tryin to say dont downgrade for an ssd if u only intend to game on the rig

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, CatXice said:

yes y not but would u rather have a 1070 or a rx480 thats what am tryin to say dont downgrade for an ssd if u only intend to game on the rig

Well yeah, 1070 to rx 480 is a huge difference, but rx 470 to rx 480 isn't. And you don't have to get a $100-$150 SSD, a $50 one like the SanDisk SSD Plus is totally fine.

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

maahh...i play battlefield 1 online and the game is changing maps every 5 to 10 minutes and loading from an HDD is stupid painfull...GTA5 multiplayer is UNPLAYABLE on a HDD all you do is wait...

I was taking framerate-wise.

 

Though emulation I find also benefits from putting my .iso file on the SSD. I was considering the idea of getting an M.2 drive to move my .ISOs to, or getting more RAM and using a RAMDISK for this purpose. Now that I think back, Forza APEX also exhibited much reduced stuttering when I moved it to an SSD.

4 minutes ago, CatXice said:

yes you understand the pc's at work should have ssd's as there loading programs all day every day yes get 1 god send but for a rig purly for gaming you dont need it

Flexibility is the strong point of PC gaming. If you don't want an SSD, by all means, no one here is holding you at gunpoint to get one.You know your use cases better than anyone else here, build your systems for you.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

OK that's quite interesting that the clock speeds do affect bandwidth and load times... Outta curiosity, what CPU was this done on?

I added to my post, but it was a i5-4670K.

 

It's not a bandwidth thing though. An application needs to initialize itself before being in a state that's considered usable. For example, let's take Linux. Technically once the kernel is loaded, the OS is running. But if we were using a distro like Linux Mint, it's not usable until it loaded the rest of the environment and initialized it.

 

Or in another manner of speaking, I used to work on microcontrollers. The firmware was not considered usable by a user until it ran through its initialization routines of setting up the hardware and whatnot. I forget what the exact figure was, but in one of my projects, there was something like 1000 clock cycles worth of instructions that needed to be done before the user could use the device.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, CatXice said:

yes y not but would u rather have a 1070 or a rx480 thats what am tryin to say dont downgrade for an ssd if u only intend to game on the rig

yeah but hey! you like to make it sound perfect but you made 52 mistakes when you picked your parts...

you don't need an unlocked core i5 with a more expensive Z270 board and aftermarket cooling you would have gotten more performance out of an i7-6700 with an H110 board and a stock cooler...you could have bought a GTX 1070 with the money saved there...

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, CatXice said:

yes y not but would u rather have a 1070 or a rx480 thats what am tryin to say dont downgrade for an ssd if u only intend to game on the rig

A 1070 and RX 480 8GB have a price difference, on average, of about $150. You can get a 250GB Samsung Evo for less than $100.

 

If your budget is strict, then you're not getting that upgrade.

[CatXice]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

A 1070 and RX 480 8GB have a price difference, on average, of about $150. You can get a 250GB Samsung Evo for less than $100.

 

If your budget is strict, then you're not getting that upgrade.

it was an example

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, CatXice said:

it was an example

And a bad one at that. Could you give a better one?

[Cyborgsmith]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah but hey! you like to make it sound perfect but you made 52 mistakes when you picked your parts...

you don't need an unlocked core i5 with a more expensive Z270 board and aftermarket cooling you would have gotten more performance out of an i7-6700 with an H110 board and a stock cooler...you could have bought a GTX 1070 with the money saved there...

 

Right on point there bro. 

[LabRat]

13 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

OK that's quite interesting that the clock speeds do affect bandwidth and load times... Outta curiosity, what CPU was this done on?

 

So you're telling me, you never open an internet browser (I mean you're here...), never open any pictures, documents, or videos (or any other files), never open any games or maps in games (which can benefit a lot too), or boot up your computer? Like seriously?

 

Also, did I mention, an SSD, it turns out, can actually make a difference in FPS in some games? Yeah. I'm surprised, but it actually can. Just check this out:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7911/upgrade-test-gtx-760-vs-1060-ssd-hdd-system/index.html

thanks for the link. this is what I was talking about in my first post a page or 2 back. nice to know i'm not going nuts.