Are NVMe drives useful for gaming? Who needs PCIe 5.0?

[Hi P]

This morning I came across a blog that talked about Microsoft's DirectStorage 1.1 with GPU decompression, which if I understood correctly, will benefit games running on NVMe drives.

 

But right now, what's the benefit of using an NVMe over a SATA SSD? The boot and load times are nearly identical, but the price isn't.

 

So aside from DirectStorage, who really needs the speeds of an NVMe PCIe 4.0 / 5.0?

[ZetZet]

No they are not. It's likely we won't see a benefit for a couple years, or 5.

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, Hi P said:

This morning I came across a blog that talked about Microsoft's DirectStorage 1.1 with GPU decompression, which if I understood correctly, will benefit games running on NVMe drives.

 

But right now, what's the benefit of using an NVMe over a SATA SSD? The boot and load times are nearly identical, but the price isn't.

 

So aside from DirectStorage, who really needs the speeds of an NVMe PCIe 4.0 / 5.0?

There isn't really any benefit for NVMe vs SATA for gaming, as you mentioned.  Due to the size of game files, the sustained read speeds of NVMe don't come into play. Even with Gen 5.  Direct Storage is going to be game changer, IMO.

 

Buy best bang for buck or whatever works for you.  

[Skiiwee29]

<-- Moved to storage devices -->

 

Pleas ensure when you're creating new threads you're selecting the most appropriate subforum category. 

[GuiltySpark_]

3 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

There isn't really any benefit for NVMe vs SATA for gaming, as you mentioned. 

 

Direct Storage is going to be game changer, IMO.

Well, like you say DS will be a game changer and when that arrives, there absolutely will be a benefit to NVMe, in fact it'll be required to have any meaningful impact. So for now, yeah.. I guess we still have plenty of time before we get any DS games. We just got an update on DS, actually. 

 

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directstorage-1-1-coming-soon/

 

Quote

Storage Device: DirectStorage enabled games will work on all devices (. You’ll need an NVMe SSD, where the bandwidth capabilities are much higher and the storage media itself is faster, to see the significant improvements of DirectStorage. We highly recommend ensuring your game files are saved to an NVMe to get the best gaming experience.

 

[LAwLz]

For most games, it doesn't matter if you have a SATA SSD or an NVMe SSD. The difference in most cases will be neglible.

The idea is that with DirectStorage, the difference will be big.

 

But I find that the price difference usually isn't all that big. 

[BuckGup]

I give it 4 years. So many servers now are using NVME drives doing special offloading or purely for speed

[Holmes108]

Not sure where you're located, as I know the U.S often has better prices than us here in Canada, but in my experience the cheapest 1tb SSD is still going to run you about $75+, and you can get Gen 3 M.2's for just around $100. $120-130 can get you a Gen 4.

 

For the $30 or so, I'd prob just go with an NVME, even Gen 3 because why not? I realize budget can understandably be an issue though. So if you need to shave dollars, it's definitely not a bad place to do it, because as we know, your frames per second won't be any better. But I do find it helps load times, so between that, read/write speeds if you transfer data,  and the good old "future proofing", I find the NVME to be a better value if you can swing it.

[TVwazhere]

For some real world data, to back up what's being said.

[aDoomGuy]

Well they're just as useful as any other hard drive for gaming. They can store games. You don't need NVMe though.

[porina]

1 hour ago, TVwazhere said:

For some real world data, to back up what's being said.

The same content in written format: https://www.techspot.com/review/2116-storage-speed-game-loading/

 

To my understanding, currently the limiting factor with loading times leans more to the CPU than the storage. Not entirely one way or other, but a mix of both. As one is relatively faster, the other becomes more of a limit. That testing was done two CPU generations ago. I don't have the resources to do a wide test myself, but I have to wonder, how much does CPU speed impact loading times if we assume you have a high end SSD? I could do it on one title that springs to mind.

 

It is my hope directstorage 1.1 adoption, even in a basic form, would take out the worst of the CPU limit. Then it will be between the storage and GPU to see who's faster.

 

 

Edit:

 

Testing with the stand alone FFXIV: Endwalker benchmark, as it provides a load time indication and you can toggle the cache reset.

 

CPU: 11700k either stock (up to 5 GHz turbo for 1 core) or turbo off (max clock of 3.6 GHz on all cores)
GPU: 2070

Ram: 2133 4x16GB
Settings: 1360x768 Max (this isn't a high fps test, but I'm temporarily using a very old TV on this system!)

 

CPU stock (125W long term power limit)

 

Samsung 980 Pro load: 10.875s, 166.1 fps
Cached load: 6.186, 166.8 fps

 

CPU base (3.6 GHz)

Samsung 980 Pro load: 11.767s, 153.2 fps
Cached load: 7.105s, 155.5 fps

 

I think we can agree the Samsung 980 Pro is representative of a high end 4.0 SSD right? In either CPU state, the cached load (essentially ramdisk) is ball park 40% faster than from SSD. Comparing across the CPU states, off SSD was 8% slower with the downclocked CPU, and 14% slower from cache. So there are hints that even high end SSD speed here is not practically unlimited like a ramdisk. 

[Doobeedoo]

Currently without DS not much, but once it finally becomes the standard it definitley will be.

So really either way NVMe drives are the go to today anyway, I don't see big price difference vs SATA SSDs nowdays. 

Also what in general is important is low queue random read IOPS performance. Thing that would best translate to real world performance for general consumers. The max rated sequential performance advertised are just a rough speed estimate possible. So like PCIe 5.0 SSD would have huge improvement in sequential, so various pro use like heavy editing and such can benefit. In future DS as well. But those SSDs will still have similar random IOPS in general.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

3 hours ago, Hi P said:

This morning I came across a blog that talked about Microsoft's DirectStorage 1.1 with GPU decompression, which if I understood correctly, will benefit games running on NVMe drives.

 

But right now, what's the benefit of using an NVMe over a SATA SSD? The boot and load times are nearly identical, but the price isn't.

 

So aside from DirectStorage, who really needs the speeds of an NVMe PCIe 4.0 / 5.0?

They're not even any more expensive, so why does it matter? NVME are often cheaper than SATA nowadays

[Hi P]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But I find that the price difference usually isn't all that big. 

1 hour ago, CHICKSLAYA said:

They're not even any more expensive

 

Hehe you guys were right, last time I bought an NVMe was some years ago and the prices weren't what I just saw on Amazon minutes ago

 

Or at least I don't recall their prices to be this equal around 3 years ago, but I could be wrong

[NewMaxx]

The first DirectStorage game is expected in January 2023, but the advantages don't seem large on that game. 4s -> 1s load time is Samsung's 990 Pro example. Phison does have DirectStorage-focused firmware and they suggest you do have to maintain a decent level of performance and bandwidth which at least requires Gen4 speeds. Cutting-edge drives often have newer hardware first, that is controller and firmware, so there can be other advantages.