For gaming which hardisk to buy?

[JCP]

2 minutes ago, benjaminr said:

 alot of people say that nvme  970 and 860 evo in gaming thereisnt big difference.

 

 

There isn't a BIG difference but it's still slightly noticeable

[benjaminr]

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

[benjaminr]

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?

[JCP]

pretty much between 1-5 seconds

[HNKenshiro]

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 sec

 

Samsung 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 sec

 

WD 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 sec

 

And 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 sec

 

So 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.

[benjaminr]

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 sec

 

Samsung 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 sec

 

WD 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 sec

 

And 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 sec

 

So 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?

[Jarsky]

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

[benjaminr]

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?

[Jarsky]

7 minutes ago, benjaminr said:

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?

 

I personally haven't tried the BarracudaPro series from Seagate, but i've been extremely happy with my WD Black

[benjaminr]

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

[Jarsky]

2 minutes ago, benjaminr said:

does black make  noize and is warm,? because some people say  that blacks are warm and  loud

 

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. 

[benjaminr]

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

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/memory-storage/solid-state-drives/ssd-860-evo-2-5--sata-iii-2tb-mz-76e2t0b-am/

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?

[Kitsan]

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. I use Samsung because they're generally faster (like for like) and have a very good reputation.

[benjaminr]

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?

https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/h81m-c/CT11338050

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/memory-storage/solid-state-drives/ssd-860-evo-2-5--sata-iii-2tb-mz-76e2t0b-am/

[benjaminr]

Just now, benjaminr said:

which is faster ,, better in quality and etc?

https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/h81m-c/CT11338050

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/memory-storage/solid-state-drives/ssd-860-evo-2-5--sata-iii-2tb-mz-76e2t0b-am/

 the  time between nvme and sata3  is  only 2 seconds?in games?

[Kitsan]

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.

[benjaminr]

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?

[Kitsan]

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.

[benjaminr]

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?

[Kitsan]

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.

[benjaminr]

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.??

[Kitsan]

I give up.

[benjaminr]

Just now, remus243 said:

I give up.

I AM ASKING  WHAT  CPU AND  RAM I HAVE?

[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?

[Guest]

You don't need 8 TB just for games.