Steam Library on HDD or SSD

[AlexanderAckroyd]

I have almost filled my 1TB SSD that is also my boot drive.

I also have a 2TB HDD that I used to store my backups on before I built a storage server.

Will I notice much of a difference if I move my Steam library onto the HDD?

 

Just trying to avoid buying more storage if I can get out of it.

[Dedayog]

3 minutes ago, AlexanderAckroyd said:

I have almost filled my 1TB SSD that is also my boot drive.

I also have a 2TB HDD that I used to store my backups on before I built a storage server.

Will I notice much of a difference if I move my Steam library onto the HDD?

 

Just trying to avoid buying more storage if I can get out of it.

Yes, you'll notice longer load times.  Not a huge deal but depending on what you play it can be seconds or even minutes.

 

Time vs money.  Your call.  

 

Also, the library on the separate drive will be nice if you have to reinstall Windows and didn't partition the SSD.

[kelvinhall05]

The only time I have my Steam "library" on an SSD is when I have a single-drive laptop that can only handle one or two games and can only fit one or two games on the drive anyway.

 

As stated above, you *might* notice a difference in load times, but you won't notice a difference during gameplay. Hell, there probably isn't even a difference at all when playing.

[Crunken]

i have my main games on ssd (especially those i want to play serious, like rainbow six/csgo for example) and my larger games that take up a lot of space (gta v, shadow of war)

But some games i've played, like fallout 4 for example, benefit a lot from faster load times from ssd

[flibberdipper]

How much you'll notice the HDD speed hit depends on the game. Some games (like Insurgency Source or GTA V) you won't really notice too much of one. Other games (like Insurgency Sandstorm or Fallout 4/76) you'll notice a quite surprising one.

[Dedayog]

37 minutes ago, kelvinhall05 said:

The only time I have my Steam "library" on an SSD is when I have a single-drive laptop that can only handle one or two games and can only fit one or two games on the drive anyway.

 

As stated above, you *might* notice a difference in load times, but you won't notice a difference during gameplay. Hell, there probably isn't even a difference at all when playing.

Sounds like you're downplaying the benefit of SSDs on load times, where drives play a serious role.  

 

The benefit you see when booting Windows, opening programs like Chrome, Adobe, Office 365... are prevalent in games, loading in the beginning as well as load times for zones in MMORPG's for example.

 

In heavily modded games like Skyrim, Fallout 76, Ark, etc. you can save literal minutes.    Even regular games "pop" up al ot faster.

 

Whether this matters to the user is up to them, but saying they "might" notice to downplay it is ridiculous.
 

 

[kelvinhall05]

6 hours ago, jstudrawa said:

Sounds like you're downplaying the benefit of SSDs on load times, where drives play a serious role.  

 

The benefit you see when booting Windows, opening programs like Chrome, Adobe, Office 365... are prevalent in games, loading in the beginning as well as load times for zones in MMORPG's for example.

 

In heavily modded games like Skyrim, Fallout 76, Ark, etc. you can save literal minutes.    Even regular games "pop" up al ot faster.

 

Whether this matters to the user is up to them, but saying they "might" notice to downplay it is ridiculous.
 

 

The two most different games I've tried on both an HDD and SSD (TF2 and Minecraft) have barely any difference between drives. In Minecraft, chunks didn't load any faster or anything, and in TF2 I only noticed a few second difference (2-4) between when I launched the game and when I got to the main menu.

 

 

I'm not trying to downplay SSDs, but I do think that an HDD for a game library is a better choice, especially if OP is on a budget.

[Dedayog]

Just now, kelvinhall05 said:

The two most different games I've tried on both an HDD and SSD (TF2 and Minecraft) have barely any difference between drives. In Minecraft, chunks didn't load any faster or anything, and in TF2 I only noticed a few second difference (2-4) between when I launched the game and when I got to the main menu.

 

 

I'm not trying to downplay SSDs, but I do think that an HDD for a game library is a better choice, especially if OP is on a budget.

I agree with the budget aspects of it.  It's time vs money, like I mentioned.  Is it worth it?  Depends on what you play and how much you're willing to spend.

 

Minecraft, you won't see any benefit unless you play on heavily modded servers, when you have minutes of loading.  

[jones177]

I really don't care about load times.

 

What I do care about is my hard to run open world games being smooth.

I did try a 5tb WD Black but it caused stutter in some games and some of my modded games like Fallout 4 become unplayable.

It is that feeling when your frame rate looks good but the game feels sluggish. Assets are just not loading quick enough.

 

Now that prices are better I am just going to get larger SSDs.

 

[Taja]

I never cared about having games installed forever. The game(s) Im playing at the moment are on my ssd if they have long load times. The others I just use the hdd

[trufret]

On 7/6/2019 at 12:27 PM, flibberdipper said:

How much you'll notice the HDD speed hit depends on the game. Some games (like Insurgency Source or GTA V) you won't really notice too much of one. Other games (like Insurgency Sandstorm or Fallout 4/76) you'll notice a quite surprising one.

Arma 3, Squad, DCS World all pretty much require an SSD at this point for decent startup times and to remove delay in loading in objects/textures in the world.

 

OP would be best to make another steam install library on the SSD for games that it affects greatly and then choose which games install where.

[flibberdipper]

19 minutes ago, trufret said:

Arma 3, Squad, DCS World all pretty much require an SSD at this point for decent startup times and to remove delay in loading in objects/textures in the world.

 

OP would be best to make another steam install library on the SSD for games that it affects greatly and then choose which games install where.

Good lord Arma 3 is offensively bad on spinning rust. Another one that absolutely requires an SSD is Tower Unite. Seems like the more CPU and storage speed you throw at it, the happier it becomes.

[ramm]

If you play 10 different +60gb games in the same week a HDD Is probably the better choice.

 

If you only install (and play) what you need (lets say 5 different games, not all very big ones) the obvious choice is an SSD.

[DesolationGod]

Just create multiple steam libraries. Some games benefit much more from SSD then others, a quick google search usually will tell you. I have 2 ssds and an HDD, i keep a steam library on each. 

[AlexanderAckroyd]

Thanks for your input guys, I ended up buying a 1TB 860 EVO SSD to move them on to.

Thank god for Steam Library Manager, moving them one by one would be a pain in the ass.

[steelo]

On 7/6/2019 at 11:55 AM, AlexanderAckroyd said:

I have almost filled my 1TB SSD that is also my boot drive.

I also have a 2TB HDD that I used to store my backups on before I built a storage server.

Will I notice much of a difference if I move my Steam library onto the HDD?

 

Just trying to avoid buying more storage if I can get out of it.

I put my most popular games and VR titles (that take forever to load from a HDD) on the SSD. 'flat screen' games or ones I only occasionally play go on the HDD.